Meh. It's not that hard to defeat. You can: setup a computer as a honeypot - it serves up the "pirated" material people are trying to download and logging their IP addresses. You can write an application/custom installer that phones home. When pirates install some application, they're also notifying you that they just installed a pirated application. I'm sure I could come up with lots of other ways.
"Oh how those in power would squirm."
Yes, along with all the movie makers, musicians, software developers. You'd set back the creation of digital media in a big, big way if you undermine the creators like that.
From the article:
"The 2009 total was aided by a 28 cent increase in ticket prices from the year before to an average $7.46.
The total number of tickets sold, or admissions, is expected to reach 1.4 billion, up from 1.34 billion in 2008. Still, that figure is not expected to break the record 1.6 billion tickets sold in 2002, said Hollywood.com Box Office."
The reason for the higher revenue? Higher ticket prices. Ticket sales are down 12% since 2002. If you look at a long-term graph of ticket sales, you can see that it's been basically flat in the 2000s, compared to upper single-digit or double-digit growth nearly every year between 1970 and 2000. It's pretty much been stagnant since 2002.
Here's some numbers showing the trend:
2009 - Total Gross $9,782.4
2008 - Total Gross $9,630.6
2007 - Total Gross $9,663.7
2006 - Total Gross $9,209.5
2005 - Total Gross $8,840.5
2004 - Total Gross $9,380.5
2003 - Total Gross $9,239.7
2002 - Total Gross $9,155.0
2001 - Total Gross $8,412.5
2000 - Total Gross $7,661.0
1990 - Total Gross $5,021.8
1980 - Total Gross $2,749.0 http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/
1980->1990 = 83% Growth in 10 years, average of 8.2% per year
1990->2002 = 82% Growth in 12 years, average of 6.8% per year
Then, *mysteriously*, something happened around 2002:
2002->2009 = 9.2% Growth in 7 years, 1.3% per year (using the $10 billion number, not the $9,782.4 for 2009)
To put that in perspective, 1.3% is less than the growth of inflation.
In other news, the number of AIDS patients is higher than ever, and yet, the average lifespan continues to grow. I'm sure we all can see the correlation here: AIDS = longer lifespans. Torrent Freak spins reality even more than FOX news. I wish Slashdot wasn't such a fan of the pro-pirate spin.
I can understand the argument that the copyright industries should be looser with copyright in this particular case, but I'm pretty sure that their unwillingness to let you read their books for free does not amount to "letting them take away my right to read". Do you show up at concerts, and, when the ticket window is unwilling to let you inside for free, do you describe that experience as "those guys are trying to take away my right to listen to music"?
I think in general, people perceive that bolder, outspoken people are smarter - as if their boldness comes from understanding and knowledge. I also think that men (by virtue of testosterone) tend to be bolder than women. This get misperceived as intelligence, thus men are generally perceived to be more intelligent.
Personally, I think there's been an effort to discredit IQ results in general, and I think you've been convinced by the campaign to discredit the very concept of IQ. Additionally, the article summary states, "His analysis of some 30 studies showed that men and women are fairly equal overall in terms of IQ". But, maybe I'm misunderstanding you -- maybe you think that studies that show "men and women are fairly equal overall in terms of IQ" are actually flawed because men really are superior to women in intelligence. I suspect you're not actually arguing that, but unless you're arguing that men and women don't have similar intelligence levels, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in your comment.
Apps with demos generally have lower piracy rates. Also we track usage rate, pirates tend to only launch once or twice, as if they're sampling the app. So it's not as bad as the article makes it sound.
One of the guys at Pinch Media put together this document (http://www.pinchmedia.com/blog/piracy-in-the-app-store-from-360idev/). One of the interesting bits of information compares the rate of purchase between people who download the lite/demo version of the app to the people who downloaded the pirated copy. What they found was that 7.4% of demo users bought the full application, but only 0.43% of pirate users bought the full application. Based on that information, demo users are 17x more likely to purchase than pirate users. So, it seems that plenty of pirate users are using piracy as a way to try-out an app, but even when they actually like an app, they are unlikely to purchase a copy.
