Pete Townshend calls Apple 'a vampire'

[Archean]

The Who guitarist Pete Townshend has urged Apple's iTunes to use its power to help new bands instead of "bleeding" artists like a "digital vampire". Townshend made the comments in BBC 6 Music's inaugural John Peel Lecture, named in honour of the legendary DJ. He also argued against unauthorised file-sharing, saying the internet was "destroying copyright as we know it". "The word 'sharing' surely means giving away something you have earned, or made, or paid for?" he said.

 

[Zilpha]

I think that artists are a little ridiculous with their expectations, especially these old bands who think an album they recorded in the 60's should sustain them fifty years later.

He's also a little late to the party regarding the 'internets' and 'destroying copyright'. Things like iTunes and Amazon MP3 has actually changed all that.

 

[caravel]

Eventually humanity will have to face the choice between a severely hamstrung, neutered, world wide web which is being held back, heavily censored and restricted to serve the commercial interests of a bloated dinosaur of an industry which can't get over the fact that it can no longer flog CDs to teenagers for something like 500% profit, or a free and open one which progresses and moves forward to benefit all, not just to serve the interests of corporations and political regimes. I certainly hope humanity will choose the latter. These people have certainly had their day and though some have trouble accepting it, so has the music "industry" in it's current form.

 

[DelJo63]

I think that artists are a little ridiculous with their expectations, especially these old bands who think an album they recorded in the 60's should sustain them fifty years later.

put those shoes on your feet and see how you would feel. After 37 years of programming, I would be hopping mad to see my work take for free just because of some arbitrary passage of time.

There's a comment in science that applies here:

We stand on the shoulders of those that have come before us

meaning we are the beneficiaries of the works others. That does not say we glibly take their work for granted:

• 
  v. took (tk), tak·en (tkn), tak·ing, takes
  v.tr.
  1. To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially:
  a. To capture physically; seize: take an enemy fortress.
  b. To seize with authority; confiscate.
  c. To kill, snare, or trap (fish or game, for example).

Intellectual Property is pirated every day - - by those without scruples or moral character. You might well guess I am an advocate of DRM.

I make no apology for doing so.

 

[caravel]

"I am an advocate of DRM" is quite a vague statement to make. If you really think DRM actually solves anything or deters pirates then you may be ignoring the facts - i.e. that cracking has always been about the removal of some copy protection or other from either a game, music track/album, movie, etc and then distributing it illegally. That much hasn't changed.

 

[DelJo63]

I didn't say it did, but you miss the point/intent of DRM: To allow the OWNERS of I.P. to retain their rights and derived income thereof. That fact that "hacking" is not only possible but in vogue only confirms my aborance of moral character that is so abundant today.

Of course many object to DRM and boldly assume they have the rights to anything they can get there hands (downloads and hacking tools) on - - that's their choice and reflects upon them.

 

[caravel]

I believe copyright and patents is what allows owners of IP to retain their rights? DRM is simply an enforcement tool of dubious legality. It's based on a flawed philosophy which would be downright unacceptable in any other industry or portion of society as it essentially assumes that the end user of a program or media is a thief from the start, and they must prove their innocence by installing software which has many restrictions, rootkits, daemons and drivers (e.g. processes running in ring 0) which may not be secure and which do not ask the admin/user's permission before installation, but install themselves silently. DRM would be acceptable if it were not for this intrusiveness and the fact that it often stops the end user from using the media in perfectly legal ways.

 

[DelJo63]

You are absolutely correct, however, both are paper tigers without teeth. I takes extraordinary effort to find and prosecute on copyright & patient infringement (unless you are IBM, Apple, Google). DRM is an attempt to provide a machine enforceable mechanism to stop the infringement a-priori.

I'm done - - I think we've both had our say and nicely without acrimony - - thank you