Down with the DMCA
The past few days have been exciting to say the least.
First off, I spent the weekend building computers. I’d mentioned that my dad wanted a new computer for work purposes, and pseudo-hired me to build the computer from components. My payment was a bunch of free equipment that I could use for my own new system. I plan to put some specs up in my tech section, and maybe some pictures to boot. The new addition should allow me to fully dedicate one computer to Linux, which I plan to use as a web-development platform to sharpen my skills in new areas.
My weight-lifting routine just shifted into high gear, and I’m starting to see some nice results. I’m not even close to my old peak, but it sure feels good to be moving in the right direction again. I’ve also been trying to find resources to start up my yoga practice again. Sadly, Casper has little to nothing in the way of real yoga classes, and I’ve already developed an extreme attraction to the Hatha-style Bikram Yoga, and I’d very much like to continue with that. Basically, that means finding the asanas on the web, finding my own practice room, and doing everything on my own. This obviously takes more initiative than just going along with a class, so hopefully I’ll be able to follow through.
I’m going to start my first semi-political rant today, after running into a few intellectual property articles. I have to admit that I’m closer to the dastardly data pirate than I am to the holier-than-thou content provider. I have a huge collection of MP3s that I’ve never paid for, and many I have no intentions of paying for. My rpg section is rife with unauthorized excerpts from various books and magazines I’ve read. I have made a clockwork process to copy, compress, and burn digital movies from rented DVDs for my own personal collection. I have file sharing software that I routinely use to download illegal copies of software. Many if not all of these actions are against the prevailing laws, most especially the DMCA.
That said, it seems rather obvious that I would disagree with those laws. My intention in my various data piracy endeavors is not to fleece or bilk the poor content producer. I understand that programming a program like Adobe Photoshop is entirely non-trivial, and producing music for my entertainment deserves some form of recompense. However, it does bother me that the vast majority of my financial contributions in purchasing either of these products does not go to the actual producer. Even if I did have the money to spend $600 on photo-editing software, I don’t think I would, simply because it seems as if a huge percentage of that money is going to something other than compensating the producers of the program. CD prices are especially infuriating. Why should I spend $20 on something that costs about $0.30 cents to produce, and only $1.00 goes to the band or artist who produced the work? I also refuse to spend $300 on an operating system not markedly different from the ones released 8 years ago, merely due to the fact that Microsoft thinks I should. Yes, I understand the effort and time that went into designing the software, but I fail to understand how and why people feel the need to bilk companies and individuals out of millions upon millions of dollars. We’ve gone far beyond reasonable compensation into the realms of ludicrous profit-mongering.
The problem comes down to this: theoretically, I could offer to sell a product that costs me next to nothing to make for an exorbitant price. For whatever reason, people buy my product, and I really enjoy the resulting profits. Now introduce a new market, the Internet, that offers the exact same product I’ve been selling for a mere fraction of the price. Logically speaking, people would choose to buy the product at the cheaper price. I should be forced to either drop my price to compete, or exit the market. Instead, I choose to exercise my past earnings (both monetary and influential) to force my competitors out of the market by creating laws that protect my “right” to sell the product at an exorbitant price. Some may argue that the cheaper price my competitors are offering is below the cost to produce the product. In that case, they will quickly lose money, and eventually go out of business. Given a fair market, the price for the product will be driven by the demand for the product. If consumers continue to buy only at the low price, producers will no longer have an incentive to create, reducing the supply of product, and naturally driving the price higher.
Granted, the ability to easily make infinitely many copies of a digital media product does infringe upon the ability to control the supply of the product. However, the current efforts in Digital Rights Management are far too severe in their proscriptions. DVDs are impossible to copy legally. According to the DMCA, it is illegal to break the trivial encryption on the DVD to copy the data. The CSS algorithm was so simple to break, it took only a few months before programs were available. The current laws are supremely favorable to the large companies and megacorporations simply because they have the deep pockets necessary to buy politicians to their cause. They have completely subjugated the wants, needs, and rights of the common consumer to their bottom line.
I’m not adverse to paying for things. In fact, for most of the things I consider important, I’m quite willing to fork over the appropriate cash. I am not willing, however, to pay my hard-earned money for the extremely circumscribed “rights” to use something, just so some corporate bigwig can have his private jet.