I'm not sure who you're talking to when you say "Here's the flaws in their reasoning" (the summary concedes that 1 pirate != 1 lost sale).
A simpler way of making your argument is simply to say that:
If 5% of iPhones are jailbroke AND
Jailbreaking is necessary for piracy AND
If pirates would've bought apps at the same rate as the general public
Then: no matter how many pirated copies are being used, eliminating piracy would increase sales by 5%.
* There are reasons to suggest that pirates would buy apps less frequently than regular users (they're cheap** so they never/rarely buy apps), and reasons to suggest they would buy apps more frequently than regular users (people who love apps are more likely to turn to piracy because it saves them so much money. So, the guy who's willing to buy $50 in apps/year saves $50/year by using piracy. But, the guy who buys $1 in apps/year gets so little monetary benefit that he doesn't bother with piracy.)
** Cheap iPhone users. This may be an oxymoron.
Yeah, the profit part is easy. If you allow piracy to continue, then the XBox platform goes down. Taking action against pirates acts as a deterrent to discourage paying customers from becoming pirates. Not taking action against pirates makes paying customers feel like suckers because they're not jumping on on the bonanza of free stuff and zero consequences. Yes, you lose those disconnected pirates, but they were pirates, so what good are they?
We've been fighting computer viruses for decades now. And we haven't made any headway. It just seems to get worse. Isn't it time that we all just give up and allow viruses to infect our computers? Let's stop fighting it. Let's stop playing 'whack a mole'. No? You don't think so? Sorry, I just has to say that to parody all of the 'you can't stop piracy, you should just permit it' arguments.
As a software developer attempting to earn a living by selling software to consumers, it pains me to see so many of these responses. Sometimes, when I visit slashdot and digg, I wonder why I try at all. So many of the commenters here believe that they have a right to get copies of my work for free, even though it takes years to construct it. Financially, I see no way to continue my work unless I can earn money by selling copies. The comments here scare me. It's like someone wrapping their hands around my throat and gleefully choking me, while discussing how happy they will be to dance on my grave. I write software that people like. I work hard at it, and I love what I do. But, the responses of so many people here are just scary. I am blamed for all kinds of imagined harms committed against them. I'm just a guy working and trying to earn a living from it, but somehow that gets turned into "they are 'robin hood' and I am the evil governor inflicting taxes on them".
I'm not entirely surprised. Slashdot regularly posts stories who's purpose is to inflame people. In that sense, I see Slashdot as another biased media outlet that tries to control and manipulate people, turning them against those of us who survive on copyright. Many times, I have wondered to what extent groups like the Pirate Party have infiltrated technology websites like Slashdot in order to control and manipulate what people read and hear, to "guide" them to some predefined conclusion.
But, economically, the situation cannot sustain itself. When I read so many of these comments, it makes me want to leave the software industry because too many pirates are working too hard to undercut our ability to earn a living from our hard work. So many people here seem to want to bloodbath, and I'm the intended victim. My crime is that I won't give away years of work for free, but, somehow, people have constructed all kinds of imaginary crimes to legitimize their actions. I don't know what to think of people anymore. I'm doubting that it's even worth trying anymore.
Piracy and copyright are not comparable to monks and the printing press. The primary question you should ask when figuring out whether a comparison to piracy is accurate or not is this: "Does society end up with the same or comparible product in both cases?" That is *the question*. The printing press put monks out of work, but society still got the books -- and they got the books at a lower price. If the printing press put authors out of work, then maybe you'd have a gripe about the printing press. Piracy, on the other hand, puts the authors and creators out of work. The final stage of piracy is that no one can earn a living from their work that is benefiting society.
Printing press = fewer jobs for scribes, more books for society, lower costs for books, and supports authors.
Piracy = creators and authors go bankrupt, society has fewer new creations and becomes culturally poor, feeding on the remnants of old creations, when creating them was still financially possible.
