6 ms·

There is no political will in the US to change the copyright system. Aside from some technologists, I haven't seen anybody who actually wants that. You will ang

There is no political will in the US to change the copyright system. Aside from some technologists, I haven't seen anybody who actually wants that. You will anger basically everyone else in the information business. Writers, researchers, artists, architects, musicians, composers, filmmakers, actors, podcasters, even a lot of software developers, you name it. These people all depend on copyright enforcement to get paid. That to me is the worst thing about repeated phrasing of this as some kind of evil special interest groups against everyone else. The "special interests" here are the people who produce the copyright material you want to access. You have to play ball with them or they will simply not be able to produce those things anymore.

fleddr 5y ago
Fully agree. "collateral damage" just means...why can't I just consume everything for free, as if it's some human right?
- amelius 5y ago
  Not true in the case of Yt-dl.
- rglullis 5y ago
  The point is not "consuming things for free", the point is neutering "the Biz". I for one wouldn't mind to lose Hollywood as an industry, or Broadway, or Silicon Valley... All of these industries are way too big and over-influential in all aspects of our lives, and leave us without any chance of a more human-scale alternative to counteract. I mean, how many TV networks are owned by Disney? Do you really think that all that lobbying is just to keep people away from watching copies of Mickey's Fantasia?
  - throwaway82652 5y ago
    This makes no sense. Disney is not stopping you from making your own home movies. You can even put them on YouTube or any of the other alternatives. There's actually lots of good criticisms of Disney, but you didn't mention any of them.
    - rglullis 5y ago
      It's not about my own movies that don't get made. It's about all the other movies that don't get to be financed because of the 19th re-hash of Star Wars (or Marvel movie, or live-action remake of Lion King/Aladdin/Pocahontas/Dumbo/Bambi) that is going to be released and it's "guaranteed" to make another billion dollars in the box office. It's about having two small kids who get bombarded with products from their franchises on every media outlet. It's about them using their movies and works to promote whatever ideological propaganda that gets them in favor with government.
      - throwaway82652 5y ago
        Film funding is not a zero sum game. There are lots of other places to secure funding. I've seen about 20 new indie films already this year. The rest of your comment is unrelated and somewhat unhinged, and appears to be going off into a general complaint about advertising, it has nothing to do with copyright.
        rglullis 5y ago
        > I've seen about 20 new indie films already this year. Good for you! Now go ask the other 99% of the population what they watched this year? > The rest of your comment (...) has nothing to do with copyright. It has to do with concentration of power, of which copyright (and any kind of "intellectual property") is one of the favorite instruments from big corporations. I also used to fall for this "people are free to choose" techno-libertarian bullshit. The problem is that it is not in the interest of all the corporations for you to choose responsibly. They make the game so complex and so energy consuming that eventually people break in one way or another. "Copyright enforcement" only benefits the big players and the corporate world.
        throwaway82652 5y ago
        But that's not true, if you didn't have copyright the biggest one would just copy everything and nobody could do anything about it. With copyright you have a way to sue them for ripping you off.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Why do these corporations get to have functionally infinte state granted monopolies on trivially infinitely copyable data as if it's some basic right?
- autoexec 5y ago
  It means people being forced off the internet because of nothing but unproven accusations because they only have one ISP in their area. It means artists who never publish their works because they're afraid of being sued for being a little too close to what someone else did once a century ago. It means creative projects that never get started because while the will is there, the rights needed are impossible to obtain. It means non-infringing works like youtube-dl get silenced and hidden from the public because they are inconvenient to media giants It means accepting internet censorship without oversight. It means DRM crippled hardware that you but are never allowed to own. It means DRM crippled software that can never be preserved and archived in a usable format. It means your culture and your history being paywalled off or locked away If you this this is an issue of "I just want free stuff" you clearly haven't been paying attention.
  - throwaway82652 5y ago
