Which makes perfect sense except the part about how you will have thousands of dollars of infrastructure costs that you can't pay for, so pretty much no one would ever do. So the analogy makes no sense.
Top it off with the fact that the existing stores would have very many things that consumers would ACTUALLY want, like:
- Original branded products
- Wide selection
- Ability to ask questions
- Comfortable setting
- Can make copies of the music for their own use without repercussion
- Can share CDs with others without repercussion
None of which would exist in the scenario you described. See how that works? People pay for things they actually want if the price matches their value expectation. People really do want legitimate copies of things, but not if it comes with a HUGE sense of entitlement from the provider.
That last sentence negates any future rebuttal by you, because there is no analogous offering by digital purveyors that compete with the free, illegitimate options.
Wait a minute, the EFF is a lobby group, and by your tone I assume that means they should be ignored/derided/etc.
So what exactly are the MPAA and RIAA? and why are they worthy of respect and praise? Because they are paragons of integrity and evidence-based analysis?
Yes, but they don't have the right to get paid for something no one wants. Remember, research has shown repeatedly that the majority of those infringements are from people that are either a) fans (and buy plenty of other things), or b) people that would never have given you a dollar in the first place.
What you have described is artificial scarcity and people HATE it. You can say its infringement all you want, but that won't change people's behavior.I personally go out of my way NOT to send money towards organizations that create artificial scarcity.
No matter how the wind howls, the mountain cannot bow to it.
"I don't know. I think after a while, when people see others in similar situations head off for a long stretch in prison, they may change their ways. "
Holy crap! I didn't realize that drug-use, speeding, and red-light running were completely wiped out by enforcement! Enforcement has once again had a transformational effect!
Whew, thank god they've done that, utopia here we come!
Only strange if you don't really understand or read the things posted on this site.
What's more strange is how over and over and over and over you ignore statements explaining things like: infringement is not condoned, new business models are encouraged, and evidence after evidence after evidence that piracy is a factor of unmet need and that fighting it doesn't convert people into purchasers.
But it is much easier to ignore all that isn't it? Kind of like how its easy to say 2+2=5 if you never listen to anyone else's response and deny that math books even exist.
Sadly, that's what most of those with dissenting opinions around here do--look for any way to completely dismiss everything the other party has said, regardless of the merit of the individual arguments.
We may be harsh, but attacking the individual arguments with both logic and evidence (both are required) will result in eventual respect.
This doesn't preclude any mash-up among the four, its just that it seems to me that so very often we perceive intelligent, strategic behavior from large organizations when one or more of the top three is really at work.
Oh, how dearly I want you both to be right--but unfortunately for you to be right would mean we would have to ignore much of fundamental human nature.
Its in our DBA to be social creatures--and I just can't believe that external social pressure (which can be very hard to muster) will somehow evolve to regularly overcome face-to-face, backroom deal, buddy-buddy social pressure.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But there is no database!
I get all the technologies involved, but e-voting machines have asserted for years that they are secure and they are clearly not.
Regardless, let's see if we can summarize the arguments:
a) The logging can be made so secure there will be limited to no risk
b) The logging does not include anything the ISPs don't already have
c) The data will only be narrowly used for the purposes intended.
I just can't sign on to any of those. History has shown that you're much better off limiting the storage of information and creating resilience in your dependence on that information, than relying on security to protect it. Regarding b) either there is no difference between the information they have today (in which case the legislation is unnecessary) or they are increasing the risk by creating more instances of the information available for compromise. In addition, the information the ISP has today, you have some control over, whereas the legislated logs you would not.
Regarding c), well, I just don't see how you can look at the history (even recent) of laws and how they are used, look at human nature, and claim that laws won't be perverted for unintended use.
I suppose you believed that the Patriot Act was never going to be used for anything other than combating terrorism either, yet 95% of the cases prosecuted under that act have had nothing to do with it. Drugs and fraud: 1,740. Terrorism: 15.
