7 ms·

Just another symptom of living in an idiocracy. This situation will work well for the for-profit prisons in the United States, who, like the for-profit health i

Just another symptom of living in an idiocracy. This situation will work well for the for-profit prisons in the United States, who, like the for-profit health insurance companies, make a profit off of people's misery, and will ensure that America remains #1 in persons incarcerated: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/the-high-budgetary-cost-of-incarceration/ http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/the-high-... Thankfully, the article does point out the discrepancies in Biden's claims: Interestingly, the statements seem to fly in the face of a recent Government Accountability Office study released to U.S. Congress earlier this year, which concluded that there is virtually no evidence for the claimed million dollar losses by the entertainment industry. That study suggested that piracy could even benefit the economy. Nevermind facts, we don't care if the evidence suggests that piracy helps the economy, or whether Biden's metaphor is a metaphor and not a substitute for reality, or whether that drug you're taking is not only safe, but healthy, we're still going to toss your ass in jail, or give you a fine you'll spend the rest of your life dealing with. Ars Technica did a great job thoroughly debunking the claims of the RIAA and MPAA: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/10/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/10/dodgy-digits... And here's their take on the referenced government study: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-government-finally-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-governmen... But in this country, facts don't really have much weight when it comes to policy making. The irony of all of this is that like the War on Drugs, instead of keeping people safe and happy, this coming War on Piracy will only serve as a drain on America's economy and morale, and yes, could even result in the creation of a dangerous black market. Tax dollars flushed down the toilet for the purpose of spreading misery and soothing the irrational fears of an aging and nervous minority of rich people.

JesseAldridge 16y ago
If you actually read the summary of the linked GAO paper[1], you can see that the authors of this attack piece misrepresented it. Some choice quotes that they neglected to include: "Negative effects on U.S. industry may include lost sales, lost brand value, and reduced incentives to innovate", "The U.S. economy as a whole may grow more slowly because of reduced innovation and loss of trade revenue", "research in specific industries suggest that the problem is sizeable" Basically, the report says that piracy has some bad and some good effects, but these effects are extremely difficult to quantify due to the illicit nature of piracy. Nonetheless, piracy is probably a significant problem. As it becomes easier for people to get stuff without paying for it, production of said stuff will drop. It's common sense, people. [1] http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-423 http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-423
- wazoox 16y ago
  > As it becomes easier for people to get stuff without paying for it, production of said stuff will drop. And so what? The "said stuff" is mainly quality-inversely-proportional-to-budget music and movies. We needn't them anyway.
  - chwahoo 16y ago
    There are many people folks who enjoy the summer blockbuster more than an art-house flick. I would be pretty sad if the options in music, movies, software, and books became severely limited because the system could no longer compensate the creators.
    - _delirium 16y ago
      If people aren't willing to voluntarily pay for it, I think the free market has spoken, that it doesn't value the summer blockbuster.
      - chwahoo 16y ago
        I'm not sure what you are arguing. I was invoking the free market in support of blockbusters. People pay to watch big-budget movies in droves. The free market suggests the creation of blockbusters (particularly sequels) and not art-house films (with occasional exceptions). I'd bet the black market values blockbusters pretty highly too. However the easier it gets to pirate, the more people will do so and the incentive to create these movies will evaporate.
  - tzs 16y ago
    If that were true, then we'd expect the big budget stuff to be among the least pirated, not the most pirated.
    - wazoox 16y ago
      That is unrelated IMO. People have to choose what to spend their money on; marketing (and perhaps social) pressure tends to incite people to see films that are much too often not worth their price; ergo they prefer to pirate them and spend their good money on more useful stuff.
nailer 16y ago
Piracy doesn't just hurt the RIAA and MPAA. It hurts: * indie game developers * Unsigned bands * authors and book publishers * OSS companies that sell their compiled binaries training material while giving away their source. People who create things deserve to be compensated if they wish to. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is stealing.
- swombat 16y ago
  Nice sense of entitlement you got there. I'd like to rephrase your statement to: People who create things should be compensated if we can figure out a system to do so that's not too costly to the general public. "Intellectual property" is a contradictory concept. Claiming that ideas, thoughts, and other non-physical entities "belong" to someone is contradicting the very nature of the universe. Note: I am an independent content creator (though I don't live from my content at the moment).
  - davidw 16y ago
    It all boils down to the public goods problem, and which solution to it that you prefer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    > if we can figure out a system to do so that's not too costly to the general public. No, that's not the basis of capitalism in the slightest! The point is to work out the price someone will pay and maximise your returns by offering it to them at that price. It is up to content distributors to set the price they want; and it is up to the public to refuse to purchase if they feel it is too high. You also seem to be claiming that piracy is purely due to high prices; and that if prices come down piracy will end. This seems unlikely. I am certain we would see less piracy - but much less? Free is always better than any price after all :) "Intellectual property" is a contradictory concept. Claiming that ideas, thoughts, and other non-physical entities "belong" to someone is contradicting the very nature of the universe. This is pseudo-philosophical mumbo jumbo. In a wider sense it is certainly correct but, realistically, the idea of intellectual property is used (call it a hack) to simply identify those who contributed to creating something and therefore can (in the eyes of society) ask for renumeration in return for it. Intellectual property is fucked up (for example; it shouldn't be an easily transferable right, grandchildren - maybe even children - shouldn't get it etc., it is too easy to protect generalities rather than the specific thing you created) but I think the general point has merit. I worked in the games industry for a short while (for an indie developer) and it is pretty disheartening to see your hard work handed out for free without your consent. It feels like someone is sticking their middle finger up at you. :) And that is what is at issue; we are potentially building a culture where people expect stuff for free and businesses are expected to earn revenue in other ways - to the point that people will take it anyway and to hell with what you think. That's an extremely complex model in my mind and possibly counter productive to innovation.

