4 ms·

Are you saying that if we stop paying for content, more is going to be produced? For music, it's possible that it could be true (though I don't completely buy i

Are you saying that if we stop paying for content, more is going to be produced? For music, it's possible that it could be true (though I don't completely buy it) because of concerts and the fact that music is pretty low-budget, but if nobody pays for TV shows and films, they're not going to be made, at least those that require huge budgets and crews. And either way, it's not our place to break the law because we're convinced we know better than the people we're stealing from. If musicians decide to give away their music and make money from concerts, fine, but for the most part they haven't, at least not yet. And yes, I agree that this incident is problematic, but I think that they've probably done the right thing for the wrong reasons. The law is slowly evolving to meet these 21st century problems, but things take time. I personally don't see a huge difference between a website selling counterfeit goods and a physical store selling counterfeit goods, and I wouldn't have much of a problem with a store being shut down the moment it was caught openly selling counterfeit goods rather than after the trial. I'm sure I'm missing a lot of details here, and I'm not at all well-versed on this stuff, but I think people tend to be way to quick to defend individual scumbags who are openly and knowingly distributing stolen and counterfeit goods whenever the internet is involved.

gojomo 16y ago
Fees paid per copy are only one traditional way to compensate creators. Copy fees don't work so well once digital technology becomes ubiquitous, and may be viewed by future generations as barbaric, because such fees may deny minds the education and culture they crave based on an arbitrary monopolistic price, unrelated to the cost of either original production or reproduction. If per-copy fees were the only way to get necessary creative production, as you seem to suggest, that would be one thing. But your theory doesn't yet seem to be playing out. Rising piracy has loosely correlated, over the past decade-plus, with even more creation of the pirated types of content. So the siege and retribution mentality -- "never mind due process, line the scum up against the wall and let 'em have it!" -- doesn't make any sense.
- grantheaslip 16y ago
  Again, this isn't your decision to make. These companies may be acting in a way that you consider counter-productive (and you may be right), but that doesn't give you the right to take their content in a way that they haven't allowed.
  - gojomo 16y ago
    It's our decision as a society how much of a monopoly we grant copyright holders, and whether we also grant them the ability to seize property, like domain names, without due process. Our society is richer because Jobs and Wozniak, before they founded Apple, helped people steal telecommunications services. The world is more connected because Zennstrom and Friis, before they made Skype, behaved like 'scum' in your eyes with file-sharing Kazaa. Our culture is richer because whole genres of music and other creative arts have at times ignored the rules against sampling, collage, and other reuse. The simple 'always defer to all prior rules' argument isn't welfare-maximizing for either individuals or the world. And even as we enforce current laws, which I accept as a general necessity, the accused deserve a chance to make their case, and the standards for enforcement need to be clear and applied evenly. A surprise domain-name seizure without notice only makes sense in emergency situations.
    - kgo 16y ago
      I agree with most of what you're saying, but I don't see how you can say Apple and Skype exist because of Blue Boxes and Kazaa. That's like saying "The Pianist" exists because Roman Polanski raped some 13 year old...
      - gojomo 16y ago
        Of course not every crime enables, nor is excused by, later creative output. But for Jobs/Wozniak, and Zennstrom/Friis, their legally-dubious earlier activities were closely related to the later more-famous and above-board collaborations. They were each hacking together, for fun or profit and arguably against the law, in hardware/software domains similar to their later successes. You also shouldn't underestimate the effectiveness of conspiring with someone on something a little naughty to establish a strong trusting working relationship. Perhaps you've heard the expression, 'thick as thieves'?

gojomo 16y ago

Fees paid per copy are only one traditional way to compensate creators. Copy fees don't work so well once digital technology becomes ubiquitous, and may be viewed by future generations as barbaric, because such fees may deny minds the education and culture they crave based on an arbitrary monopolistic price, unrelated to the cost of either original production or reproduction. If per-copy fees were the only way to get necessary creative production, as you seem to suggest, that would be one thing. But your theory doesn't yet seem to be playing out. Rising piracy has loosely correlated, over the past decade-plus, with even more creation of the pirated types of content. So the siege and retribution mentality -- "never mind due process, line the scum up against the wall and let 'em have it!" -- doesn't make any sense.

grantheaslip 16y ago
Again, this isn't your decision to make. These companies may be acting in a way that you consider counter-productive (and you may be right), but that doesn't give you the right to take their content in a way that they haven't allowed.
- gojomo 16y ago
  It's our decision as a society how much of a monopoly we grant copyright holders, and whether we also grant them the ability to seize property, like domain names, without due process. Our society is richer because Jobs and Wozniak, before they founded Apple, helped people steal telecommunications services. The world is more connected because Zennstrom and Friis, before they made Skype, behaved like 'scum' in your eyes with file-sharing Kazaa. Our culture is richer because whole genres of music and other creative arts have at times ignored the rules against sampling, collage, and other reuse. The simple 'always defer to all prior rules' argument isn't welfare-maximizing for either individuals or the world. And even as we enforce current laws, which I accept as a general necessity, the accused deserve a chance to make their case, and the standards for enforcement need to be clear and applied evenly. A surprise domain-name seizure without notice only makes sense in emergency situations.
  - kgo 16y ago
    I agree with most of what you're saying, but I don't see how you can say Apple and Skype exist because of Blue Boxes and Kazaa. That's like saying "The Pianist" exists because Roman Polanski raped some 13 year old...
    - gojomo 16y ago
      Of course not every crime enables, nor is excused by, later creative output. But for Jobs/Wozniak, and Zennstrom/Friis, their legally-dubious earlier activities were closely related to the later more-famous and above-board collaborations. They were each hacking together, for fun or profit and arguably against the law, in hardware/software domains similar to their later successes. You also shouldn't underestimate the effectiveness of conspiring with someone on something a little naughty to establish a strong trusting working relationship. Perhaps you've heard the expression, 'thick as thieves'?