Internet Regulation and Censorship - Interesting Open Letter to MPAA

[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....

[plib]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I realize I'm late on this one, but I thought it was somewhat funny that the poll you quoted doesn't really support your position in any event

If anyone ever met the definition of a corporate shill troll - it's "stonetools". Fortunately I'll only have to see his posts in other people's quotes from now on.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

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....

I'd forgotten that, or missed the implications. That explains a lot of why the infrastructure of the internet is sloppy, redundant, and has a rather shotgun approach to data distribution: a key aspect was to keep data moving, regardless of who got it or what they did with it. Torrenting caught on because it fit so beautifully with the early goals of the internet: here's some files, now everyone help us keep them available for everyone who wants them.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by plib

If anyone ever met the definition of a corporate shill troll - it's "stonetools". Fortunately I'll only have to see his posts in other people's quotes from now on.

No, he just has a different opinion than most people on this site.
Clearly he must be punished.

[darryl]

Stonetools has been civil in presenting his views, and should be afforded the same courtesy in return. It will be apparent from my posts here that I do not agree with him. But some of the points he makes are worthy of further consideration.

The internet is a lawless place, but even assuming that bringing it under the control of governments is a good thing, which is a whole argument in itself, I don't think it can be done without resort to the most draconian measures, together with an unprecedented display of co-operation amongst all the world's governments, if it can be done at all. Such measures should not in my view even be considered to protect a few vested interests from advances in technology. However, might they be justified in relation to Child Porn, Terrorism, Murder and the like, all of which can be readily found on the so-called dark net? Personally I'd still say not, as the threat to freedom posed would simply be too high a price to pay.

[plib]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

No, he just has a different opinion than most people on this site.
Clearly he must be punished.

I didn't say he must be punished, just ignored. Which is what I'm doing.

[plib]

Originally Posted by darryl

Stonetools has been civil in presenting his views, and should be afforded the same courtesy in return. It will be apparent from my posts here that I do not agree with him. But some of the points he makes are worthy of further consideration.

Depends on how you define "civil" and "worthy of further consideration". Personally I consider conflating "online piracy and online stalking of minors by pedophiles" to be not only casuistry of the worst sort but offensive. To then use that to justify a position against online piracy is laughable. If one is determined to be a casuist, then at least try to be competent at it.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by plib

Personally I consider conflating "online piracy and online stalking of minors by pedophiles" to be not only casuistry of the worst sort but offensive. To then use that to justify a position against online piracy is laughable.

Stonetools didn't do that. I did. I did it to point out the ridiculousness of conflating online piracy and online counterfeit drug sales. It made no sense to lump those together in a poll anymore than it made sense for me to lump piracy and pedophile stalkers together. Being ridiculous and laughable was the whole point.

I don't agree with stonetools on issues of this sort most of the time, but I still respect him(?), and don't want to see my words being used against/attributed to him. He never mentioned pedophilia.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Stonetools didn't do that. I did. I did it to point out the ridiculousness of conflating online piracy and online counterfeit drug sales. It made no sense to lump those together in a poll anymore than it made sense for me to lump piracy and pedophile stalkers together. Being ridiculous and laughable was the whole point.

ACTA is supposed to address both issues, isn't it? Both are considered counterfeit goods.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

ACTA is supposed to address both issues, isn't it? Both are considered counterfeit goods.

Yes. But I was referring to the validity of the poll only.

When asked; "do you think we need stronger laws to deal with online piracy and online counterfeit drug sales?" You can't use the results to state anything conclusive about people's feelings toward the individual components. That would require two separate questions:

"Do you think we need stronger laws to deal with online piracy?"

"Do you think we need stronger laws to deal with online counterfeit drug sales?

Only then can you tell me what percentage of those polled think we need stronger laws to counter online piracy.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Yes. But I was referring to the validity of the poll only.

When asked; "do you think we need stronger laws to deal with online piracy and online counterfeit drug sales?" You can't use the results to state anything conclusive about people's feelings toward the individual components. That would require two separate questions:

"Do you think we need stronger laws to deal with online piracy?"

"Do you think we need stronger laws to deal with online counterfeit drug sales?

Only then can you tell me what percentage of those polled think we need stronger laws to counter online piracy.

Totally agree. I hate combined questions.

[5thWiggle]

From the Simpsons "Bart's Comet" epsiode:



Kent: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal
government has snapped into action. We go live now via
satellite to the floor of the United States congress.

Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to
evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of --

Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30
million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.

Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
[everyone boos]

Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]

Kent: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply
doesn't work.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Yes. But I was referring to the validity of the poll only.

From the questions it looks like JZ Analytics set out to get the public's opinion on search-engine companies making money indirectly from the distribution on counterfeit goods. The results were presented under the title "Counterfeit Drugs and Pirated Content are “Serious Problem” and Stronger Laws are Needed, Americans Say in Survey", and the blogger decided to downplay the counterfeit drugs part and pretend that the poll was about the public's opinion on SOPA/PIPA.

[plib]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Stonetools didn't do that. I did. I did it to point out the ridiculousness of conflating online piracy and online counterfeit drug sales. It made no sense to lump those together in a poll anymore than it made sense for me to lump piracy and pedophile stalkers together. Being ridiculous and laughable was the whole point.

I don't agree with stonetools on issues of this sort most of the time, but I still respect him(?), and don't want to see my words being used against/attributed to him. He never mentioned pedophilia.

Fair enough. I'm guilty of attributing your additions to the original poll. However while conflating online piracy and counterfeit drugs is less offensive than including pedophile stalking in the argument, it's still flawed methodology and its use to support legislation like SOPA/PIPA when the drug component probably had a far greater resonance with its respondents is still something I find offensive. What do you think the relative proportion of respondents worried about getting bad drugs is compared to those worried about someone downloading an mp3?

I also find the methodology of relying on cold calling people and asking them to tell complete strangers if they have ever indulged in activities for which they could be prosecuted unlikely to provide accurate results. Although he(?) obviously feels differently. He's entitled to his opinion, both of the poll and me, and I'm entitled to mine.

[plib]

While tracking the above mentioned poll I came across this article. It's about music, but I can see a great deal of applicability to the book publishing business as well.

Some interesting comments below the line too.