|
|
|
Friday, May 26, 2006
[World of their own...]
Source: McCullagh, D, "RIAA's next moves in Washington," News.com, May 25, 2006, http://news.com.com/2008-1027_3-6076669.html
Some snippets of the above article: Q: Do your view your lawsuits, even ones where you sued a 12-year-old girl or a Boston grandmother, as a success overall and do you think the process is working? Sherman (RIAA President): Yes. We're feeling pretty good. There will be the opportunity for business models that are consistent with P2P networks (such as demo versions or low quality). There have been a lot of conversations recently about ad-supported models.
Q: How are you going to deal with open-source programmers who release code that simply ignores a broadcast flag? I'm thinking of applications like GNU Radio. Sherman: We've long accepted the notion that you're not going to have a pirate-proof system. The idea is to leave that to the hacking community. Most people want to get it legitimately.
Q: A few years ago, there were all sorts of proposals to ban, regulate, or otherwise restrict digital rights management. Now hundreds of millions of people happily use a DRM-equipped iTunes. Is the debate over? Bainwol (RIAA Chairman): The world at large is not aware of DRM as an issue. Nobody feels any real problem with it.
Q: Could the DRM debate flare up again because of public missteps like Sony's rootkit-enabled CDs? Sherman: DRM has just gotten a bad rap based on this notion that it's going to restrict consumer choice.
As far as I'm concerned, Sherman and Bainwol should either climb out from under the rock they've been living under, or pull their heads out of their asses. They're happy to "sue" little girls and grandmothers who really have no legal means to fight back and have to settle it their (RIAA's) way, yet they accept that whatever means of protection they employed will be attacked and cracked by hackers. Do they even have a point/position on the whole issue?
For them to think that the world does not think of DRM as an issue is just short-sighted thinking. DRM takes away many traditional consumer rights, but they obviously they do not think of it as an "issue" since consumers would have to pay more to enjoy what was previously a given. Fair-use and the first-sale doctrine has been thrown out the window, but they don't care because it leads more revenue for them.
DRM is not "going to" restrict consumer choice. It already has.
^^^ by Locksley @ 8:26 PM.
0 comments.
[Read Comments]
[Post Comments]
|
RSS
|
|