Posted on 06/24/2005 9:14:47 PM PDT by Gomez
Senator Dianne Feinstein wrote back to constituents who complained about the Broadcast Flag with this amazing, disingenuous note:
Thank you for writing to me about the digital broadcast flag. I appreciate hearing from you.
I feel strongly that we must prevent the theft of copyrighted works, and that includes digital television (DTV) programming. As we move forward in the digital age, it is increasingly easy for unauthorized copies of copyrighted works to be made and illegally distributed. Over-the-air digital content is the easiest to pirate.
As we contemplate the use of new technologies to protect copyrighted works, we must pay careful attention to ensure that a balance is struck between competitive protections and individual consumer interests. It is important to allow for the continued fair use of copyrighted material, even while we seek to stop unauthorized reproductions from being illegally distributed outside the home and over the Internet.
Again, thank you for writing. Please know that as the Senate considers legislation of the broadcast flag, I will be sure to keep your views in mind. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact my Washington, DC staff at (202) 224-3841.
Practically every sentence in this letter is a lie:
This leaves us with only one question: is DiFi stupid, or is she a liar? Either way, Feinstein should be ashamed of herself.
Both!
Gotta protect that brilliant material/
Too bad they don't care as much about personal property.
Tough call. She could be an idiot AND a liar. She could also be an idiot, but no a liar. If she is a liar though, she is also by definition and idiot, since all liars are idiots. However, not all idiots are liars. It really is a tough call...
Hey, watch it now!
You're talking about one of my esteemed senators.
And don't forget - she's the smart one.
Well, as one who has copyrighted works, I would say she is right on the mark.
You would never dream of going to work if you knew you weren't going to get paid for the work you do. If you knew someone was going to steal your paycheck each and every payday. And that's what the copyright argument is all about. People are stealing other people's livelihoods.
I personally think some in the arts are way way overpaid but to me, so are those in the NFL, NBA, and the NHL. But you don't go to the games and try to get in without paying for a ticket.
But further then that. It costs millions of dollars to make a movie. If they don't take in enough money to pay for making the movies we all love to watch, then they will just stop making them. They're not going to make them for free.
Same thing for music. It costs a lot of money to produce a quality CD. If you can't make enough money to pay all the costs because people are stealing instead of buying then the music stops.
You may be making a false assumption here.
LOL! You can't think of even one movie you love to watch?
Well, I was talking about that one! LOL!!
Well, yeah, but they made that one back in 1942.
I love the older movies too. I'm no good with the names so I could never tell anyone which ones I like the best. But they were all in black and white. LOL!!
"But they were all in black and white."
And if you have not seen the colorized version of the Maltese Falcon consider yourself LUCKY.
I doubt it. Music existed a long time before the Hollywood lawyers came along.
Anyway, Black & White is cool.
Well, I'm not going to argue against some fair protections but I think both sides have some things wrong on this. On the one hand, I don't want ANY sorry SOB making money off my work...there's no way around that in any ethic you can propose...but OTOH, if the action isn't costing me money (for instance, distributing a work of mine which is not offered for sale) and is reaping no financial reward from it, then I don't care because I crate what I do in the hopes that people will read and enjoy it.
A true musician makes music first and foremost for that music to be enjoyed - I doubt the work of a cynic who makes money for the sole purpose of inflating his bank account is much worth listening to in the first place.
Likewise, if I want a copy of a song that I can't buy individually for a reasonable price and a reasonable expenditure of effort, then I will simply not own it if I can't download it. And the artist in question will still receive no compensation. But if the selection is made available to me (as is being done now with some pay download services) then I will happily pay for it.
To stretch the analogy out into the gray one more step, let me give you an example: I am a Star Trek Fan. I like some of the series more than others but let me assume for the sake of this story that I love all of them. Each season of each series is roughly $100. Now, there is no freaking way those DVDs cost remotely that much to produce, so it's not a matter of recouping investments. Other, less popular, series sell for half that for the same hours of viewing.
now, I don't know if you are aware of this but each of three modern Trek series lasted 7 seasons, and the original lasted three, and the latest lasted 5. That's 29 seasons for a total investment of $2900.
I'm sorry, if the only way I can ever own those DVDs is to drop over 3K on them (tax and all) I will simply never own them. So as it stands right now, Paramount has made and will make exactly ZERO dollars off me buying Star Trek DVDs.
So let's say, theoretically, that a friend of mine offers to rip me a copy of his set of DVDs. He is doing an illegal thing under copyright laws, but has he cost paramount any money? not at all. Because I'd never pay their insane prices. They haven't lost any more money than if I bought these DVDs at a Yard Sale.
Now, I did not say all that to say it should be a free-for-all, or that there are not pirates out there lining their pockets with other people's creative work because both are real issue. I merely wish it to be said that not everyone who copies a copyrighted work is costing the original artist money, or making any themselves.
LOL! I haven't seen it... but from your post I can tell it must be pretty bad.
Yes, it did. But musicians made their money playing in public. They traveled the roads, played a new town every night. But people still had to pay the cost of admission to hear them.
Once the record was invented, we suddenly had the luxurey of hearing them in our homes. And we could hear them thousands of times just for the cost of the record.
We didn't get out to the movies very much when I was little so I didn't get to see very many movies back then in color.
Believe it or not... but my Father worked in television broadcasting and wouldn't buy a color TV LOL!! When ever that old black and white RCA we had broke he'd just fix it. He got more miles out of that TV then probably any other TV in history LOL!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.