Laws like this are last gasp efforts by the RIAA and MPAA to stave off irrelevance. Their model is growing less necessary in the internet age, where art can be freely and easily distributed without the need of a studio printing it, marketing it, distributing it, and collecting most of the reward.
This is especially true in the case of music... now your average joe can record a great sounding album all by himself and distribute it however he wants. The archaic process of signing with a record company and having them negotiate with radio conglomerates to play their songs is dying, as it should be.
I am rarely gleeful about people losing their jobs but in this case I am not sad about it either. These days record companies and radio conglomerates stand in the way of more good music than they actually bring to the masses. They limit access and mandate what you hear on the airwaves, not based on quality but based on contracts. It's a process that is inherently anti-art.
It should not be the law's responsibility to protect the RIAA and MPAA from irrelevance. If they are going to survive, it is up to them to:
1. come up with distribution technologies that better prevent mass piracy
2. price their product such that a consumer feels it is worth paying for, and/or
3. better incentivize purchase.
Job creation is something worth working for, but we shouldn't be protecting jobs that have no place anymore. Record and film executives who are unable to keep up with shifts in audience habits will just have to find something else to exploit for money.
Reply With Quote
