Personally, I like the pay me a gajillion bucks an hour to smile. At a gajillion bucks an hour, I will certainly do a lot of smiling. Who doesn't like to see people smiling? Oddly, the courts don't seem to feel obligated to support my business model.
Certainly not. There's no demand for people smiling, or at least, not for paying people to smile. That's the primary reason for there being no smiling business. There's no case of an in-demand product not being delivered, so government intervention would be pointless.
It is certainly not the court's duty to make sure that the workable business plans allow you to make money hand over fist, just that there exist a decently profitable business model. The movie industry, of course, prefers the massive profitability, but that's their problem.
...
But before we go too far down any of those paths, who says their current model DOESN'T work? They seem to have had yet another record profit in spite of all of their crying about losses. That sounds pretty workable to me. If they find it so horrifying, I'll trade with them.
These two issues are related, so I'll respond to them both here.
We already have copyright laws on the books, and we already have a system that is kind of working. That's not to say that the copyright laws couldn't be improved, just that government has already stepped in and intervened. Now, thanks to piracy being illegal, there are enough people actually paying for media to keep Big Media going. Indie artists have to work really hard, and Big Media has to focus more on the mainstream money-earners, but essentially, we're making do. It works, but we could be doing much better.
However, even though we are OK at the moment, we are actually not in a stable position. Piracy rates are extremely high. As more people gain speedy and high bandwidth internet access, this will only go up. It makes a good deal of sense to address the piracy issue now and to at least counter the effect of pirates indoctrinating other pirates, even if Big Media is currently doing OK.
You have to remember that piracy is still illegal. If every person had the opportunity to do what pirates are doing (and we like to think of ourselves as equal opportunity people), then every artist and publisher's days of selling copies of their work are over (the copies being the in-demand product here). The government is supposed to address the enforcement of the current laws, specifically if the law is being broken by too many people too frequently. It's the courts' job to uphold these laws as much as possible. Even if things are chugging along nicely at the moment, the government and the courts are supposed to be improving the rate of success of the laws.
Finally, there's the issue of fairness. It doesn't matter just how much Big Media is earning, only that their profits are appropriate to their demand, like in other industries without the piracy back door. Their profits, of course, are nothing to shake a stick at, but for their contribution to society, for the popularity of their work, for the number of people currently using and enjoying their work, those profits should be higher.
Every pirated copy of their work is a potential lost sale. Every copy reduces the chance of a sale being made to essentially 0. Each is a non-zero expected loss for the company, and a gain to a pirate who definitely is not entitled to it. As an analogy, if we all started stealing small amounts of money out of their bank account, would you consider that to be fair? Does the fact that a person or company is very rich morally allow stealing on a massive scale?
In the case of the movie industry, they have not even tried an alternate business model. We have no evidence that no alternative exists.
We do actually. The fact that nobody has managed a serious attempt at any other business models is evidence that nobody has found a superior business model. If
Why? Why is it the role of the courts to choose a business plan and to change the law to make it effective?
Like I said, that's not their job. Their job is to make sure the market is running effectively. A product that is in demand, but not being provided (for whatever reason) is a market running improperly. Propping up certain business models is incidental to their actual duty.
Don't think for a second that we're involved in an honest debate.
Right, because of all the brainwashing? You see, I don't mind the term "brainwashing" and "propaganda" being used as inflammatory synonyms for "convincing", but when you start deriving fallacious conclusions from this choice in terminology, then it starts to become, well, dishonest.
Similarly, the word "pirate", referring to copyright infringers, has been around for a long time. It carries negative connotations, but so long as people don't take this choice in terminology as an analogy with sea-faring pirates, then I can deal with it.
These publishers are as entitled to make fallacious arguments as you are, just as each of you are entitled to debunk the other. Such is the nature of a debate.
They're trying to convince us all that they are, as industries, entitled to exist, and entitled to a governmental guarantee of profitability.
I think you are putting words in their mouth here. From what I've heard, they've been campaigning for safeguards to their existence, but they haven't, in general, publicly discussed any reason for their safeguarding. Perhaps they are not so much trying to convince us they are entitled to these safeguards, but actually just asking for them anyway?
