IFPI, the more legal squeeze you put on the people with your ridiculous propaganda and bribed-for legislation, the more will slip through your loopholes...
until the day when everyone realises that "intellectual property" thing is itself an excuse that allows you to profit where you should not.
That makes sense. A group of companies blatantly exploit holes in the legal system, use the lobbying system to buy politicians completely contrary to the intended purpose of both systems. And what's worse, it isn't a new or even localised problem. It spans through multiple industries and individuals, with no common element apart from the fact they are rich and can afford such abuse. So what do we do? We turn around and blame intellectual property. Really smart.
Am I mistaken in assuming you object to the government intervention in favour of cultural work creators? From your original post:
Gee, I thought the whole point of a free market was to let businesses succeed/fail based on their ability to deliver a product that people are willing to pay for.
Perhaps you do not fit the stereotype and you do support copyright. How is that possible without government intervention?
From another post:
"They" impose it on "us" through business practices and expensive lobbyists.
Well, like the stereotypical anti-copyright lobbyist, you blame broken democracy for copyright.
From the same post:
I'm not inclined to explain the difference between product and content as regards luxury goods
You seem to be very eager to point out that there is a distinction that somehow rules out all comparison between content and products, like the stereotypical anti-copyright lobbyist.
I'm sorry if I've misrepresented you, but it seemed pretty clear to me that you were a typical anti-copyright lobbyist. You never once said anything along the lines of "I agree with you there", or "I'm not arguing that", so I assumed that my assumptions were correct.
No, bank robbery does cost. It costs the insurance companies, which pass off the costs to the banks in the form of premiums. The banks then transfer the cost to the consumer. Everyone pays for bank robbery. Just like every RIAA/MPAA consumer pays for loss of income due to piracy.
They sound ridiculous don't they? It's called irony. Look it up.
So by arguing against nothing more than intrusive government regulation designed to protect the economic viability of one particular class of products, I apparently am "against copyrights."
Yes, you are. That particular protection is called copyright, and you are against it. I don't know why. I can't understand the animosity towards a system that allows people to distribute the work they created however they want, but you apparently have that animosity.
Please, save me the tired lectures that assume content=cars.
Please save me your tired moaning that assumes comparison=equivalence. I was comparing cars with content. I wasn't saying they were the same. I'll make my point again in summary, because I got no indication that you bothered to read it the first time.
If everyone suddenly started stealing cars (cars simply being another product that has to compete with illegal means), does that mean we call their business model outdated? Can you think of any meaningful distinctions between copyrighted content and cars that break this comparison?
What better way to argue rationally than to completely ignore the entire fucking point of the other person's argument, namely, the distinction between product and content, and just proceed to lay your equivocating metaphor out for all to see?
Your "point" had nothing to do with anything, made no sense in the context context of this discussion, and had no substance (because you couldn't be bothered). What was I meant to do? Simply assume you were right and be done?
Remember the Chrysler bailout?
You take my quote out of context. In the hypothetical situation where the government stops legally protecting car manufacturers/sellers from theft, that's when they start lobbying for their protection back. I'm not referring to Chrysler (or any other company for that matter) going bankrupt through purely legitimate means.
Right, because laws, and the corporate lobbyists who write them, are the hallmarks of popular sentiment. I want to live in your dimension. The pot must be incredible.
Yeah, come to my dimension. You get a wider social view, You get to read some opinions that you don't necessarily agree with. You see what the other sides of the political spectrum look like. Only in Slashdot, and all the other like minded websites that share Slashdot's political leanings, do these laws look like the blatant rape of democracy. While, granted, they aren't the hallmarks of popular sentiment, they are supported by people, and not just those who have something immediately to lose. Even if they don't support the laws per se, they support the position that the copyright holders are taking, even if it is a little extreme for some. Basically, anti-copyright lobbyists and the RIAA/MPAA are on opposite ends of the spectrum playing tug of war with people's opinions. It's naive to assume that any one side is winning.
Ah, the appeal to authority fallacy and the oversimplified, stereotyped, and absolutely incorrect assumption that I might agree with that position.
