from Wikipedia:
"A monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity. (This contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly which consists of a few entities dominating an industry)"
I concede your point, however I believe Glyn's point was that Mr. Shuttleworth is a successful business operator and presumably due to his ability to innovate.
Part of the message that often gets lost is that these laws, while meant to target lawbreakers, do not actually target lawbreakers. They target companies and services to attempt to put pressure on said lawbreakers. Once faced with this pressure and inability to continue to use a company or service to commit what ever crimes they may the lawbreaker simply moves on to another method of continuing to do what they do. No expense or risk to them at all, just a little inconvenience, which many people argue is what drove them to copyright infringement in the first place.
I know that the real supporters of legislation like SOPA and PIPA will never believe this until they can quantifiably witness it but the way to minimize the copyright infringement problem is to make it not worthwhile to infringe.
Okay well maybe it is very important but the best reason is: "we don't sue Ford because someone crashed their pickup truck into another car"
The people/groups trying to protect their content, ( and they have every right to do so ), have decided it is too difficult and/or expensive to go after actual law breakers. It is far less expensive to put that burden on the service companies that said lawbreakers utilize to commit their crimes.
Beyond that I agree with many opinions that the content holders could do a better job of making their content available to people in ways that the people want to use it and would pay for it. As a result the content holders could net more income (with the potential of smaller margins), but then they could also be free of much of the cost of trying to buy legislation that no-one wants.
Re: having to adapt to a changing business environment
There are far more examples in the news of companies resisting a changing business environment through litigation than successful new services or startup businesses. Through those actions industries that resist and are slow to change are in effect "harming the public". Price gouging and restriction or denial of cultural works are examples, even though they may not be fact the perception exists. I do not deny a performer, a group, or even a company the right to derive income from the works they create. I get less forgiving of companies who do not create but just horde stockpiles of cultural works to squeeze money out of. Eventually those works should belong to the public because it is the people/society that made them significant. A performers greatest master piece is nothing if no one loves it.
I do not think the perception is that the person(s) who are alleged to be "infringers" should be allowed to continue, that is certainly not my position.
I think the perception is that if there is a website used by many many people to communicate and exchange information and one (a single user) is accused of some activity which is illegal under SOPA/PROTECT-IP then that ENTIRE website will be taken off-line.
- You might counter argue that the website operators are responsible to police that user and revoke their user status. That is reasonable (however potentially extremely difficult) But suppose the site operator does not know or is not informed? Is it a requirement under the proposed law that the accuser notify the website operator before filing a claim with the authorities?
- You may also counter that that is not the intended scope of these laws. Intended or not that is the scope of these laws. My personal opinion is that it is intended.
- People should have the right to publish anything and everything they want UP TO THE POINT that the purpose is commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship etc. I know the concept of "Fair use" (much less any laws governing it) are a matter of great debate. My opinion here is that societal/cultural forces are at work here and this is not something that will be contained by legislation. making something illegal will not stop it if enough of the people decide to behave otherwise. That is the fundamental basis of democracy. Though the US is not a pure democracy it is founded and operates on many democratic principles.
To come back to my point; I do not want or expect criminals to keep on breaking the law until they are proven guilty in court of law by a jury of their peers. But I DO feel it is unreasonable to silence the voice of even one person over the ALLEGED actions of another individual (in a civil matter) with no burden of proof on the accuser.
That is how I see the people's civil liberties being trodden upon.
That piracy is not legitimate does not mean that it is not competition. However, unless you define piracy specifically as person or group making unauthorized copies that they then sell to a paying "customer", piracy largely is not competition because individuals who make copies for themselves do not translate to lost sales. They simply would not purchase one if they could not make or obtain a copy with out payment. Some of these people would be enticed to make a purchase if they had a different perception of the value of an "item", be it physical or digital. But that is a job for the marketing department, not the legal team.
I also like to point out that the issue here (with many of these arguments around piracy and patents and copyright) is not about piracy and loss of Public Domain content, it is about loss of civil liberties, such as due process and "the pursuit of happiness." That is why we are against legislation such as SOPA and PROTECT-IP. Not because we think all content should be free.
