Well it surely makes sense that passing a Bill through parliament regarding something as important and changing to society as the internet needs to be rushed through the Commons in a couple of weeks in the traditional desperate rush to get legislation through before the current parliament is dissolved. It's not like these are issues regarding changes in the entertainment industry that need to be debated and thought through for their consequences, rather than patched over as a favour for the multimillion dollar companies that have a vested interest in keeping the system the way it was, where they had full control of music distribution.
But I cannot say I'm one of the few people in the country who've actually read the Bill, so I have to count myself amongst those who are thoroughly against the idea of the Bill, and what it represents. I know people who have far more detailed knowledge of the facts, people who are actually photographers or work in the industry, or just care more about the issue. I just know enough to know the whole thing, as it currently stands, is a band aid over the problems that are faced that is designed to placate the industry heads.
I am against copyright infringement. I know people who rely on copyright of their intellectual property to make their living. Copyright law is one of the most important law in any capitalist society, as intellectual property is a marketable resource. What is causing so many issues is that the very nature of copyright laws are being forced to change; it's not a gradual shift what the laws have to cover, but a complete and sudden shift in what they were designed to protect. I subscribe to the opinion that illegal file sharing over the internet, or at least the sheer scale of it, is a consequence of the industry ignoring this change, ignoring what the what the “Internet 2.0” gave us; instant and free (to a degree) communication. Music lovers worked it out first, and sorted out the methods and cultures of file-sharing, as we know them now, amongst themselves before the record companies would even admit that they were going to have to change their ways; and once they tried to put a stop to it it was too late.
The internet is the single greatest and most important development of recent time simply because it is the great democratiser; it allows everyone to connect and share in a way no one could before. All intellectual property can be digitised and shared equally, and the basic problem this causes it that this goes against the thread of capitalist ideals that our society, for good or ill, is based upon. I'm not going to go off on a rant about the pros and cons of the free market, because like it or not that is the society we live in, but if you wanted to be idealistic about it, could we not consider that the internet could be the first step in changing that? As there is now a practical way of sharing almost all knowledge for free, then is that not the first step in freeing that knowledge from those who make an industry from control the intellectual property of others to make a personal profit from it?
I'm not saying there is no place in the future or record companies, film companies or publishers, but their role in the industry is going to change. In the future the situation of the few on the top balancing the status quo amongst themselves to keep the smaller rivals down will not be so easy to maintain.
And so, while I would have liked to be very knowledgeable and go into detail about these clumsy, and ultimately futile, attempts to curb the internet in the favour of a system that has had to face becoming almost instantly obsolete, you're going to have to simply make do with this: an opinionated rant on the nature of the relationship of the internet and copyright law, which I'm sure you've all heard before. Just be aware, this is an issue that isn't going to be dealt and forgotten by the time the election comes around.
But I cannot say I'm one of the few people in the country who've actually read the Bill, so I have to count myself amongst those who are thoroughly against the idea of the Bill, and what it represents. I know people who have far more detailed knowledge of the facts, people who are actually photographers or work in the industry, or just care more about the issue. I just know enough to know the whole thing, as it currently stands, is a band aid over the problems that are faced that is designed to placate the industry heads.
I am against copyright infringement. I know people who rely on copyright of their intellectual property to make their living. Copyright law is one of the most important law in any capitalist society, as intellectual property is a marketable resource. What is causing so many issues is that the very nature of copyright laws are being forced to change; it's not a gradual shift what the laws have to cover, but a complete and sudden shift in what they were designed to protect. I subscribe to the opinion that illegal file sharing over the internet, or at least the sheer scale of it, is a consequence of the industry ignoring this change, ignoring what the what the “Internet 2.0” gave us; instant and free (to a degree) communication. Music lovers worked it out first, and sorted out the methods and cultures of file-sharing, as we know them now, amongst themselves before the record companies would even admit that they were going to have to change their ways; and once they tried to put a stop to it it was too late.
The internet is the single greatest and most important development of recent time simply because it is the great democratiser; it allows everyone to connect and share in a way no one could before. All intellectual property can be digitised and shared equally, and the basic problem this causes it that this goes against the thread of capitalist ideals that our society, for good or ill, is based upon. I'm not going to go off on a rant about the pros and cons of the free market, because like it or not that is the society we live in, but if you wanted to be idealistic about it, could we not consider that the internet could be the first step in changing that? As there is now a practical way of sharing almost all knowledge for free, then is that not the first step in freeing that knowledge from those who make an industry from control the intellectual property of others to make a personal profit from it?
I'm not saying there is no place in the future or record companies, film companies or publishers, but their role in the industry is going to change. In the future the situation of the few on the top balancing the status quo amongst themselves to keep the smaller rivals down will not be so easy to maintain.
And so, while I would have liked to be very knowledgeable and go into detail about these clumsy, and ultimately futile, attempts to curb the internet in the favour of a system that has had to face becoming almost instantly obsolete, you're going to have to simply make do with this: an opinionated rant on the nature of the relationship of the internet and copyright law, which I'm sure you've all heard before. Just be aware, this is an issue that isn't going to be dealt and forgotten by the time the election comes around.
0 comments:
Post a Comment