So Many Similarities Between Copyright Law And Prohibition
from the time-to-deal-with-reality dept
A few months ago, we pointed to a video by ReasonTV, which noted that the over-enforcement of copyright law today had become this generation's Prohibition. While that might be slight (or significant) hyperbole, law professor Donald Harris has put together a fantastic paper that compares the two situations and finds an awful lot of similarities. Harris was recently on Jerry Brito's Surprisingly Free podcast to discuss the paper, and it was a very interesting and thoughtful discussion. It won't surprise many to recognize the obvious parallels between the situations:Alcohol Prohibition during the 1920s and 1930s provide an historical example of the dangers of attempting to enforce a public policy that is inconsistent with society’s values and attitudes. Alcohol Prohibition failed because the people effectively nullified the law through widespread civil disobedience. There, as here, increased enforcement efforts failed. Prohibition teaches that it is impossible to enforce broad social norms that are inconsistent with widespread human behavior. This is consistent with compliance theory, which posits that societal compliance with laws will occur only when society believes the laws are just and legitimate.In the end, Harris appears to come down in favor of a similar solution to the way that Prohibition ended: legalizing the activity in question (and regulating it). For example, he suggests that clearly-defined non-commercial file sharing could be legalized. I'm not sure that I agree completely with the argument, but it's still quite an interesting paper to read and podcast to listen to, so check them out.
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: copyright, donald harris, prohibition
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That should be obvious by now but it seems our Governments refuse to learn from past experiences. Maybe it's the fact they last up to 8 years? lmao
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But just out of curiosity; what exactly did he get wrong about the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This wasn't about the law. This was about a paper and an interview by a law professor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nah, it wasn't about the law. You just put "Copyright Law" in the headline to get attention, right?
You're such a slimy, lying douchebag, Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I shouldn't call you a retard, Down Syndrome people could be offended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But the piece wasn't about the law?
You're a fucking idiot.
Masnick has already run away from this, now you go do the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As always It#s impossible to tell the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know nobody actually believes any of your bs, right Masnick?
You're whistling in an echo chamber.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Please can't anyone think of the dart manufacturers and black censor tape sellers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As such, I am 165 lbs. of rippling, hardcore muscle. Now, I happen to weigh 190 lbs., but I'm still 165 lbs. of rippling muscle....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You could have said Wii or Xbox kinetic. I'd blindly believe you are athletic lmao
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ 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:
Otherwise the calendar may prove to be a useful kickstarter campaign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Answer the question Mike, why do you run away from it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anyone who thinks there was a complete lack of enforcement from 2000 - 2010 was apparently in a coma from 2000 to 2010.
Thanks for playing and proving you don't know what you're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thanks for playing and proving you don't know what you're talking about."
Don't re-write history.
What enforcement did exist was very much low hanging fruit. The US legal system, slows as it is, is still trying to digest the Jammie Thomas fiasco. Enforcement has been spotty, and mostly left to the copyright holders to try to push things via lawsuits and not through criminal action.
What really has happened in the last little while is that enforcement has been stepped up. Laws of countries have been toughened or clarified. The various law enforcement agencies around the world are becoming better at dealing with an opponent who often lives in one country, runs their business in another, hosts in the third, and uses file lockers in a fourth. Getting their arms around it has been difficult to say the least.
Demonoid, Megaupload, and the whole file lockers losing processing have all been a result of improved enforcement and awareness - something that was almost non-existant in the previous decade.
Considering the millions of people pirating and the tens of thousands of website owners making their money through these illegal sites, it's surprising how few have been taken down by legal actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But everyone knows that by now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Buccaneer
The US has been raiding pirates like crazy in the last decade, is just people won't stop doing it no matter what you do to them LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can't help but think it's funny that the prosecution of 62 people is worthy of a wiki entry. It sort of sums out how truly rare the event is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Face it, enforcement failed miserably, people don't care about IP law, they don't care if it is illegal or not, they will just do it and there is nothing you or any government can do about it, is that simple.