JesseAldridge 16y ago

If you actually read the summary of the linked GAO paper[1], you can see that the authors of this attack piece misrepresented it. Some choice quotes that they neglected to include: "Negative effects on U.S. industry may include lost sales, lost brand value, and reduced incentives to innovate", "The U.S. economy as a whole may grow more slowly because of reduced innovation and loss of trade revenue", "research in specific industries suggest that the problem is sizeable" Basically, the report says that piracy has some bad and some good effects, but these effects are extremely difficult to quantify due to the illicit nature of piracy. Nonetheless, piracy is probably a significant problem. As it becomes easier for people to get stuff without paying for it, production of said stuff will drop. It's common sense, people. [1] http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-423 http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-423

wazoox 16y ago
> As it becomes easier for people to get stuff without paying for it, production of said stuff will drop. And so what? The "said stuff" is mainly quality-inversely-proportional-to-budget music and movies. We needn't them anyway.
- chwahoo 16y ago
  There are many people folks who enjoy the summer blockbuster more than an art-house flick. I would be pretty sad if the options in music, movies, software, and books became severely limited because the system could no longer compensate the creators.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    If people aren't willing to voluntarily pay for it, I think the free market has spoken, that it doesn't value the summer blockbuster.
    - chwahoo 16y ago
      I'm not sure what you are arguing. I was invoking the free market in support of blockbusters. People pay to watch big-budget movies in droves. The free market suggests the creation of blockbusters (particularly sequels) and not art-house films (with occasional exceptions). I'd bet the black market values blockbusters pretty highly too. However the easier it gets to pirate, the more people will do so and the incentive to create these movies will evaporate.
- tzs 16y ago
  If that were true, then we'd expect the big budget stuff to be among the least pirated, not the most pirated.
  - wazoox 16y ago
    That is unrelated IMO. People have to choose what to spend their money on; marketing (and perhaps social) pressure tends to incite people to see films that are much too often not worth their price; ergo they prefer to pirate them and spend their good money on more useful stuff.

nailer 16y ago

Piracy doesn't just hurt the RIAA and MPAA. It hurts: * indie game developers * Unsigned bands * authors and book publishers * OSS companies that sell their compiled binaries training material while giving away their source. People who create things deserve to be compensated if they wish to. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is stealing.

swombat 16y ago
Nice sense of entitlement you got there. I'd like to rephrase your statement to: People who create things should be compensated if we can figure out a system to do so that's not too costly to the general public. "Intellectual property" is a contradictory concept. Claiming that ideas, thoughts, and other non-physical entities "belong" to someone is contradicting the very nature of the universe. Note: I am an independent content creator (though I don't live from my content at the moment).
- davidw 16y ago
  It all boils down to the public goods problem, and which solution to it that you prefer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
- ErrantX 16y ago
  > if we can figure out a system to do so that's not too costly to the general public. No, that's not the basis of capitalism in the slightest! The point is to work out the price someone will pay and maximise your returns by offering it to them at that price. It is up to content distributors to set the price they want; and it is up to the public to refuse to purchase if they feel it is too high. You also seem to be claiming that piracy is purely due to high prices; and that if prices come down piracy will end. This seems unlikely. I am certain we would see less piracy - but much less? Free is always better than any price after all :) "Intellectual property" is a contradictory concept. Claiming that ideas, thoughts, and other non-physical entities "belong" to someone is contradicting the very nature of the universe. This is pseudo-philosophical mumbo jumbo. In a wider sense it is certainly correct but, realistically, the idea of intellectual property is used (call it a hack) to simply identify those who contributed to creating something and therefore can (in the eyes of society) ask for renumeration in return for it. Intellectual property is fucked up (for example; it shouldn't be an easily transferable right, grandchildren - maybe even children - shouldn't get it etc., it is too easy to protect generalities rather than the specific thing you created) but I think the general point has merit. I worked in the games industry for a short while (for an indie developer) and it is pretty disheartening to see your hard work handed out for free without your consent. It feels like someone is sticking their middle finger up at you. :) And that is what is at issue; we are potentially building a culture where people expect stuff for free and businesses are expected to earn revenue in other ways - to the point that people will take it anyway and to hell with what you think. That's an extremely complex model in my mind and possibly counter productive to innovation.