Slashdot Mirror
Congress Pressures DoJ With PIRATE Part II
Anonymous Pirate writes "Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) have re-introduced the 'PIRATE Act' (pdf) to Congress. According to Ars Technica, the purpose of this act is to get the DoJ to go after individual copyright infringers. It would allow the Department of Justice to bring civil lawsuits instead of criminal ones so that they would be able to prosecute copyright infringers with only a minimal burden of proof, rather than the heavier burden required for criminal prosecution." Took a long time to do a sequel; we first talked about this proposal quite some time ago.
Oh, it looks like someone is tired of losing court cases due to the fact that they don't have ANY proof. It's a good thing they can afford their own senators.
There's a reason civil lawsuits are separate from criminal trials.
Besides, why the hell should the DoJ, a government institution, police what happens between other people, shouldn't only the "victim" be allowed to file a lawsuit over this? Hell, how does the govt even knopw when the copyright hlder actually wants a lawsuit? Most holders like keeping fan projects in a legal grey zone of implicit permission which lets them C&D the project at will but doesn't require them to shut it down before they really want to.
Well, as long as the DoJ would pursue infringements of ANY copyrights, not just those held by a select group of large corporations... Yeah, like that'll happen.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Sounds like a good time to make sure you've donated what you can to the EFF. The big fear, obviously, is that the RIAA will get to define what constitutes infringement, and suddenly you can't rip CD's to your MP3 player anymore.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
You can only claim that if the people in this case were going to buy the game/movie/music but decided not to because they recieved a copy through other means. To make that claim is a stretch by any measure.
CD sales are down because what is released on CD is crap. What record companies do not like about file sharing is not piracy at all, it's that they do not control what you can listen to. Like an independent band (I happen to have an Amy Martin CD right here, for instance) you can purchase it without the labels prohibiting it through their channel-lockups.
This measure has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with outdated business models being destroyed by new technologies, and companies unwilling to adapt. They loved the monopoly.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Well, this is a bad idea....
Mostly because, well, then we have the government pursuing civil litigation on behalf of corporations. Are we then going to have the copyright holders pay for the cost, or will this be another free federal benefit on behalf of lobbyists?
Moreover, is the DoJ going to do this fairly? Will they contact the copyright holder to make sure that there isn't a license and that there is a desire to go after the person? Moreover, if someone steals my work as an individual, will the DoJ treat it equal with Microsoft, the RIAA, or the MPAA?
If not, then, well, please vote Leahy, etc. out of office.
Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Senator Leahy, I used to respect you as a person and as a Senator, and value your dedicated service to the State of Vermont. Today, it is clear to me that you need to be put out to pasture.
Well, at least we know what employer Mr. Leahy and Mr. Cornyn really work for.
Upon this passage, it would mean that the government by the people and for the people had turned it's backs on the people.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
I hope that these two are pulled out of office, there's better things for the DOJ to be doing.
Oddly, Leahy usually counts as one of the best pro-privacy, pro-bill-o'-rights, anti-big-brother senators. It really surprises me to see his name attached to this atrocity.
Enough so, that it makes me wonder if we've missed something about this bill that makes it not quite as bad as it sounds - Like capping liability at some absurdly low level ("Yup, ya got me, will you take a check or should I just pay the $20 fine in cash?") or similar.
What, we don't have enough crime for the feds to track and work on? Now we gotta make busy work up by letting them do "civil" suits for RIAA? How much to buy a seat in washington today? How about we work on our F#CKIN6 Boards and Drugs and REAL criminal cases, and THEN if we have time at the end of the year worry about "he said/she said" civil cases. This is SAD that our government is so blatently BOUGHT by the corporations today.
I used to consider myself a republican until I realized that BOTH sides are essentually the same and will abuse their power in an instant to take what is not theirs and line their own pockets to keep power. This is getting REAL OLD... I now consider myself a libritarian, but if it keeps going the way it is, I may have to consider myself a revolutionist and start dumping tea. I already gave up Music and movies because of the RIAA and the such... (Along with the fact that their hasn't been anything good to hear/see in a number of years.) I hoped they would get the message but they don't. They just keep shoveling more sh*t into our graves... Anyone for a CD Tea Party? Real Pirates can steal boxes of CD's and we pick a good harbor to dump them into.
--- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
This sort of dishonest rhetoric is hurting our cause. Ask people in file-sharing communities, and many of them will openly tell you that they stopped buying CDs not because CD releases are crap, but because you can get all that goodness for free online instead of paying money. I regularly frequent two chat rooms on one network for contemporary classical music and this often comes up. Let's start being honest here: we download music because culture should be free in all senses of the word.
So let me get this straight: we can't even get a commitment from this DOJ to enforce to enforce things like the laws against torture or the constitutional authority of congress to conduct oversight into the actions of the executive branch, trust them not to use their power for partisan purposes, or even to hire qualified people who graduated from real law schools, but we're going to let them start filing civil suits on behalf of plaintiffs who (generally) could well afford to file for themselves, and would, if they had a shred of merit?
Great. That's just great.
--MarkusQ
That makes sense, but in a case like this, how could the state even have standing to sue? It's not like they are the copyright holder. With a polluting corporation, the state could argue that the offender is damaging the public commons, and thus demonstrate harm; where is the harm to the state involved in one person making a copy of a book, movie, or song, or in helping another to do so?
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
I think that this will essentially fall upon deaf ears. It'll go on the books, and be used a couple times -- maybe.
The problem with distributed infringement is that it takes such a large amount of resources to prosecute a single person, with the prospect of retribution (after investigation, court, and accounting costs) of far less than a monetarily positive result. They might be gung-ho at first to set examples, but once they realize that they've already sucked every last dollar out of 95% of all citizens by way of taxes, they will quickly learn that there's no more money at the bottom of the money well (prosecute counterfeit distributors, not their consumers!). Seriously, does congress or the DoJ believe that we have bundles of cash ready to hand over like they do? (Forgive this digression, but that's actually one of the biggest problems in our society. The people with oodles of money make social policy, and they think that everyone else lives like them -- a suburban household income of $200,000 a year or more...but only in a situation like this would this legislation be tabled in the first place)
The end result isn't going to be deterrence. Everyone in the electronic community will do the equivalent of standing around the train wreck staring and gasping "Oh my god, is there no humanity", for five minutes and carry on as normal (downloading and buying $5 DVDs). The counterfeit vendors will continue to pander their crap, and people will continue to buy it. The government will (in the publics eye) be scrambling and grasping for every last possible stranglehold on its citizens they've be aiming for, for the last 7 years.
How can they believe that persecuting their citizens is a good idea?
If we go a little deeper into the problem, you might agree with me that it's sociological in nature and fairly inevitable and inexorable. Can I get a comment from any sociologists?
You can only claim that if the people in this case were going to buy the game/movie/music but decided not to because they recieved a copy through other means. To make that claim is a stretch by any measure.
You are correct. There's no way to know. Still, I don't think it's that much of a stretch to believe that many people aren't going to bother to buy something when they can get it for free. (Numerous studies have been done to see what the effects are filesharing are, but all the results seem to tell you is who funded the study, and what their agenda is).
CD sales are down because what is released on CD is crap.
Perhaps true, but I think CD sales are down for a number of reasons...
1 - filesharing
We can debate this one, but I do think it has an effect.
2 - sale of singles
For those who don't wish to fileshare, you can now buy singles on-line. The record company has long had a disconnect between what they market (singles on the radio) and what they sell (CD albums). They got away with this because you couldn't buy singles. Now you can, so many people are going to save their money and only buy the one or two songs they really want.
3 - crappy music
I think music has been crappy in the past more than people realize, and people still bought music. Still, it does seem to be at a pretty low point now.
4- people are done replacing their vinyl/tapes
I suspect that most people have been done for a while now, but as time goes on fewer and fewer are still doing this.
(Also, I really wish the moderators wouldn't list anything as troll just because it goes against conventional Slashdot wisdom. Whether you agree or not, the GP has a point).
I KNOW, Radiohead is offering their new album online for as much as you want to pay, but they can afford to.