So your claims that there was no enforcement is just not true born from ignorance or dishonesty which apparently is the case here, because you now know that there was a lot of anti-piracy operations in the US alone but you still try to claim that it meant nothing, it is something small, so the only thing someone can conclude is that you are a dishonest bastard that is what you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and new pirates come on a daily basis. So yearly raids address, what, less than a third of a percent of the issue?
Can you imagine if police only investigated murders on the first monday of each month for an hour?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's what she said.
ZING!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
IP law is dead, nobody respect it, nobody cares.
It is not enforceable, you can't stop people from copying something and you can't stop people from sharing it.
Crazy laws eventually get what they deserve and that is the public scorn.
Nobody aside from the few likes monopolies or censorship. No one is going to rally in favor of those things, you can try all you want at the end of the day billions will just ignore you and your kind no matter what you do and if push comes to shove you better be prepared because at some point a wall of angry people will knock on your door, don't say you haven't been warned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, but it's nothing of the sort.
And you will be paying whether you like it or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you admit it's extortion. Again, very big of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah I see, so you're a bit like a dictator/tyrant and want to impose your will on other's. Good to know that's the type on your side of the debate. Why let reason and compromise lead to more effective solutions? "IT'S MY FUCKING WAY AND THAT'S IT! RAWR!" (That's how you come off by the way.)
Also, notice how threatening what you just said sounded? My, my. So not only are you one of those types who gets mad if others don't want to play with him, but you're also the type who might blow up the playground too. Sheesh. And I thought "fuck off and die" guy was bad. Or is that you? Wouldn't surprise me if it was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Way to come off as a rational person and not some sociopath. /s
Just realized the "With A Unique Writing Style" part of my Name didn't get input automatically by Chrome last time. Odd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was simply informing you that there will never be a world where all movies and music are free.
You can accept that or not; I seriously couldn't care less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Scared? Of you? Hardly. You're about as scary as the random people on the street/some religious nuts saying my eternal soul is damned for this or that.
But you did very much make it sound like a threat.
"I was simply informing you that there will never be a world where all movies and music are free."
Really? Because you stated no such thing. Want me to quote what you said originally? That way you can show me the part where you specifically mentioned that there will never be a world where all movies and music is free.
"You can accept that or not; I seriously couldn't care less."
Well, if that were true you wouldn't be insulting people or telling them to go die, now would you? Me thinks the lady doth care a great deal, thus the insults and the responses telling people to go die.
Definitely not the words of someone who could not care less. /s
FYI sweetie, you care a great deal. But you've yet to present any evidence/facts to back up your wild allegations/assertions. And you saying so DOES NOT make what you say even remotely true/a fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You informing us of something everybody here already knows? How nice of you...
I will always be happy to pay to see quality movies in a quality cinema. I will always be happy to pay to see a band I like, or buy their physical merchandise.
But paying for infinitely copyable digital files? Probably never again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seems like the difference between seeing a movie in theatre and downloading it, is like buying tickets to see a professional sporting event, or watching it free on tv. One is free, one isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Disrespect for IP law is massive, is not a few people doing it, because they want to stick it to the man, is the entire population of the planet and you think you can win this?
LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Applies to everything.
Duh.
You people are about as sharp as a bowling ball.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Applies to everything.
Duh.
You are about as dense as a bowling ball.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This should give yo a hint of what you are going against here.
You want to change human nature because of economic interests.
I hate to tell ya, but unless you have the power to watch everyone and make everybody comply you are screwed.
The fact that you keep bitching about how enforcement is lacking just shows that there is no way to stop sharing, because if there was you would have used already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Operation D-Elite (2005-???)
Operation Fastlink (2004-2007)
Operation Safehaven (2003-2005)
Operation Site Down (2005)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Food for thought ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure the 'took' a lot of liquor from the population, and causes a big hull-a-baloo and how did that end up working out again?
Something about laws that go against what people believe in are not enforcable without a Hitler type figure in power (Yes I goodwin'd it....)
So ALL HEIL OBAMA..... I guess, who knew ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"here, allow me to do it by stating my own opinion as though it were fact and pretending that the enforcement that's been utterly ineffective wasn't what was talked about, with a pile of bullshit to top it off"
Meanwhile, the same factors that inspired people to pirate in 2000 - and which can very easily be rectified without legal action - are still in place in 2012... If only they'd bothered to look at those first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That only encourages market forces to enable a supplier, regardless of legality. See also: War on Drugs, Prohibition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Napster was what?