I know part of the dissenter's role is to disrupt the conversation with misdirection and false leads, to avoid a frank discussion of the real topic. However I am frustrated by commenters who try to actually follow those leads to attempt to debunk them. Don't fall for it. I usually enjoy reading the discussions, and sometimes even the misguided threads are entertaining. But all to often I find myself frustrated again because what is being discussed is not the issue at hand. Even the people who side with Mike's opinions often make the wrong arguments.
Whether the content industry is right or wrong with their lobbyist based business tactics is NOT the issue. The issue is the trampling and destruction of the people's civil liberties, the apparent abandonment of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That is what is APPALLING, that is what we must not allow. Yet rarely is that the argument I read here.
Re: "... those who want to engage in illegal activity have set up their own ..."
You there were some other people who wanted to engage in illegal activities so they set up their own ... country. They wanted to such heinous things they had to leave their homes and find a place for them selves.
They wanted the freedom to subscribe to the beliefs of their own choosing and not one dictated to them by their "leaders." They had their own faults it is true, very true. But they new the way it was was unacceptable, so much so they felt it was wrong. So they went and did their own thing, and made their own mistakes.
Their former "leaders" tried to corral them and contain them and even conquer them but it was too late, the proverbial cows were out of the barn.
I am, of course, referring to the settlers and founding fathers of what became the United States. And yes I know the country has "grown up" to be nearly as autocratic and oppressive as the one it escaped from. But hey, I think that's my point. Its time to blossom again.
On the post: Constitutional Scholars Explain Why SOPA & PROTECT IP Do Not Pass First Amendment Scrutiny
Re: sopapilla
On the post: MPAA Boss: If The Chinese Censor The Internet Without A Problem, Why Can't The US?
Re: Nobody uses maps any more.
nice.
On the post: As Expected, SOPA Supporters Hate More Reasonable Alternative
Re: Whacking that mole.
That if they would provide product X to H and L (via a source and price they are willing and able to accept), then P would be "out of business".
On the post: Ubuntu's Self-Appointed Benevolent Dictator For Life: 'Whole Patent System Is A Sham'
Re: Monopolies
"A monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity. (This contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly which consists of a few entities dominating an industry)"
I bolded some words for emphasis.
On the post: Ubuntu's Self-Appointed Benevolent Dictator For Life: 'Whole Patent System Is A Sham'
Re:
On the post: If You Want To Better Understand SOPA & PIPA, Here's An Article To Read
Re: Re: Synopsis: Big Media bought politicians, now we're all doomed.
And cites source and examples.
Which further displays the growing realization and distaste for such blatant attempts at censorship and unscrupulous business practices.
Spread the word and do it with credibility.
On the post: The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas
Re: Why it's right!
I know that the real supporters of legislation like SOPA and PIPA will never believe this until they can quantifiably witness it but the way to minimize the copyright infringement problem is to make it not worthwhile to infringe.
On the post: The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas
Re: Most important reason ...
"we don't sue Ford because someone crashed their pickup truck into another car"
The people/groups trying to protect their content, ( and they have every right to do so ), have decided it is too difficult and/or expensive to go after actual law breakers. It is far less expensive to put that burden on the service companies that said lawbreakers utilize to commit their crimes.
Beyond that I agree with many opinions that the content holders could do a better job of making their content available to people in ways that the people want to use it and would pay for it. As a result the content holders could net more income (with the potential of smaller margins), but then they could also be free of much of the cost of trying to buy legislation that no-one wants.
On the post: How The Entertainment Industry Is Killing Copyright
Re: having to adapt to a changing business environment
On the post: How The Entertainment Industry Is Killing Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Competition
I think the perception is that if there is a website used by many many people to communicate and exchange information and one (a single user) is accused of some activity which is illegal under SOPA/PROTECT-IP then that ENTIRE website will be taken off-line.
- You might counter argue that the website operators are responsible to police that user and revoke their user status. That is reasonable (however potentially extremely difficult) But suppose the site operator does not know or is not informed? Is it a requirement under the proposed law that the accuser notify the website operator before filing a claim with the authorities?
