3 ms·

Mostly because the RIAA and MPAA managed to make themselves universally hated in the late 90s. The backlash extends far beyond the perennially frugal teenage do

by xiaoma 10y ago

Mostly because the RIAA and MPAA managed to make themselves universally hated in the late 90s. The backlash extends far beyond the perennially frugal teenage downloaders and all the way to at least one prominent Harvard Law School professor. https://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity https://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_stran...

biot 10y ago
Your philosophy is that, as a society, we shouldn't enforce laws if the person/entity being affected by illegal behavior is unpopular?
- xiaoma 10y ago
  I have not commented at all on my own philosophy and I have not studied this topic even a tenth as deeply as the law scholar I mentioned in a sibling comment. I do think he made a compelling case that criminalizing the behavior to begin with has some corrosive effects, though. "This war must end. It is time we recognize that we can't kill this creativity. We can only criminalize it. We can't stop our kids from using these tools to create, or make them passive. We can only drive it underground, or make them "pirates." And the question we as a society must focus on is whether this is any good. Our kids live in an age of prohibition, where more and more of what seems to them to be ordinary behavior is against the law. They recognize it as against the law. They see themselves as "criminals." They begin to get used to the idea. That recognition is corrosive. It is corrupting of the very idea of the rule of law. And when we reckon the cost of this corruption, any losses of the content industry pale in comparison." http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122367645363324303 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122367645363324303 Possibly of interest, Lessig lost a US Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of the a copyright extension act in a split decision 14 years ago. https://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/story_lessig_marapr04.msp https://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/story_l... He authored the Creative Commons license and is currently a possible candidate for the Supreme Court himself. Note that he's not arguing for copyright infringement, but for a reform of copyright law.

by xiaoma 10y ago

biot 10y ago

Your philosophy is that, as a society, we shouldn't enforce laws if the person/entity being affected by illegal behavior is unpopular?

xiaoma 10y ago
I have not commented at all on my own philosophy and I have not studied this topic even a tenth as deeply as the law scholar I mentioned in a sibling comment. I do think he made a compelling case that criminalizing the behavior to begin with has some corrosive effects, though. "This war must end. It is time we recognize that we can't kill this creativity. We can only criminalize it. We can't stop our kids from using these tools to create, or make them passive. We can only drive it underground, or make them "pirates." And the question we as a society must focus on is whether this is any good. Our kids live in an age of prohibition, where more and more of what seems to them to be ordinary behavior is against the law. They recognize it as against the law. They see themselves as "criminals." They begin to get used to the idea. That recognition is corrosive. It is corrupting of the very idea of the rule of law. And when we reckon the cost of this corruption, any losses of the content industry pale in comparison." http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122367645363324303 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122367645363324303 Possibly of interest, Lessig lost a US Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of the a copyright extension act in a split decision 14 years ago. https://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/story_lessig_marapr04.msp https://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/story_l... He authored the Creative Commons license and is currently a possible candidate for the Supreme Court himself. Note that he's not arguing for copyright infringement, but for a reform of copyright law.