Grokster?
Limewire?
Jamie Thomas
The rise of copyright trolls.
Thousands harassed and sued all over the world.
Hadopi
DMCA
Bag searches in movie theaters
Deployment of snooping equipment in theaters.
Operation Buccaneer (2000-today)
Operation D-Elite (2005-???)
Operation Fastlink (2004-2007)
Operation Safehaven (2003-2005)
Operation Site Down (2005)
You don't know what you are talking about do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
complete: adjective. perfect - entire - whole - total - absolute - full
Sorry, who is it that's trying to rewrite history?
Or were you using some other definition of "complete" that nobody in the world has ever used?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
^ ^ ^ ^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Bizarre logic.
Here's the situation Mike.
a) It is an absolute face that enforcement will stop online copyright infringement.
If you disagree with a) then skip straight to b)
Was online copyright infringement stopped between 2000-2010?
No, it wasn't.
So, logically, there was no enforcement because if there had been then copyright infringment would have been stopped.
So what we need, is what we called for: enforcement.
b) If you don't believe that copyright infringement will be stopped by more laws or enforcement of those laws, then you are a pirate and your view is irrelevant. When you change your mind, go back to a).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ 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:
No, it wasn't.
So, logically, there was no enforcement because if there had been then copyright infringment would have been stopped."
No, logically, it means there were ATTEMPTS at enforcement, and so far, they have been completely ineffective.
What you're arguing is circular logic: there is enforcement but it is ineffective...therefore there was no enforcement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So you stated your opinion, called it an indisputable fact without giving any support for it, then told anyone who disagrees to fuck off and die.
Have I missed something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Welcome to reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you disagree with a) then skip straight to b)
b) If you don't believe that copyright infringement will be stopped by more laws or enforcement of those laws, then you are a pirate and your view is irrelevant. When you change your mind, go back to a)."
Not going to lie, I laughed out loud at this. I think we might be getting our legs pulled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Complete broken logic. How would "If you don't believe that copyright infringement will be stopped by more laws or enforcement of those laws" simple opinion actually relate to "then you are a pirate". ANSWER THE QUESTION AC; RHHHHHAAAAAA !!!
By the way why do you post as AC at all ? GOT SUMFING TO HIDE ? ANSWER THE QUESTIN, YES OR NO !! RHHHAAAAAA !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Home Taping Is Killing Music."
And perhaps a dozen others.
This isn't a problem that started yesterday. It has been ongoing for well over three decades, perhaps ever since portable radios/cassette recorders have been invented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, have you noticed he's talking about a piece from another guy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, but not in the way you were implying.
[ 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:
You mean is taking right because, people keep doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, because the DMCA didn't come into being until 2012, when it was signed by ex President Bill Clinton.
And Napster didn't get hit with lawsuits in 1998 because it didn't exist until 2010, amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It'd be like a forced education function.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In which universe did this happen? Did I dream the shutdown of Napster and the moronically futile attempts to play legal whack-a-mole ever since that failed to magically stop piracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's play a game called "Educate the Troll". I'm not going to put too much effort into said game, but I'd like to open things up. If anyone wants to help me out, feel free to do so.
Now, to refute your complete lack of enforcement on the internet from 200-2010 claim, I present the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Notable_court_cases
( I'll save you time by listing some of the more relevant and notable cases.)
IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Netowrks, Inc. - 2006
Viacom Inc. v. Youtube, Google Inc. - 2007
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. - 2007
ReadlNetworks, Inc. v DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. - 2009
Again, that's just DMCA related. Moving on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_group_efforts_against_file_sharing#Actions_against_Interne t_service_providers
Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA) sues Eircom - 2007
AFACT takes iiNet to court - 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_group_efforts_against_file_sharing#Actions_against_file_s haring_services
RIAA labels sue Napster - 1999
RIAA sues Aimster - 2002
MPAA sues Grokster (and other file sharing services) - 2003
RIAA sues developers of LimeWire - 2006
And that's just listing the suits, not the raids conducted on servers and server locations done at the behest of the RIAA/MPAA (one of which targeted TPB and took place in 2006). Nor too mention the other attempts to grant "amnesty" to file sharers or allow for "settlements" with said people as well (actions/programs which took place in 2003, 2004, and 2007).