Nice dodge, but until you actually can find me such an economic philosopher, one that you can support your opinions with, I have no choice but to assume you question my authority with no authority of your own.
Tell you what: You find me a person at the other end of your keyboard willing to engage in discussion, instead of one who adopts strawman arguments and pompously identifies their own ideas with those of "society," and then we'll talk.
It's more the other way round. I identified society's ideas with my own. Naturally, I couldn't have done it perfectly, but I think I'm doing a damn sight better job than you. At least I'm not stooping to calling democracy broken when people don't agree with me.
What, are you following me around? Do I have to argue with you on two fronts here?
Anyway, in response to your comment, I'm sure that there are bands who manage without, but for a majority of investments (not just in bands), there is some overhead from risk insurance. Even distributing free recordings involves investing time and money, with the possibility that it will bring nothing.
Y'know, us. The majority of people out there. The particular majority out there who believe there should be some form of copyright. The same majority that possess the wisdom and intelligence to see through the oversimplified "us" versus "them", "good" versus "evil" stereotypes.
"We" don't encourage the business model of the movie/recording industries. "They" impose it on "us" through business practices and expensive lobbyists.
Isn't that what Slashdotters always say when the democratic process isn't producing their desired results? Could copyright lobby indeed be supported by The People, which would explain why the anti-copyright lobby is failing? No, no. Naturally, everyone agrees with you. It's just we are living in a corrupt police state, and I'm a government agent (an enemy of The People).
Just because you happen to agree with legislation concerning "digital rights" doesn't mean you're tapping into some sort of sociocultural consensus.
True, but the fact that copyright law is strengthening and the fact that the anti-copyright lobby is relatively small and seems to ignore all economic common sense show me that society is (and probably should be) generally for copyright. Maybe not the 95 year period, or the restrictions on copy-protection, but copyright as a concept.
That's nice and completely irrelevant, because the product is not the same.
Same as what? I didn't compare it to anything. I stated that as a general rule. Legitimate business weren't meant to compete with illegitimate ones. If you think about it, stealing a car costs less than buying a car (please save me the lecture on why copying!=stealing). Does that mean car sellers are also "outdated"? Do we complain that the government is protecting car manufacturers and sellers, when they could be leaving theft to the free market? Do we whine when car manufacturers start complaining loudly and lobby the government for protection? We don't make laws to fit in with what everyone is doing anyway, and we don't make laws just for the free market's sake. We make laws to correct behaviour, to better society. If you are worried (like me and many others here on Slashdot) about the RIAA/MPAA's abuse of the legal system and their influence in the political system (and its effects on society), don't blame it on copyrights. Blame it on the systems that have the loopholes that allow for such abominations, and lobby for them to be patched.
Ah, I wasn't aware that your judiciousness in economic affairs was so great as to empower you to speak for all the "serious" supporters of free markets. Silly me, thinking that you're wrong about free downloads limiting the market for movie tickets and DVDs. I must not take the market as seriously as you.
Apparently not. You find me a respected person who advocates for a completely unadulterated, totally unregulated free market, regardless of established common law, and then we'll talk.
Err... if someone produces entertainment that no-one buys or pirates, can the time and effort put into that be gotten back? I don't see your point. Just because time and effort are put into the creation of entertainment is real, doesn't mean that the "losses" caused by someone pirating that entertainment are real.
They factor in risk when they take on new people. It means, in effect, that you pay for every flop when you buy a record. While this may offend some people, there isn't any other better way to invest in bands. By pirating, you are depriving them of the payment for their time, effort, and risk in investing in both the CD you buy and the other CDs that flopped. So yes, they are real losses.
Until someone determines a half-way reliable method of calculating how many people did not pay for the product directly as a result of it being available for pirating, then the "losses" remain as some unknown value between (0 x $PRICE) and ($NUMBEROFPIRATECOPIES x $PRICE).
