3 ms·

I don't think there's strong evidence that piracy even was an existential threat in practice, but regardless the new business models that have emerged are in fa

by advael 5y ago

I don't think there's strong evidence that piracy even was an existential threat in practice, but regardless the new business models that have emerged are in fact far worse value propositions for consumers that want to be able to keep a copy of the thing they watch or listen to, access said things ever again without a continued subscription, or be able to find media that doesn't require being spied on by some company to use. It's also a worse value proposition for artists, who receive much worse pay for works on streaming services exactly because their reach is so massive, and they can spread their risk out across lots of artists and markets by making it much harder to make a living off their services for said artists. Technology will always change how business is done, but right now, the law is playing a role that makes that shift more toward companies having strong controls over and surveillance of their customers that can't even legally be circumvented in the name of protection of IP. A business model like BandCamp could easily have worked without the DMCA. A business model like Netflix couldn't, but I don't really consider that a good thing

AmericanChopper 5y ago
> the new business models that have emerged are in fact far worse value propositions for consumers that want to be able to keep a copy of the thing they watch or listen to I think the market has demonstrated that this isn’t what most consumers actually want. But in any case, the anti-piracy provisions of the DMCA are so weak, that anybody who wants to can still pirate with almost absolute impunity. I personally think the anti-circumvention provisions violate the 1st amendment. But it’s hard to say this is a significant regulatory failure, because you can avoid the issue entirely by calling any circumvention tools you produce something other than circumvention tools. The issues with existing IP laws are readily apparent to me, but this doesn’t extend to an argument against IP as a concept in general. Lots of regulatory systems have shortcomings, but it’s a significant leap to conclude that they can’t be improved. There are example of things that can’t be effectively regulated, without causing significant harm to society. A lot of people would say that illicit drug consumption falls into this category. But in this case the harm caused by the regulation, and it’s shortcomings in actually providing much benefit is very straightforward. There’s really no comparing a situation like that, and the issues created by existing IP laws. In my anecdotal experience, most of the people who take a broad anti-IP stance also tend to hold anti-private property positions in general.
- advael 5y ago
  What consumers currently use isn't evidence of what they want, it's evidence of what they want out of what's available to them. The widespread "piracy" epidemic was also pretty good evidence of revealed preference, and I doubt it would have changed so much if not for the draconian crackdowns on people without the tech savvy to get around enforcement. I think at the point where you agree that IP isn't fulfilling its purpose, the burden is on the concept of IP to demonstrate that it is a valuable legal concept, and all extant implementations simply fail to correctly realize it. Since we're playing the game of making wild extrapolative comparisons to arguments we haven't made, your line of argumentation reminds me of kids who balk at using the Soviet Union as an example for pure command economies being a bad idea. I think property rights are, if not a necessary part of a functional society, at least something that we don't have a reasonable alternative for. In other places in this thread, I've contrasted situations in which property rights make sense with the ridiculous results of trying to apply the same principles to abstract ideas. The claim that it's not sane or coherent to consider ideas property is in no way equivalent to an objection to property rights in general
  - AmericanChopper 5y ago
    > I think at the point where you agree that IP isn't fulfilling its purpose I think it very obviously is fulfilling its purpose generally speaking. I think this is evident in that fact that consumers have access to an extraordinary variety of technology, and content. The fact is that the prices for access to this are continually falling, the quality of products and services is continually improving, and these factors are continuously improving quality of life across all sectors of society. The success of this system, and the benefits it provides to everybody is perfectly evident everywhere around us. You can find instances of this system failing, and identify some patterns in those failures, along with particular components of the regulatory framework that are likely responsible for more bad outcomes than good ones. But the system itself has proved its value many times over. Edit: I also think the extent to which hoarding content collections has fallen out of favor with consumers is rather compelling evidence that the on-demand model is more popular. But that’s a little besides the point.

by advael 5y ago

AmericanChopper 5y ago

> the new business models that have emerged are in fact far worse value propositions for consumers that want to be able to keep a copy of the thing they watch or listen to I think the market has demonstrated that this isn’t what most consumers actually want. But in any case, the anti-piracy provisions of the DMCA are so weak, that anybody who wants to can still pirate with almost absolute impunity. I personally think the anti-circumvention provisions violate the 1st amendment. But it’s hard to say this is a significant regulatory failure, because you can avoid the issue entirely by calling any circumvention tools you produce something other than circumvention tools. The issues with existing IP laws are readily apparent to me, but this doesn’t extend to an argument against IP as a concept in general. Lots of regulatory systems have shortcomings, but it’s a significant leap to conclude that they can’t be improved. There are example of things that can’t be effectively regulated, without causing significant harm to society. A lot of people would say that illicit drug consumption falls into this category. But in this case the harm caused by the regulation, and it’s shortcomings in actually providing much benefit is very straightforward. There’s really no comparing a situation like that, and the issues created by existing IP laws. In my anecdotal experience, most of the people who take a broad anti-IP stance also tend to hold anti-private property positions in general.

advael 5y ago
What consumers currently use isn't evidence of what they want, it's evidence of what they want out of what's available to them. The widespread "piracy" epidemic was also pretty good evidence of revealed preference, and I doubt it would have changed so much if not for the draconian crackdowns on people without the tech savvy to get around enforcement. I think at the point where you agree that IP isn't fulfilling its purpose, the burden is on the concept of IP to demonstrate that it is a valuable legal concept, and all extant implementations simply fail to correctly realize it. Since we're playing the game of making wild extrapolative comparisons to arguments we haven't made, your line of argumentation reminds me of kids who balk at using the Soviet Union as an example for pure command economies being a bad idea. I think property rights are, if not a necessary part of a functional society, at least something that we don't have a reasonable alternative for. In other places in this thread, I've contrasted situations in which property rights make sense with the ridiculous results of trying to apply the same principles to abstract ideas. The claim that it's not sane or coherent to consider ideas property is in no way equivalent to an objection to property rights in general
- AmericanChopper 5y ago
  > I think at the point where you agree that IP isn't fulfilling its purpose I think it very obviously is fulfilling its purpose generally speaking. I think this is evident in that fact that consumers have access to an extraordinary variety of technology, and content. The fact is that the prices for access to this are continually falling, the quality of products and services is continually improving, and these factors are continuously improving quality of life across all sectors of society. The success of this system, and the benefits it provides to everybody is perfectly evident everywhere around us. You can find instances of this system failing, and identify some patterns in those failures, along with particular components of the regulatory framework that are likely responsible for more bad outcomes than good ones. But the system itself has proved its value many times over. Edit: I also think the extent to which hoarding content collections has fallen out of favor with consumers is rather compelling evidence that the on-demand model is more popular. But that’s a little besides the point.