So, would you like to retract your statement about the complete lack of enforcement from the years 2000 - 2010? Or can I just go ahead and chalk this point up to myself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Shocking.
SNORE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And I wasn't listing any of that to cry or anything. I was listing it to point out examples of enforcement. Which was done to prove the OP's point as being wrong.
Way to contribute nothing to the conversation or refute what I said though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Viacom Inc. v. Youtube, Google Inc. - 2007
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. - 2007
ReadlNetworks, Inc. v DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. - 2009
"
You realize of course that you didn't list a single crimnal case, right?
prosecutions in that list? ZERO!
Thanks for making the point and proving Mike wrong yet again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
prosecutions in that list? ZERO!
Thanks for making the point and proving Mike wrong yet again."
You realize I wasn't trying to list criminal cases/prosecutions, right?
I was merely listing various methods of enforcement of IP rights.
So I did very much make my point and prove you wrong. You said no enforcement between years X to X. I gave examples of exactly that. Of course, when you move the goal posts to "criminal cases" and "prosecutions", well then of course I didn't make the point that you didn't actually make clear as far as your definition of "enforcement" goes.
Mike has been proved right and so have I. And the point, made quite clear, is that you said something that was proven wrong and rather than fess up and admit you were wrong, you change the argument.
You trolls, those of you who claim to know the law (and this is a blanket statement, not necessarily aimed at you), are pretty ridiculous. The facts DO NOT get in the way of your views of reality. Evidence and citations be damned, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
prosecutions in that list? ZERO!
Thanks for making the point and proving Mike wrong yet again."
This doesn't prove Mike wrong. It has zero to do with this post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because most of the laws being broken are civil, not criminal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That the two seem indistinguishable to you is, sincerely, nobody's business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One big difference between anti-file-sharing efforts and Prohibition is that Prohibition was established by the 18th Amendment, whose sole, explicit purpose was to ban alcohol. It didn't work as hoped, but our democratic process established it fair and square.
No such explicit law has ever been passed regarding noncommercial file-sharing. There is MUCH LESS support for such a law then there was for Prohibition. And can you imagine a constitutional amendment that prohibits the sharing of someone else's speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wonder how long...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wonder how long...
The entertainment industry has been trying to place that false connection into the public's mind for years:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090629/0154525394.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/arti cles/20091101/1818186751.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100129/0630057974.shtml
http ://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111129/15095716926/white-houses-totally-clueless-response-to-copyrigh t-infringement-call-mcgruff-crime-dog.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wonder how long...
Well in Britain, with their Serious Organised Crime Agency, set up to deal with terrorism and narcotics kingpins and the like taking down music link websites, I think the connection has already been made.
With purported copyright infringers being accused and charged with conspiracy just like many people in organised crime were then it also suggests that connection has already been made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wonder how long...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Omigod, Masnick. You didn't accuse him of being a total pirate apologist for making such a suggestion, and even though you didn't say anything close to "piracy is awesome!", you're clearly a pirate apologist!
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If I had to create a new persona here, I might consider the name "sarcasm tag."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A better analogy would be speeding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seems violent and criminal to me...
But hey, I know those that rip off actors and musicians are willing to overlook that too if means not having to pay for content.
Google figured your sorry asses out a long time ago. It's a major part of their crappy business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No citations. No proof.
Let me try: Anonymous Coward puts Codeine on his Cornflakes!
Seems criminal to me...
Why haven't the police looked into Anonymous Coward's Codeine habit?
What? AC doesn't have such a habit? But it's true! I said so!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But it is normal human behaviour, to drink or take drugs in some other form and it is also normal human behaviour to share things they like with others.
