Arrogance & Disdain in the Face of Defeat

It is controversial, and it will be interesting to see the reactions of people from all sides. As I am certain you appreciate, I am a strict believer in the DMCA and in the protection of property rights of all varieties. Others, of course will disagree.

But IP theft is IP theft. And while I know that the products involved are hard copy DVDs (and not off the air or copies of originals knockoffs), it is a well known fact that counterfeit DVDs of movies and music are used by terrorist organizations like Hezbollah to finance their operations.

I can't find a way to draw a line on this issue. BTW, I am certain that the court's decision will be appealed and reviewed. Who knows?

Probably so, but IP rights are still private property.

But you see her belligerence is an illustration of her belief (shared by others) that she shouldn't have to pay anything or respect the rights of the artists in the first place.

In reading the available details of the trial, it appears the jury's response and award was, at least to a large degree, based on the defendants arrogance, disregard for the rule of law, and outright lies through several iterations. In this case, the award was based more on the perception of the jury that the defendant was reprehensible, incorrigible, and unapologetic than on any arguments made by RIAA. That jury was angry and gave the defendant the maximum fine.

12 peers did this, not the music industry.

William W. (Woody) Williams
Project Management Consultant
| Blog | Twitter |
w3src Consulting

DMCA has nothing to do with monopolies. It is (primarily) the US implementation of two 1996 treaties from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) criminalizing circumvention of copyright protection technology.

Specifically: It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as Digital Rights Management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998 by a unanimous vote in the U.S. Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of on-line services for copyright infringement by their users. ~Source: Wikipedia

DCMA makes it illegal to hack into other people's protected digital media. This is "our" protection (the people who do creative work") against "them" (the people who steal our stuff and our ability to make a living).

William W. (Woody) Williams
Project Management Consultant
| Blog | Twitter |
w3src Consulting

The protection afforded (which has been the topic of this conversation) by DCMA is directed at the creators (us folks who make a living innovating). In this sense, the only monopoly on rights is granted to the creator.

Not ignoring anything, simply sticking to the topic.

William W. (Woody) Williams
Project Management Consultant
| Blog | Twitter |
w3src Consulting

It's a good point. DRM as currently implemented is certainly not the "best" solution. On the other hand it may be, arguably, better than nothing at all. There's a lot of room for improvement but, as mentioned previously, ignoring and breaking laws is anarchy, not improvement.

There are a lot of different perspectives on this and related issues. However, there is one perspective that drives the whole bus: People who make their living from music, art, graphic design, and other creative activities that may be distributed for sale via digital (or any other media).

A solution that kills the corporate "monsters" involved but leaves the people who earn a living hung out to dry is not a solution.

A solution that empowers the hackers and criminals who steal but leaves the people who earn a living hung out to dry is not a solution.

In this discussion there is a huge preponderance of opinion that simply overlooks the fact that the people who make music, photographs, art, design,and technology are only able to earn a living because of the protections in place for what has come to be known as "intellectual property." For these people, it's not "intellectual" at all; it is food on the table, roof over the head, the ability to live, raise a family, and do what they love to do.

This is primarily "about" the survival of individuals and small businesses.

That's the baseline from which this argument and discussion should start. Any solution that does not allow common, ordinary people and small businesses to earn an honest living from their creations is simply bankrupt.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it ;~)

William W. (Woody) Williams
Project Management Consultant
| Blog | Twitter |
w3src Consulting

Music producers can lock up parts of CD's. Artists and photographers can impose digital watermarks. Software can be released with "disabled" features or time boxed limits. Writers have other options.

Hackers and criminals eventually break any technological solution (because there's money in it) and that's a given. Not that technology shouldn't be explored, used, and improved, it's just not the entire solution.

Unless there are laws in place with severe penalties (real teeth), it is pointless. Fines and jail time along with the best security technology can deliver.

William W. (Woody) Williams
Project Management Consultant
| Blog | Twitter |
w3src Consulting