Sandra Day O'Conner once stated that copyright law exists to benefit society, not to guard the rights of authors. The idea is that it protects the incentive to create works.

In the music world that has become a joke. A miniscule percentage of musicians receive significant royalty payments. By far most royalties go to corporate middlemen, whose reason for existence (ie distribution of content) is slipping away due to the onslaught of technology. Those very royalties are funding the fight for legislation that many feel is contrary to the public interest. Current copyright law depresses the economy of the live performer, and homogenizes art into a bland, lowest-common-denominator commercial pablum that corporate marketers believe will sell the most copies.

The solution is not technical restrictions. Rather is a change in marketing strategy. Package the content as subscription libraries (by style / genre etc). Provide (for a nominal fee) unlimited access to the content in a package, anytime, repetitively, etc. Differentiate your service by contracting for new content from the top artists. Provide laws to protect the right to sell the content, but forget about copies. There will no longer be an incentive to copy the content when it can be accessed at will.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/71/11579#11579