I don't so much object to attempts to shut down piracy. What I object to is all of the collateral damage. Any of the common proposals are in opposition to free speech and bring along the excess baggage of things like convenience, increased cost, accusation of innocent people, outright extortion.
The industry needs to realize that it is fighting basic economics and well as culture. It is very much a case of "Adapt or Die" and MPAA/RIAA cartel companies have decided not to adapt.
>>You'll just plug in your portable hard drives to a common computer and exchange stuff directly (as probably already happens with today's terabyte-sized portable disks.)
Yep. This is already common on our campus. Our IT folks are pretty strict at controlling torrents and such (which sometimes causes problems when trying to bring in things like Linux distro's). IT is also pretty quick to cut off internet access for students who are doing P2P. Of course, with all of the emphasis on shutting down torrents, the exchange has just moved around a little.
There are some pretty regular events that I would have called "swap meets" back in my day. From what I have seen, it seems that there is more traffic in TV shows than movies. A lot of music gets moved around, but it is different. Music sharing seems to be more of a DJ-lite type of thing. People will put together a collection and pass the whole thing over at once.
Prohibition never works, and it always has unintended consequences that are worse than the original situation. It is a law of human nature.
Unfortunately it is also a law of human nature to believe that there are simple solutions for complex problems. We develop complex solutions only for things that aren't really a problem.
Apparently the IP industry thinks that a $35 fee is appropriate for people to pay to protest their innocence under the 6-strikes rule.
So, perhaps ever take-down notice should be accompanied by a $35 fee. If $35 is inconsequential to private individuals then surely it is not too much for big corporations to pay. Processing claims probably costs at least that much, so the search engines and other third parties still would not be making money on the fee.
Honestly, it does not seem fair to me that someone should have to pay to defend their copyright (the violator should pay if found guilty), but the IP industry has already set the standard for how the system works by requiring people to pay a non-refundable $35 fee to protect their innocence.
The industry took away the wrong message from the article. Instead of trying to get bad laws passed to make piracy illegal, they need to get bad laws passed to prohibit unfavorable tweets and texts about bad movies. When will the MPAA ever learn?
Not only lobbying activity. We have an administration filled with industry attorneys and "former" lobbiests. It is a perfect example of regulatory capture.
For years the courts have treated police officers as "trained observers" and have often given their testimony the same or even greater weight than physical evidence. In fact large parts of our criminal justice system have relied primarily on the assumption that police officers give true and accurate testimony. These cases could seriously chip away at those assumptions, particularly for a lot of "minor" street crime.
Even if an officer gets off the hook for lying under oath, that officer's testimony would be largely worthless in court after the incident if the defendant has a competent attorney. Unfortunately, the assumption of competent council is also invalid in a lot of street crime cases.
I would argue that a better analogy would be buying a pair of socks and then sewing them into sock puppets when you get home. The analogy isn't perfect, but analogies never are when you compare physical and digital products.
The most common item used for money laundering as well as smuggling is the US $100 bill. Perhaps we need to investigate the US treasury department along with bitcoin.
I am dubious about the technology actually working broadly. BitTorrent is very flexible, and I think it is very likely that the BT community will route around the disruption. The torrent ecosystem might actually come out of the experience stronger and more robust than it was before the Pirate Pay technology attacked it.
I would not be surprised to see the shows get pressure from the major labels to build a clause into the show contract requiring contestants to sign with record labels.
I get a mental image of the old TV commercial where the actor slaps his head and says, "I could have had a V8!" Now I think of people waiting through the warnings, slapping their heads, and saying "I could have pirated this!"
I propose a new diet plan. At the beginning of every DVD we put a message that says "Don't think about food." I predict that it would have just about the same effect as the piracy warnings.
Does the extended warning do anything besides inflate some egos at ICE and remind people that piracy is flourishing?
With the circlejerk mentality of the USTR office and the industry insiders, their reasoning was probably something like this:
"ACTA ran into trouble. Therefore the process must have been too open. We need to do a better job of locking down the TPP negotiations if we want it to go through unnoticed."
>>funny how correlation IS causation when it works for you, but correlation is NOT causation when it works against you.
You are correct. Correlation is not proof. But do you have an alternative theory about why an official DRM-free release would increase sales of both ebooks and physical copies as well as reducing piracy?
There are a couple of good reasons in giving some credibility to the correlation being causation in this case.
First, this is not a broad sweeping case of correlation. One example frequently used by the RIAA was that CD sales went down at the same time as Napster started. However, there were a lot of other things going on in the market at that time and there were lots of alternate explanations of why CD sales began to decline at the same time. This is a different case because it is quite a tight correlation, and because there do not appear to be any other events going on at the time that could have caused the uptick in book sales or the decrease in piracy. I am not aware of any other concurrent major events in the Potterverse during that time that would have accounted for the change.
Second, there are two things that happened (increase in physical copies and decrease in piracy) that seemed to happen concurrently. There is also substantial economic-based theory that predicted both of these results as a result of an official DRM-free release of the series.
