Dexter111 said:
How about if those corporate interests directly contradict and crash with what the majority of the populace want and do and are in direct competition with new technology like computers, the Internet and more specific things like YouTube and other portals used to create and share creative works? Should the government still protect the rights of those corporation, desperately clinging to business models out of another century and ignore the will of the people?
There's no technological conflict present; the industries in question have embraced digital distribution, albeit haltingly and with reservations in many cases, and are seeking to exploit that market fully in most cases, with the arguable exception of the publishing industry, which is so incredibly backwards that Amazon will likely drag them all down in flames at this rate...
The argument you're making (though most of the people who make the "control of distribution channels" argument are misled on the topic and still seem to think that the industry just wants to sell physical media) is that the industry is attempting to gain powers that would allow it to stifle small-scale creators, and possibly to force them to buy into the current production model.
Which could be true, but it's not really supported by the evidence, which is why I tend to view it as a conspiracy theory.
If the majority of people were presented with an opportunity to get something for what they perceive to be nothing, at no risk to themselves, and with no difficulty whatsoever, they would. Even if that thing did not belong to them, or if in taking that thing, they would be doing themselves long-term harm. And if you don't believe that, then you really ought to research things like environmental damage, and see what people will do when they don't realize or care about the consequences.
What most industries are looking at, and freaking right the fuck out over, are the long-term prospects if steps are not taken to curtail piracy. At the moment, things aren't terrible; they're losing out on profits, but most people are fundamentally decent enough to pay for things rather than just take them, and there remains a certain barrier to entry when you factor in things like general tech-savvyness of the market, access to high-speed internet, and so on.
In the long term though, twenty years or so, what is a profit-reducing problem
now could easily become an industry-destroying problem
then. It's the same level of slippery-slope argument that leads people to confidently declare that SOPA would destroy the internet; in all likelihood, had the bill passed, it would have been used largely as intended; to shut down access to sites that blatantly encourage piracy, and ideally cause them sufficient economic hardship that they shut down. And in all likelihood, people will continue to be fundamentally decent and the greater market penetration will allow the industries in question to find new ways to exploit it, and make money despite the increasing ease of piracy.
Dexter111 said:
Not to say that the issue with the price is a real one, even more so in downtrodden economic locations than the USA and Western Europe and neither do companies have a "fundamental right" on making huge amounts of money with entertainment products off the back of the artists.
The artists
sold their rights to said corporation in order to
make more money, as a general rule. The time may come when things change, and people can cut more middlemen out of the creative loop, so to speak, but nobody held a gun to these hypothetical artists heads and told them to create, and subsequently give up their creations, for nothing.
The artist, typically,
wins out when they "sell out". They lacked the means to bring their creation to a large market; word-of-mouth is usually not a very effective means of advertising, unfortunately. By trading away what is typically the majority of their potential income, they also avoid paying the costs associating with promoting it, and assume almost none of the risk inherent in that investment.
So yes, the corporations in question have the same right to profit from their investment and labor as you do from your own.
And again, you do not have a right to be entertained. Having something be unavailable to you, or out of your price range, is not an excuse to
take it. I can't afford a Lamborghini, that doesn't mean that Lamborghini should reduce the prices on their cars, it just means that I have to find an alternative method of transportation.
Dexter111 said:
You see, what you don't understand is that this has a lot to do with piracy (and also with DRM often being used to assume direct control over said distribution channels under the pretense of being "anti-piracy").
Like I said, I understand the theory, I just don't put a whole lot of credence in it, since it would be a frankly unrealistic goal and a losing battle for corporations to attempt to shut down a site like YouTube on the basis of a few copyright infringements.
The intent of laws like SOPA are to give IP holders, and governments, tools to retaliate against large-scale and blatant infringers who are not otherwise beholden to the laws of the United States. The document was certainly poorly written, and could have been used to significant levels of abuse, but I do not accept the idea that it was specifically
designed to shut down small-scale content creators.
If, say, Miramax decided to shut down YouTube, for example, the backlash generated would
far outweigh any potential gain they might think to make from the act. It's
bad business, and clearly bad business at that.
