If you think about it, this *expands* the TV networks' potential market quite a bit, as these days there are a lot of people who have computers, but don't have TVs.
In fact, internet TV is clearly the next step in the evolution of broadcast TV, and it could probably be done efficiently enough using some clever multi-cast technology -- but the broadcasters need to be willing to innovate before that happens. As things are, the way the broadcasters work is so entrenched that most of them will *never* innovate, unless somebody like IVI comes along and shakes them up a bit.
Tbh, I don't have that much faith in people any more, though I really wish you are right. Consumers again and again fail to criticise and put a check on their oppressors (either through ignorance or apathy), and that could easily be repeated in this instance with dire consequences. That's why I'm totally terrified by things like ACTA.
While I don't expect people to start killing themselves or to start trolling each other in the streets, I do agree that such unfair laws will end up pissing off a lot of people who otherwise would never have taken an interest in placing reasonable limits on IP.
Julian Huppert is Lib Dem. They are opposed to the DEA, at least in theory. They promised they'd get rid of it, but now they are in power and haven't done much to that end. To be fair, Cameron is a strong supporter of the DEA so there may not be much they can do, but they are definitely not actively campaigning against it either.
Because it's not copyright that sustains those jobs, but the demand for new content creation. History tells us that lack of copyright leads to more creation, and lack of patents to more competition and innovation.
You should provide evidence why such a privilege is required, and also evidence that piracy and those "ragtag" websites have an adverse effect on artists.
Notice that this is not about the content industry, their shareholders or their billions. Society is better off without them (right?). Or, are you going to argue that they are somehow necessary?
They violate the *privilege* of the copyright holders -- a privilege which was granted in an age where computers, the internet and widespread copying were not even imagined, a privilege that they have been extending to last for hundreds of years, a privilege used to limit what I can and cannot do with real property that I own, a privilege that corrupt governments are exploiting to censor and oppress. Copyright holders need to find a new way to do business.
I think that's the root of all our problems today: consumers are treated like shit, but never manage to react or make a stand. I'll bet all those Facebook "fans" will still go shell out $8 to watch this movie, and the cycle will simply repeat itself again the next time this studio releases a movie.
I don't see how we can escape this, unless people wake up and realise they have rights... but they have to care, and most people apparently don't.
Intel, a provider of DRM technology, wouldn't try to convince Hollywood that DRM is a bad idea. I'm sure Intel are more than happy to provide Hollywood with rope to hang themselves, as long as they get paid.
Intel is making DMCA threats to cover its own ass, because its technology has failed at its intended purpose. Of course they saw this coming since the beginning, and this is just to make sure Hollywood doesn't hold them responsible in any way. Standard procedure, I'd say.
Typical attitude from someone like you. You are dismissing the other side's arguments offhand, and misrepresenting a few irrelevant studies to push through your own opinions. If you disagree with Mike's and Glyn's ideas, then you need to say WHY. Also, use pronouns.
While I'm sure there are studies showing a correlation between the price and perceived value of physical goods, I'm not sure what they have to do with software.
If you are given an expensive car to drive, it's quite normal that you WILL be extremely careful in case you damage it. You only perceive more value in it because it's very expensive to repair or replace -- it is tangible and scarce, and so is your money. If you are filthy rich, then perhaps totaling an expensive car won't mean much to you.
The same cannot be said for software, however. Software cannot be damaged, so value cannot be perceived in it like in physical objects. If I buy a super-expensive copy of some program, I'll be careful not to damage or lose the disc, but will the program itself be any better simply because I paid more? No. If I damage my installation of the software, I can simply reinstall it.
A prime example that shows value vs price vs utility is, of course, Windows and Linux. Since Microsoft has a bit of a monopoly, they can price their software any way they like. They can pull a random number out of their arse and make you pay it. Linux, on the other hand, is free. Political arguments and ignorance aside, if you ask any knowledgeable computer users, they'll likely tell you both OSs are equally good. So, repeat after me: in the case of software value is not determined by price -- it is determined by utility.
"It's all meaningless, of course. The reality is that consumers will pay either way, via higher prices"
That's true. However, it does make a difference who bears the costs. If the entertainment industry bears the costs, then the price of entertainment goes up. If the ISPs bear the costs, then the price of internet access goes up.
Sp, the products of whoever pays for this will become more expensive, and fewer people will be able to afford them.
Entertainment is a luxury, but internet access is not. By raising internet prices, some people (many of them innocent) may lose their internet connections.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Natural rights gives a straightforward explanation
This is the nature vs nurture debate, which is not really worth going into here.
Either way, I think our behaviour is conditional, and we'll act differently depending on different circumstances. The warlord probably wouldn't need to act ruthlessly if he was living in a less competitive environment. That shouldn't come as a surprise.
In this instance I think we ARE genetically predisposed not to kill each other, and not to steal from each other. Look at examples of other animals:
Moose fight by locking their horns and pushing each other around, but they don't strike to kill.
Dogs have some sense of ownership. A dog's bone is *his* bone, and other dogs won't try to steal it unless they are starving.
On the post: Company Claims Legal Right To Stream Broadcast TV Online; Broadcasters Disagree
In fact, internet TV is clearly the next step in the evolution of broadcast TV, and it could probably be done efficiently enough using some clever multi-cast technology -- but the broadcasters need to be willing to innovate before that happens. As things are, the way the broadcasters work is so entrenched that most of them will *never* innovate, unless somebody like IVI comes along and shakes them up a bit.
I'm rooting for IVI. They certainly have balls.
On the post: Austrian Collection Societies Want A 'You Must Be A Criminal' Tax On Hard Drives
On the post: Could Cutting People Off From The Internet Be Dangerous?
Re: Re:
On the post: Could Cutting People Off From The Internet Be Dangerous?
On the post: UK MPs Questioning Digital Economy Act: IP Address Does Not Identify Individual
On the post: Patrick Leahy Against Internet Censorship In Other Countries, But All For It At Home
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Patrick Leahy Against Internet Censorship In Other Countries, But All For It At Home
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Patrick Leahy Against Internet Censorship In Other Countries, But All For It At Home
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You should provide evidence why such a privilege is required, and also evidence that piracy and those "ragtag" websites have an adverse effect on artists.
Notice that this is not about the content industry, their shareholders or their billions. Society is better off without them (right?). Or, are you going to argue that they are somehow necessary?
On the post: Patrick Leahy Against Internet Censorship In Other Countries, But All For It At Home
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Patrick Leahy Against Internet Censorship In Other Countries, But All For It At Home
Re: Re:
On the post: Movie Producers Want Sole Ownership Of Facebook Fans
Re: Re: Can't have it both ways.
On the post: Movie Producers Want Sole Ownership Of Facebook Fans
Re: Afraid of having too many fans?
I don't see how we can escape this, unless people wake up and realise they have rights... but they have to care, and most people apparently don't.
On the post: US Senators Propose Bill To Censor Any Sites The Justice Depatement Declares 'Pirate' Sites, Worldwide
Re: Background on the bill backers:
On the post: Denial Of Service Attacks On RIAA & MPAA Are A Really Dumb Idea
Re:
On the post: Intel Threatens To Use The DMCA Against Anyone Who Uses The HDCP Crack
Intel is making DMCA threats to cover its own ass, because its technology has failed at its intended purpose. Of course they saw this coming since the beginning, and this is just to make sure Hollywood doesn't hold them responsible in any way. Standard procedure, I'd say.
On the post: BSA Again Lies With Stats; IDC Should Be Ashamed To Put Its Name On Pure Nonsense
Re: Mike, it's you who should be ashamed
While I'm sure there are studies showing a correlation between the price and perceived value of physical goods, I'm not sure what they have to do with software.
If you are given an expensive car to drive, it's quite normal that you WILL be extremely careful in case you damage it. You only perceive more value in it because it's very expensive to repair or replace -- it is tangible and scarce, and so is your money. If you are filthy rich, then perhaps totaling an expensive car won't mean much to you.
The same cannot be said for software, however. Software cannot be damaged, so value cannot be perceived in it like in physical objects. If I buy a super-expensive copy of some program, I'll be careful not to damage or lose the disc, but will the program itself be any better simply because I paid more? No. If I damage my installation of the software, I can simply reinstall it.
A prime example that shows value vs price vs utility is, of course, Windows and Linux. Since Microsoft has a bit of a monopoly, they can price their software any way they like. They can pull a random number out of their arse and make you pay it. Linux, on the other hand, is free. Political arguments and ignorance aside, if you ask any knowledgeable computer users, they'll likely tell you both OSs are equally good. So, repeat after me: in the case of software value is not determined by price -- it is determined by utility.
On the post: BSA Again Lies With Stats; IDC Should Be Ashamed To Put Its Name On Pure Nonsense
On the post: Bait & Switch: O2 iPad Customers Told Data Allowance Cut Up To Two Thirds
On the post: Why Must ISPs Pay To Be The Mandatory Copyright Cops Of The Entertainment Industry?
That's true. However, it does make a difference who bears the costs. If the entertainment industry bears the costs, then the price of entertainment goes up. If the ISPs bear the costs, then the price of internet access goes up.
Sp, the products of whoever pays for this will become more expensive, and fewer people will be able to afford them.
Entertainment is a luxury, but internet access is not. By raising internet prices, some people (many of them innocent) may lose their internet connections.
The government consists of retards. Q.E.D.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Natural rights gives a straightforward explanation
Either way, I think our behaviour is conditional, and we'll act differently depending on different circumstances. The warlord probably wouldn't need to act ruthlessly if he was living in a less competitive environment. That shouldn't come as a surprise.
In this instance I think we ARE genetically predisposed not to kill each other, and not to steal from each other. Look at examples of other animals:
Moose fight by locking their horns and pushing each other around, but they don't strike to kill.
Dogs have some sense of ownership. A dog's bone is *his* bone, and other dogs won't try to steal it unless they are starving.
Next >>