    No, it means almost none of that. Pretty much nothing you said has anything to do with copyright law. This is why I have a problem with this rhetoric, it very frequently goes off the rails towards something that doesn't help the goal at all. > It means people being forced off the internet because of nothing but unproven accusations because they only have one ISP in their area. This is not related to copyright law at all. I agree ISP monopolies are a problem, for any number of reasons. >It means artists who never publish their works because they're afraid of being sued for being a little too close to what someone else did once a century ago. Anyone can sue you anytime for any reason, that doesn't mean they'll win the lawsuit. You could make a good argument here about how copyright law is too long, but that point is lost in the rest of the sentence. >It means creative projects that never get started because while the will is there, the rights needed are impossible to obtain. No, that doesn't make any sense. This is a blatant misunderstanding of copyright that I see so often. Copyright doesn't stop you from creating new projects. You don't need to get the rights if it's a fully original work. You could also make a good argument here about how licensing is too difficult to obtain sometimes but that point is also lost. >It means non-infringing works like youtube-dl get silenced and hidden from the public because they are inconvenient to media giants This never happened. Youtube-dl is still up, if I recall for the short period it was taken down there were like 20 forks that popped up immediately. >It means accepting internet censorship without oversight. This also never happened and is contradictory to everything else you said, your complaint actually seems to be that there's too much oversight. >It means DRM crippled hardware that you but are never allowed to own. This is not related to copyright law. DRM is a purely technical means, not a legal one. >It means DRM crippled software that can never be preserved and archived in a usable format. It means your culture and your history being paywalled off or locked away No, it's not your culture or your history, you're not the author. What everyone misses with these comments is that some authors many not want their works to be preserved or archived. >If you this this is an issue of "I just want free stuff" you clearly haven't been paying attention. There's no coherent issue anywhere else in your reply and there's nothing to pay attention to. I've tried to make these comments constructive so maybe that can guide you towards what your real issue is.
- Jedd 5y ago
  It's more nuanced than hand-waving away anyone that wants to talk about copyright reform with neo-capitalist 'everyone will choose to be a freeloader' hyperbole. "If you could feed everyone on earth at the cost of baking one loaf and pressing a button, what would be the moral case for charging more for bread than some people could afford to pay? This represents the difficulty at which we find ourselves straining at the opening of the twenty-first century." --- Eben Moglen, speech he gave in 2003 - refer: http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/maine-speech.html http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/maine-speech.htm...
- account42 4y ago
  The natural state is that yes, you can share everything since, for things that are intended to be experienced by humans, there are no technical restrictions that do not succumb to the analog hole. So yes, not being able to consume everything for free is collateral damage from copyright and thus to justify copyright you need to demonstrate that their is more gained in return. This is why initial copyright terms were much shorter than they are now - because the deal has always been to encourage the production of more content that then becomes part of the commons, i.e. eventually can be consumed by everyone for free.
pessimizer 5y ago
> You have to play ball with them or they will simply not be able to produce those things anymore. They should stop, and we can freely share what's left. Their bullshit crowds out everything else anyway.
- throwaway82652 5y ago
  What is "everything else" in this context? You're saying that every writer should stop writing books, every artist should stop making art, every musician should stop making music... That is everything as far as our information society goes, there won't be any "everything else" after that.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    Do you need me to go around looking for all the declarations from different big name musicians saying how they only really make money on touring, not on the record selling? How many examples of companies and people working on free software do you need? Or authors that started out writing as a side-gig? It's simply not true that copyright reform would lead to death of creative works. Most likely the opposite: we would certainly see a reduction in the quantity of works, but those remaining would be working out of pure interest, which would lead me to believe that the average quality would be substantially better.
    - throwaway82652 5y ago
      I'm a musician and I write software, you don't need to preach to me about this. Record sales are indeed dead but there is no chance they'll come back at all without copyright or something like it. Also that doesn't invalidate copyright anyway. Copyright is also an important part of performance, for example the laws about what happens and what royalties you get if somebody else covers your song and profits from it. Free and open source software is completely dependent on copyright to work, so that's a terrible example. You can advocate for copyright reform all you want but you misunderstand who you have to please when you do that. It's all those lobbying groups. There's no other groups who would be invested in reforming copyright law. The "quality" you're advocating for here is completely subjective and not up to you or me to decide, even moreso when you try to dismiss all these things that millions of people actually like as "cultural garbage".