Discussion is good. I am honestly interested in whether you have an alternative explanation about why the physical sales rose and piracy declined.
On the post: Spotify In A Box: Why Sharing Will Never Be Stopped
Re:
The industry needs to realize that it is fighting basic economics and well as culture. It is very much a case of "Adapt or Die" and MPAA/RIAA cartel companies have decided not to adapt.
On the post: Spotify In A Box: Why Sharing Will Never Be Stopped
Yep. This is already common on our campus. Our IT folks are pretty strict at controlling torrents and such (which sometimes causes problems when trying to bring in things like Linux distro's). IT is also pretty quick to cut off internet access for students who are doing P2P. Of course, with all of the emphasis on shutting down torrents, the exchange has just moved around a little.
There are some pretty regular events that I would have called "swap meets" back in my day. From what I have seen, it seems that there is more traffic in TV shows than movies. A lot of music gets moved around, but it is different. Music sharing seems to be more of a DJ-lite type of thing. People will put together a collection and pass the whole thing over at once.
On the post: Tougher Enforcement In Sweden Doesn't Slow Down Public's File Sharing
Unfortunately it is also a law of human nature to believe that there are simple solutions for complex problems. We develop complex solutions only for things that aren't really a problem.
On the post: Google Lifts The Veil On Copyright Takedowns: Reveals Detailed Data On Who Requests Link Removals
So, perhaps ever take-down notice should be accompanied by a $35 fee. If $35 is inconsequential to private individuals then surely it is not too much for big corporations to pay. Processing claims probably costs at least that much, so the search engines and other third parties still would not be making money on the fee.
Honestly, it does not seem fair to me that someone should have to pay to defend their copyright (the violator should pay if found guilty), but the IP industry has already set the standard for how the system works by requiring people to pay a non-refundable $35 fee to protect their innocence.
On the post: Why Hollywood Is Doomed: It Takes Sensible Advice Like 'Make Good Movies' And Turns It Into A Screed About Piracy
On the post: SpaceX 'Test' Flight Off And Running
On the post: Former Record Label Exec Ethan Kaplan: Duh, Of Course More File Sharing Leads To More Sales
Re:
On the post: US Gov't Thinks Censorship Is Bad, Unless It's Paid For
On the post: Citizen Video Evidence Helps Two Arrested Photographers Have Their Cases Dropped
Even if an officer gets off the hook for lying under oath, that officer's testimony would be largely worthless in court after the incident if the defendant has a competent attorney. Unfortunately, the assumption of competent council is also invalid in a lot of street crime cases.
On the post: Economist: Copyright Is An Antiquated Relic That Has No Place In The Digital Age
Re:
On the post: Canadian Politician Claims That Ripping A CD To Your iPod Is Like Buying Socks & Stealing Shoes To Go With Them
On the post: Economist: Copyright Is An Antiquated Relic That Has No Place In The Digital Age
Re:
On the post: Economist: Copyright Is An Antiquated Relic That Has No Place In The Digital Age
Re:
On the post: FBI Explores The Implications Of Bitcoin
On the post: Microsoft-Funded BitTorrent Disruptor Won't Make Pirates Pay, But Might Break The Law
On the post: Musicians Realizing They Don't Need Major Labels Anymore
On the post: ICE & FBI Hatch Ingenious Plan To Make DVD Piracy Warnings Longer
I propose a new diet plan. At the beginning of every DVD we put a message that says "Don't think about food." I predict that it would have just about the same effect as the piracy warnings.
Does the extended warning do anything besides inflate some egos at ICE and remind people that piracy is flourishing?
On the post: USTR Insults The Intelligence Of Legal Scholars After They Challenge Him On Lack Of TPP Transparency
"ACTA ran into trouble. Therefore the process must have been too open. We need to do a better job of locking down the TPP negotiations if we want it to go through unnoticed."
On the post: Ebook Sales Of Harry Potter Lead To Increased Physical Sales As Well
Re: Re:
You are correct. Correlation is not proof. But do you have an alternative theory about why an official DRM-free release would increase sales of both ebooks and physical copies as well as reducing piracy?
There are a couple of good reasons in giving some credibility to the correlation being causation in this case.
First, this is not a broad sweeping case of correlation. One example frequently used by the RIAA was that CD sales went down at the same time as Napster started. However, there were a lot of other things going on in the market at that time and there were lots of alternate explanations of why CD sales began to decline at the same time. This is a different case because it is quite a tight correlation, and because there do not appear to be any other events going on at the time that could have caused the uptick in book sales or the decrease in piracy. I am not aware of any other concurrent major events in the Potterverse during that time that would have accounted for the change.
Second, there are two things that happened (increase in physical copies and decrease in piracy) that seemed to happen concurrently. There is also substantial economic-based theory that predicted both of these results as a result of an official DRM-free release of the series.
Discussion is good. I am honestly interested in whether you have an alternative explanation about why the physical sales rose and piracy declined.
On the post: Are Facebook 'Likes' Protected By The First Amendment?
Next >>