I would imagine that, if cornered in court, they would justify their existence by pointing out exactly how much demand there is for their products, and how little demand is reflected through sales, despite their best efforts in marketing. In a capitalist society, demand for your particular product, and a reasonable attempt to capitalise on that demand, entitles you to existence. That doesn't mean everybody gets it, but when there is demand, and no amount of finesse in business will capitalise on that demand, you have a hole in your market system. There is a product in demand, that can be created, but that can't be delivered. It would be unreasonable not to consider governmental measures to improve profitability.
Of course, this doesn't apply here. FOSS doesn't at all widen the discrepancy between demand and marketability of other products. It competes with them on level terms, and contributes to the supply of in demand products, rather than hinders it.
By their nature - a focus on increasing profits at all costs - the corporation is inherently amoral.
I disagree. I think that an intention to increase profits is not amoral, and is the one central focus of being a corporation (at least, a corporation run for the financial benefit of shareholders). It's only in the screwing over of people in order to increase profits that their actions become immoral.
I would even say that it is possible to run a corporation in such a way that profit growth is acceptably high, but which is not amoral. Basically, you give your customers what they want, and they are happy to pay reasonable prices, stay loyal, and generate goodwill. This relies, of course, on the corporation staying perpetually out of financial trouble, because that's when a profit-driven company starts trading in on their goodwill. I guess such a state is temporary at best, but it isn't impossible to accomplish for a long period of time.
Currently a corporation has *more* rights than a private individual
Really? Name one thing that a corporation can do that a private individual cannot. In fact, I can even name a right that is exclusive to private individuals: marriage, or at least, civil unions.
So, people who create and release FOSS are, on the whole, stubborn and strong-willed, and that can rub off on people who are less stubborn and strong willed?
Why didn't you just say so? I suppose a "truth" isn't worth expressing unless it's uncomfortable, right?
Well, I don't know about you, but when I hear one person call another person a "motherfucker", I don't usually think that one person is accusing another of incest. Whereas, if I hear one person call another person a liar, I usually think they mean it literally, not just as generic insult for someone who pisses you off.
"Civil disobedience" over piracy - doing it in the open and accepting the punishment - is closer to martyrdom than civil disobedience.
Well, pirates really only have themselves to blame for that. They've dug themselves into a hole, and the only reasonable way out is to just stop pirating. That doesn't exclude their right to preach their views to others, just that they need to find other ways to get attention, other than being sued.
I'm sorry, what laws did Watergate change again? I wasn't talking about due process, I was talking about a law changed by people ceasing to break it. You provided an utterly off-topic attempt at an example.
It's not off-topic, it's an analogy. Standing in defiance of convention gets attention, but without some civility, it's mostly bad attention.
If you want examples of laws being changed, look at one of your examples. Like I pointed out, most blacks didn't decide to to break the laws (all the better for them and their cause). The civil disobedience was the exception, not the rule.
Not as an argument of right or wrong, but as a practical reality this is fastest road to show that the law is broken and can not be mended.
So the problem is the people who don't think the law is just. Is it not possible that the law can be "mended" by educating these people?
My experience of the general public is that most have an extremely rudimentary knowledge of copyright law, they don't understand why it's there (beyond artists needing money), or the actual consequences of their breaking it. Mostly they can get away with blaming scapegoats, conveniently abdicating them of all responsibility. The most common of which seems to be "The **AA made me do it!"
If they still want the law changed, knowing the consequences of their actions, then I'll learn to deal with it. As it stands now, people have a lot to learn before I let this go. So many people seem to think that, somehow, artists will be more inspired to work without any guarantee of pay, or that somehow the **AA is stealing culture, when they are the ones producing it. There's so much bullshit, so many arguments based purely on emotion, so many built on blind rage and irrational intentions of revenge.
There's a substantial difference between "I think this is wrong and the law should change for everyone" and "I'd just like to get away with what I do".
There is a difference, and I like to think that the line between them is not screaming in anonymity on online forums. To me, that is cowardly disobedience. Piracy harms our cultural output, raises the price to access our own culture, and stimulates increasingly draconian legislation (pertaining to entertainment) to be passed. I would like to know that whomever is fighting for piracy at least has the courage and conviction to stand up to the rest of us and the authorities, announce that they are a pirate, and let us deal with him as we see fit.