- You may also counter that that is not the intended scope of these laws. Intended or not that is the scope of these laws. My personal opinion is that it is intended.
- People should have the right to publish anything and everything they want UP TO THE POINT that the purpose is commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship etc. I know the concept of "Fair use" (much less any laws governing it) are a matter of great debate. My opinion here is that societal/cultural forces are at work here and this is not something that will be contained by legislation. making something illegal will not stop it if enough of the people decide to behave otherwise. That is the fundamental basis of democracy. Though the US is not a pure democracy it is founded and operates on many democratic principles.
To come back to my point; I do not want or expect criminals to keep on breaking the law until they are proven guilty in court of law by a jury of their peers. But I DO feel it is unreasonable to silence the voice of even one person over the ALLEGED actions of another individual (in a civil matter) with no burden of proof on the accuser.
That is how I see the people's civil liberties being trodden upon.
On the post: How The Entertainment Industry Is Killing Copyright
Re: Competition
I also like to point out that the issue here (with many of these arguments around piracy and patents and copyright) is not about piracy and loss of Public Domain content, it is about loss of civil liberties, such as due process and "the pursuit of happiness." That is why we are against legislation such as SOPA and PROTECT-IP. Not because we think all content should be free.
On the post: Viacom, 'Decimated By Piracy,' But Its CEO Got The Biggest Raise Of Any Exec Anywhere
Re: Re:
On the post: Mainstream Press Realizing That E-PARASITE/SOPA Is Ridiculously Broad
Re: Rules for [ACs] Everyone
I know part of the dissenter's role is to disrupt the conversation with misdirection and false leads, to avoid a frank discussion of the real topic. However I am frustrated by commenters who try to actually follow those leads to attempt to debunk them. Don't fall for it. I usually enjoy reading the discussions, and sometimes even the misguided threads are entertaining. But all to often I find myself frustrated again because what is being discussed is not the issue at hand. Even the people who side with Mike's opinions often make the wrong arguments.
Whether the content industry is right or wrong with their lobbyist based business tactics is NOT the issue. The issue is the trampling and destruction of the people's civil liberties, the apparent abandonment of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That is what is APPALLING, that is what we must not allow. Yet rarely is that the argument I read here.
On the post: Warner Bros., Right After Announcing Record Profits, Pleads Poverty In Asking People To Support 'Grassroots' Campaign For E-PARASITE Act
Re: then they are just as responsible
ergo ....
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: "Caps Lock and Performance Checks"
On the post: As Expected, Alternative DNS Systems Sprouting Up To Ignore US Censorship
Re: "As Expected, Alternative DNS Systems Sprouting Up.."
Change requires a temporary surrender of your sense of security.
This is in line with what I am alluding to with my post above.
On the post: As Expected, Alternative DNS Systems Sprouting Up To Ignore US Censorship
I guess I can't type
'and sorry about the spacing I didn't mean to double space the sections.
On the post: As Expected, Alternative DNS Systems Sprouting Up To Ignore US Censorship
Re: "... those who want to engage in illegal activity have set up their own ..."
They wanted the freedom to subscribe to the beliefs of their own choosing and not one dictated to them by their "leaders." They had their own faults it is true, very true. But they new the way it was was unacceptable, so much so they felt it was wrong. So they went and did their own thing, and made their own mistakes.
Their former "leaders" tried to corral them and contain them and even conquer them but it was too late, the proverbial cows were out of the barn.
I am, of course, referring to the settlers and founding fathers of what became the United States. And yes I know the country has "grown up" to be nearly as autocratic and oppressive as the one it escaped from. But hey, I think that's my point. Its time to blossom again.
On the post: Disney 'Analyst': My Lack Of Imagination Necessitates Passage Of PROTECT IP
Censorship is ...
WRONG.
Censorship is suppression of speech. - end of sentence.
On the post: Time Warner Cable CEO Remains In Denial About Cord Cutting
What do they care?
friggin' asshats.
Next >>