Except, the 19th & 20th century proved, already, that not all forces should be left au naturale. Monopolies, even the natural ones, are generally bad. They were left unregulated until the public outcry forced politicians to get the industries in check.
Safety was (pretty much) unregulated until the occurrence of disasters/illnesses terrible enough to cause a public outcry, and the politicians once again to get the industries in check. Unbelievably, it took until the mid 1960s for that to happen.
You could say, in those cases, the market did speak, and it said regulation was necessary.
As for copyright, regulation has gone unregulated to the point of causing a public outcry. It remains to be seen whether it will be large enough to force the politicians to get the industries in check.
What's really funny, though, is how you completely missed my point. The file lockers made it extremely easy to report infringement, even checking accusations by third parties. Rightsholders didn't even have to get off their duff and do anything. Their fans were more than happy to look for and report any questionable files, since the file lockers made it so easy. All in an effort to do anything technically possible to not piss off the MAFIAA groups.
Oh well. Like I've been saying. No great loss to the pirates, but the MAFIAA groups are having a great time patting each other on the back.
It's like tee-ball. Everyone gets a trophy. Too bad you only think you know which team lost...
You misunderstand, probably intentionally. The run-of-the-mill casual infringer is still not affected in any way they will notice by these actions, even if every file locker in the world died tomorrow. Barely anyone used file lockers for infringment anyways. At best, they'll see the site is down, and be disappointed for a few seconds. All it takes to completely invalidate all of this time and labor is for a casual infringer to say to a friend, "Hey, my usual site for movies has gone down. How are you still getting yours?" That's assuming, for no good reason, that they can't just google it, or ask for directions on a forum. Like they did when they first started sharing.
"I found an awesome song two days ago. How can I get it to as many people as possible?"
Like I said before, only EXTREMELY casual infringers are affected. Not regular infringers, or even casual infringers.
Just the ones who didn't really do it anyways. Basically, the guy who tried to smoke a cigarette in high school, but got freaked out, and never hung around with those guys ever again.
You guys really have no idea how "hard-core" pirates work, do you? File lockers were never the main source of material. Ever.
Between chat programs and torrent sites (which really only find material that is already available), file lockers were good for two things: legitimate users, and extremely casual infringers.
The file lockers, Megaupload included, were very generous about takedowns. See, it was against their terms of service to post unauthorized material. Therefore, you didn't have to be a copyright holder to get files taken down. You only had to report a file, any file, as a "suspected terms-of-service violation," and it would be down in minutes.
I kept my mouth shut about this before, but seeing as all the relatively virus-free file lockers are out of your reach (having blocked US users, or limited them to personal access only), there's nothing you can do about it now.
Oh, man. I'm so sorry. I was completely unaware that acknowledge possible benefits of a system that doesn't yet exist, while at the same time questioning the wisdom of enacting the system because of it's massive failures was so bad.
Also, just because you don't currently share music doesn't mean they would be punishing everyone. Because, y'know, if this system was enacted, you could share any and all music you wished, so there would be no "innocent" or "guilty," just people using the internet.
Oh, and if "socialist" is the worst problem you can find with this thing, you need to look harder. There is nothing wrong with socialism's ideals, only with the self-defeating fact that a socialist system must be enforced by a dictatorship, thereby invalidating the "equality" of the system.
I'm not sure I disagree with you or not, but, I don't think your labels work.
Conservative: Fiscally conservative, socially conservative
Liberal: Fiscally liberal, socially liberal
Libertarian: Fiscally conservative, socially liberal
Populist: Fiscally liberal, socially conservative
The problems show up because people view these issues in different lights.
To me (a fiscal conservative), it is a fiscal problem, thus the cry of "Let the market take care of itself."
To some, it is a social/moral "problem". They see it as a loosening of morals, a slide into social depravity.
So frankly, people from all over the board, from all areas of the political spectrum (as we saw in the SOPA/PIPA protests), have different reactions to this issue, often at odds with their "party."
First, drugs are illegal, period. There is no legal heroin, no over the counter cocaine, no "hash by the pound" stores. It's illegal.
So, medical marijuana, prescription morphine, medical opiates, codeine, and a whole slough of other drugs don't exist. Good to know. Especially seeing as how the largest growing area of substance abuse is prescription drugs. I'm glad that was just my imagination. Come to think of it, the (most recent) Prohibition? One of the most common sources for alcohol WASN'T the speakeasys, it wasn't Toothless Joe (the local moonshiner), or any other source. It was going to the pharmacist, and getting "medical" alcohol.
There is an incredibly huge amount of money involved, it's all tax free, and the business model is kept in line with firearms, cement shoes, and more recently, fast and furious guns.
You know what that sounds like? It sounds like (the most recent) Prohibition. Y'know, one of the other failed laws that tried to restrict what the public wanted, whether it was good for them or not. Just as with infringing content, I, personally, am a teetotaler. It doesn't mean I'm blind to the reality staring me in the face, though.