Bull. Sorry, but that's just completely bass-ackwards. I *am* in an indie band, and these days people can now get a chance to hear our material that never would have before, because of the music cartels' history of locking up radio/TV/CD sales to exclude anyone not owned by them. We've done the same thing as Radiohead has now for a good while. It's been an overall win for us.
We *want* people to copy and share our music! That's free exposure, and the kind of word-of-mouth promotion that can't be bought. We will continue to encourage people to share our music, even if we were to get as famous as U2 or Radiohead or Led Zeppelin.
We sell physical CDs and video DVDs and other merchandise at shows. We state right on the media that it's fine to share, and if they feel what we've created is worth it to them, send a little money our way to help us keep creating. We receive enough to let us keep going.
CD sales aren't the end game, they're a means. They get us fans. They are a promotion tool, nothing more.
Cheers!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
This is because companies don't want to foot the bill for lawsuits, they'd rather have it funded by taxpayers. Of course, the DOJ eats this up, because then they get to demand more money to hire more people for all the investigations and prosecutions they'd be doing, and claim to be "tough on crime". People wouldn't be able to point out the RIAA's actions, because it would be the government going after them.
I don't like the idea of the government getting involved in civil suits on behalf of a third party. What's next, investigating people for adulterous behavior, and then filing divorce proceedings on the spouse's behalf?
Here (Tha'ts Costa Rica) I thought for a long time there were no or few copyright laws... as most rental DVDs seem to be copies, and all the video-game stores in the malls sell pirated games and chipped consoles. It's great as a consumer... but I wondered why. It's not a lawless country, after all.
The real issue appears to be that the authorities simply don't have time to go chasing copyright laws.
If you, as a copyright holder, want to come down here and file some court papers.... you can take peopel to court, and win... but you can't just expect the public authorities to crack down on this for you, unless you come here personally and make a big stink about it.
In other words, if you don't care enough to come here and complain, they really don't care enough to chase people down.
Because I've said it before and I'll say it again: we have the best governmnet money can buy.
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
If I have $20 to spend.
And I spend all of it.
Then what is the impact on the world economy for any additional copies of goods I receive?
The fact is that entertainment is overpriced. In reality, entertainment is at the highest supply level it has ever been. It is now impossible to ever catch up with all the entertainment that exists. Why are prices going up then?
Normally when something is in oversupply, the prices go down.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I disagree there. I think people are ready to move on to other media. Try as I might, my CD's won't slide comfortably into my iPod but mp3's fit nicely. As for culture being free what exactly are you saying? Performers should perform for the benefit of mankind? They shouldn't be paid? Or should they be paid by the collective? Hate to break it to you but socialist ideals like this fly in the face of human tendencies. We want to compete and excel based on our performance.
That said, there is an argument for free distribution and pay per performance. This is essentially what The Dead opted into. They didn't care about bootlegs because ultimately it fueled concert revenue which they kept the lion's share of.
If I was an artist of some kind today I'd be really worried about all the people making copies of my work and "sharing" them with their friends over the net.
I'm not going to buy your stupid CD if I've never heard any of the songs. Someone once said (I wish I could find the exact quote) that far more authors have starved from obscurity than from copyright infringement. Actually the number that have starved from copyright infringement may in fact be zero, can you name one?
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Radiohead isn't the only artist that is profiting from this either
Indeed, Roger McGuinn has said that the old, outlaw Napster revitalized his career, bringing his music to a whole new generation.
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
It's a statute. If it says the DoJ has standing, then it has standing. Unfortunately, it doesn't have to make sense.
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
One citizen, one vote... however, one corporation, many, many zeros on a vote figure! I am sure that exact monetary value of a vote could be assessed and it wouldn't come out too pricey. In fact, I'm certain that political parties and politicians' "advisers" do operate with that figures when they make their decisions. It is an ugly thought, breaks the rosy picture we have about Democracy, but we should get over the shock and get on with calculations in order to regain the hold of our destiny.
Ad hoc Citizen groups and specific, limited in scope, political initiatives, especially those in favor of common citizens' interests but going against particular interests of corporations, should be able to make independent (from major political parties) pressure funds, "political initiative unions" with sole purpose of lobbying and counter-lobbying.