Just pointing out that you're the one picking and choosing which laws you think are unfair. Saying that piracy fits the mold is your opinion. Piracy has nothing to do with homosexual marriage. The only reason they're linked in your mind is that you think both are being unfairly outlawed. For those of us who don't agree with piracy, but do agree with homosexual marriage, we see no connection at all except in people's imaginations. On the other hand, piracy and shoplifting do have real connection - they are both self-serving and harmful to society by undercutting the production of stuff. Piracy is really another example of the "tragedy of the commons" where everyone gets media for free, and the result of everyone following their own selfish interests leads to a decline in the production of stuff people want.
Not true. Hollywood studies have through time never made a dime( see hollywood accounting ), so obviously money doesn't drive them...
There is a difference between never making a dime on paper, and never making a dime in reality. Hollywood accounting is the former. Piracy leads to the latter.
So in a fake court which doesn't have many basic due process rights?
Or small claims court. I've gotten out of tickets, and I've known other people who have too. The fact of the matter is that a huge court case shouldn't be required for smaller crimes. Though, I can see the strategic utility of pirates trying to push it to the two extremes (no court case, a full-blown costly court case).
Disconnecting one's internet can cause tens of thousands of dollars of damage to some people.
Yeah, I guess they'd better watch it if they run a business out of their home and they've already gotten 2 warnings.
And I can't think of anything that can replace the ability to look anything up on Wikipedia in 5 seconds.
I think part of the problem here (including Doctorow's argument) is that people suddenly decide that the internet is so important for everything. Nevermind the fact that lots of people don't have it at home. I have to wonder: why haven't we made it a basic human right and pay for universal internet access for everyone from their home? Because that seems like the logical conclusion of all these "the internet is deathly important, I can't live without it" types of arguments.
requires a serious offense confirmed in an actual court of law.
No it doesn't. It requires 12 points on your license. Those points can be from anything - even a series of small speeding tickets. For example, this website [http://transportation.ky.gov/drlic/license/point.htm] has a long list of offenses that will get you points on your license. Here's some of them:
6 Points - Failure to Stop for School or Church Bus
4 Points - Failure to Yield to Emergency Vehicle
3 Points - Wrong Way on One-Way Street
3 Points - Too Slow for Conditions
3 Points - Failure to Dim Headlights
3 Points - Failure to yield right-of-way to Funeral Procession
And to back up my earlier comment about pirates being worries about having their internet cut-off:
"The poll suggested the Government's plan to disconnect illegal downloaders if they ignore official warning letters could deter people from internet piracy, with 61 per cent of illegal downloaders surveyed admitting they would be put off downloading music illegally by the threat of having their internet service cut off for a month."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html
But what is the point of all this progress when no one but the rich can afford all of it. Because that is the result of copyright and patents. Higher prices and less efficient production. We may get a greater selection, but we can't afford to actually use it. We may get a greater selection, but we can't afford to actually use it.
Most copyrighted material is not something that only the rich can afford. I can buy albums off of iTunes for $10. I don't think that qualifies me as rich. Not to mention the other things game companies have been doing - like Valve's recent "buy Team Fortess 2 for $2.49" sale or World of Goo's "pay what you want" sale. All of this is done under copyright. It's hard for me to think you're being objective when you claim that copyrighted material is outside the price-range of most people.
The only copyrighted material that is out of the price range of most people in developed countries is software designed for businesses -- and that allows businesses to earn more money, so it's only reasonable that a company that earns $100,000 worth of value from it pays a few hundred or a few thousands of dollars for it.
All the Spice girls and Brittany spears of this world will burn the quickest. No more bullshit bands manufactured, spliced and merged together for a 'formula' that will make [money/music]. The smaller bands will make more money from gigs and merchandise from the fans that actually support them. The local bands will get more notice and the record industry will become a small advertising house.
I don't understand your argument at all. If all musicians are suddenly thrust into the much harsher economic situation of getting paid for their concerts, but not getting paid for their music, it seems that the manufactured bands will be in the *best* position to survive. Afterall, if money is drained out of the music industry, the industry is going cut everyone except the big-earning, sure-bets. The era of free-piracy is an era of lots and lots of formulaic music.