First of all, flamebait? What the hell? There wasn't an inflammatory word in my post! I'm starting to get the impression that I'm being censored for my opinions, not their presentation. Methinks there are some people out there who don't want to have to think about opposing viewpoints for themselves, or even for others to do the same.
Secondly, I would say that the fact that only a handful of people decided to break the race barrier did untold wonders for the black rights movement. If everyone started speaking up at the same time, all that would have happened would be a greater divide between the whites and the blacks, and an even stronger stereotype that whites were superior, especially since they would seem to be more able to abide by civilised laws than their black counterparts.
And yes, with drugs, these harsher measures to prevent drug enforcement would ultimately stop if most people stopped using. Eventually, funds would drain and the political spotlight would move on.
I would also say that abolishment of prohibition was, by and large, helped by not so much by the prevalence of drinking, but the prevalence of the will to drink, which could be communicated without drinking itself.
You want a specific example where playing by the rules gets us where we want to be? Nixon. Thanks to some fine reporting, Woodward and Bernstein took him down. Of course, they couldn't come in all guns blazing, hurling accusations, because that hardens the readers and makes Nixon look like a victim. They first had to carefully create a case, and show that they weren't unfairly targeting him. When the platform was ready, when the readers were on their side, that's when they struck.
Copyright is best shown to be broken by total and complete disregard for its existence
Why? Why does a subset of the people choosing not to obey a law make it broken? Can they not be, well, just plain wrong?
Suppose that a very large group of companies, and their employees, decided that it was OK to collect and share customers' information, including in-home surveillance. Would that make the privacy laws broken, and thus in some serious need of change in the companies' favour? Or would it just mean some companies, and their employees, are in need of some heavy suing?
eventually the law is updated to reflect reality
Don't you see? That's exactly what's happening! Piracy is currently a reality, and the laws are being adjusted to suit said reality. Just because you think they should be adjusted another way won't make it so!
I can tell you that if this goes through and three-strike disconnects become mandatory in Europe, then there will be a political upheaval as the disconnect becomes too great and people rebel.
Maybe they actually might take a hint, and, y'know, stop pirating. If, of course, it ends up with many people who weren't pirating being disconnected, then that's another story, and another problem.
Seriously, all this civil disobedience stuff. What's the point in having a law, when any person can break any law they feel like, any time they feel like, and shout "civil disobedience!"? I believe the correct and honourable way to conduct civil disobedience used to be to break the law in full sight of the authorities (not hiding behind anonymity) and bear the consequences.
Now, any old person can rip these companies off, while blaming them, and claiming themselves something akin to martyrs for some higher calling. It makes me sick to my stomach. It would seem that Rosa Parks had more balls than all the modern day pirates put together.
However, while the first case is undeniably a case of the prosecutor using an unrelated and common crime to punish the person, not the crime, the second sounds like a garden-variety case of overzealous enforcement of existing laws; an effort to (overzealously) punish the crime, but not the person.
Still, my condolences for both your relatives who got screwed over in the name of politics. Just because your doctor relative wasn't targeted personally doesn't make what they did right.
A good start would be to stop any pirating you may (or may not) be engaging in. Also, encourage your friends, neighbours, and relatives to do the same (be understanding, otherwise they'll feel attacked, and won't listen). Carefully explain that the best way to end this war, or at least people on our side, is to first take the moral high ground over these corporations (it may take a while). This way, we send the ball into their court. Will they continue to push for these ridiculous laws? If they don't back down gracefully, then suddenly it becomes all to apparent that their agenda was not preventing copyright infringement.
We are going to get this treaty, and the associated laws. The question is, can we prevent the next round of laws? And can we (eventually) redact some of the ones currently in play?
The fact is it doesn't matter if you have done anything wrong. The current state is that the government can prosecute just about anybody on vague laws and make it extremely difficult to fight (try hiring a lawyer will all your assets frozen).
But do they? Have they actually managed to prosecute anyone for their 3-a-day felonies? Have they managed to actually freeze anyone's assets over these felonies? You can't just freeze assets over any crime.
In some way, yes. If you actually like what the *AA produces, then strengthening copyrights can, in theory, bring prices down (or at least, keep them down when they should be inflating), and allow them to invest more, particularly in riskier ventures.