Ugh, I hate it when people post as if they know, when they really don't. Your assertion "not themselves attached in any way" if utterly false. The equipment of which you speak MUST be connected in some way to receive the data stream.
What you may not understand or could not articulate is that they do so often using mechanisms that typically internet connected machines do not. While they may not use NICs or receive IP addresses or have MAC addresses, they are, and have been proven to be, capable of being compromised by those with the right knowledge and skills just like any other networking technology.
Fair enough, but you don't get to make that demand without hypocrisy unless you are willing to adhere to it in principle as well.
So, can you point to the language in the bill (the bill does exist) that should make us all comfortable these are not issues of concern?
And please, if your response is going to be: "Not my responsibility, I didn't make the claims" don't bother responding, because you DID claim this is all FUD without actually disproving the claims. Your current line of argument is effectively ad hom by saying the ones who have done the analysis did it wrong (with no evidence to disprove their claims).
5/10 for your dismissive rhetoric. Some foolish people might even be swayed by it, but you failed to explain how anything said here or on Mr. Geist's post is inaccurate.
The bill has come out of committee and the CBO has even assessed how much it will cost to enact the legislation. The bill exists, it has been read and analyzed by many.
So, exactly what is your specific concern here? Can you point to someone that has done a credible analysis that has different conclusions?
On the post: Yes, Online And Offline Rules Are Different... Because Online And Offline Are Different
Re: Re: The CD analogy should be...
Top it off with the fact that the existing stores would have very many things that consumers would ACTUALLY want, like:
- Original branded products
- Wide selection
- Ability to ask questions
- Comfortable setting
- Can make copies of the music for their own use without repercussion
- Can share CDs with others without repercussion
None of which would exist in the scenario you described. See how that works? People pay for things they actually want if the price matches their value expectation. People really do want legitimate copies of things, but not if it comes with a HUGE sense of entitlement from the provider.
That last sentence negates any future rebuttal by you, because there is no analogous offering by digital purveyors that compete with the free, illegitimate options.
On the post: Who Cares If Piracy Is 'Wrong' If Stopping It Is Impossible And Innovating Provides Better Solutions?
Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children
So what exactly are the MPAA and RIAA? and why are they worthy of respect and praise? Because they are paragons of integrity and evidence-based analysis?
On the post: Who Cares If Piracy Is 'Wrong' If Stopping It Is Impossible And Innovating Provides Better Solutions?
Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children
What you have described is artificial scarcity and people HATE it. You can say its infringement all you want, but that won't change people's behavior.I personally go out of my way NOT to send money towards organizations that create artificial scarcity.
No matter how the wind howls, the mountain cannot bow to it.
On the post: How The US Trade Rep Is Trying To Wipe Out Used Goods Sales With Secretive TPP Agreement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How The US Trade Rep Is Trying To Wipe Out Used Goods Sales With Secretive TPP Agreement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Holy crap! I didn't realize that drug-use, speeding, and red-light running were completely wiped out by enforcement! Enforcement has once again had a transformational effect!
Whew, thank god they've done that, utopia here we come!
On the post: Director Alex Cox ('Repo Man') Says 'Pirate My Stuff'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's more strange is how over and over and over and over you ignore statements explaining things like: infringement is not condoned, new business models are encouraged, and evidence after evidence after evidence that piracy is a factor of unmet need and that fighting it doesn't convert people into purchasers.
But it is much easier to ignore all that isn't it? Kind of like how its easy to say 2+2=5 if you never listen to anyone else's response and deny that math books even exist.
On the post: Director Alex Cox ('Repo Man') Says 'Pirate My Stuff'
Re: Re: Re:
We may be harsh, but attacking the individual arguments with both logic and evidence (both are required) will result in eventual respect.
On the post: Director Alex Cox ('Repo Man') Says 'Pirate My Stuff'
Institutional Animus?