Piracy is awesome and great because copyright no longer serves to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Or do you really think the Berne Convention's life + 50 minimum accomplishes that goal?... More likely, you'll be dead and your children might see it fall into the public domain.
I guess I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around your argument. You seem to be assuming that the "Progress of Science and useful Arts" only occurs when copyrighted material falls out of copyright and becomes public domain. I don't think that's true at all. Even if we had infinite copyright lengths, you can make a good case that the existence of copyright has promoted the "Progress of Science and useful Arts". Sure, it might be more useful to society if it did fall out of copyright after a shorter period of time, and copyright lengths do seem excessive. But, the mere fact that copyright lasts for a long time does not allow anyone to conclude that it isn't useful for the promotion of the arts. I think the only way to argue that I'm wrong is to say that copyrighted material has never helped anyone while under copyright. For example, you'd have to argue that the Beetle's "Imagine" is worthless and every copyrighted software program out there is worthless - even though it saved you time, money, or entertained you - it's worthless if you have to drop a few bucks.
... AND the major reason Cory Doctorow opposes this law is because he supports piracy. The fact of the matter is that I actually agree that people should have the right to appeal this accusation the same way they appeal a traffic ticket. I also think that if you kick someone off the internet, all you're doing is kicking them off of their HOME internet connection. Where I live, there are plenty of coffeeshops and libraries offering free wifi. The whole idea that disconnecting someone's home internet connection leads to the effects Doctorow claims is nonsense ("The internet is an integral part of our children's education; it's critical to our employment; it's how we stay in touch with distant relatives. It's how we engage with government. It's the single wire that delivers freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. It isn't just a conduit for getting a few naughty free movies, it is the circulatory system of the information age.") That's guy's got a knack for nonsense propaganda.
I also have to wonder: does he oppose removing someone's driver's license? Afterall, I could come up with a pretty good argument that "driving" in the United States is directly connected to everything. Oh no! If we allow the government to take-away anyone's drivers license then "how will people drive their children to school? How will we assemble for government protests? It is a conduit for visiting the video store and getting naughty movies. Cars are the circulatory system for our economy. Any attempts to take away anyone's driver's license is a violation of their constitutional rights!!"
And what if phone companies started disconnecting people's phones when they habitually make prank calls, or do telemarketing, or harass people, or... Do I need to write-up an argument why people's phones should never be disconnected under any circumstances? That the phone is essential for assembly? For our freedom of speech? For the socialization of our children? For our economy? etc.
If we were to take Doctorow's argument seriously, I don't know why we can't apply the same logic to "you can never take away my drivers license" or "you can never disconnect my phone".
Honestly, Doctorow's opinions become painfully predictable once you realize two facts about him: he was raised by communist parents (so he has a pretty good hatred of corporations) and he spent some time as an anarchist (so he hates laws). Once you combine those two things, you can pretty much predict what his opinions will be whenever questions about corporations or laws come up. For example, his position on piracy falls right in line with those two influences.
"No kidding. 40 years of the "War on Drugs" has wasted thousands of lives in jail, and we're no closer to eliminating drugs. It will take at least 40 years of a war on copyright infringers before anyone starts seriously discussing legalization."
We've had science, medical research, doctors, and hospitals for a century now. We still haven't eliminated disease or death. We fund police departments. We still haven't eliminated crime. We fund fire departments. Yet, we still haven't eliminated fires.
I just think it's funny to see Doctorow try to create reasons to oppose this law. The number one reason Doctorow opposes this law is that he's a piracy advocate. He's fighting for the legalization of filesharing. This is all very well documented. Of course, he can't actually come out and say that. What's he going to say, "I oppose this anti-piracy legislation because it will cut-down on piracy"? In fact, in a recent poll of internet users, a majority of pirates admitted that the threat of cutting off their internet access would reduce their willingness to pirate. So, he has to resort to talking about secondary reasons to oppose this legislation.
Slashdot Mirror
"I haven't seen a failing music industry yet."
