And that also means that in theory you can limit the stories that are exposed to the user for many reasons that don't benefit the consumer... such as because those sites won't pay, they make editorial decisions that they don't like the politics, etc.
In your scenario, the end user loses because they have less open access to content and some elite group gets to decide what they should see.
Oh, and that pretty much isn't the way the internet works. If they don't want the traffic, then perhaps they should put everything behind a paywall or remove them from network access.
Well, as usual DH hit it on the head. And that's where we fundamentally disagree and may never reconcile.
People (even those here) will agree with the principles. I am certainly against unlawful copying and distribution. The problem lies with what that means--I think the government and business should embrace far less draconian limits on sharing and distribution.
And everyone, counties, businesses, and individuals will be better for it. For example, the more news and information that goes behind paywalls may decrease the average person's exposure to different perspectives and sources of information. That's bad and that's a hindrance to democracy.
I also don't believe that less restrictions will harm markets for content. Markets and technology change--friction won't help them.
After reading that last bit, I must admit I feel like I've been slimed. The subtext in this response is effectively--"I know you're sheep, you know you're sheep, so accept it. If I tell you its good and you'll agree with the principles, then that's that."
Wow, just wow. I recently told TAM I could almost taste his arrogance, but the hubris here can be felt, smelled, heard, touched, seen, and even schmisioned.
The sad part is that I unfortunately agree with you--it will be passed and part of our democracy will die.
I'm not sure he's doing it out of vindictiveness, although there is a certain bitterness behind his comments. But I can't say that the rest of us have been on our best behavior either.
However, as my second post above demonstrates, I honestly think that part of the problem is a very odd view of economics on his (or her) part. I finally understand one of the major area of disagreements between TAM and the rest--I believe he completely misunderstands the economic concept of scarcity and its contribution to marginal cost.
That's a pretty fundamental concept and until our understandings converge, there will never be much common ground.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just like hardbacks / Paperbacks ?
Then you completely misunderstand the definition of scarcity as defined by pretty much the entire field of economics. Scarcity does not mean there is a "local" limit to the amount of something available to suppliers and consumers. It does mean that there is a "practical" limit to the amount that can be created, distributed, etc. that affects the MARGINAL COST. The reason a human decides to only order 50 is because there are limits to the amount they can cost effectively acquire and limits to the amount they can cost effectively sell.
Things that are for all intents and purposes infinite (digital copies), have an extremely low (if not zero) marginal cost. Companies often try to artificially set prices that defy the pressure created by that low marginal cost. Thus the problem.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's more indicative of entitlement than?
Sigh. Really? Do you really not understand that no one here is arguing FOR infringement or what you call pirating?
Once more with feeling... the trend towards file sharing is a MARKET INDICATOR that people want freely sharable content and wish to pay for things other than locked-up content.
Once those in the business of making money get that, they'll stop investing in lawyers and start investing in convincing ways for people to pay.
"But in the end, people are responsible for what happens on their internet connection."
Actually no they aren't. People are not responsible if their baseball bats are used to kill or tools from their toolbox are used to break into a house without their knowledge. So you need to amend your statement to at least include "if they are aware of the specific usage" (but even that is debatable).
And yet.... it happens. So unless part of your personal philosophy rejects the presumption of innocence (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/01/12/153/23800) then it would seem you have a problem.
Re: Re: There�s Hypocrisy, And There�s Hypocrisy
>>What happens if the "old players" stop producing content?
What happens if the sky suddenly turns purple? Or if smurfs suddenly start appearing in reality?
As long as there is a demand for news, there will be a source for it, and a business model for providing it profitably. It might not be the model you like though, because economics will ensure the model is the one that has the optimal cost to meet the demand.
Same thing goes for the music industry. If all of the labels die and music is no longer widely available for sale, people will still be making music and eventually finding ways to make money off of it.
Riiiight, because as soon as that happened, ambrosia would start falling from the sky, angels would sing, and we'd all start farting platinum.
I'm not sure what reality you guys live in, but in my reality, which is populated by "humans" who are all subject to the same human failings.
Large organizations, whether they be cities, states, villages, countries, etc. will be influenced by money, power, and things not related to the interests of the people. So disband the US and some other power will move to fill its place--you'll be complaining just as hard about the state governments. Or perhaps you'd like to move abroad to one of the many nirvanas that exist there? The US is of course the only one affected by corruption and power. Good luck with your plan, though.
On the post: Mark Cuban Tells Newspapers To Pull Out Of Google... As He Invests In Competitors?
Re:
In your scenario, the end user loses because they have less open access to content and some elite group gets to decide what they should see.
On the post: Awkward Stock Photo Blog Hit With DMCA Claim
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: USTR: A Lot Of Misperception Over ACTA, But We Won't Clear It Up Or Anything
Re: Re: We, the People
On the post: USTR: A Lot Of Misperception Over ACTA, But We Won't Clear It Up Or Anything
Re: Re: We, the People
People (even those here) will agree with the principles. I am certainly against unlawful copying and distribution. The problem lies with what that means--I think the government and business should embrace far less draconian limits on sharing and distribution.