The analogy with prohibition is more apt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now share your money with me or you're just another hypocritcal freetard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The thing is, I don't need to share my money with you, it is safe elsewhere and you don't have easy access to it, but you can copy my money if you like all you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Counterfeiting is a criminal offense. It's ALWAYS illegal to copy money even for noncommercial use. Making copies of digital files is usually not illegal in any way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not so sure the public at large viewed organized crime as a "problem" during Probation. I'm sure they didn't really care for the violence and whatnot, but the crime organizations were providing what the people wanted the most - the booze.
And yes, speeding is perhaps a slightly better analogy, but it is flawed too. Speeding laws are not trying to make something the public desires completely unlawful like Prohibition, or the Drug War or file sharing. Speeding laws are more akin to current alcohol laws if you ask me. They are only restricting the privilege of driving somewhat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Most people don't want to rip off actors, directors, producers, editors, engineers, musicians, etc.
The prohibition analogy is retarded and is just more of the completely stale recycled rationalizations freetards make.
These rationalizations don't work. They convince no one. That's why you now have the shift in the landscape against them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wrong. If there wasn't a large swath of the population file sharing, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, would we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But enough do that it has taken money away from actors, directors, producers, editors, engineers, musicians, etc.
So it is most certainly a problem and that's why it's finally being addressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Has it? I would really love to see your evidence of this. You stating it like it's a fact isn't any sort of proof, really.
Like I have stated before, I have been looking for hard, verifiable numbers from reputable sources with clearly defined methods that piracy actually hurts anyone, anywhere. Can you provide this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just the recorded music industry alone saw their revenue cut in half from 2000-2010. You realize that situation results in lost jobs and less money for musicians, producers, engineers, etc., right???
Masnick is a sociopath and a liar, so he isn't going to inform you that the vast amount of people employed in the music industry suffered lost wages from the serial pirating of recorded music rather than purchasing of it. These people will tell you the same thing if you ever get a chance to talk to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You first.
"Just the recorded music industry alone saw their revenue cut in half from 2000-2010."
Wait. Hold on a minute. You mean to tell me that in the years when FINALLY people were able to purchase just that one song off the album they want, as opposed to being forced to buy the entire album for only that one song, the revenue for the recording music industry dropped?
Well I for one am shocked! Shocked I say! To hear such news.
"You realize that situation results in lost jobs and less money for musicians, producers, engineers, etc., right???"
Most of us are smart enough to realize that when industries change in monumental ways that some jobs will be lost. This is not quite as big news as you seem to think it is. Or did you get just as galvanized when a large amount of autoworkers lost their jobs?
But, now the tools have evolved to where literally anyone can become a musician, producer, engineer, etc. You realize that, right?
And in point of fact, there is now more of the pie to go around for everybody. You know this, correct? (I only ask because there are actual independent, non Google financed studies that show this.)
"Masnick is a sociopath and a liar, so he isn't going to inform you that the vast amount of people employed in the music industry suffered lost wages from the serial pirating of recorded music rather than purchasing of it."
Ad hom, followed up with a speculative opinion represented as fact. Ignored.
"These people will tell you the same thing if you ever get a chance to talk to them."
Yes, well, I'm sure these people will quickly start with the "they took 'ur jobs!", but that doesn't make it so. Nor is it actually proof of who or what took their jobs. Until such time as their is clear, empirical proof of such, the only one lying here is yourself.
Oh, and just to help you out, the definition of a sociopath is as follows:
"a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience."
Hmm. Seems like the one who best fits that description is most definitely not Mike, but you. Antisocial behavior? Check. Lacks a sense of moral responsibility? Check. (As he places the blame for the shortcomings of a few industries on others, without any actual proof to support his claims.) Lack of a social conscience? Check. (Ad homs in nearly every other comment. Threats others. Decides for others what they can or can't do and what is or isn't good for them. Etc.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bzzt. Willful blindness. People didn't all just switch to itunes... lol
Most of us are smart enough to realize that when industries change in monumental ways that some jobs will be lost. This is not quite as big news as you seem to think it is.
Yeah, it is. Especially when it's a major industry and it's the result of illegal behavior.
Or did you get just as galvanized when a large amount of autoworkers lost their jobs?