Music sales are half of what they were in 1999, and still on a major decline. Here's a chart: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/the-death-of-the-music-industry/
Meh. It's not that hard to defeat. You can: setup a computer as a honeypot - it serves up the "pirated" material people are trying to download and logging their IP addresses. You can write an application/custom installer that phones home. When pirates install some application, they're also notifying you that they just installed a pirated application. I'm sure I could come up with lots of other ways. "Oh how those in power would squirm." Yes, along with all the movie makers, musicians, software developers. You'd set back the creation of digital media in a big, big way if you undermine the creators like that.
From the article:
"The 2009 total was aided by a 28 cent increase in ticket prices from the year before to an average $7.46.
The total number of tickets sold, or admissions, is expected to reach 1.4 billion, up from 1.34 billion in 2008. Still, that figure is not expected to break the record 1.6 billion tickets sold in 2002, said Hollywood.com Box Office."
The reason for the higher revenue? Higher ticket prices. Ticket sales are down 12% since 2002. If you look at a long-term graph of ticket sales, you can see that it's been basically flat in the 2000s, compared to upper single-digit or double-digit growth nearly every year between 1970 and 2000. It's pretty much been stagnant since 2002.
Here's some numbers showing the trend:
2009 - Total Gross $9,782.4
2008 - Total Gross $9,630.6
2007 - Total Gross $9,663.7
2006 - Total Gross $9,209.5
2005 - Total Gross $8,840.5
2004 - Total Gross $9,380.5
2003 - Total Gross $9,239.7
2002 - Total Gross $9,155.0
2001 - Total Gross $8,412.5
2000 - Total Gross $7,661.0
1990 - Total Gross $5,021.8
1980 - Total Gross $2,749.0
http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/
1980->1990 = 83% Growth in 10 years, average of 8.2% per year
1990->2002 = 82% Growth in 12 years, average of 6.8% per year
Then, *mysteriously*, something happened around 2002:
2002->2009 = 9.2% Growth in 7 years, 1.3% per year (using the $10 billion number, not the $9,782.4 for 2009)
To put that in perspective, 1.3% is less than the growth of inflation.
In other news, the number of AIDS patients is higher than ever, and yet, the average lifespan continues to grow. I'm sure we all can see the correlation here: AIDS = longer lifespans. Torrent Freak spins reality even more than FOX news. I wish Slashdot wasn't such a fan of the pro-pirate spin.
I refuse to let them take away my right to read.
I can understand the argument that the copyright industries should be looser with copyright in this particular case, but I'm pretty sure that their unwillingness to let you read their books for free does not amount to "letting them take away my right to read". Do you show up at concerts, and, when the ticket window is unwilling to let you inside for free, do you describe that experience as "those guys are trying to take away my right to listen to music"?
I think in general, people perceive that bolder, outspoken people are smarter - as if their boldness comes from understanding and knowledge. I also think that men (by virtue of testosterone) tend to be bolder than women. This get misperceived as intelligence, thus men are generally perceived to be more intelligent.
Personally, I think there's been an effort to discredit IQ results in general, and I think you've been convinced by the campaign to discredit the very concept of IQ. Additionally, the article summary states, "His analysis of some 30 studies showed that men and women are fairly equal overall in terms of IQ". But, maybe I'm misunderstanding you -- maybe you think that studies that show "men and women are fairly equal overall in terms of IQ" are actually flawed because men really are superior to women in intelligence. I suspect you're not actually arguing that, but unless you're arguing that men and women don't have similar intelligence levels, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in your comment.
Apps with demos generally have lower piracy rates. Also we track usage rate, pirates tend to only launch once or twice, as if they're sampling the app. So it's not as bad as the article makes it sound.
One of the guys at Pinch Media put together this document (http://www.pinchmedia.com/blog/piracy-in-the-app-store-from-360idev/). One of the interesting bits of information compares the rate of purchase between people who download the lite/demo version of the app to the people who downloaded the pirated copy. What they found was that 7.4% of demo users bought the full application, but only 0.43% of pirate users bought the full application. Based on that information, demo users are 17x more likely to purchase than pirate users. So, it seems that plenty of pirate users are using piracy as a way to try-out an app, but even when they actually like an app, they are unlikely to purchase a copy.
