What is clear about this issue is that the law is in error, not to mention the intention of the corporations involved. Law of commerce is supposed to aid society and follow *it's* predelections. In a functioning optimal capitalist system (so the theory goes - although learned people know that such a system is a mythic utopia) the system is supposed to serve the people by indefinately pandering to the consumer. What we have here is the reverse. The consumer is forced to pander to the corporation because the corporations have literally stacked the deck against the consumer.

What ruffles my feathers even more is that the RIAA claims that they are pursuing this under the perverted idea that they represent all of their artists. The RIAA, by most accounts, exists largely to maintain the trust monopoly of the record producers that are in it and to ensure that the artists never have enough power to get a fair share of their earnings. It's a classic example of proletariat (the artists) -vs- bourgeois (the fat-cat record producers of the RIAA) interests... although I use the term proletariat loosely in this case. In other words, the RIAA are not taking these actions for the good of the artists, but rather to the detriment to both common artists and consumers.

It's a perverse set of affairs that can only be called a travesty. It is a prime example of the failure of capitalism in our society. It is also a prime example of corruption in our government. Let's say I create a copyrighted work when I'm 20 and live until I'm 95 years old. That means that the copyright will last almost 150 years.

Let that sink in for a second...

150 Years...

Can somebody possibly tell me how having copyrighted work monopolized in your estate for 150 years aids science or art?

I doubt that someone can come forward and answer that question because the fact of the matter is that copyright in that instance is not an aid to science or art, but rather a gigantic roadblock to science and art. Keeping information out of the public domain for that long will ultimately bleed the commons dry and ALL sources of innovation will fester in rot in this "idealistic" laisez-faire capitalist scenario.

The sole savior, over time, will be copyleft and public domain ideologies which will ensure that the commons are not completely devoid of product and advancement. It is the freelance developers and artists of the world that will drive innovation (and always have), not the RIAA's, MPAA's, and Microsofts of the world.

But, the laws were written to favor the RIAA's, MPAA's, and Microsofts of the world. Presumably because their lobbyists bought better lunches... heh

It just underscores the fact that all is not right here. When the consumer should be afraid to consume under some perverse thought that corporations have some kind of "right" to profit (In true laisez-faire capitalism, there is NO right to profit), something is not right with things.

An even greater perversion is that many of these same proponents of corporate copyright protection measures claim to be laisez-faire capitalists themselves. They're constantly championing the idea that government should stay out of business. But when the concept of copyright and patent come around, they're jumping at the idea of the government shielding them from the naked reality of the market: It is chaotic.

So, it always amuses me when I see proclaimed laisez-faire "government keep your hands out of our business" capitalists arguing for copyright and patent. They simply don't understand the hypocrisy of their position. I sometimes pity them for being so foolish...



[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/175/21068#21068