The rich (i.e. large corporations) get their wealth from the poor(-er then themselves), where most of money lays. It is not a phrase or anecdote: Hypothetic possession of more then half of whole monetary mass in circulation would be a sure sign of loss (sitting on top of claim that can never be satisfied and is therefore void - the rest of the world is bankrupt, your money is worthless paper or meaningless integer number).
That same amount of money, transferred from low density multitude of small "hoards" ("the poor") toward small number of large "hoards" ("the rich") and then from them toward world of politics to be converted into power, could be also used for other purpose, it could be "turned around and pointed backwards", simply take a shorter path and come to destination from other side.
If someone uses money begotten from us to make us pay more by furthering unjust laws made to rip us off some more (common example would be avoiding proper taxation), we should be able to counter that by spending our money on exactly the opposite goal instead. Net effect would be elevation of price of political favors. Equilibrium will shift a little bit toward the people and part of thus gained funds (keeping more money in citizens' wallets) could be "reinvested" to secure the control of public over democratic process.
It is perfectly capitalistic way for masses to limit the power of the plutocrats. No violence, no revolutions, no plunder, just playing the same game as they do, making same moves they do. Organizing masses over common, limited goals is well-known and proven strategy of, e.g. trade unions. It could work in lobbying too.
Money talks, votes babble. As long as people have money, they can have the power too. Just don't try to solve all world's problems at once. First things first, make the system work and keep it safe!
You know, another thing that I thought about after I posted this was that the RIAA, MPAA, or whoever is suing to protect their copyrighted works could use gov't investigation from this bill as the basis for their own civil suit. Not only do you get stung with whatever civil suit the gov't hits you with, but the RIAA can try and get their standard $250k/infringement once the gov't has won their case (Although the bill says that damages from a second suit would be reduced by the amount awarded by the first suit). This bill is quite a beast, ain't it?
Not only do they have outrageous penalties written into civil law, but now they want to get the taxpayer to pay for their larcenous lawsuits? I think we need to recognise that the closest thing to real piracy in this situation is what the RIAA is doing. Not only have they been granted letters of marque by the US government to exact punishment in civil suits, but now they're getting the government to pay for it. All that remains would be for George II to start handing out knighthoods (after all, it worked for Francis Drake).
Standing is an artificial object: it is created by law, and needn't correspond with anyone's intuitions about who has the right to complain. While standing exists in a highly limited capacity for non-statutory claims, almost 100% of claims which can be filed in court (criminal or civil) have their issues of standing defined by statute.
If the Legislature passes a law creating standing for the DOJ in civil cases such as this, then standing exists. Of course, like all laws, such a law could be challenged (and depending on the merits, be overturned), but that's all standing is.
"Stumble before you crawl"
I just wrote both of my Senators urging them to vote against this if and when it comes time for a senate vote. I urge everyone else to do the same.
The system can't work without feedback from citizens.
It doesn't matter.
Follow the trail. This act is being brought forward by congressmen bought by lobbyists, this time the **AA. They want this bill passed so that the government can end up doing their work for them.
Basically, so they can force the government into paying for their own lawsuits, and complain when they feel not enough people are being "prosecuted".
This seems transparently corrupt to me, but I would imagine they're able to pull the wool over on others because of the catchy name.
Well, at least I'm Canadian.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Let's hope the EFF is prepared to go after one of the "good guys". They've got a relationship with Leahy, and they've lionized him in the past, but now it's time to call in their markers.
Looks like a double jeopardy run-around, but IANAL and IANYL.
Thing is, we've got a helluva backlog in the Federal courts, and this will just add more logjams to the load. How much more can we pile on til the whole system collapses?
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Like many laws it's unconstitutional, but who knows what's going to happen in the court system.
I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter^wband.
Oh, you don't have to limit yourself to just lil' ol' me. There's a few of us here:
http://www.indie911.com/
Cheers!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
It's no wonder that law enforcement agencies are all jumping at the chance to investigate myspace and facebook "criminal activity". It's a lot easier to sit at your desk and surf the web all day instead of being out on the street and arresting people who are actually harming others (violent acts, robbery, rape, etc.).