When you understand the differences, you can understand why a "war on piracy" isn't even comparable to a "war on drugs", except perhaps in the use of the word "war". If you fall for it (and apparently you did) then you really missed the boat.
The key here is NOT the differences, which aren't even as many as you would like to think. The key is the similarities.
No matter how many scumbag dealers/infringers get caught, MANY more will spring up in their place, for the simple reason that the market for their illicit goods exists.
No matter how "terrible" the side effects of their actions (which in the case of drugs can include a horrible, horrible death), the "users" want the product.
No matter how many sources exist, enforcement will always be lagging behind.
No matter how many "users" are prosecuted, "abuse" will continue, because it is socially acceptable (no matter what the law says).
"Dealers" aren't even that good at what they do, yet they can conceal themselves effectively by just not blatantly advertising their profession.
"Users" will always be able to find those dealers better than enforcement, because they had to learn how to find them for themselves. Well, that and ANY dealer will do. The enforcement has to hunt them down one at a time. In fact, any time more than one "dealer" is caught at a time, it is a newsworthy event (and probably reported as proof of some sort of society destroying conspiracy).
The sad part is, unlike drugs, the reason the (digital) users go to illicit dealers for their fix is because the product is too expensive, ridiculously restricted, and/or simply unavailable in their venue. The market for the "bad" stuff could be nearly completely extinguished by the studios themselves, just by adjusting their digital price points to even slightly reflect the realities of the digital marketplace.
I feel dumber by having to explain this, but all art is originally derived from the real world. That is, either the world as the artist sees it, or the world as the artist would like it to be. Physical art is based on the physical world. Written art is based on the human condition.
Like I said, ALL art is remix and repetition, with the artist's personality and ideals to temper the mix.
Ahh, mistaking a large quantity for a lack of quality, and moreover, confusing "actual creativity" for something other than remix and repetition, with the author's personality and ideals tempering the mix.
Just because the pile of truly uninspired crap is larger than ever, doesn't mean there aren't enough gems to justify your digging.
Except it doesn't just effect you. It never has, it never will. While I don't know any specifics about this particular set of legislation, they are usually wide open for abuse. If someone quotes one of those things you wish to be removed, does THEIR comment fall under the umbrella of your vendetta? Do entire comment threads made in reference to your stupidity suddenly get disappeared? Does a photo someone ELSE took with you in a compromising position fall into your net, as well?
Here's the thing: Until November, there is no way TO "show teeth" with regard to removing Congressmen/Senators. Recall elections are not possible at the national level, so until we CAN vote them out, we can't, well, vote them out.
On the post: Do The Differences Between Software Piracy And Media Piracy Matter?
Re: confused approach
Safety was (pretty much) unregulated until the occurrence of disasters/illnesses terrible enough to cause a public outcry, and the politicians once again to get the industries in check. Unbelievably, it took until the mid 1960s for that to happen.
You could say, in those cases, the market did speak, and it said regulation was necessary.
As for copyright, regulation has gone unregulated to the point of causing a public outcry. It remains to be seen whether it will be large enough to force the politicians to get the industries in check.
On the post: Evidence Shows That Megaupload Shutdown Had No Real Impact On Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh well. Like I've been saying. No great loss to the pirates, but the MAFIAA groups are having a great time patting each other on the back.
It's like tee-ball. Everyone gets a trophy. Too bad you only think you know which team lost...
On the post: Evidence Shows That Megaupload Shutdown Had No Real Impact On Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
"I found an awesome song two days ago. How can I get it to as many people as possible?"
Like I said before, only EXTREMELY casual infringers are affected. Not regular infringers, or even casual infringers.
Just the ones who didn't really do it anyways. Basically, the guy who tried to smoke a cigarette in high school, but got freaked out, and never hung around with those guys ever again.
On the post: Evidence Shows That Megaupload Shutdown Had No Real Impact On Infringement
Re:
Between chat programs and torrent sites (which really only find material that is already available), file lockers were good for two things: legitimate users, and extremely casual infringers.
The file lockers, Megaupload included, were very generous about takedowns. See, it was against their terms of service to post unauthorized material. Therefore, you didn't have to be a copyright holder to get files taken down. You only had to report a file, any file, as a "suspected terms-of-service violation," and it would be down in minutes.
I kept my mouth shut about this before, but seeing as all the relatively virus-free file lockers are out of your reach (having blocked US users, or limited them to personal access only), there's nothing you can do about it now.
On the post: NBCUniversal Pirates NBCUniversal SNL Skit That NBCUniversal Refuses To Put Online
Re: NBC has now blocked the youtube video
They are now blocking videos whose only significant use is their own.
On the post: The NFL Issues Takedown For Chrysler Super Bowl Commercial
Re: Re: Bots! Damn bots!
On the post: Canadian Songwriters Want To Embrace File Sharing, But Do They Have The Right Approach?
Re:
Also, just because you don't currently share music doesn't mean they would be punishing everyone. Because, y'know, if this system was enacted, you could share any and all music you wished, so there would be no "innocent" or "guilty," just people using the internet.