rglullis 5y ago
> You have to play ball with them or they will simply not be able to produce those things anymore. You say that like it's a bad thing. I wish it was that easy to get them to stop producing all that crap, but it seems that the easier it gets to pirate things, the more cultural garbage they produce.
- throwaway82652 5y ago
  To be clear here, you're saying that you want all writers, researchers, artists, architects, musicians, composers, filmmakers, actors, podcasters, to just stop doing things? Would it make you happy if I just threw out my painting supplies and my clarinet?
  - rglullis 5y ago
    If you only paint or play the clarinet to get a paycheck from Disney, yes.
    - throwaway82652 5y ago
      So now we're going back to the central point. Before it sounded like you wanted me to "stop producing". Now from this reply, it sounds like you don't actually care if I stop producing, you're just objecting to me getting paid and demanding payment.
      - rglullis 5y ago
        I'd be objecting anyone that gets paid to produce cultural pollution. Are you getting paid to produce cultural pollution?
        throwaway82652 5y ago
        Please discontinue this style of rhetoric, it's not what this site is for.
autoexec 5y ago
> Writers, researchers, artists, architects, musicians, composers, filmmakers, actors, podcasters, even a lot of software developers Plenty of those same people are fed up with copyright law in the US too. There are people releasing their works under more permissive licenses, publishing directly to torrent sites, etc. The fact is that most of the time copyright enforcement doesn't do a damn thing for the creators anyway. They rarely keep the copyright of what they produce. It does however often hinder their ability to work on things they'd like to, and it opens them up to legal risks from others who might claim their works are too close to their own. There's a very real chilling effect where creators may never even publish works out of fear that they'll be dragged into court against a team of industry lawyers. Our excessive copyright and patent system actually hinders more than it encourages new works.
- throwaway82652 5y ago
  - autoexec 5y ago
    > Rule of thumb, never start a sentence with "There are people", it's very vague and almost meaningless. Always refer to specific groups of people. This from the person who claims the supporters of our current copyright system are by necessity "Writers, researchers, artists, architects, musicians, composers, filmmakers, actors, podcasters, even a lot of software developers" Not a terribly specific list there either, but examples of folks fed up with system abound and I'm prepared to offer some to get you started: musicians: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7287785 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7287785 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lady-gaga-jack-white-norah-jones-musicians-piracy_n_1258319 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lady-gaga-jack-white-norah-jo... https://news.slashdot.org/story/09/05/16/0257212/danger-mouse-releases-blank-cd-r-to-spite-emi https://news.slashdot.org/story/09/05/16/0257212/danger-mous... see also : every artist that defends the use of samples in their works Writers: http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2010/05/piracy-again.html http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2010/05/piracy-again.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond https://www.brandonsanderson.com/warbreaker-rights-explanation/ https://www.brandonsanderson.com/warbreaker-rights-explanati... filmmakers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Paley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Paley Luke Thompson (Decay 2012) Michela Ledwidge (sanctuary 2005) Programmers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Eldred https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Eldred https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson See also: huge swaths of the FOSS movement Podcasters: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/open-minds-from-creative-commons/id1554356942 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/open-minds-from-creati... There are few people who would say we should abolish copyright entirely, I wouldn't myself, but our current system is broken and creative people in all areas are starting to see that and find workarounds and hope for changes. > My point is that basically all the lobbying that I've seen representing those groups has been in favor of the copyright system Those lobbyists aren't representing the artists they are representing the corporations who own the copyrights to the artists' work. Yes, the vast majority of works are still published traditionally under the typical licensees, but the system is designed to keep people doing so under the threat of lawsuits. Having the MPA or the RIAA and their teams of lawyers at your back can give you freedom to create in an environment where it's increasingly risky because of those same organizations and people are just starting to become wise to that.
Siira 5y ago
Researchers? Seriously? What IP do researchers have? Copyright reform is not “defunding copyright.” It’s a reform. It wouldn’t hurt individuals, unless they are super successful, and even then, not that much. And it helps everyone have higher quality, cheaper content and political freedom. The problem is simply that the media is once again suppressing the lower/middle class for the one percent, and spreading FUD.