If you don't like what the *AA produces, well, I wouldn't think you'd be too pissed off about having to wait 100 years before getting to freely distribute their crap.
That aside, I have no doubt that the ACTA will be, on the whole, bad for consumers. Essentially, this is shit-fight between leeches and the corporations they feed off. Consumers will ultimately be the casualties here.
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly not. There's no demand for people smiling, or at least, not for paying people to smile. That's the primary reason for there being no smiling business. There's no case of an in-demand product not being delivered, so government intervention would be pointless.
These two issues are related, so I'll respond to them both here.
We already have copyright laws on the books, and we already have a system that is kind of working. That's not to say that the copyright laws couldn't be improved, just that government has already stepped in and intervened. Now, thanks to piracy being illegal, there are enough people actually paying for media to keep Big Media going. Indie artists have to work really hard, and Big Media has to focus more on the mainstream money-earners, but essentially, we're making do. It works, but we could be doing much better.
However, even though we are OK at the moment, we are actually not in a stable position. Piracy rates are extremely high. As more people gain speedy and high bandwidth internet access, this will only go up. It makes a good deal of sense to address the piracy issue now and to at least counter the effect of pirates indoctrinating other pirates, even if Big Media is currently doing OK.
You have to remember that piracy is still illegal. If every person had the opportunity to do what pirates are doing (and we like to think of ourselves as equal opportunity people), then every artist and publisher's days of selling copies of their work are over (the copies being the in-demand product here). The government is supposed to address the enforcement of the current laws, specifically if the law is being broken by too many people too frequently. It's the courts' job to uphold these laws as much as possible. Even if things are chugging along nicely at the moment, the government and the courts are supposed to be improving the rate of success of the laws.
Finally, there's the issue of fairness. It doesn't matter just how much Big Media is earning, only that their profits are appropriate to their demand, like in other industries without the piracy back door. Their profits, of course, are nothing to shake a stick at, but for their contribution to society, for the popularity of their work, for the number of people currently using and enjoying their work, those profits should be higher.
Every pirated copy of their work is a potential lost sale. Every copy reduces the chance of a sale being made to essentially 0. Each is a non-zero expected loss for the company, and a gain to a pirate who definitely is not entitled to it. As an analogy, if we all started stealing small amounts of money out of their bank account, would you consider that to be fair? Does the fact that a person or company is very rich morally allow stealing on a massive scale?
We do actually. The fact that nobody has managed a serious attempt at any other business models is evidence that nobody has found a superior business model. If
Of course. I was more referring to the legislative branch, and the courts having to uphold the copyright laws on the books.
Thank you for tripping me up on some simple wording, and ignoring my point.
Like I said, that's not their job. Their job is to make sure the market is running effectively. A product that is in demand, but not being provided (for whatever reason) is a market running improperly. Propping up certain business models is incidental to their actual duty.
Absolutely not. They should change the law so that at least one business plan works for an in demand product.
Exactly how many steam games have OSX versions? Does anyone actually game with Macs?
Right, because of all the brainwashing? You see, I don't mind the term "brainwashing" and "propaganda" being used as inflammatory synonyms for "convincing", but when you start deriving fallacious conclusions from this choice in terminology, then it starts to become, well, dishonest.
Similarly, the word "pirate", referring to copyright infringers, has been around for a long time. It carries negative connotations, but so long as people don't take this choice in terminology as an analogy with sea-faring pirates, then I can deal with it.
These publishers are as entitled to make fallacious arguments as you are, just as each of you are entitled to debunk the other. Such is the nature of a debate.
I think you are putting words in their mouth here. From what I've heard, they've been campaigning for safeguards to their existence, but they haven't, in general, publicly discussed any reason for their safeguarding. Perhaps they are not so much trying to convince us they are entitled to these safeguards, but actually just asking for them anyway?
I would imagine that, if cornered in court, they would justify their existence by pointing out exactly how much demand there is for their products, and how little demand is reflected through sales, despite their best efforts in marketing. In a capitalist society, demand for your particular product, and a reasonable attempt to capitalise on that demand, entitles you to existence. That doesn't mean everybody gets it, but when there is demand, and no amount of finesse in business will capitalise on that demand, you have a hole in your market system. There is a product in demand, that can be created, but that can't be delivered. It would be unreasonable not to consider governmental measures to improve profitability.