Oh, and if "socialist" is the worst problem you can find with this thing, you need to look harder. There is nothing wrong with socialism's ideals, only with the self-defeating fact that a socialist system must be enforced by a dictatorship, thereby invalidating the "equality" of the system.
On the post: The Real Goal Of Regulating Buffer Copies? So Hollywood Can Put A Tollbooth On Innovation
Re: Focus too tight
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
Your attempt to pass off anyone who has even a basic comprehension of the internet as some sort of hardened criminal is pathetic.
On the post: Mike C's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Enough!!! - To clarify:
Fiscal conservatives - It may be a threat, but the market will take care of itself.
Fiscal liberals - it is a threat that must be regulated.
If it is a social issue:
Social conservatives - it is a loosening of morals, and must be prevented.
Social liberals - it is a changing of morals, and unavoidable.
On the post: Mike C's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Enough!!!
Conservative: Fiscally conservative, socially conservative
Liberal: Fiscally liberal, socially liberal
Libertarian: Fiscally conservative, socially liberal
Populist: Fiscally liberal, socially conservative
The problems show up because people view these issues in different lights.
To me (a fiscal conservative), it is a fiscal problem, thus the cry of "Let the market take care of itself."
To some, it is a social/moral "problem". They see it as a loosening of morals, a slide into social depravity.
So frankly, people from all over the board, from all areas of the political spectrum (as we saw in the SOPA/PIPA protests), have different reactions to this issue, often at odds with their "party."
On the post: Mike C's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Mike C's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re:
If you still believe that, nothing that anyone says to you will ever get past your hands, which you so gleefully have covering your ears.
On the post: Mike C's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
First, drugs are illegal, period. There is no legal heroin, no over the counter cocaine, no "hash by the pound" stores. It's illegal.
So, medical marijuana, prescription morphine, medical opiates, codeine, and a whole slough of other drugs don't exist. Good to know. Especially seeing as how the largest growing area of substance abuse is prescription drugs. I'm glad that was just my imagination. Come to think of it, the (most recent) Prohibition? One of the most common sources for alcohol WASN'T the speakeasys, it wasn't Toothless Joe (the local moonshiner), or any other source. It was going to the pharmacist, and getting "medical" alcohol.
There is an incredibly huge amount of money involved, it's all tax free, and the business model is kept in line with firearms, cement shoes, and more recently, fast and furious guns.
You know what that sounds like? It sounds like (the most recent) Prohibition. Y'know, one of the other failed laws that tried to restrict what the public wanted, whether it was good for them or not. Just as with infringing content, I, personally, am a teetotaler. It doesn't mean I'm blind to the reality staring me in the face, though.
When you understand the differences, you can understand why a "war on piracy" isn't even comparable to a "war on drugs", except perhaps in the use of the word "war". If you fall for it (and apparently you did) then you really missed the boat.
The key here is NOT the differences, which aren't even as many as you would like to think. The key is the similarities.
No matter how many scumbag dealers/infringers get caught, MANY more will spring up in their place, for the simple reason that the market for their illicit goods exists.
No matter how "terrible" the side effects of their actions (which in the case of drugs can include a horrible, horrible death), the "users" want the product.
No matter how many sources exist, enforcement will always be lagging behind.
No matter how many "users" are prosecuted, "abuse" will continue, because it is socially acceptable (no matter what the law says).
"Dealers" aren't even that good at what they do, yet they can conceal themselves effectively by just not blatantly advertising their profession.
"Users" will always be able to find those dealers better than enforcement, because they had to learn how to find them for themselves. Well, that and ANY dealer will do. The enforcement has to hunt them down one at a time. In fact, any time more than one "dealer" is caught at a time, it is a newsworthy event (and probably reported as proof of some sort of society destroying conspiracy).
The sad part is, unlike drugs, the reason the (digital) users go to illicit dealers for their fix is because the product is too expensive, ridiculously restricted, and/or simply unavailable in their venue. The market for the "bad" stuff could be nearly completely extinguished by the studios themselves, just by adjusting their digital price points to even slightly reflect the realities of the digital marketplace.
On the post: We're Living In the Most Creative Time In History
Re: Re: Re:
Like I said, ALL art is remix and repetition, with the artist's personality and ideals to temper the mix.
On the post: We're Living In the Most Creative Time In History
Re:
Just because the pile of truly uninspired crap is larger than ever, doesn't mean there aren't enough gems to justify your digging.
On the post: Why Can't Europe Just Forget The Ridiculous Idea Of A 'Right To Be Forgotten'
Re: Re: Re:
Where will the line be drawn?
More importantly, who gets to draw it?
On the post: The Sky Is Rising: The Entertainment Industry Is Large & Growing... Not Shrinking
Re: Re: Yes, but...
On the post: NBC News Doesn't Understand Fair Use; Demands Mitt Romney Remove Ads That Use TV News Clips
Re: Re: Re: Re: Legalities
On the post: Elected Officials Asked To Return Hollywood Money Following Dodd's Threats
Re: Re:
Next >>