I'm not sure who you're talking to when you say "Here's the flaws in their reasoning" (the summary concedes that 1 pirate != 1 lost sale).
A simpler way of making your argument is simply to say that:
If 5% of iPhones are jailbroke AND
Jailbreaking is necessary for piracy AND
If pirates would've bought apps at the same rate as the general public
Then: no matter how many pirated copies are being used, eliminating piracy would increase sales by 5%.
* There are reasons to suggest that pirates would buy apps less frequently than regular users (they're cheap** so they never/rarely buy apps), and reasons to suggest they would buy apps more frequently than regular users (people who love apps are more likely to turn to piracy because it saves them so much money. So, the guy who's willing to buy $50 in apps/year saves $50/year by using piracy. But, the guy who buys $1 in apps/year gets so little monetary benefit that he doesn't bother with piracy.)
** Cheap iPhone users. This may be an oxymoron.
Yeah, the profit part is easy. If you allow piracy to continue, then the XBox platform goes down. Taking action against pirates acts as a deterrent to discourage paying customers from becoming pirates. Not taking action against pirates makes paying customers feel like suckers because they're not jumping on on the bonanza of free stuff and zero consequences. Yes, you lose those disconnected pirates, but they were pirates, so what good are they?
We've been fighting computer viruses for decades now. And we haven't made any headway. It just seems to get worse. Isn't it time that we all just give up and allow viruses to infect our computers? Let's stop fighting it. Let's stop playing 'whack a mole'. No? You don't think so? Sorry, I just has to say that to parody all of the 'you can't stop piracy, you should just permit it' arguments.
As a software developer attempting to earn a living by selling software to consumers, it pains me to see so many of these responses. Sometimes, when I visit slashdot and digg, I wonder why I try at all. So many of the commenters here believe that they have a right to get copies of my work for free, even though it takes years to construct it. Financially, I see no way to continue my work unless I can earn money by selling copies. The comments here scare me. It's like someone wrapping their hands around my throat and gleefully choking me, while discussing how happy they will be to dance on my grave. I write software that people like. I work hard at it, and I love what I do. But, the responses of so many people here are just scary. I am blamed for all kinds of imagined harms committed against them. I'm just a guy working and trying to earn a living from it, but somehow that gets turned into "they are 'robin hood' and I am the evil governor inflicting taxes on them".
I'm not entirely surprised. Slashdot regularly posts stories who's purpose is to inflame people. In that sense, I see Slashdot as another biased media outlet that tries to control and manipulate people, turning them against those of us who survive on copyright. Many times, I have wondered to what extent groups like the Pirate Party have infiltrated technology websites like Slashdot in order to control and manipulate what people read and hear, to "guide" them to some predefined conclusion.
But, economically, the situation cannot sustain itself. When I read so many of these comments, it makes me want to leave the software industry because too many pirates are working too hard to undercut our ability to earn a living from our hard work. So many people here seem to want to bloodbath, and I'm the intended victim. My crime is that I won't give away years of work for free, but, somehow, people have constructed all kinds of imaginary crimes to legitimize their actions. I don't know what to think of people anymore. I'm doubting that it's even worth trying anymore.
Piracy and copyright are not comparable to monks and the printing press. The primary question you should ask when figuring out whether a comparison to piracy is accurate or not is this: "Does society end up with the same or comparible product in both cases?" That is *the question*. The printing press put monks out of work, but society still got the books -- and they got the books at a lower price. If the printing press put authors out of work, then maybe you'd have a gripe about the printing press. Piracy, on the other hand, puts the authors and creators out of work. The final stage of piracy is that no one can earn a living from their work that is benefiting society.
Printing press = fewer jobs for scribes, more books for society, lower costs for books, and supports authors.
