|
Nonsense. TV has been anything but "freely available [and] convenient" and the same applies to radio, CD's, DVD's and most proprietary software. None of them allow me to view the content I want to, when I want to, on the device I want to, in the format I want to. Legally purchased content is crippled by DRM and ridiculous copy protection schemes that restrict how I use it, whilst downloaded content is free of all such restrictions.
"Piracy would have been at EXACTLY the same level, no matter WHAT the music industry had done"
So why does the music industry choose to cripple those that purchase content legitimately? Why should the government tax everybody purely to line the pockets of the music and film industry? How does the government decide who gets a share? What happens to all the small content producers? How can it be that the music and film industry is able to snoop on private network traffic and examine users PC's without authorisation (authorisation that should only be given to the relevant authorities by a judge after being given sufficient cause)?
Downloading pirated content is still inconvenient enough (and difficult enough for the non-technically astute) to make purchasing content legitimately at a fair price, free of restrictions, an enticing prospect. However, all the music and film industries want to do is continue selling DVD's and CD's at inflated prices and restricting how you can use them.
I'm not arguing that downloading content is right (it isn't), but neither is the protectionist attitude toward the music and film industries. They have faced similar challenges in the past; all evidence points to the fact that (aside from a minority) people will purchase content and moreover, that downloaders purchase more content than anybody else.
Dave
Dave
|
|
|