Dotcom raid illegal

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by stonetools

This is a classical statement of what's called Digital Determinism. Chris Ruen comments on it :



LINK

That whole post is worth reading.

I read it. I write more coherent rants...And that's what is was, a rant.

As to Digital Determinism. If a tool doesn't exist, it can't be used - for good or for bad. But once a tools has been created, it's going to be used. I don't care whether you're talking the printing press, steam engine, computers or nukes, they will be used. (Yes, nukes have been used - as threats. That may not have been their primary use, but I guarantee their use as threats shaped the entire world politics since 1945.) Call that whatever you like, that <reality> is unchangeable. With every new invention, there is change. And there are winners and losers with every change. The creators were the first beneficiaries of mass production (the printing press was the first mass production technology), and the are the first losers of the de-massification of production caused by the computer. And there will be others, many others. Just watch the next 50 years.

[Greg Anos]

But I will expand out that rant. Here's another quote from

"The content industries have failed to make the rights-based nature of this controversy clear, preferring economic arguments based on jobs or lost revenues that miss the real point. We should remember that such industries are not entitled to any baseline of revenues, or to exist at all. Perhaps FreeLoading is responsible for billions in losses, as the RIAA and MPAA claim. Or perhaps the RIAA’s critics are correct, that entertainment is a more competitive market than is was in the ‘90s and FreeLoading is not to blame for the free fall in sales.

The truth must be somewhere in the middle. The only claim more ridiculous than the RIAA’s mid-2000s argument, that each pirated album equals a lost sale, is the claim that no pirated copies equal lost sales. The search for objective proof for either claim is a futile one, cursed by hypotheticals and dynamic consumption patterns that are impossible to adequately measure.

Though focusing on the legal rights of individuals may be the best way to ultimately get our arms around FreeLoading, I suspect the content industries are a bit wary of emphasizing the enlightened principles of copyright, as that might expose the great contempt they have shown for such principles. If we begin to focus on the private rights that copyright affords to creators, which incentivize creation, it follows that we would examine the public right copyright simultaneously affords to citizens, to enjoy such creations through the public domain. The content industries would be horrified by a return to the elegant balance, between public and private rights, which copyright policy once satisfied. But, a return to that balance is the only enlightened way forward.

If we can agree to protect creators from digital exploitation, then we must also agree to dramatically scale back copyright terms from the current length: lifetime of the author plus 70 years. As a rights holder who strongly believes in the wisdom of copyright and its need for future protection, I see no reason why an exclusive right to my book should extend for more or less than 50 years total. Taken together, a good faith attempt at rescuing copyright from its current peril includes a search for common sense enforcement, paired with a movement toward the 50 year term or something close to it.

As a sign of such a strategy’s wisdom, we can imagine both Disney and the Google-funded Electronic Frontier Foundation reacting to its elements with apoplectic horror. Because they drive this debate, we get both sides pushing the existing imbalance in policy toward further extremes rather than come together in search of equilibrium. So, today we hear talk of existential disaster from the content industry… and hysterical warnings of censorship from the technology sector."


It's called "holding the moral high ground". If the drivers of copyright (mostly large corporations) had taken the highlighted viewpoint in 1998, there might have been a better outcome. (But I doubt it). But instead the public got DCMA and the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension act (The Mickey Mouse Preservation Act, to some). The result has been civil disobedience, a la Rosa Parks. <Shrug> And the civil disobedience gives people nearly free goodies...

How are you going to stuff the bugle call back into the bugle?

[cjr72]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Guess its time to stamp down again on the favorite fallacy of piracy enablers -"Its IMPOSSIBLE to eradicate piracy, therefore we should just stop all efforts against it"

Interesting, I'd like to read up more on this. Could you please provide the source of that exact quote?

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by cjr72

Interesting, I'd like to read up more on this. Could you please provide the source of that exact quote?

Are you kidding? There are a series of posts in this thread that say essentially just that. I admit I'm paraphrasing, put I'm paraphrasing a claim that's been made repeatedly -on this thread and elsewhere.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Are you kidding? There are a series of posts in this thread that say essentially just that. I admit I'm paraphrasing, put I'm paraphrasing a claim that's been made repeatedly -on this thread and elsewhere.

No, nobody here have said that. And I have not seen it said anywhere else.

What people are saying is that you have to really be clear about what the goal is and you have to look at the methods so that the methods to reach one goal does not destoy another goal.

And your claim is trivially false in that the method to reduce copyright infringement by making it easier to buy stuff legally is a method that most people accept.

[cjr72]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Are you kidding? There are a series of posts in this thread that say essentially just that. I admit I'm paraphrasing, put I'm paraphrasing a claim that's been made repeatedly -on this thread and elsewhere.

My bad, for some reason your use of quotes led me to believe that it was a quote. Even so it's not to much to ask that you provide the source of your paraphrase now is it?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I don't "claim" it, its a fact. If you don't believe that, fine-there are plenty of guys who post in favor of the other side, but no one claims that they are working for Google or who ever.

That's because none of them are as thorough, persistent, and all-pervasive (never missing a single thread) on the subject. You are simply too interested and too white/black on matters. Take me for instance: I don't have one easily quantifiable "stance" on a lot of these subjects—except if you count the uncontrollable urge to occasionally interrupt the polemic of those who do espouse the sort of bi-partisan certainty that has everybody at each other's throats in this day and age. You're simply too "the publisher can do absolutely no wrong in my eyes" to be seen as a casual bystander. I don't meant that as an insult... simply an observation. I, myself, can see valid points from both the "status quo" and the "paradigm change" camps in this scary/exciting/interesting period in the industry. *shrugs*

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by tompe

No, nobody here have said that. And I have not seen it said anywhere else.