Piracy = creators and authors go bankrupt, society has fewer new creations and becomes culturally poor, feeding on the remnants of old creations, when creating them was still financially possible.
Just pointing out that you're the one picking and choosing which laws you think are unfair. Saying that piracy fits the mold is your opinion. Piracy has nothing to do with homosexual marriage. The only reason they're linked in your mind is that you think both are being unfairly outlawed. For those of us who don't agree with piracy, but do agree with homosexual marriage, we see no connection at all except in people's imaginations. On the other hand, piracy and shoplifting do have real connection - they are both self-serving and harmful to society by undercutting the production of stuff. Piracy is really another example of the "tragedy of the commons" where everyone gets media for free, and the result of everyone following their own selfish interests leads to a decline in the production of stuff people want.
Guess who wrote the laws that determine what's illegal, though?
Exactly right! And exactly why the whole "shoplifting is illegal" crap is just corporate welfare!
Not true. Hollywood studies have through time never made a dime( see hollywood accounting ), so obviously money doesn't drive them...
There is a difference between never making a dime on paper, and never making a dime in reality. Hollywood accounting is the former. Piracy leads to the latter.
And nothing of value was lost, etc.
Then why do you spend time pirating nothing of value?
Funny, I thought pirates disliked it when people made money off of pirated material. Oh well, I guess not. It was actually a really good news story. Everyone can watch it here: http://www.veoh.com/collection/CBS-60-Minutes/watch/v19306351MbfMTNw4
So in a fake court which doesn't have many basic due process rights?
Or small claims court. I've gotten out of tickets, and I've known other people who have too. The fact of the matter is that a huge court case shouldn't be required for smaller crimes. Though, I can see the strategic utility of pirates trying to push it to the two extremes (no court case, a full-blown costly court case).
Disconnecting one's internet can cause tens of thousands of dollars of damage to some people.
Yeah, I guess they'd better watch it if they run a business out of their home and they've already gotten 2 warnings.
And I can't think of anything that can replace the ability to look anything up on Wikipedia in 5 seconds.
I think part of the problem here (including Doctorow's argument) is that people suddenly decide that the internet is so important for everything. Nevermind the fact that lots of people don't have it at home. I have to wonder: why haven't we made it a basic human right and pay for universal internet access for everyone from their home? Because that seems like the logical conclusion of all these "the internet is deathly important, I can't live without it" types of arguments.
requires a serious offense confirmed in an actual court of law.
No it doesn't. It requires 12 points on your license. Those points can be from anything - even a series of small speeding tickets. For example, this website [http://transportation.ky.gov/drlic/license/point.htm] has a long list of offenses that will get you points on your license. Here's some of them:
6 Points - Failure to Stop for School or Church Bus
4 Points - Failure to Yield to Emergency Vehicle
3 Points - Wrong Way on One-Way Street
3 Points - Too Slow for Conditions
3 Points - Failure to Dim Headlights
3 Points - Failure to yield right-of-way to Funeral Procession
And to back up my earlier comment about pirates being worries about having their internet cut-off: "The poll suggested the Government's plan to disconnect illegal downloaders if they ignore official warning letters could deter people from internet piracy, with 61 per cent of illegal downloaders surveyed admitting they would be put off downloading music illegally by the threat of having their internet service cut off for a month." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html
Most copyrighted material is not something that only the rich can afford. I can buy albums off of iTunes for $10. I don't think that qualifies me as rich. Not to mention the other things game companies have been doing - like Valve's recent "buy Team Fortess 2 for $2.49" sale or World of Goo's "pay what you want" sale. All of this is done under copyright. It's hard for me to think you're being objective when you claim that copyrighted material is outside the price-range of most people.
The only copyrighted material that is out of the price range of most people in developed countries is software designed for businesses -- and that allows businesses to earn more money, so it's only reasonable that a company that earns $100,000 worth of value from it pays a few hundred or a few thousands of dollars for it.
You mean you don't have YouTube, MySpace, Amazon, LastFM, internet radio, etc in your country due to copyright?
