The Article On The E-PARASITE Act That You Need To Read
from the hollywood's-attempt-to-turn-back-time dept
Not surprisingly, I've been reading up a lot on E-PARASITE/SOPA, and Larry Downes' recent analysis at CNET is, hands down, the most thorough and complete article I've seen highlighting the massive problems of the bill. Here's just a taste:Stripped of their obfuscations, SOPA and Protect IP suggest increasing desperation by media companies. A bill that was to target only the "worst of the worst" foreign Web sites committing blatant and systemic copyright and trademark infringement has morphed inexplicably into an unrestricted hunting license for media companies to harass anyone--foreign or domestic--who questions their timetable for digital transformation.The article is relatively long, but is still worth reading in its entirety, clearly quoting problematic sections of the law, and highlighting where and how it will likely be abused. I'd love for the small group of E-PARASITE defenders in our comments, such as the guy who claims to have worked on the bill and who still (incorrectly) thinks that it only applies to "foreign" sites, to see if they can actually defend against what Downes wrote (without resorting to insults), and actually respond to our concerns directly. Because, so far, every time we've raised key issues, we've been lied to and insulted, rather than having anyone address these issues. It's really quite amazing.
Nothing can change the fact that Hollywood's way of life is transforming once again. The only unknown is time--will a profitable future for digital content arrive in a few years or will it take another decade? SOPA only seeks to delay the inevitable, at the cost of wasteful litigation and overzealous law enforcement.
In the meantime, one other point that Downes raises, which is absolutely true, is that this bill shows the downside to Silicon Valley's general position of ignoring what's going on in DC. That has to change, and if one "good" thing comes out of this bill, perhaps it's that it's so insanely bad that it'll jolt people awake in Silicon Valley, and get them to recognize that they need to speak up.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: e-parasite, hollywood, larry downes, piracy, regulations, sopa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Google
Realistically, they could just list all the current "rogue sites" as a backdrop to the main search page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2011/111102boogeyman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google
And by "the government" you mean IIPA, a lobbying group made up of other lobbying groups including the MPAA, RIAA, BSA, ESA, NMPA and others.
So, um, no. Also, that report has been debunked many times over. All it says is "the industries that we arbitrarily declare as "copyright industries" make a bunch of money." It makes no attempt to show that any of that revenue is *because of copyright*. Hell, there may be evidence that those industries could do better with weaker copyright. But that report doesn't explore that at all. It just adds up a bunch of industry revenue and makes no statement on the actual value of *copyright law* to those industries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/piracy-problems-us-copyright-industries-show-ter rific-health.ars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google
I wouldn't put too fine a point on this.
I can tell you first-hand that if they are talking about the music industry, they are full of B.S. I worked at Tower Records, and not a single person who worked on the floor (managers included) got more than $8/hour.
Certainly, the musicians themselves don't make more than the "average compensation paid to U.S. workers." At least not from the income they're paid by the record labels. If you're a musician on a major label, you're likely not getting paid more than the equivalent of working at 7-11 (if you're getting paid at all).
Those numbers are probably inflated due to the movie industry - which employs far more people than the music industry. Those wages are only higher because most of the crew is union labor, and union labor generally gets paid more.
It's frustrating, because it gives the impression that those that work in the music or movie industries are "fat cats." That's certainly true of the senior executives, but not anyone else. And I don't want to fuel the idea that artists are overpaid - they're not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I will agree that that part of his article troubled me. And was a bit of a surprise. But his coverage of the problems of the bill seem right on to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Me, too.
I like this one better:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31322_3-20126756-256/u.s-government-also-a-villain-in-piracy-act- story/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If parasitic foreign Web sites are truly costing the U.S. economy significant losses (a claim made regularly by content industries but without credible data to back it up), then the best use of government resources is not to surgically remove hyperlinks and DNS table entries. Rather, we should step up the pressure on foreign governments to enforce their own laws and international treaties extending U.S. protections abroad."
While I agree that this is a strategy, there are any number of foreign governments who could care less and/or cannot enforce its own laws or treaties. Rogue sites simple register in these countries. Total non-starter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Total non-starter." Why? If the bad actors all end up in a few limited areas, it won't help their credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The internet is the history of "whack a mole", as bad actors move their websites around the globe, hiding them in whatever jurisdiction doesn't prosecute or is slow to act. Yet they are still available everywhere, because of the magic of the internet.
What is the US suppose to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They can't do anything. Every law passed to censor the internet, will be overcome by technology and programming. DOJ confiscating URL's, and BT blocking Newzbin2, both being overcome are perfect examples of how simple these laws will be to circumvent. Thinking that a law will prevent tools from being built, to route around obstructions online, is sheer unadulterated stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
My personal current opinion is: nothing beyond working with the nations they are having a problem with.
