"...why should the label keep hiring the band to make more cds so they lose more money?"
Isn't this the way it works everywhere?
If the poster you're replying to no longer generates revenue for his employer, or aids in the generation of revenue by writing code, or other copyrighted material, would they continue to employ him?
The RIAA and / or MPAA aren't in the business of facilitating artists' need to create, they are there to make money, as is any other business, and the artists that no longer generate revenue are dropped like hot rocks regularly.
Not that I think that was a point you were trying to make, just a conclusion that can obviously be drawn from what you did have to say.
As for protecting the rights of copyright holders with this "new" medium of content delivery...
Isn't it sort of pointless? Provided any copyrighted material can be rendered into a form that is easily distributable electronically, it will be disseminated. Right, wrong, or indifferent, mp3's will be traded, movies will be "pirated," and pdf versions of your favorite novels will all be swapped, the only questions is how visible this will be to the general public and what risks those doing so will run.
As an example of what I'm getting at, look for some of the more "private" or exclussive file swapping networks.
From there, it's easy to draw the conclusion that all copyright holders are, at the most basic level, going to be relying on the goodwill of their fellow "netizens" to reimburse them, or to generate revenue from their ideas, art, or other copyrighted works.
As long as things are distributable via an electronic format, any technological means of protection, are going to be fairly readily circumvented. It's a given. The nuances of that can be argued to death, but I believe it to be an essential truth of the situation.
We're then left with the social arena to help insure copyright. Produce works profound enough that the audience is left willing to pay, educate the masses that copyright violation is a "bad thing," and that those who do so are morally unsound. Sure, human nature being what it is, that's sort of like whistling in the dark. It's just not going to happen on a wide scale.
So, like anything else that can be easily made off with there must be a level of deterence involved. Come up with something that simply makes it more hassle than it's worth for the general public, and we're doing that now. Encryption of files, a certain level of hassle free DRM can be equated to a car alarm, or those anti-shoplifting tags in books and on CD's.
They're not going to prevent someone who really wants to steal your stuff, but they deter the average schmoe.
I guess I fail to see what all the furor's over then. Sure, the RIAA and MPAA are being butt heads about the process, but beyond that, what's the big deal?
-H