Moronic analogy. The auto industry had lower demand. Recorded music didn't. The auto industry wasn't being affected by illegal behavior. The record business was.
But, now the tools have evolved to where literally anyone can become a musician, producer, engineer, etc. You realize that, right?
hahaha, yeah, sure they can. lol
Oh, and I'm Batman.
Ad hom, followed up with a speculative opinion represented as fact. Ignored.
Nope. Proof below.
I'm sure these people will quickly start with the "they took 'ur jobs!", but that doesn't make it so.
Yes it does. Because, see, these people actually work in the business and you don't. You're an idiot freetard on a Google-finaced piracy apologist blog.
Oh, and just to help you out, the definition of a sociopath is someone that exhibits at least 3 of the following tendencies:
1.Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
2.Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
3.Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.
4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
5. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.
Masnick clearly demonstrates at least 4 of these, in public no less.
He is a sociopath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They also stopped buying for a lot of reasons one very important one is the suing that started and was finally stopped because of the drastic drop in sales that it caused, that alone was responsible for half the loses in revenue for the music industry.
Also of note is that "piracy" is only illegal in your disturbed mind dude, nobody believe sharing anything is criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"We don't care if she's a single mother who just swapped 24 songs that she liked online, we're going to destroy her life by forcing her to pay us millions of dollars! We have sympathy for her, she brought it on herself! How dare she like music! And if you disagree, then you're a FREETARD!"
2.Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
"We don't care if 500 million people worldwide engage in such acts, we won't allow it! Lock everything down! Everyone will just tolerate it if we cut off their internet connections, and they'll love us again!"
3.Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.
"Okay, we're going to pay your band $500,000 in advance, payable out of your royalties if you recoup at a normal 8% rate. You're really going places! Those other bands that have one hit and are never heard from again? That won't be you! You have a unique voice, just like every act we signed before you!"
4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
"Why won't Mike debate me, that stupid piracy apologist freetard Google Big Search Cookies shill?"
5. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
"Why are hundreds of thousands of people DDOSing our official website right now? We never did anything wrong!"
6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.
"It's sad that the millions of people worldwide protesting us care more about THIEVES that the UNDENIABLE RIGHTS of our roster of ARTISTS and CREATORS."
Any of that sound familiar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just freetard pirate apologists? What? No broadbrush or job destroyers? I'm disappointed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Something must be wrong with my browser because the links you provided to back up this assertion aren't showing up.
And you are an idiot if you only look at losses in one small sector (recorded music) and come to your conclusion. Do you really think all those jobs just evaporate into thin air and aren't displaced into other sectors? Disruption by technology in a particular industry isn't anything new. I used to be a Draftsman, drawing with pencils and straight edges before the PC and AutoCAD. Now I am a sign maker because professional draftsman are pretty much extinct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They are, actually.
Needless to say, file-sharing doesn't rip off anyone, which is why there is no conflict between supporting artists and file-sharing.
The great recent change is that more and more people are becoming more entrenched in streaming and subscription services, which are usually just as free and also don't rip anyone off.
I love TechDirt trolls but this one is partying like it's 2005.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Big fan of those, as artists get paid.
Just know tho, that they are no more "free" than commercial television. One way or the other you are paying for it in some part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now go die in a fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*ahem*
"NO U"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hows about... Nickle-Nicker? Or Shit-Apple? Something new please, these insults are getting old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Am I believe the only retarded here is you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Almost nobody wants to rip off any artist. That's why most people contribute someway (shows, kickstarter, donations, merchandise etc). The new generations completely disagree with you sonny, they value the artists, not the music.
That's why you now have the shift in the landscape against them.
I'll give you a unicorn so you can ride along with your friend Santa, Easter Bunny and your pet leprechauns. The landscape is not shifting, it's precisely that. The new generations couldn't care less about copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Kim Dotcom and Demonoid have nothing to do with it. You go tell an entire generation that couldn't care less about copyright. I'll laugh while you try.
And amusingly, as 1 service go down, several more come up. And they are more and more decentralized. I really wanna see you take down DHT and the search system within. GOOD LUCK ;)))
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everyone saw the teeth-gnashing that occurred just a few weeks ago with the demise of Demonoid.