I don't understand your argument at all. If all musicians are suddenly thrust into the much harsher economic situation of getting paid for their concerts, but not getting paid for their music, it seems that the manufactured bands will be in the *best* position to survive. Afterall, if money is drained out of the music industry, the industry is going cut everyone except the big-earning, sure-bets. The era of free-piracy is an era of lots and lots of formulaic music.
I guess I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around your argument. You seem to be assuming that the "Progress of Science and useful Arts" only occurs when copyrighted material falls out of copyright and becomes public domain. I don't think that's true at all. Even if we had infinite copyright lengths, you can make a good case that the existence of copyright has promoted the "Progress of Science and useful Arts". Sure, it might be more useful to society if it did fall out of copyright after a shorter period of time, and copyright lengths do seem excessive. But, the mere fact that copyright lasts for a long time does not allow anyone to conclude that it isn't useful for the promotion of the arts. I think the only way to argue that I'm wrong is to say that copyrighted material has never helped anyone while under copyright. For example, you'd have to argue that the Beetle's "Imagine" is worthless and every copyrighted software program out there is worthless - even though it saved you time, money, or entertained you - it's worthless if you have to drop a few bucks.
... AND the major reason Cory Doctorow opposes this law is because he supports piracy. The fact of the matter is that I actually agree that people should have the right to appeal this accusation the same way they appeal a traffic ticket. I also think that if you kick someone off the internet, all you're doing is kicking them off of their HOME internet connection. Where I live, there are plenty of coffeeshops and libraries offering free wifi. The whole idea that disconnecting someone's home internet connection leads to the effects Doctorow claims is nonsense ("The internet is an integral part of our children's education; it's critical to our employment; it's how we stay in touch with distant relatives. It's how we engage with government. It's the single wire that delivers freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. It isn't just a conduit for getting a few naughty free movies, it is the circulatory system of the information age.") That's guy's got a knack for nonsense propaganda.
I also have to wonder: does he oppose removing someone's driver's license? Afterall, I could come up with a pretty good argument that "driving" in the United States is directly connected to everything. Oh no! If we allow the government to take-away anyone's drivers license then "how will people drive their children to school? How will we assemble for government protests? It is a conduit for visiting the video store and getting naughty movies. Cars are the circulatory system for our economy. Any attempts to take away anyone's driver's license is a violation of their constitutional rights!!"
And what if phone companies started disconnecting people's phones when they habitually make prank calls, or do telemarketing, or harass people, or... Do I need to write-up an argument why people's phones should never be disconnected under any circumstances? That the phone is essential for assembly? For our freedom of speech? For the socialization of our children? For our economy? etc.
If we were to take Doctorow's argument seriously, I don't know why we can't apply the same logic to "you can never take away my drivers license" or "you can never disconnect my phone".
Honestly, Doctorow's opinions become painfully predictable once you realize two facts about him: he was raised by communist parents (so he has a pretty good hatred of corporations) and he spent some time as an anarchist (so he hates laws). Once you combine those two things, you can pretty much predict what his opinions will be whenever questions about corporations or laws come up. For example, his position on piracy falls right in line with those two influences.
"No kidding. 40 years of the "War on Drugs" has wasted thousands of lives in jail, and we're no closer to eliminating drugs. It will take at least 40 years of a war on copyright infringers before anyone starts seriously discussing legalization."
We've had science, medical research, doctors, and hospitals for a century now. We still haven't eliminated disease or death. We fund police departments. We still haven't eliminated crime. We fund fire departments. Yet, we still haven't eliminated fires.
I think it's time we all just gave up.
I just think it's funny to see Doctorow try to create reasons to oppose this law. The number one reason Doctorow opposes this law is that he's a piracy advocate. He's fighting for the legalization of filesharing. This is all very well documented. Of course, he can't actually come out and say that. What's he going to say, "I oppose this anti-piracy legislation because it will cut-down on piracy"? In fact, in a recent poll of internet users, a majority of pirates admitted that the threat of cutting off their internet access would reduce their willingness to pirate. So, he has to resort to talking about secondary reasons to oppose this legislation.