fleddr 5y ago

Fully agree. "collateral damage" just means...why can't I just consume everything for free, as if it's some human right?

amelius 5y ago
Not true in the case of Yt-dl.
rglullis 5y ago
The point is not "consuming things for free", the point is neutering "the Biz". I for one wouldn't mind to lose Hollywood as an industry, or Broadway, or Silicon Valley... All of these industries are way too big and over-influential in all aspects of our lives, and leave us without any chance of a more human-scale alternative to counteract. I mean, how many TV networks are owned by Disney? Do you really think that all that lobbying is just to keep people away from watching copies of Mickey's Fantasia?
- throwaway82652 5y ago
  This makes no sense. Disney is not stopping you from making your own home movies. You can even put them on YouTube or any of the other alternatives. There's actually lots of good criticisms of Disney, but you didn't mention any of them.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    It's not about my own movies that don't get made. It's about all the other movies that don't get to be financed because of the 19th re-hash of Star Wars (or Marvel movie, or live-action remake of Lion King/Aladdin/Pocahontas/Dumbo/Bambi) that is going to be released and it's "guaranteed" to make another billion dollars in the box office. It's about having two small kids who get bombarded with products from their franchises on every media outlet. It's about them using their movies and works to promote whatever ideological propaganda that gets them in favor with government.
    - throwaway82652 5y ago
      Film funding is not a zero sum game. There are lots of other places to secure funding. I've seen about 20 new indie films already this year. The rest of your comment is unrelated and somewhat unhinged, and appears to be going off into a general complaint about advertising, it has nothing to do with copyright.
      - rglullis 5y ago
        > I've seen about 20 new indie films already this year. Good for you! Now go ask the other 99% of the population what they watched this year? > The rest of your comment (...) has nothing to do with copyright. It has to do with concentration of power, of which copyright (and any kind of "intellectual property") is one of the favorite instruments from big corporations. I also used to fall for this "people are free to choose" techno-libertarian bullshit. The problem is that it is not in the interest of all the corporations for you to choose responsibly. They make the game so complex and so energy consuming that eventually people break in one way or another. "Copyright enforcement" only benefits the big players and the corporate world.
        throwaway82652 5y ago
        But that's not true, if you didn't have copyright the biggest one would just copy everything and nobody could do anything about it. With copyright you have a way to sue them for ripping you off.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
Why do these corporations get to have functionally infinte state granted monopolies on trivially infinitely copyable data as if it's some basic right?
autoexec 5y ago
It means people being forced off the internet because of nothing but unproven accusations because they only have one ISP in their area. It means artists who never publish their works because they're afraid of being sued for being a little too close to what someone else did once a century ago. It means creative projects that never get started because while the will is there, the rights needed are impossible to obtain. It means non-infringing works like youtube-dl get silenced and hidden from the public because they are inconvenient to media giants It means accepting internet censorship without oversight. It means DRM crippled hardware that you but are never allowed to own. It means DRM crippled software that can never be preserved and archived in a usable format. It means your culture and your history being paywalled off or locked away If you this this is an issue of "I just want free stuff" you clearly haven't been paying attention.
- throwaway82652 5y ago
  No, it means almost none of that. Pretty much nothing you said has anything to do with copyright law. This is why I have a problem with this rhetoric, it very frequently goes off the rails towards something that doesn't help the goal at all. > It means people being forced off the internet because of nothing but unproven accusations because they only have one ISP in their area. This is not related to copyright law at all. I agree ISP monopolies are a problem, for any number of reasons. >It means artists who never publish their works because they're afraid of being sued for being a little too close to what someone else did once a century ago. Anyone can sue you anytime for any reason, that doesn't mean they'll win the lawsuit. You could make a good argument here about how copyright law is too long, but that point is lost in the rest of the sentence. >It means creative projects that never get started because while the will is there, the rights needed are impossible to obtain. No, that doesn't make any sense. This is a blatant misunderstanding of copyright that I see so often. Copyright doesn't stop you from creating new projects. You don't need to get the rights if it's a fully original work. You could also make a good argument here about how licensing is too difficult to obtain sometimes but that point is also lost. >It means non-infringing works like youtube-dl get silenced and hidden from the public because they are inconvenient to media giants This never happened. Youtube-dl is still up, if I recall for the short period it was taken down there were like 20 forks that popped up immediately. >It means accepting internet censorship without oversight. This also never happened and is contradictory to everything else you said, your complaint actually seems to be that there's too much oversight. >It means DRM crippled hardware that you but are never allowed to own. This is not related to copyright law. DRM is a purely technical means, not a legal one. >It means DRM crippled software that can never be preserved and archived in a usable format. It means your culture and your history being paywalled off or locked away No, it's not your culture or your history, you're not the author. What everyone misses with these comments is that some authors many not want their works to be preserved or archived. >If you this this is an issue of "I just want free stuff" you clearly haven't been paying attention. There's no coherent issue anywhere else in your reply and there's nothing to pay attention to. I've tried to make these comments constructive so maybe that can guide you towards what your real issue is.
Jedd 5y ago
It's more nuanced than hand-waving away anyone that wants to talk about copyright reform with neo-capitalist 'everyone will choose to be a freeloader' hyperbole. "If you could feed everyone on earth at the cost of baking one loaf and pressing a button, what would be the moral case for charging more for bread than some people could afford to pay? This represents the difficulty at which we find ourselves straining at the opening of the twenty-first century." --- Eben Moglen, speech he gave in 2003 - refer: http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/maine-speech.html http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/maine-speech.htm...
account42 4y ago
The natural state is that yes, you can share everything since, for things that are intended to be experienced by humans, there are no technical restrictions that do not succumb to the analog hole. So yes, not being able to consume everything for free is collateral damage from copyright and thus to justify copyright you need to demonstrate that their is more gained in return. This is why initial copyright terms were much shorter than they are now - because the deal has always been to encourage the production of more content that then becomes part of the commons, i.e. eventually can be consumed by everyone for free.

