> In the modern world, where everyone is the media, they are completely impractical.
That's not a very good argument.
There's a lot of people in the world, so stopping them doing anything could be considered 'impractical' but that doesn't mean that that is the correct course of action.
People need to understand and accept their responsibilities when acting as 'broadcasters'. Just because it is easy for someone to broadcast to millions doesn't mean that they should not bound by the same rules and conventions - see the current problems in the UK where people have used Twitter to name rape victims (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17822719).
> So we should pay over and over again for the same shit in a slightly modified format?
No one says that you must get it in the new format, it's your choice. No one forces you to move from VHS to DVD to BluRay, but you do it because you perceive their to be some benefit to yourself.
> The entity that wants money for downloading didn't create
> the art, it's merely attempting to get you to pay for it.
They paid the artist. The paid the manufacturers. They paid the PR people. They paid!
> And before you say "they give the artist a cut", be aware
> that a number of the companies list downloads (even paid
> ones) as "promotion" and don't pay the artist a cent for them!
Which, even if true, is irrelevant: the artist knew and accepted these conditions.
Before the internet, it was incredibly hard to communicate around the world. Many researchers would have been isolated, with no way to "hook up" with others that have similar interests
Not entirely true, there were printed media in which researchers would discuss their work. They could even ring one another if they wanted to.
The Internet has made it much easier for people to contact one another in a manner that cannot be regulated and is largely 'unseen'. It differs from 'traditional media' in that don't even need to know who you are talking to or even how to contact them.
Not necessarily true. I buy something from a reputable shop and part of that money goes into the economy through taxes, rent, wages, buying the product, etc.
If I buy something from the man-on-the-corner, he takes all that money and none of it needs to be seen within the wider economy - he might buy a Rolls Royce and so allow someone else to pay taxes, etc. or he might just ship the money abroad. Either way, I suspect that he doesn't see a social responsibility in sharing his wealth.
If the counterfeit goods are sold in reputable shops then, again, some of that money does make it into the economy through the taxes, etc. but the majority for the product will just disappear.
But if you look at their policy document people are not signing away their rights:
"we encourage volunteers to use social media within the following guidelines" and people sign to say that "I have read and understand the guidelines..."
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Badger.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate it
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-truly-staggering-cost-of-inventi ng-new-drugs/
Re: Re: Hate it
(untitled comment)
That's not a very good argument.
There's a lot of people in the world, so stopping them doing anything could be considered 'impractical' but that doesn't mean that that is the correct course of action.
People need to understand and accept their responsibilities when acting as 'broadcasters'. Just because it is easy for someone to broadcast to millions doesn't mean that they should not bound by the same rules and conventions - see the current problems in the UK where people have used Twitter to name rape victims (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17822719).
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one says that you must get it in the new format, it's your choice. No one forces you to move from VHS to DVD to BluRay, but you do it because you perceive their to be some benefit to yourself.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> the art, it's merely attempting to get you to pay for it.
They paid the artist. The paid the manufacturers. They paid the PR people. They paid!
> And before you say "they give the artist a cut", be aware
> that a number of the companies list downloads (even paid
> ones) as "promotion" and don't pay the artist a cent for them!
Which, even if true, is irrelevant: the artist knew and accepted these conditions.
Re: Re: Re:
> morality and ensure that everyone 'does the right thing'
So, how low do you want to set your bar? If the law shouldn't be used to deal with theft, then what comes next?
Re: Re: Re: Blanks Law
Not entirely true, there were printed media in which researchers would discuss their work. They could even ring one another if they wanted to.
The Internet has made it much easier for people to contact one another in a manner that cannot be regulated and is largely 'unseen'. It differs from 'traditional media' in that don't even need to know who you are talking to or even how to contact them.
Re: Re:
But that sort-of begs the question "how much money does the problem have to represent before we're bothered?".
Even if the problem were only a tenth of that quoted, $10billion, that still sounds like a lot of money to me.
(Not that I agree with the SOPA approach)
Re: There is no cost to the economy
Not necessarily true. I buy something from a reputable shop and part of that money goes into the economy through taxes, rent, wages, buying the product, etc.
If I buy something from the man-on-the-corner, he takes all that money and none of it needs to be seen within the wider economy - he might buy a Rolls Royce and so allow someone else to pay taxes, etc. or he might just ship the money abroad. Either way, I suspect that he doesn't see a social responsibility in sharing his wealth.
If the counterfeit goods are sold in reputable shops then, again, some of that money does make it into the economy through the taxes, etc. but the majority for the product will just disappear.
Re: Re: Binoculars next?
Binoculars next?
Surely it's far worse to 'search' for you using a pair of binoculars to actually look at you?
Maybe...
Sounds OK to me...
Weird...
Interesting place...
Re: Duck and cover
So, if they're not forcing volunteers to sign non-disclosure agreements?
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think you're signing away your rights...
But if you look at their policy document people are not signing away their rights:
"we encourage volunteers to use social media within the following guidelines" and people sign to say that "I have read and understand the guidelines..."
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Badger.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt