MPAA – RIAA: You Have No Right To Perpetual Access

Straight from the mouths of lawyers, we now have more proof that the RIAA / MPAA are simply a bag of dicks. I like the part where this guy says we are all stupid for expecting to be able to use something for as long as we own it. Then again, maybe he has a point, we don’t really own the songs and movies we buy…now do we?

“We reject the view,” he writes in a letter to the top legal advisor at the Copyright Office, "that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works. No other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards. No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so."

I need another Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster to keep up with these things.

If content has little right to be used, then why is there distribution of media?

If that is really the case, then the only place we should be getting their products from is Blockbuster/Netflix/etc. But we don't, we pay to own.

Since they view it that way, maybe I'll just pirate music, movies, and TV shows. That way when I get tired of something, I just delete it and don't waste money on a "rental charge". Dumb fucks.

Well if I bought a computer from Dell and that computer would be such that it would never ever become functionally outdated then he has a point.

So when do songs, movies, and works of creative art ever become functionally outdated?

I await your answer Mr. Lawyer.

`LOL

No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity

Your kidding me, they are comparing hardware to music, most likely electronicly downloaded as well.

If the RIAA/MPAA will not provide "perpetual access" to the products they are selling, then I will not provide "perpetual access" to the money I pay for these products.

So now they're reserving the right to shatter our CDs five minutes after we buy them? At least that's what I see in their statement.

No other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards. No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so.

It has been mentioned numerously that all media can technically work in perpetuity (Look at Stradivarius, work of Da Vinci). Playback of those said media and maintenance for them however should be the right and the duty of the ones entitled to them! This is the real problem with DRM, as RIAA is arguing that one merely subscribes to the work, and doesn't actually retain a reproduction that (s)he can do with as (s)he wish.

Personally, I think that one now has little choice but to support RIAA/MPAA as little as possible (within legal limits). The 'subscription-DRM' argument puts to doubt the value in paying for art work/music, leaving the consumers with shutting the wallet and discouraging trade with RIAA as the only credible recourse against such a malicious argument.

This guy can gargle a bag of dicks. Where do they find these people?

He certainly does make a very good point.... and gerbils are smaller than foxes so I invoke my clients rights to use the Chewbacca Defense!.

Why do these organizations still exist exactly?

Statements like this is what makes me continue to infringe.

I saw this earlier today and of course it got littered with "the riaa is retarded, i'm going to pirate everything now... hurrr"

I'm not standing up for them, but what he says makes sense to me. You can't expect copyright owners and licensees to support any one particular type of media distribution forever. Thats like saying in order for RCA to sell vinyl records, they have to build record players until the end of time or JVC/Phillips have to manufacture VHS players forever. Media distribution formats come and go, welcome to about a hundred years ago.

I'm glad when I buy music I either buy directly from the artist or from a local used cd shop.

"Buying DRMed content, then having that content stop working later is fair writes Steven Metalitz, the lawyer who represents the MPAA, RIAA in a letter to the top legal advisor at the Copyright Office."

Well shit, the license he has should also be DRM'd.

This just pisses me off. If I BUY something, I expect it to last a very long time. I don't want to buy a CD only to have it last and be usable for a little bit. Sorry lawyers, Renting is not buying.

Originally Posted by jwhazel

I saw this earlier today and of course it got littered with "the riaa is retarded, i'm going to pirate everything now... hurrr"

I'm not standing up for them, but what he says makes sense to me. You can't expect copyright owners and licensees to support any one particular type of media distribution forever. Thats like saying in order for RCA to sell vinyl records, they have to build record players until the end of time or JVC/Phillips have to manufacture VHS players forever. Media distribution formats come and go, welcome to about a hundred years ago.

Wrong.

In your example, the consumer can still do their best to find parts or maintain their own hardware. They don't have to SUPPORT the format, but they also are not wholly PREVENTING you from using it.

When you are talking about them shutting off DRM authentication servers, there is NOTHING (legal) the consumer can do to try and keep access to purchased content.

I like how he compares a product that is more or less infinite, i.e. the music on a CD, which can be converted to dozens of formats, current and upcoming, to a finite product, i.e. a computer, which is subject to wear and tear due to use.

Then they need to call ever single purchase a "subscription" and charge a usage fee with a defined term limit. Any lawyer could easily argue false advertisement and misleading of sale with the RIAA/MPAA's lawyer.

And if they did decide to charge subscription fee's, then they will see huge drops in income. And there lies the REAL reason they push for this kind of control on not just their property, but their customers actions (which is that they know they cannot make money the legit way with a subscription fee for limited use of a product).

I guess when the RIAA/MPAA so the digital age rolling down their path straight at them they didn't adapt they instead want to have the markets change for them.

Originally Posted by rhouck

Wrong.

In your example, the consumer can still do their best to find parts or maintain their own hardware. They don't have to SUPPORT the format, but they also are not wholly PREVENTING you from using it.

When you are talking about them shutting off DRM authentication servers, there is NOTHING (legal) the consumer can do to try and keep access to purchased content.

No, the concept is still the same. Any particular type of media distribution should not be expected to be supported for ever. Whether its a physical type like vinyl, cd, etc... (which the media itself will all deteriorate sooner or later rendering it useless) or DRM'ed content that goes poof when the servers shut off. I buy DRM'ed content and am happy with the convenience factor knowing full well that someday I won't "own" the media anymore. If that bothers you, don't buy DRM content. I never understood why that concept seems to go over so many peoples heads.