But I can tell you definitively what the US should not do: engage in action which will cause more harm to the US than the problem it purportedly is trying to solve. E-PARASITE certainly would cause this level of harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My personal current opinion is: nothing
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Search engines (a term broadly defined that includes any website with a "search" field), along with payment processors and advertising networks, can also be forced to cut ties with the parasites. Operators of innocent sites have limited ability to challenge the Justice Department's decision before or after action is taken."
Perhaps search engines need to be more narrowly defined, I don't have the bill in front of me. However, I do believe that a notice is filed, a website can simply file a counter-notice and have the whole matter bounced to a court. That seems like ample opportunity to challenge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But the DOJ must use due diligence to serve notice before taking action. Why wouldn't an innocent website simply accept service and make its case in court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please explain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That should get you started.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I mean, the court could assign them someone, but really, that person will probably not be very interested in the matter and may not provide a very good defense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is a good point, and it's an often overlooked portion of both bills.
Any advertiser, search engine, payment processor, etc. can blacklist your site based only on a "reasonable belief" that you, for example, "promote" IP infringement.
You have absolutely no recourse if they're wrong. No counter-notifications, nothing.
Now, admittedly, they can do this right now - any business can refuse service to you. But under this bill, you can't even take them to court over it, because the sites are completely immune from any liability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly. The bill says there must be a "reasonable belief," but doesn't say that anyone has to actually show what that belief is based upon.
It doesn't even have to be prompted by nefarious DOJ agents or overzealous RIAA twerps. They are actually encouraged to block sites without a rights holder ever contacting them at all. Essentially, this is a legal pass for censorship and anti-competitive behavior.
For example, PayPal could declare anyone that uses CCNow on their site could be a "rogue site," and refuse service to the site, or any of its affiliates. No appeal, no need to show cause, and they are immune from any legal liability.
Or, Bing could block any links to open source software sites. After all, open source software is piracy, according to the IIPA. The fact that Microsoft has been trying to destroy FOSS software for years, is just a "coincidence."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The people who employ Winona Rider should also be liable for what she does if she ever tries to steal things from stores again.
Until all their issues are resolved Mel Gibson should not be allowed to have a bank account the studio should be criminals responsible for his actions and all means of financing the guy should be stopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nope. The Justice Department notifies you at the same time as it destroys your site. You are not given any chance to respond before it happens.
And you cannot "file a counter-notice" to any of the advertisers, search engines, or what have you. You can only file a motion with the court.
Until the court replies - a process that can take months - your site is still blocked. And the court, of course, is under no obligation to release the block.
You might be thinking of the "global DMCA" part of the bill - a section which, I might add, the Justice Department is not obligated to follow (under the bill). You are allowed to provide a "counter-notice" in that case. And once you do, the rights holders can simply sue you.
At which point, they have the same options as the Justice Department. That is: they bring suit, send letters to advertisers and search engines, and your website is again blocked until the court determines it's OK for your site to be un-blocked. Which, again, may take many months, if it happens at all.
If your site is found not to be a "rogue site" at all, then you have no recourse, other than to have your site un-blocked. You cannot sue the rights holders, or the government, for false claims, lost business, legal fees, etc.
So there is absolutely nothing preventing the rights holders from doing the same thing all over again.
It is a horrible, horrible bill, and it's transparently written to target not "rogue sites," but sites like YouTube. Something a few of the bill's supporters have unintentionally (but obviously) revealed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Really Mr. Central Control? Who is going to do the "defining"?
You? Govt Forces?
Just like "Reporter" has morphed into something for the better, your heavy handed, centrally "defining” is the very problem. This post is trying to make that point with the crappy bill that is being proposed to “define” things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How exactly? Why hasn't Wikileaks successfully engineered around the cutoff of payment processors. They claim contributions are off 95%. What about ad networks? Maybe there's a way to circumvent DNS blocks but that's only part of the puzzle. And why wouldn't an innocent site simply file a counter-notice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Small note. There is no money to be made in piracy. Therefore there are no actual criminal enterprises in this pursuit of people wanting content in their area.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Small note. There is no money to be made in piracy. Therefore there are no actual criminal enterprises in this pursuit of people wanting content in their area.
Didn't Ninjavideo's principals have to forfeit much of the half million or so that they made over a couple of years? That's money, at least to me. I think you're about 100% wrong with that assertion. Didn''t the Napster guy have to pay a judgment in the hundreds of millions? Where did that cash come from the Powerball?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Napster had cash because it had raised a bunch of money from Hummer Winblad, not from revenue. That was back in the days when people actually trusted what copyright law *said*, and before the courts totally made up this concept of "inducement."
