[Greg Anos]

Well Stonetools, I have some questions.

from your quote in post #49.

"Ever used pirated material? 80.1% of Americans have never downloaded pirated music or videos without paying for it; only 13.7% have. Even among the Internet Generation of 18-29 year old Americans, a majority (50.3%) have never downloaded pirated material without paying for it."

So how much money would the copyright industry (creators + various middlemen) actually make from stopping this piracy?

Are the people pirating vastly richer than everybody else? I doubt it. So if their economic demographic pattern matches the public in general (most likely), then the most revenue that could be expected would be 13-15 percent, in line with their percentage of population. They won't be buying the vast quantity of material ascribed to their piracy, they literally don't have the money to buy it with, just like the people who don't pirate.

Is it worth the extra 13-15% revenue to try to muzzle the Internet and cause the unintended consequences of the required changes? Strip searching all customers and employees at brick and mortar stores would reduce shoplifting dramatically, but it would be counterproductive. Are the measures involved in things like SOPA going to end up as counterproductive, as well? If not, why not?

As to advertizing that maintains pirate sites, how will you stop a non-US subsidary of a large multinational from advertising on them? You know, the same ones who don't consolidate their profits on the parent company's book to avoid US corporate income tax? They are separate entities legally and they are not based or do business in the US.

From another one of your quotes, "I certainly believe that politicians should be informed about the subject matter of the legislation they pass. That said, I reject the idea that only "coders" should have a say in the future of the Internet. The Internet from its very beginning was created for public purposes (initially, secure military communications in time of war) and is now part of the public square, used by everyone. It is NOT the private plaything of the "technologists". "

Ok, the "coders" should not have totals say over the future of the Internet.
Question #1. - Just how much say should they have? 50%? 10%? 1%? Sit in the corner without supper?
Question #2. How are you going to get your changes implemented without the "coders"? Are the Comgressmen and lobbyists going to "flip the bits" themselves?

These are serious questions. Can you provide some serious answers?


(As an aside, about your quote "Ok, so the Internet is robust. Doesn't mean its above the law." )

It actually was designed to be "above the law", or at least to out-survive the law. The backbone concept was to have a communication method that would survive an all-out nuclear attack, so the remnant of the military could regroup and hopefully function. Civilian law was not expected to survive the all-out nuclear attack....