"CD sales are down because what is released on CD is crap."
Most music released has always been crap. 90% of what's released today is crap, but most of the stuff released in the 90's was crap, too. As was the stuff in the 80's, and the 70's, and so on.
It's easy to remember decades past as having better music than what's being released today; this is due to our propensity to remember the good and discard the bad. There's even a common word for this phenomenon: "nostalgia."
Ask many people and they'll swear up and down that there was a magical time in history when the crap level dropped below 90%. For instance, a 50-year-old living in 1926 might have told you that the era of good music ended in the 1890s. Everybody's right, but everybody's also wrong.
At any rate, while I agree with you that most music is crap, pirates love it just the same. The top music traded this week has remarkable parity with the top-selling music. This is why "music is crap" is a great rationalization for piracy, but not the cause of piracy. Piracy is caused by people's natural desire for music, and the natural desire to save money.
"This measure has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with outdated business models being destroyed by new technologies, and companies unwilling to adapt. They loved the monopoly."
There's widespread confusion over what the word "monopoly" means. There are literally thousands of indie music labels whose products are readily available at plenty of retailers, both online and off, and there's absolutely nothing preventing anybody from starting their own label, or even selling their music without working with a label. Sure, going the indie route is hard. So's starting your own independent ice cream shop in this market dominated by the Ben and Jerry's and Baskin-Robbins of the world. You won't have their brand recognition or their marketing budget. But no Slashdotter in their right mind would call the ice cream business a monopoly. So why the disconnect when it comes to the music biz? I suspect that many Slashdotters incorrectly throw around the term "monopoly" not because of a genuine misunderstanding, but because, like the "we pirate music because it's crappy" argument, because it shifts the moral burden off of us, and onto somebody else.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
There is an argument to be made that rampant infringement DOES hurt our economy and society as a whole. If infringment deterred real artists, etc, all of US (and thus World) Culture would be negatively affected, although we wouldn't ever know what we're missing.
Let's just be real, here.. I'd challenge anyone here to claim that they've NEVER infringed on a copyright. We've all done it. I was a Senior in High School when Napster reached its apex. I've probably downloaded 3-4 thousand songs from P2P networks. I've run unlicensed copies of a dozens of software titles. I've made copies of CDs for friends and mixtapes and things.
I'm a PIRATE..
But, I'm not going to try to justify what I've done--what we've all done--as morally or legally right. It's not. I do think that it's the copyright holders own fault. Music at the quality of what's being produced today is dramatically overpriced. I'm 25 now and a professional with a professionals salary and I pay for everything now (usually iTunes, but some physical media) but I have no qualms about what I did as a HS & College student. Screw'em. They fu*k us so we fu*k them back. End of story. But still, two wrongs don't make a right.
And our beef is not--at least in this particular case--with the Gov't. I absolutely don't think the Government should price-fix IP. Their role is to enforce the laws, period. And copyright law is a good thing. With few exceptions, I don't think many people here have issues with the existence of copyrights. I think we have issues with being price gouged for an inferior product.
So I have to respect what the Gov't is trying to do. If I produce a software title and self-publish it and it gets pirated and I lose 50% of my five-figure sales, that's not some faceless corporation. That's money out of my pocket, and I'm just a normal, middle class software developer. I would really LIKE and even EXPECT the government to do their job and enforce the laws and stop people from stealing from me.
Our beef is with the labels/etc not with copyright law (for most of us, anyway). Don't confuse the two.
Because piracy begets piracy. It devalues things. If half the people on your block got their homes for free, how could you convince somebody to pay you $250k for YOURS?
There is a culture now that is very pervasive amongst those that are in the late 20's on down that music should be free as in beer. To many, it's almost outrageous to suggest that music should be paid for.
You can't give something away free for those who "can't afford it" and charge the ones that can. Pretty soon the ones that can are going to feel swindled and they're going to at least be TEMPTED to think that if it's free for everyone else, it ought to be free for them, too.
If half the people on your block got their homes for free, how could you convince somebody to pay you $250k for YOURS?
No, no, NO! Stop taking a plastic knife to a gunfight. Your example does not make any sense with copyright.
To fix yours: It is like everyone on your block is making copies of their houses and land at an extremely low cost (or none) and then giving them out to anyone for free.
YOU are arguing that your house *design* and lot *design* is now being devalued because those with similar (or maybe exact, depending on how cookie-cutter your subdivision is) houses and lots are available elsewhere for free. And when you go to sell your house copies, people will either just make an exact copy of your house or lot and not pay you at all, or just pay you a lot less than what you wished for.
It isn't a perfect example, but, if you don't understand the distinction, I suggest you read up on the topic of copyright some more before you get laughed out of the room.
I've said it before an I'll say it again. The Grateful Dead never needed promotions or labels to push their music. They had the largest show recording/trading fan base ever, long before the internet came to be. I have a show where Jerry gives a person recording them tips in the audience to step back about 20 feet for the best possible sound. They toured for 30 years. All the trading/recording that way done allows the music to continue to be shared, long after the band stopped playing.
Nobody will be listenting to 95% of the crap being put out 10 years from now. If you don't suck, then you don't need a label. If you do suck, then find something you are actually good at and stop waiting for a label to "correct" your sound.
That is making a rather ridiculous assumption that you have a fundamental *right* to get paid for your house. In fact, what you describe is exactly how the housing market works. If some developer moves into your neighborhood and builds a large number of cheap replicas of your house, your house will get devalued. Legally. You will lose money and be pissed, but then oh well, you gambled assuming that your house would be of value in the future and lost. This is precisely what is happening to the music industry (i'll later make the distinction between the industry as a whole and individual musicians). The industry gambled that their cd's would be of value in the future. However, other industries came along and suddenly undercut the over priced pieces of plastic that large record companies gambled on to retain value. I am a musician and absolutely believe in musicians getting paid. However, most musicians do not make the majority of their money in cd sales (note I said most musicians, not most top 40's musicians). In fact, many musicians see cd sales as primarily a good advertising method, and the records sales usually barely pay for themselves. So, if I can put my music out into the ether, and get the same advertising without having to deal with record execs, why shouldn't I. I don't believe musicians will be hurt by this changing business model, but recording labels that fail to adapt to new business models in the face of technology will.
If half the people on your block got their homes for free, how could you convince somebody to pay you $250k for YOURS?
Why should someone pay you $250k for your house if other people are able to get theirs for free? What's so fantastic about your house that it's worth so much, while other houses are being given away?
You can't give something away free for those who "can't afford it" and charge the ones that can.
The evidence we have suggests that that isn't true. Firstly, piracy exists, and is very widespread. What are some of the most pirated pieces of software in existence today? I'd hazard a guess that Windows and MS Office are in the top 10. And what pieces of software are some of the biggest money-earners in the software market? Windows and Office seem to have done a fantastic job of keeping Microsoft profitable over the years, even while they pour money into unprofitable markets. It's almost as if the people that can afford to pay hundreds of dollars for them are doing so, even though those that can't afford the arbitrary price tag don't.
What about the latest high-profile example: Radiohead's latest album. They explicitly gave it away for free, and made paying anything at all for it optional. Yet somehow they still made a profit from it. This isn't merely people finding an alternative way of acquiring the IP: this is a case of the owner and creator of that IP saying they don't believe it has any inherent value in and of itself; just pay whatever you think it's worth and can afford.
Another angle: I'm a slashdot subscriber and have been for ages, even though I don't really get anything out of it. Sure, no ads on pages, but I could just use adblock for that. But I like /. and I think the price is quite reasonable for what they offer, and I'm happy to support them in my little way. I periodically donate to subsim.com, because I find the forums useful. Neil (who runs it) pays for the hosting and bandwidth and so forth out of his own pocket, and tries to recoup some of the costs from people who can afford to pay for it, while letting everyone else use it for free.
So I really think your matter-of-fact statement "You can't give something away for free to those who can't afford it and charge the ones that can" is patently bogus. Charity organisations do this all the time. The OLPC project is doing this directly with the "buy one give one" programme.