It wasn't from revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you saying that Napster did not make any money from piracy Mike? Or simply that the money paid in settlement was from Winblad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Napster never turned a profit(it didn't had the chance) and had no money on their own to pay anything, it was given to them by others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Judge William Adams beats daughter for using the internet
The defenseless that is who will have to bare the burden so you can have your life + 95 years granted monopoly.
At the cost of due process and free speech, not to mention the violence against others.
If anything copyright should and so you people truly start working for a living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and adding to that, it should end because its time have passed, a new revolution is approaching and that revolution is the "individual industrial age", where everyone will be able to produce anything they want at their homes.
What happens when money is no object anymore?
Where do the power go?
What happens when everybody is capable of producing the things they need for survival inside their own homes(i.e. food, clothes, medicine)?
IP laws are in the way of that revolution and they need to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No money in piracy, hahahahahahahahaha, what a lie.
Money is the only reason piracy exists
demonstrated on both ends of the chain via the suppliers, who make money via ad revenue and subscription revenue, and by the freeloading downloaders that are too greedy to pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says you. It must be true then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Busy pirate sites can't stay up out of someone's pocket for very long. There are few people willing to shell out hundreds or even thousands of dollars a month to keep a site active, keep the software in good shape, and deal with any issues. Short term, maybe. Long term, never.
There is plenty of money in it. Do you think the ads on TPB are run for free? Nope. Tons and tons of money (50k a month for site wide placement back in the day was a number I heard from someone I know who was buying ads there). TPB was likely taking in well over a million a year, not sure about now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they bring in $50k in ads amonth, and spend $50k of hosting, servers, network hardware etc, they have /made/ zero money. No profit.
You understand revenue and profits are not the same, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One has to wonder why the government wants to crack down on something like that because they trully could use the taxes, still picking one or two cases where there was no profits or they were very small doesn't make your contentions look true at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tell that to the mother that spent the night in jail for filming her daughter's birthday inside a movie theather, tell that to all the people wrongly accused of piracy that were targets and are still targets of extortion schemes, tell that to Thomas-Rasset who I believe has not profit from her criminal activities did she get $500 K? Taneubaum got any money?
Who did the labels target in their ill faithed legal campaign?
People, they target people sharing things and labeled them criminals and this is what you crazy people want to do now, create liability so you can threaten normal people to make them comply with your silly rules, this will not only be used against Ninja video types it will be used against people who never made money out of anything.
Want to see how ridiculous that sounds, lets put you people in the spot and make labels and studios liable for their musicians and actors, so any artist that is accused of anything should have all their finances frozen, their assets seized how do that sound?
Would royalties for Winona Rider a convicted felon be suspended? Will movies directed by Mel Gibson been seized and taken out from the market? after all we don't want crime do we now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Limewire - The guy HAD a hedgefund before he started Limewire. Get your story straight.
When I say a criminal enterprise, I'm thinking more mafia or gang related ties. They don't have profit margins because DVD players and CDs/DVDs are common goods.
In other words, the "criminal element" has moved on to drugs or guns as a way to make money through illicit goods. But piracy, for the most part, doesn't have those types trying to break down your door for downloading ET.
Anyone can go to TPB, find a movie and download it before watching in theaters. But somehow the profits continue to eclipse the US economy. Fancy that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
big media is competing against *free*. Why spend money on a service you can get for free?
Yes, piracy-based sites have made some money off of advertising, but that money has to be justified by driving business to their backers.
The simple point is, RIAA and their associates lead us to believe there's a large scale criminal conspiracy funneling profits into their pockets, but really it's the case that all their neighbors are sharing their files instead of buying a $20 DVD.
Sure, it's a problem, but the IP defenders are really misdirecting the argument.
Besides, for however much the RIAA claims they're "defending artists", they themselves make their money by squeezing the lion's share of the profits from sales to themselves. Most artists get treated like sharecroppers for their own material and have to sign over many of their rights to their own creations.
I wonder how much of the funds derived by RIAA lawsuits have ended up back in the pockets of the artists? Really, would you be surprised?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Napster case, I believe the money came from investors not from Napster itself since it was never profitable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Small note. There is no money to be made in piracy. Therefore there are no actual criminal enterprises in this pursuit of people wanting content in their area.
Seems like you are suffering from Downes Syndrome Jay. I wonder what Phara's cut was if this douche made 50 grand?