Of course, this doesn't apply here. FOSS doesn't at all widen the discrepancy between demand and marketability of other products. It competes with them on level terms, and contributes to the supply of in demand products, rather than hinders it.
I disagree. I think that an intention to increase profits is not amoral, and is the one central focus of being a corporation (at least, a corporation run for the financial benefit of shareholders). It's only in the screwing over of people in order to increase profits that their actions become immoral.
I would even say that it is possible to run a corporation in such a way that profit growth is acceptably high, but which is not amoral. Basically, you give your customers what they want, and they are happy to pay reasonable prices, stay loyal, and generate goodwill. This relies, of course, on the corporation staying perpetually out of financial trouble, because that's when a profit-driven company starts trading in on their goodwill. I guess such a state is temporary at best, but it isn't impossible to accomplish for a long period of time.
Really? Name one thing that a corporation can do that a private individual cannot. In fact, I can even name a right that is exclusive to private individuals: marriage, or at least, civil unions.
So, people who create and release FOSS are, on the whole, stubborn and strong-willed, and that can rub off on people who are less stubborn and strong willed?
Why didn't you just say so? I suppose a "truth" isn't worth expressing unless it's uncomfortable, right?
Gross.
Well, I don't know about you, but when I hear one person call another person a "motherfucker", I don't usually think that one person is accusing another of incest. Whereas, if I hear one person call another person a liar, I usually think they mean it literally, not just as generic insult for someone who pisses you off.
Well, pirates really only have themselves to blame for that. They've dug themselves into a hole, and the only reasonable way out is to just stop pirating. That doesn't exclude their right to preach their views to others, just that they need to find other ways to get attention, other than being sued.
It's not off-topic, it's an analogy. Standing in defiance of convention gets attention, but without some civility, it's mostly bad attention.
If you want examples of laws being changed, look at one of your examples. Like I pointed out, most blacks didn't decide to to break the laws (all the better for them and their cause). The civil disobedience was the exception, not the rule.
So the problem is the people who don't think the law is just. Is it not possible that the law can be "mended" by educating these people?
My experience of the general public is that most have an extremely rudimentary knowledge of copyright law, they don't understand why it's there (beyond artists needing money), or the actual consequences of their breaking it. Mostly they can get away with blaming scapegoats, conveniently abdicating them of all responsibility. The most common of which seems to be "The **AA made me do it!"
If they still want the law changed, knowing the consequences of their actions, then I'll learn to deal with it. As it stands now, people have a lot to learn before I let this go. So many people seem to think that, somehow, artists will be more inspired to work without any guarantee of pay, or that somehow the **AA is stealing culture, when they are the ones producing it. There's so much bullshit, so many arguments based purely on emotion, so many built on blind rage and irrational intentions of revenge.
There is a difference, and I like to think that the line between them is not screaming in anonymity on online forums. To me, that is cowardly disobedience. Piracy harms our cultural output, raises the price to access our own culture, and stimulates increasingly draconian legislation (pertaining to entertainment) to be passed. I would like to know that whomever is fighting for piracy at least has the courage and conviction to stand up to the rest of us and the authorities, announce that they are a pirate, and let us deal with him as we see fit.
[citation needed]
Perhaps you can give me an example of a politician who was voted out of power, but who managed to make a living raiding the public?
Well, actually, there may well be a politician turned criminal out there, but criminality is certainly not unique to politicians.
First of all, flamebait? What the hell? There wasn't an inflammatory word in my post! I'm starting to get the impression that I'm being censored for my opinions, not their presentation. Methinks there are some people out there who don't want to have to think about opposing viewpoints for themselves, or even for others to do the same.
Secondly, I would say that the fact that only a handful of people decided to break the race barrier did untold wonders for the black rights movement. If everyone started speaking up at the same time, all that would have happened would be a greater divide between the whites and the blacks, and an even stronger stereotype that whites were superior, especially since they would seem to be more able to abide by civilised laws than their black counterparts.