1) Incompetence
2) Ignorance
3) Stupidity
4) Institutional Animus
This doesn't preclude any mash-up among the four, its just that it seems to me that so very often we perceive intelligent, strategic behavior from large organizations when one or more of the top three is really at work.
On the post: Hollywood's Latest 'Conciliatory' Effort Towards Silicon Valley? Forcing Lobbyists To Drop Tech Companies As Clients
Re: Re:
Its in our DBA to be social creatures--and I just can't believe that external social pressure (which can be very hard to muster) will somehow evolve to regularly overcome face-to-face, backroom deal, buddy-buddy social pressure.
On the post: How New Internet Spying Laws Will Actually ENABLE Stalkers, Spammers, Phishers And, Yes, Pedophiles & Terrorists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But there is no database!
On the post: How New Internet Spying Laws Will Actually ENABLE Stalkers, Spammers, Phishers And, Yes, Pedophiles & Terrorists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But there is no database!
Regardless, let's see if we can summarize the arguments:
a) The logging can be made so secure there will be limited to no risk
b) The logging does not include anything the ISPs don't already have
c) The data will only be narrowly used for the purposes intended.
I just can't sign on to any of those. History has shown that you're much better off limiting the storage of information and creating resilience in your dependence on that information, than relying on security to protect it. Regarding b) either there is no difference between the information they have today (in which case the legislation is unnecessary) or they are increasing the risk by creating more instances of the information available for compromise. In addition, the information the ISP has today, you have some control over, whereas the legislated logs you would not.
Regarding c), well, I just don't see how you can look at the history (even recent) of laws and how they are used, look at human nature, and claim that laws won't be perverted for unintended use.
On the post: Chris Dodd Extends SOPA 'Olive Branch' To Silicon Valley... And Proceeds To Bash Them Over The Head With It
Re: Re: Re:
I don't think free speech or democracy means what you think it means.
On the post: How New Internet Spying Laws Will Actually ENABLE Stalkers, Spammers, Phishers And, Yes, Pedophiles & Terrorists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Keep being a sheeple I guess.
On the post: How New Internet Spying Laws Will Actually ENABLE Stalkers, Spammers, Phishers And, Yes, Pedophiles & Terrorists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But there is no database!
What you may not understand or could not articulate is that they do so often using mechanisms that typically internet connected machines do not. While they may not use NICs or receive IP addresses or have MAC addresses, they are, and have been proven to be, capable of being compromised by those with the right knowledge and skills just like any other networking technology.
On the post: How New Internet Spying Laws Will Actually ENABLE Stalkers, Spammers, Phishers And, Yes, Pedophiles & Terrorists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, can you point to the language in the bill (the bill does exist) that should make us all comfortable these are not issues of concern?
And please, if your response is going to be: "Not my responsibility, I didn't make the claims" don't bother responding, because you DID claim this is all FUD without actually disproving the claims. Your current line of argument is effectively ad hom by saying the ones who have done the analysis did it wrong (with no evidence to disprove their claims).
On the post: How New Internet Spying Laws Will Actually ENABLE Stalkers, Spammers, Phishers And, Yes, Pedophiles & Terrorists
Re: ...
On the post: How New Internet Spying Laws Will Actually ENABLE Stalkers, Spammers, Phishers And, Yes, Pedophiles & Terrorists
Re:
The bill has come out of committee and the CBO has even assessed how much it will cost to enact the legislation. The bill exists, it has been read and analyzed by many.
So, exactly what is your specific concern here? Can you point to someone that has done a credible analysis that has different conclusions?
On the post: The 'New' Righthaven Offers Discount To Techdirt Readers Who Want 'Spineful' Hosting
Re: Re: Re: Goals...
On the post: The 'New' Righthaven Offers Discount To Techdirt Readers Who Want 'Spineful' Hosting
Re: Re: Goals...
On the post: Techdirt Deemed Harmful To Minors In Germany
Re: Re: In other news...
Next >>