pessimizer 5y ago

> You have to play ball with them or they will simply not be able to produce those things anymore. They should stop, and we can freely share what's left. Their bullshit crowds out everything else anyway.

throwaway82652 5y ago
What is "everything else" in this context? You're saying that every writer should stop writing books, every artist should stop making art, every musician should stop making music... That is everything as far as our information society goes, there won't be any "everything else" after that.
- rglullis 5y ago
  Do you need me to go around looking for all the declarations from different big name musicians saying how they only really make money on touring, not on the record selling? How many examples of companies and people working on free software do you need? Or authors that started out writing as a side-gig? It's simply not true that copyright reform would lead to death of creative works. Most likely the opposite: we would certainly see a reduction in the quantity of works, but those remaining would be working out of pure interest, which would lead me to believe that the average quality would be substantially better.
  - throwaway82652 5y ago
    I'm a musician and I write software, you don't need to preach to me about this. Record sales are indeed dead but there is no chance they'll come back at all without copyright or something like it. Also that doesn't invalidate copyright anyway. Copyright is also an important part of performance, for example the laws about what happens and what royalties you get if somebody else covers your song and profits from it. Free and open source software is completely dependent on copyright to work, so that's a terrible example. You can advocate for copyright reform all you want but you misunderstand who you have to please when you do that. It's all those lobbying groups. There's no other groups who would be invested in reforming copyright law. The "quality" you're advocating for here is completely subjective and not up to you or me to decide, even moreso when you try to dismiss all these things that millions of people actually like as "cultural garbage".