What people are saying is that you have to really be clear about what the goal is and you have to look at the methods so that the methods to reach one goal does not destoy another goal.

And you claim is trivially false in that the method to reduce copyright infringement by making it easier to buy stuff legally is a method that most people accept.

I'd like to add, "and at a price that most people consider reasonable."

[stonetools]

It's called "holding the moral high ground". If the drivers of copyright (mostly large corporations) had taken the highlighted viewpoint in 1998, there might have been a better outcome. (But I doubt it). But instead the public got DCMA and the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension act (The Mickey Mouse Preservation Act, to some). The result has been civil disobedience, a la Rosa Parks. <Shrug> And the civil disobedience gives people nearly free goodies...

How are you going to stuff the bugle call back into the bugle?

As it happens , I agree with you ( and Mr. Ruen) as regards the copyright terms. But the artists being ripped off by pirates had ZERO to do with the extension of the copyright terms. How does ripping them off constitute a civil disobedience campaign against the people responsible for the extension? So if John hits me I strike back by shooting Harry? That'll show 'em...

Frankly, its easier than that. Piracy and file-sharing happens because its easy, convenient , free and un-punished . Ruen again, from another post:

FreeLoading has nothing to do with “Free Culture” or progress. It is an act made out of convenience. It is very easy to do. And largely popular. And it’s free. Most people understand that it is illegal and on some level wrong, even if the details of why get hazy very fast. At the end of the day it’s free and nothing is so “convenient” as something you need not earn money or work to obtain. Pretty simple. As a consumer, you can’t find a model more convenient than FreeLoading. Nothing is more convenient than internet free. It asks nothing of us, which tends to go over over pretty well with people, young people especially. That’s not a knock against young people, it’s just the way it is.

Change the laws and start holding people responsible and that will send out another and different bugle call ( to use a metaphor).

[MovieBird]

Purchasing music from iTunes, or Amazon, is a helluva lot easier (more convenient) than using torrents. Especially if the pirate is at all sophisticated and uses one of those invite-only trackers.

Ditto with eBooks from Amazon or B&N.

In short, that quote is bull...

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by tompe

No, nobody here have said that. And I have not seen it said anywhere else.

What people are saying is that you have to really be clear about what the goal is and you have to look at the methods so that the methods to reach one goal does not destoy another goal.

And you claim is trivially false in that the method to reduce copyright infringement by making it easier to buy stuff legally is a method that most people accept.

My paraphrase summarized Ralph Sir Edwards argument that technology made it impossible to stop piracy. You didn't like my paraphrase. Whatever.

It is now as legal and convenient to purchase music as anyone could possibly want. Has that decreased the level of music piracy.? Not one iota.

From The Cynical musician again:

Lastly, we should realise that the hope that convenience will kill piracy is nothing new. Consider this excerpt from The Music Management Bible, written before the iTunes Music Store existed:
“

Far from needing to eradicate [pirate services] altogether, the record industry wants to transform them into new avenues of authorised distribution. Eventually, it will be easier to buy than to steal, and most consumers will take the line of least resistance, even if they have to pay for it.2
”


Since those words were written, obtaining music legally online has become much easier, but obtaining it illegally has become easier still. There is no good reason to believe that this “convenience arms race” between legal and illegal music providers will not continue in the future, with the legal services always having two strikes against them: catalogue and price.

LINK

The legality/convenience argument may have been valid in 2002 or even 2006. In 2012, it has been proven to be false. Free crowds out legal.
.
I'm afraid that something more is needed, and that something is effective law enforcement.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That's because none of them are as thorough, persistent, and all-pervasive (never missing a single thread) on the subject. You are simply too interested and too white/black on matters. Take me for instance: I don't have one easily quantifiable "stance" on a lot of these subjects—except if you count the uncontrollable urge to occasionally interrupt the polemic of those who do espouse the sort of bi-partisan certainty that has everybody at each other's throats in this day and age. You're simply too "the publisher can do absolutely no wrong in my eyes" to be seen as a casual bystander. I don't meant that as an insult... simply an observation. I, myself, can see valid points from both the "status quo" and the "paradigm change" camps in this scary/exciting/interesting period in the industry. *shrugs*

As it happens, I am critical of publishers on a number of grounds. Maybe I should do a "What publishers are doing wrong" post. Generally, though, on this site, you pretty much have be 1500 per cent against the " BPHs" all day, every day so when you join a thread, its usually critical of publishers. If I am pro anything, I'm pro author. But if you don't see it that way, oh well...

[Greg Anos]

You will note everything purple and above are digital revenues. Around 20-25% of peak revenue. Despite Stonetool's claims, people are buying music. And if you figure that people only buy around 2 track out of 12 CD tracks for digital singles, if everybody bought digital albums (Cd equivalents) it would be around 50% of peak.

Source - RIAA.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I, myself, can see valid points from both the "status quo" and the "paradigm change" camps in this scary/exciting/interesting period in the industry. *shrugs*

It's not that scary, tracking of all file sharing on a quasi locked network, controlled by a rotating group of internationals. It's almost here anyway.

We're just talking about ideas after all, and how to share them more efficiently.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

We're just talking about ideas after all, and how to share them more efficiently.

Maybe you were.