MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Internet Regulation and Censorship

stonetools · 03-08-2012, 06:08 AM

Mobile read*

Thanks for the words of support. Sorry I've been busy , which is *why I haven't responded. I'll try to cover my answers in one post. What I see here is the false dichotomy- either the lawless though " free" Internet where the rights of the artist are just collateral damage , or *a "muzzled" internet where... What exactly? The society descends into totalitarianism ? The end of civilization , as we know it ? "Draconian measures" ( whatever those are ) are instituted? There is another option- that of "ordered liberty" . An Internet under the rule of law can be just as free and even more productive than a lawless Internet . Indeed, it will be necessarily more productive, as we shall see.*

We should understand that the rule of law is already coming to the Internet. Last year the federal government closed down the three biggest gambling sites on the Internet on charges of illegal gambling, fraud, and money laundering. Do you remember the stars reeling in their courses when that happened? Me neither . Frankly, we want to government to go after those engaged in identity theft, phishing, and the various types of fraud practiced on the Internet , not to mention distribution of child porn and trafficking in underage girls. It seems the only kind of criminal offense that we do not want to enforce on the Internet is copyright enforcement .*

Why is that? My opinion is that the other kinds of Internet offenses are aimed primarily at consumers, whereas copyright infringement focuses on stealing from the producers. *We as consumers don't see that we suffer anything when produces are defrauded. This is a delusion .

People have speculated about my motives for taking my unpopular positions. Is it because I'm a corporate shill? Hardly. It's because I am selfish and more to the point, uncreative.*
I know that I can't write like Steven King or George RR Martin.*
I can't direct a movie like Stephen Spielberg.*
I can't produce a TV series like Game of Thrones.*
I can't write software like the mobile app developers that make my Mobile devices such a joy to use.*

I also know that the reason I get to enjoy the products of these creators * is because they can make money from creating and distributing these products. To paraphrase Mr. Smith, it's not from the benevolence of the author, the publisher or the bookseller by which I get my evenings entertainment but their regard to their self interest. These self interested creators are led by an invisible hand to achieve something ( my entertainment ) that was no *part of their intention .

Without the protection of their intellectual property rights by the law, these creators ( and the people who invest in them) won't be able to profit from their hard work and over time, there will fewer and lower quality products coming into he marketplace. So far this is elementary economics. Unfortunately, many *people here don't see this. They think that high quality entertainment products somehow magically just appear in the marketplace in a process divorced from the making of profit. They don't seem to realize that the people being *ripped off by pirates are mostly not the "" corporations" or the "publishers" but the artists and creators.*

If *i am a shill for anyone it's the artists and creators because I know that I can't make this wonderful stuff and I want them to keep on making it. *To lay it out plainly,*

You can't watch *a movie if it's never made because the studio wont risk investing in it because of threat of piracy.*
You can't hear a song if the songwriter doesn't write it because she won't be able to make money from it
You can't buy a book that the author won't write because its not worth it to him to spend nine months writing a book only to see it massively " shared" online by people who won't pay him a penny.*

So advocating for IP rights protection and the rule of law on the Internet is advocating for the artists, and eventually for the consumer. That's how *I see it.*

03-08-2012, 06:08 AM	#91
stonetools Wizard Posts: 2,016 Karma: 2838487 Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Washington, DC Device: Ipad, IPhone	Mobile read* Thanks for the words of support. Sorry I've been busy , which is why I haven't responded. I'll try to cover my answers in one post. What I see here is the false dichotomy- either the lawless though " free" Internet where the rights of the artist are just collateral damage , or a "muzzled" internet where... What exactly? The society descends into totalitarianism ? The end of civilization , as we know it ? "Draconian measures" ( whatever those are ) are instituted? There is another option- that of "ordered liberty" . An Internet under the rule of law can be just as free and even more productive than a lawless Internet . Indeed, it will be necessarily more productive, as we shall see.* We should understand that the rule of law is already coming to the Internet. Last year the federal government closed down the three biggest gambling sites on the Internet on charges of illegal gambling, fraud, and money laundering. Do you remember the stars reeling in their courses when that happened? Me neither . Frankly, we want to government to go after those engaged in identity theft, phishing, and the various types of fraud practiced on the Internet , not to mention distribution of child porn and trafficking in underage girls. It seems the only kind of criminal offense that we do not want to enforce on the Internet is copyright enforcement .* Why is that? My opinion is that the other kinds of Internet offenses are aimed primarily at consumers, whereas copyright infringement focuses on stealing from the producers. We as consumers don't see that we suffer anything when produces are defrauded. This is a delusion . People have speculated about my motives for taking my unpopular positions. Is it because I'm a corporate shill? Hardly. It's because I am selfish and more to the point, uncreative. I know that I can't write like Steven King or George RR Martin.* I can't direct a movie like Stephen Spielberg.* I can't produce a TV series like Game of Thrones.* I can't write software like the mobile app developers that make my Mobile devices such a joy to use.* I also know that the reason I get to enjoy the products of these creators * is because they can make money from creating and distributing these products. To paraphrase Mr. Smith, it's not from the benevolence of the author, the publisher or the bookseller by which I get my evenings entertainment but their regard to their self interest. These self interested creators are led by an invisible hand to achieve something ( my entertainment ) that was no part of their intention . Without the protection of their intellectual property rights by the law, these creators ( and the people who invest in them) won't be able to profit from their hard work and over time, there will fewer and lower quality products coming into he marketplace. So far this is elementary economics. Unfortunately, many people here don't see this. They think that high quality entertainment products somehow magically just appear in the marketplace in a process divorced from the making of profit. They don't seem to realize that the people being ripped off by pirates are mostly not the "" corporations" or the "publishers" but the artists and creators. If i am a shill for anyone it's the artists and creators because I know that I can't make this wonderful stuff and I want them to keep on making it. To lay it out plainly,* You can't watch a movie if it's never made because the studio wont risk investing in it because of threat of piracy. You can't hear a song if the songwriter doesn't write it because she won't be able to make money from it You can't buy a book that the author won't write because its not worth it to him to spend nine months writing a book only to see it massively " shared" online by people who won't pay him a penny.* So advocating for IP rights protection and the rule of law on the Internet is advocating for the artists, and eventually for the consumer. That's how I see it.