From the National IPR CEnter: "WASHINGTON — A co-founder of NinjaVideo.net, a website that provided millions of users with the ability to illegally download infringing copies of copyright-protected movies and television programs in high-quality formats, pleaded guilty today to conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. This investigation is being conducted by the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center).
Justin A. Dedemko, 28, of Brooklyn, N.Y., pleaded guilty today before U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga in the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia. Dedemko's fellow co-founders Matthew David Howard Smith and Hana Amal Beshara pleaded guilty on Sept. 23, 2011, and Sept. 29, 2011, respectively, to conspiracy and criminal copyright infringement.
The guilty plea was announced by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton, Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department's Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride, Eastern District of Virginia.
According to the statement of facts, during the early part of the conspiracy, Dedemko was responsible for locating infringing content on the Internet and uploading the infringing content to servers used by the NinjaVideo.net website, some of which were located in the Eastern District of Virginia. Later in the conspiracy, Dedemko focused on marketing, which included conversations with companies interested in placing advertisements on the NinjaVideo.net website.
According to the statement of facts, NinjaVideo generated a total of $505,000 in income from Internet advertising and visitor donations during the course of the conspiracy. Dedemko admitted that he personally received $58,004 of these funds, and agreed to pay restitution in that amount.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't think you have any idea what it would take to establish an alternative payment processor that would be dedicated to processing unlawful transactions and also be able to win the trust of a skeptical public worldwide. I can easy see its assets being frozen by banks as they're sued in countries around the world for processing illegal transactions. And what advertisers other than gambling porn and other lowlife spammer types would want to associate with networks dedicated to propping up illegal sites? That's not the sort of advertiser the rogue websites themselves would really want. Sorry, I just don't see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's true. But once a rogue payment processor does that, it opens itself up to claims of money laundering, fraud, accessory to infringing and counterfeiting and a whole bunch of things that are illegal under the laws of other countries and international law. The usual suspects like China or Russia wouldn't see the value in protecting a company like this. Small potatoes in the global scheme. And a small belligerent state would almost be begging for US and/or UN economic sanctions. Again, I don't see a country out there who'd find it in its geopolitical self-interest to harbor such a company. I could be wrong, and would love to hear your suggestion of how a company like this launches, is protected by a government while winning the trust of consumers worldwide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is that how people in the US evade taxes and responsibilities isn't it?
I doubt you can find who pays who inside the industry and if they can do it, anybody can, just look at the Pirate Bay didn't they did the same thing to you people and made you fools?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seems like they might be happy to setup a payment processing system that would allow 'grey market' transactions....
Think it started with an A ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wikileaks is hardly renown for playing by the rules. I'm pretty confident that if there was a viable way around the payment processor strangulation, they'd happily have jumped on it. There just is no viable player with the market penetration and worldwide reputation and dominance of US-based payment processors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Russians, Chinese, Brazilians, Europeans all want a piece of that money, if the US don't they should start stopping the money laundry for the drug cartels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is an incorrect premise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You give these shills too much credit, Mike. Noone is taking them serious, not even people who don't read this site on a regular basis. They just wonder what kinda dumb trolls are attacking you with ad hominems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But people are stupid, therefore they are incapable of determining who is smart.
Lawyers are people who think they're smart, therefore they are not smart and are incapable of determining they are not smart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.killerstartups.com/Video-Music-Photo/omemo-com-open-source-social-file-storage
http://omemo.rad.io/
So if you have a blog and you have one infringing link in there somewhere and it is accused people can go after your credit cards, bank accounts and so forth I believe this will not bold well with the normal people who will have to endure all the abuses of the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Answer it won't but who cares really the law is not about stopping the websites is about giving more control to people who really don't deserve any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Argumentum ad hominem are the last resort for the addled and takers of indefensible positions, outside of violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/02/showbiz/lohan-probation-hearing/index.html
After all she is a thief isn't she, so where is the idiotic laws that a crazy industry proposes when it can be used against them?
What would happen if studios and labels could be forced to be responsible for their own?
They are against criminals right, so they would have no problem assuming responsibility for all their associates then?
For dumb lawyers I would like to see if they like to be hold responsible for acts their clients did, after all they are defending criminals and if they know that their client is a criminal why are they defending them, why are they doing business with know criminals?
The more the brainless from the industry tries the more they just show how dumb they really are.
This law may pass or may not, but the scars it will leave on the government and society will be there for a long, long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/lwurz/family_law_judge_beats_own_daughter_for_usin g_the/
According to that tread the "Judge William Adams beats daughter for using the internet
According to some accounts she was pirating music and videos LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Judge William Adams beats daughter for using the internet
If they want to protect the children they should stop giving Judges...I mean parents a reason to beat senseless their own daughters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now the nerds are filthy rich and some of the cool kids are filthy rich and neither still wants to be seen with each other in public. The nerds are afraid to speak up because the cool kids will make fun of them again and really they can't handle rejection anymore.