And everyone, counties, businesses, and individuals will be better for it. For example, the more news and information that goes behind paywalls may decrease the average person's exposure to different perspectives and sources of information. That's bad and that's a hindrance to democracy.
I also don't believe that less restrictions will harm markets for content. Markets and technology change--friction won't help them.
On the post: USTR: A Lot Of Misperception Over ACTA, But We Won't Clear It Up Or Anything
Re: Re: We, the People
After reading that last bit, I must admit I feel like I've been slimed. The subtext in this response is effectively--"I know you're sheep, you know you're sheep, so accept it. If I tell you its good and you'll agree with the principles, then that's that."
Wow, just wow. I recently told TAM I could almost taste his arrogance, but the hubris here can be felt, smelled, heard, touched, seen, and even schmisioned.
The sad part is that I unfortunately agree with you--it will be passed and part of our democracy will die.
On the post: But, Wait, Didn't The Entertainment Industry Insist ACTA Wouldn't Change US Law?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Amazon, Macmillan Fight Over Ebook Prices; After Amazon Removes Macmillan Titles, It Caves To Higher Prices
Re: TAM the amazing TAMHOLE
However, as my second post above demonstrates, I honestly think that part of the problem is a very odd view of economics on his (or her) part. I finally understand one of the major area of disagreements between TAM and the rest--I believe he completely misunderstands the economic concept of scarcity and its contribution to marginal cost.
That's a pretty fundamental concept and until our understandings converge, there will never be much common ground.
On the post: Amazon, Macmillan Fight Over Ebook Prices; After Amazon Removes Macmillan Titles, It Caves To Higher Prices
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just like hardbacks / Paperbacks ?
Things that are for all intents and purposes infinite (digital copies), have an extremely low (if not zero) marginal cost. Companies often try to artificially set prices that defy the pressure created by that low marginal cost. Thus the problem.
On the post: Amazon, Macmillan Fight Over Ebook Prices; After Amazon Removes Macmillan Titles, It Caves To Higher Prices
Re: Re: Just like hardbacks / Paperbacks ?
On the post: Amazon, Macmillan Fight Over Ebook Prices; After Amazon Removes Macmillan Titles, It Caves To Higher Prices
Re:
No, that is both collusion AND price fixing.
On the post: Ubisoft's New DRM: Must Be Online To Play
This worked so well for DIVX....
On the post: Does Freedom Of The Press In The UK Include Just Making Things Up?
Re:
On the post: What's A Bigger Entitlement Mentality? Demanding Old Business Models Must Remain... Or Liking Free Stuff?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's more indicative of entitlement than?
Once more with feeling... the trend towards file sharing is a MARKET INDICATOR that people want freely sharable content and wish to pay for things other than locked-up content.
Once those in the business of making money get that, they'll stop investing in lawyers and start investing in convincing ways for people to pay.
On the post: Daily Mirror Blocks NewsNow; Will It Start Paying Its Own Sources?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: What's A Bigger Entitlement Mentality? Demanding Old Business Models Must Remain... Or Liking Free Stuff?
Re: What's more indicative of entitlement than?
On the post: Many Innocent Users Sent Pre-Settlement Letters Demanding Payment For Infringement
Re: Re:
Actually no they aren't. People are not responsible if their baseball bats are used to kill or tools from their toolbox are used to break into a house without their knowledge. So you need to amend your statement to at least include "if they are aware of the specific usage" (but even that is debatable).
On the post: Insult To Injury: Mandelson Wants Those Wrongly Kicked Off The Internet To Pay To Appeal
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Daily Mirror Blocks NewsNow; Will It Start Paying Its Own Sources?
Re: Re: There�s Hypocrisy, And There�s Hypocrisy
What happens if the sky suddenly turns purple? Or if smurfs suddenly start appearing in reality?
As long as there is a demand for news, there will be a source for it, and a business model for providing it profitably. It might not be the model you like though, because economics will ensure the model is the one that has the optimal cost to meet the demand.
Same thing goes for the music industry. If all of the labels die and music is no longer widely available for sale, people will still be making music and eventually finding ways to make money off of it.
Saying anything else is a strawman.
On the post: IFPI: Piracy Bad!!! Government Must Fix Because We Don't Want To Adapt!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Obama Quietly Issues Ruling Saying It's Legal For The FBI To Break The Law On Accessing Phone Records
Re: Re: Time
I'm not sure what reality you guys live in, but in my reality, which is populated by "humans" who are all subject to the same human failings.
Large organizations, whether they be cities, states, villages, countries, etc. will be influenced by money, power, and things not related to the interests of the people. So disband the US and some other power will move to fill its place--you'll be complaining just as hard about the state governments. Or perhaps you'd like to move abroad to one of the many nirvanas that exist there? The US is of course the only one affected by corruption and power. Good luck with your plan, though.
Next >>