And yes, with drugs, these harsher measures to prevent drug enforcement would ultimately stop if most people stopped using. Eventually, funds would drain and the political spotlight would move on.
I would also say that abolishment of prohibition was, by and large, helped by not so much by the prevalence of drinking, but the prevalence of the will to drink, which could be communicated without drinking itself.
You want a specific example where playing by the rules gets us where we want to be? Nixon. Thanks to some fine reporting, Woodward and Bernstein took him down. Of course, they couldn't come in all guns blazing, hurling accusations, because that hardens the readers and makes Nixon look like a victim. They first had to carefully create a case, and show that they weren't unfairly targeting him. When the platform was ready, when the readers were on their side, that's when they struck.
Why? Why does a subset of the people choosing not to obey a law make it broken? Can they not be, well, just plain wrong?
Suppose that a very large group of companies, and their employees, decided that it was OK to collect and share customers' information, including in-home surveillance. Would that make the privacy laws broken, and thus in some serious need of change in the companies' favour? Or would it just mean some companies, and their employees, are in need of some heavy suing?
Don't you see? That's exactly what's happening! Piracy is currently a reality, and the laws are being adjusted to suit said reality. Just because you think they should be adjusted another way won't make it so!
Maybe they actually might take a hint, and, y'know, stop pirating. If, of course, it ends up with many people who weren't pirating being disconnected, then that's another story, and another problem.
Seriously, all this civil disobedience stuff. What's the point in having a law, when any person can break any law they feel like, any time they feel like, and shout "civil disobedience!"? I believe the correct and honourable way to conduct civil disobedience used to be to break the law in full sight of the authorities (not hiding behind anonymity) and bear the consequences.
Now, any old person can rip these companies off, while blaming them, and claiming themselves something akin to martyrs for some higher calling. It makes me sick to my stomach. It would seem that Rosa Parks had more balls than all the modern day pirates put together.
Who would maintain the physical wires between the nodes?
Okay, so you have good reason to be cynical.
However, while the first case is undeniably a case of the prosecutor using an unrelated and common crime to punish the person, not the crime, the second sounds like a garden-variety case of overzealous enforcement of existing laws; an effort to (overzealously) punish the crime, but not the person.
Still, my condolences for both your relatives who got screwed over in the name of politics. Just because your doctor relative wasn't targeted personally doesn't make what they did right.
Oh yeah. Probably.
*sheepish grin*
I'll just shuffle off now...
A good start would be to stop any pirating you may (or may not) be engaging in. Also, encourage your friends, neighbours, and relatives to do the same (be understanding, otherwise they'll feel attacked, and won't listen). Carefully explain that the best way to end this war, or at least people on our side, is to first take the moral high ground over these corporations (it may take a while). This way, we send the ball into their court. Will they continue to push for these ridiculous laws? If they don't back down gracefully, then suddenly it becomes all to apparent that their agenda was not preventing copyright infringement.
We are going to get this treaty, and the associated laws. The question is, can we prevent the next round of laws? And can we (eventually) redact some of the ones currently in play?
But do they? Have they actually managed to prosecute anyone for their 3-a-day felonies? Have they managed to actually freeze anyone's assets over these felonies? You can't just freeze assets over any crime.
Sony is probably going to bomb the safe harbour at some point.
Perhaps the secrecy is, ultimately, a sign that the government is scared.
And why not? We have to stamp their next round of paychecks.
Either you are a person of acceptable intelligence, or you make false dichotomies.
In which category are you?
(I like your sig BTW)
In some way, yes. If you actually like what the *AA produces, then strengthening copyrights can, in theory, bring prices down (or at least, keep them down when they should be inflating), and allow them to invest more, particularly in riskier ventures.
If you don't like what the *AA produces, well, I wouldn't think you'd be too pissed off about having to wait 100 years before getting to freely distribute their crap.
That aside, I have no doubt that the ACTA will be, on the whole, bad for consumers. Essentially, this is shit-fight between leeches and the corporations they feed off. Consumers will ultimately be the casualties here.
Our interests != What we want. I think you were referring to the latter.
Hahahaha! Bwahahahaha! Scabs with gold-plated toilets? Classic.
Yep, I'm sure that's why they work a low-paying job during a strike: because they don't have to.