The no-risk days of piracy are over.
But if you want to keep pretending they aren't, maybe this guy can help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You realize that torrent technology has moved past central trackers and torrent indexes don't you?
With BTDigg one can search for whatever is floating around in the swarm and connect with magnetic links. And if happens that BTDigg.org gets taken down (I try to never underestimate the legacy players ability to stretch the law to suit their whims) some other geek will create a decentralized DHT version of BTDigg.
As always, such enforcement actions will be viewed as minor inconveniences to be routed around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just forwarded it to ICE and Ms. Espinel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good for you! Tell Mort I said Hi!
Not sure what good it will do though. They are not doing anything wrong. You might have to buy a few more Congressmen to make this illegal.
From BTDigg:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please explain how it is "facilitating infringement" in any way, shape or form.
I guess you must think Google Maps is "facilitating criminal activity" because it has the address of every crack house in the world.
You make me wish common sense was a bit more common.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They just got nailed for another 22 million dollar fine.
I'm sure that type of behavior is going to be allowed to go on forever.
Or at least until the election is over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They just got nailed for another 22 million dollar fine.
Wow. First you spout crap off the top of your head like it's the Gospel truth and refuse to give any citations or links to back it up. And now you take a week old headline and contort it painfully to score some kind of point against some imaginary adversary you've built in your own head.
Google's fine had nothing at all do do with anything illegal. It was about tracking cookies and the fact Google promised not to do that without disclosure. They forgot the disclosure part and got called out on it.
And this was a settlement anyways, which is nothing more than a statement of nolo contendere as far as I am concerned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They just got "nailed" for a fine equivalent to less than 20 hours worth of their profit earnings. It's the equivalent of a decent speeding fine. Try to keep a little perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tell you what, lets check on that "no-risk days of piracy are over" claim.
Ok, now, since you know everything about everything (obviously) please check and tell me if I am infringing on someones monopoly reproduction privilege.
Go ahead. Right now, don't dawdle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What shift are you talking about? Offer one example.
"Most people don't want to rip off actors, directors, producers, editors, engineers, musicians, etc."
If this is what you mean, it's not a shift ... this has been a constant from day one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Like the MPAA, RIAA, ...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*hic*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know nobody actually believes any of your bs, right Masnick?
You're whistling in an echo chamber.
Law, no law - hasn't and won't do a damn bit of good. The 'law' never stopped anyone from copying a cassette tape and it's not going to stop the masses from copying digital music.
Sure, they'll bust a couple here and there - and likely waste 10 times what they *may* get in profits if every pirate paid what they could for media - because I suspect 90% of 'pirates' - can't afford what they are downloading - come hell or high water, they are likely just too poor.
Most of us that make enough to buy media - do so anyway, as we want the physical media.
I won't buy 'digital' - because it's too easy to get SCREWED by the companies - and I'll call one out, Blockbuster.
Blockbuster sells a friend of mine a 'digital movie' = and yes, he PAID for it. With real money, you know?
So Blockbuster takes their DRM crap offline and now he can't watch.. the movie... **HE PAID FOR**. Blockbuster 'doesn't offer it for streaming' and they won't ship him a copy - so basically, he's screwed. Sure, they offered to refund the money, to a card he hasn't had in two years... lot of good that does.
So - this is a case of a media company screwing a customer - we don't hear about this now, in regards to DRM do we?
This is WHY I only buy Physical media. If it's digital - and 'free' - I'll use it. Otherwise, I buy physical and rip to digital.
See - even when people pay - they get the shaft. So explain again why people should pay for digital media - please try to make a sensible argument, if there is one. Especially when the 'seller' can screw you at will because they decide to just take their DRM servers offline....
So sure, I buy the media I use - but that is very little. Most all I get now is Pandora, Satellite Radio and On-Demand. Hell, almost no reason to even 'buy' now anyway.
And yes, the blockbuster story is 100% true. Sadly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dog must be head of the MAFIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, I don't have millions, even if you took every asset I have, the worst you could do is put me in debt for the rest of my life, you'll never get your millions even after I'm dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]