Since we are looking at theoretical figures, I'd argue that the range is larger on both sides. Piracy, (purely theoretically, of course) could earn the copyright holder money, provided the pirated work prompts the person to legitimately buy a copy of one or two other works by the same people. This does happen, but not nearly enough to justify piracy. On the other side of the spectrum, piracy begets piracy. The more you pirate, the more you sustain the image that it's OK to pirate, thus costing the industry more than your one sale. Your personal contribution to piracy losses may be tiny at first, but the constant cycle of reinforcement should theoretically produce exponential growth in losses.
Congratulations, you have just recognised the weakest point in the free market: that everything is optimised in terms of money. Sure, the "outdated business model" may not be able to make as much money as it used to (due to illegal means), but we encourage the business model because it is the best model we have to date that provides us with the culture that we as a society generally agreed that we want/need. Wisecracks about the quality of the culture are also bogus, since it completely fails to take into account individual taste. If the culture were truly bad, it wouldn't sell or be pirated.
The thing that annoys me about the free market argument is that you are unnecessarily taking the free market principle to such extremes that it becomes detrimental. The free market was never meant to override the law. Legitimate businesses were never meant to compete directly with illegal means. By invoking the free market into this conversation, you are offending all the people who seriously support the principle in economics.
Bank robbery is more costly per offence, but piracy is more wide-spread. Death by a thousand pricks, or however the saying goes. Piracy costs the entertainment industry a lot of money. It may not cost hundreds of billions of dollars, but it does cost them a lot. Piracy also has less of a stigma behind it than bank robbery. Not pursuing it now will only lead to the cementing of that lack of respect for copyrights into our culture, plus will continue to cost the owners of the IP, and will hurt the industries and their consumers both in the short term and the long term.
If someone came into your house and opened every water faucet for 23 hours of the day, then suddenly turned them off, and then had the audacity to tell you to conserve water by not drinking any, would you accept that?
Hell no! We may be destroying ourselves and our environment, but at least I told him good!
I believed the climate change advocates, prepared to make the the lifestyle sacrifices necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and preached my view to others, but all the while hoping irrationally that the whole thing was a big mistake. Thanks to you, I've now been disillusioned. I don't know whether to hug you or to strangle you.
Climate change poses a conflict of interest for geeks. On one hand we have convincing evidence in favour of some form of man-induced climate change, coupled with the common sense in the idea that spewing pollutants into the atmosphere will change something. On the other hand, a geek's primal instinct to stand out, to be better than his peers, to be the one advocating difference. Believing the climate change scientists seems a little too pedestrian for them.
Yeah, the kind where you get a vote, where many people are strong-willed, and don't like being ignored. The kind that is roughly equivalent with what was formerly known as "democracy".
No, there is a difference between making a physical object and a digital object available. A physical CD can only be distributed once, thus only one person still has it. It isn't the RIAA's business who actually has the CD, so long as only one person has it.
Mp3s OTOH are practically limitless resources. If you started distributing mp3s, you can give as many away as you want to as many people as you want. You facilitate the copying so *you* get charged with a crime.
Slashdot Mirror
The Internet: the public toilet big enough for us all!
No need to answer. It's all a joke anyway.
From another post:Well, like the stereotypical anti-copyright lobbyist, you blame broken democracy for copyright.
From the same post:You seem to be very eager to point out that there is a distinction that somehow rules out all comparison between content and products, like the stereotypical anti-copyright lobbyist.
I'm sorry if I've misrepresented you, but it seemed pretty clear to me that you were a typical anti-copyright lobbyist. You never once said anything along the lines of "I agree with you there", or "I'm not arguing that", so I assumed that my assumptions were correct.
... I still get a brand new laptop right?
I've never heard of "secret shopper", "mystery shopper", or whatever the concept is called. Could you please explain it?
I was kidding. Lighten up.