Truth in sarcasm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ROFLOL. The nerds are smart and the 'cool kids' are retarded. Why would the nerds be afraid to speak up against a cool kid who will say something stupid and make himself look retarded. The 'cool kids' humiliate themselves. Everyone laughs at government and makes fun of how inefficient they are. The nerds and even the ignorant general public.
No one is afraid of being made fun of by a retard. People won't legitimately get made fun of if they are competent. They get made fun of for stupidity. For saying dumb things. Take this blog for instance. IP maximists are the comic relief that brings more people here. They are the 'cool kids' the lawyers that make money despite being relatively retarded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's the profit numbers
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/piracy-problems-us-copyright-industries-show -terrific-health.ars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
e-parasites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flawed Underlying Assumption
But history teaches us that it is not the case at all -- actually there are constant forces against it at all times -- and that is must be fought for continously.
Clearly this next election is the turning point for the USA -- Ron Paul, keep freedom and free markets, or someone else and have what little freedoms we have taken away (never mind financial catostrophe). The Good Doctor is the only one that cares and that can cure this disease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think this downside is well known. The upside is that you can sleep at night without worrying about turning into some parasite trying to circumvent democracy to get people's instead of using honest work to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If there was so much money available in that sector, then wouldn't that be proof that giving away media for free and merely supporting it on add revenue and donations is a viable business model for their product?
On the other hand, if there isn't money to be made in Piracy then that hurts the argument that this is necessary to prevent criminal enterprises from profiting on others' works, as discussed above.
So which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Piracy" does NOT cause anyone to lose money!
If piracy were rampant (e.g., if 50% of movie watchers only watch pirated films—a proportion that I am sure far exceeds the current situation), studios would stand to lose half of their projected return. That, in turn, would make movie and music production less profitable. Cutting production costs, including actor salaries, would minimize the impact on profitability. Regardless, the final result would be that, overall, entertainment produced by the major movie and music studios would be less profitable. Simultaneously, “cottage industry” entertainment (garage bands, independent film makers, etc.) would be able to compete more favorably, as they often produce content at very low cost (either because they just love what they do or because they hope to “make it big” some day). In fact, the total expenditures on entertainment may well exceed historical levels, but those expenditures would be distributed to a much wider group than a select few.
While copyright law may define copying as stealing, as digital copying takes nothing that currently exists (whether tangible or intangible) from anyone, it is not “stealing” in the “historical” sense of the word (and with the historical very negative connotation). The creator still has the original. At most, copying may take something that might exist in the future, i.e., the potential to make a profit from the sale of an item, or, legally, the “licensing” of an item. (The “may,” “might,” “future,” and “potential” are all important--there is nothing definite about them!)
Thus, copying is all about potential profit—specifically, big studio profit. It is not about “loss.” It is not about what is right or wrong. (Does it really seem “right” that the Hollywood moguls and big name stars have obscenely high salaries, especially in light of their well-publicized grossly immoral behavior?) In today’s “digital age,” the technology has overtaken the law. We have all seen that the primary attempt to hinder copying is to make laws more and more intrusive and draconian. Proposed (and even existent) laws addressing copyright, downloading, and even accessing the Internet threaten even the most fundamental rights clearly identified in the US Constitution (the writers of which originally considered those rights to be self-evident and God-given, rather than “granted”).
The solution to the “copyright problem”? Allow technology to advance, allow the media industry to reconfigure (even to go through a “shake out,” if necessary), reject laws that favor a select group, and refuse to yield on fundamental rights (freedom of speech and press, the right to due process and to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and no cruel or unusual punishment—such as categorizing copying as a felony).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about this?
We find new ways to market copyrighted goods to people outside the use of piracy, that make the pirates and their operations less profitable, while still being inexpensive and favorable in the public eye.
Bit of a long shot, I know, since most pirated goods are given out for free, but it should at least be considered as a possibility. The popular Steam service for gaming does pretty well, with its almost daily discounts on certain games, as well as having massive price-drops and sales on holidays and other special occasions. With some tweaking, good use of resources and creativity, and a little luck, it could actually put a number of gaming piracy groups out of the picture, and serve as an example of sorts on how to tackle the task.
May not be the most surefire way to do non-governmental anti-piracy, but it's at least an option, and I say we shouldn't disregard the "fight piracy with good business" notion so swiftly. It's certainly a better idea than the borderline-totalitarian antics in the E-Parasite Act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]