rglullis 5y ago

> You have to play ball with them or they will simply not be able to produce those things anymore. You say that like it's a bad thing. I wish it was that easy to get them to stop producing all that crap, but it seems that the easier it gets to pirate things, the more cultural garbage they produce.

throwaway82652 5y ago
To be clear here, you're saying that you want all writers, researchers, artists, architects, musicians, composers, filmmakers, actors, podcasters, to just stop doing things? Would it make you happy if I just threw out my painting supplies and my clarinet?
- rglullis 5y ago
  If you only paint or play the clarinet to get a paycheck from Disney, yes.
  - throwaway82652 5y ago
    So now we're going back to the central point. Before it sounded like you wanted me to "stop producing". Now from this reply, it sounds like you don't actually care if I stop producing, you're just objecting to me getting paid and demanding payment.
    - rglullis 5y ago
      I'd be objecting anyone that gets paid to produce cultural pollution. Are you getting paid to produce cultural pollution?
      - throwaway82652 5y ago
        Please discontinue this style of rhetoric, it's not what this site is for.

autoexec 5y ago

> Writers, researchers, artists, architects, musicians, composers, filmmakers, actors, podcasters, even a lot of software developers Plenty of those same people are fed up with copyright law in the US too. There are people releasing their works under more permissive licenses, publishing directly to torrent sites, etc. The fact is that most of the time copyright enforcement doesn't do a damn thing for the creators anyway. They rarely keep the copyright of what they produce. It does however often hinder their ability to work on things they'd like to, and it opens them up to legal risks from others who might claim their works are too close to their own. There's a very real chilling effect where creators may never even publish works out of fear that they'll be dragged into court against a team of industry lawyers. Our excessive copyright and patent system actually hinders more than it encourages new works.

throwaway82652 5y ago
- autoexec 5y ago
  > Rule of thumb, never start a sentence with "There are people", it's very vague and almost meaningless. Always refer to specific groups of people. This from the person who claims the supporters of our current copyright system are by necessity "Writers, researchers, artists, architects, musicians, composers, filmmakers, actors, podcasters, even a lot of software developers" Not a terribly specific list there either, but examples of folks fed up with system abound and I'm prepared to offer some to get you started: musicians: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7287785 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7287785 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lady-gaga-jack-white-norah-jones-musicians-piracy_n_1258319 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lady-gaga-jack-white-norah-jo... https://news.slashdot.org/story/09/05/16/0257212/danger-mouse-releases-blank-cd-r-to-spite-emi https://news.slashdot.org/story/09/05/16/0257212/danger-mous... see also : every artist that defends the use of samples in their works Writers: http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2010/05/piracy-again.html http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2010/05/piracy-again.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond https://www.brandonsanderson.com/warbreaker-rights-explanation/ https://www.brandonsanderson.com/warbreaker-rights-explanati... filmmakers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Paley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Paley Luke Thompson (Decay 2012) Michela Ledwidge (sanctuary 2005) Programmers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Eldred https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Eldred https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson See also: huge swaths of the FOSS movement Podcasters: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/open-minds-from-creative-commons/id1554356942 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/open-minds-from-creati... There are few people who would say we should abolish copyright entirely, I wouldn't myself, but our current system is broken and creative people in all areas are starting to see that and find workarounds and hope for changes. > My point is that basically all the lobbying that I've seen representing those groups has been in favor of the copyright system Those lobbyists aren't representing the artists they are representing the corporations who own the copyrights to the artists' work. Yes, the vast majority of works are still published traditionally under the typical licensees, but the system is designed to keep people doing so under the threat of lawsuits. Having the MPA or the RIAA and their teams of lawyers at your back can give you freedom to create in an environment where it's increasingly risky because of those same organizations and people are just starting to become wise to that.

Siira 5y ago

Researchers? Seriously? What IP do researchers have? Copyright reform is not “defunding copyright.” It’s a reform. It wouldn’t hurt individuals, unless they are super successful, and even then, not that much. And it helps everyone have higher quality, cheaper content and political freedom. The problem is simply that the media is once again suppressing the lower/middle class for the one percent, and spreading FUD.