To many, it's almost outrageous to suggest that music should be paid for.
Well, what's so wrong about that? Music is an easily produced and easily distributed commodity. Think about it. When was the last time you paid someone for having a conversation with you? Even if it was a really useful conversation which gave you great insight or clarity? What, you mean you don't pay people you converse with for their creativity and time when they pass on useful thoughts to you? For shame! How can you expect anyone to spend their time and creativity coming up with new original thoughts if you don't pay for every single one you hear?
Perhaps it's time to adjust our thinking, and face the fact that anything digital is a new economic paradigm. We can literally replicate this stuff an infinite number of times at no direct cost to the creator of the content. I have a torrent of Jimmy Eat World's latest album running on my server which I've uploaded 1,672 times over (make that 1,673 times). The cost to JEW of this: $0.00. That's at least 1,600 people who've heard the album because I haven't gotten around to stopping the torrent yet. Seems like a good deal to me.
I think content producers need to accept that not everyone is going to pay for their content, but that's okay, because not everybody has to. It's enough to simply have enough people pay.
In a way, this has been going on since the first days of commercial radio and TV: most people don't run out and buy everything that's advertised during thei
It was very clear in my example (record resale, houses on your block) that was talking micro, not macro.
I'm not sure I follow this. What's the difference? How can something that works "macro" not work "micro"? How does this apply to Radiohead's experiment? Privately-funded websites that get by with the help of donations?
It's considered the trick of a slimy salesman if he prices the product, be it a car or whatever, to what he thinks you can pay.
My examples were all about voluntary payment, where the buyer decides what price they think is appropriate. It's completely different!
Why do I not deserve exclusive rights to my work?
You should be allowed to do whatever you want. That's fine. This is what I have a problem with (from your original post, which gets us back on to the thread's topic):
I would really LIKE and even EXPECT the government to do their job and enforce the laws and stop people from stealing from me.
Why should my tax money, and the tax money of millions of other people who have absolutely zero interest in your niche product, have to pay to help ensure nobody uses it without your permission? What's in it for the rest of society?
Moreover, the only way it's even remotely feasible for the government to perform this function is with invasive monitoring of every single thing we do. Is your program that only 1,000 people in the entire country (or entire world?) thought was worth paying your asking price for really so valuable that we should spend millions or billions of dollars monitoring everyone just so you can make $100,000 instead of $50,000? What makes you so sure those pirates will actually pay you the $50 you think your software is worth if you're enforcing payments, rather than just skip it entirely? If they do that, then our government's crackdown on piracy doesn't make you any more, but costs us all a lot.
Let's assume that it is economically feasible to monitor all digital content using taxpayer money. A society where everyone feels entitled to receive whatever payment they think is appropriate any time they fart out an idea would surely encourage the big corps to game the system (we already know certain record label execs truly believe they deserve to be paid every time anybody hears a song they've published).
But that's a slippery slope argument, so forget all that. I still have issues reconciling such monitoring with the notion of a "free society". I enjoy and value my privacy - real or imagined - and don't think the government has any right to invade it in such a manner. Free will only has value if we're able to use it.
Why should honest people pay -- in terms of taxes and freedom -- to help enforce copyright of things they have paid for the right to use? How does removing free will encourage honesty and ethics and such desirable traits in the members of our society?
And if I want somebody to have to pay $x to use it, I should have that exclusive right.
Sure, you absolutely have that right. But I think you'd be doing yourself and the rest of us a disservice to invoke it, and therefore why should the rest of society help you do it? Why do I think it'd be doing a disservice to the rest of society? You kind of said it yourself:
You have no standing to tell me how much profit is "enough" for a product. How could you EVER make the mistake in thinking that you do?
Let me reflect that: You have no standing to tell me how much your program is worth to me. How could you EVER make the mistake in thinking that you do?
How do you decide what value of x is appropriate for people to pay? Should someone who's going to use it for 6 hours to help them with a task but never need it again have to pay $50 as well? Are people who simply can't afford $50 somehow not good enough to benefit from your time, skill and creativity?
How does your discriminati