If everyone suddenly started stealing cars (cars simply being another product that has to compete with illegal means), does that mean we call their business model outdated? Can you think of any meaningful distinctions between copyrighted content and cars that break this comparison?Your "point" had nothing to do with anything, made no sense in the context context of this discussion, and had no substance (because you couldn't be bothered). What was I meant to do? Simply assume you were right and be done?You take my quote out of context. In the hypothetical situation where the government stops legally protecting car manufacturers/sellers from theft, that's when they start lobbying for their protection back. I'm not referring to Chrysler (or any other company for that matter) going bankrupt through purely legitimate means.Yeah, come to my dimension. You get a wider social view, You get to read some opinions that you don't necessarily agree with. You see what the other sides of the political spectrum look like. Only in Slashdot, and all the other like minded websites that share Slashdot's political leanings, do these laws look like the blatant rape of democracy. While, granted, they aren't the hallmarks of popular sentiment, they are supported by people, and not just those who have something immediately to lose. Even if they don't support the laws per se, they support the position that the copyright holders are taking, even if it is a little extreme for some. Basically, anti-copyright lobbyists and the RIAA/MPAA are on opposite ends of the spectrum playing tug of war with people's opinions. It's naive to assume that any one side is winning.Nice dodge, but until you actually can find me such an economic philosopher, one that you can support your opinions with, I have no choice but to assume you question my authority with no authority of your own.It's more the other way round. I identified society's ideas with my own. Naturally, I couldn't have done it perfectly, but I think I'm doing a damn sight better job than you. At least I'm not stooping to calling democracy broken when people don't agree with me.
What, are you following me around? Do I have to argue with you on two fronts here?
Anyway, in response to your comment, I'm sure that there are bands who manage without, but for a majority of investments (not just in bands), there is some overhead from risk insurance. Even distributing free recordings involves investing time and money, with the possibility that it will bring nothing.
How much work did you do for that $10 each that we owe you? What have you contributed to our lives/society?
Congratulations, you have just recognised the weakest point in the free market: that everything is optimised in terms of money. Sure, the "outdated business model" may not be able to make as much money as it used to (due to illegal means), but we encourage the business model because it is the best model we have to date that provides us with the culture that we as a society generally agreed that we want/need. Wisecracks about the quality of the culture are also bogus, since it completely fails to take into account individual taste. If the culture were truly bad, it wouldn't sell or be pirated.
The thing that annoys me about the free market argument is that you are unnecessarily taking the free market principle to such extremes that it becomes detrimental. The free market was never meant to override the law. Legitimate businesses were never meant to compete directly with illegal means. By invoking the free market into this conversation, you are offending all the people who seriously support the principle in economics.
Bank robbery is more costly per offence, but piracy is more wide-spread. Death by a thousand pricks, or however the saying goes. Piracy costs the entertainment industry a lot of money. It may not cost hundreds of billions of dollars, but it does cost them a lot. Piracy also has less of a stigma behind it than bank robbery. Not pursuing it now will only lead to the cementing of that lack of respect for copyrights into our culture, plus will continue to cost the owners of the IP, and will hurt the industries and their consumers both in the short term and the long term.
Yeah, but I'll wait. I don't want to buy a PC like this and find out that it requires serious hardware upgrades just to boot Windows Vienna
*big variation derives from the fact that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.
I believed the climate change advocates, prepared to make the the lifestyle sacrifices necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and preached my view to others, but all the while hoping irrationally that the whole thing was a big mistake. Thanks to you, I've now been disillusioned. I don't know whether to hug you or to strangle you.
Climate change poses a conflict of interest for geeks. On one hand we have convincing evidence in favour of some form of man-induced climate change, coupled with the common sense in the idea that spewing pollutants into the atmosphere will change something. On the other hand, a geek's primal instinct to stand out, to be better than his peers, to be the one advocating difference. Believing the climate change scientists seems a little too pedestrian for them.
Your post reminds me of the Einstein quote floating around Slashdot in someone's sig:
"I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious."
Yeah, what an unscientific fool. Everyone knows that academic qualification is the most important part of science.
No, there is a difference between making a physical object and a digital object available. A physical CD can only be distributed once, thus only one person still has it. It isn't the RIAA's business who actually has the CD, so long as only one person has it.
Mp3s OTOH are practically limitless resources. If you started distributing mp3s, you can give as many away as you want to as many people as you want. You facilitate the copying so *you* get charged with a crime.
Crime syndicates? Do you people actually listen to yourself anymore?