4 ms·

You can make a bunch of comparisons here between various shadow markets. Prohibition would be an extreme example but the parallel is in my opinion quite clear.

You can make a bunch of comparisons here between various shadow markets. Prohibition would be an extreme example but the parallel is in my opinion quite clear. People have and continue to resist oppressive legislation that really mostly affects themselves, not everyone else. Be it drinking, piracy or extreme skydiving. It's ineffectual and breaches people's freedom. A reasonable middle ground here would be forbidding making profit off it, like some better countries have adopted. If we now take a look at the causes, it's quite clear that it shouldn't and can't be improved with restrictions. The underlying reasons and their possible solutions have been highlighted well by cable, Netflix and Steam. Unfortunately streaming services are cable-ifying. We'll probably have to endure and wait for history to repeat again. If you didn't get what I meant - making a service not affordable, cumbersome and restrictive makes people seek alternatives. Third and possibly the worst aspect here is that such legislation has collateral damage. Large players can steal content, revenue and obliterate anyone standing against them - simply by having deeper wallets. There are Kafkaesque content filters that you can't properly dispute. Artists have to agree to unfair contracts to properly earn royalties. Consumers get hurt by idiotic DRM. In the recent years I've seen Google search results being removed with DMCA requests by "unknown" for sharing "unknown" made by "unknown". Lumen DB literally contains entries like this. There's no way they'll improve their behaviour when given more power, there's no way it'll improve citizen's lives, it won't even help artists in any reasonable extent. It would only help a few select shareholders.

JohnHaugeland 4y ago
This is primarily off of the topic that I actually raised, which is that anti piracy laws aren't anti consumer That you're able to name some implementations you don't like isn't really relevant Many of these laws exist that you will never learn about because they don't affect you in any way It's like picking the worst politician you can name to show why everyone in the other team is bad Overbroad to the point of missing what you were arguing against
- Avamander 4y ago
  > This is primarily off of the topic that I actually raised, which is that anti piracy laws aren't anti consumer I listed other anti-consumer laws, how the current ones are both anti-consumer and creator, how future ones can make it even worse. That is very on-topic. > That you're able to name some implementations you don't like isn't really relevant Vast majority of them are terrible, that is relevant. > Many of these laws exist that you will never learn about because they don't affect you in any way Even if that were the case, which it isn't, that doesn't make them good. There's literally no merit you can infer from saying "you don't know about those laws". > It's like picking the worst politician you can name to show why everyone in the other team is bad It's like picking a party and listing what they've done and generalizing from that, that they aren't doing good things. > Overbroad to the point of missing what you were arguing against Intentional attempt at excluding parts of the discussion because you don't have good arguments against them.
  - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
    > Vast majority of them are terrible No evidence supports this I'm not interested in arguing with a set of unjustified faiths

JohnHaugeland 4y ago

This is primarily off of the topic that I actually raised, which is that anti piracy laws aren't anti consumer That you're able to name some implementations you don't like isn't really relevant Many of these laws exist that you will never learn about because they don't affect you in any way It's like picking the worst politician you can name to show why everyone in the other team is bad Overbroad to the point of missing what you were arguing against

Avamander 4y ago
> This is primarily off of the topic that I actually raised, which is that anti piracy laws aren't anti consumer I listed other anti-consumer laws, how the current ones are both anti-consumer and creator, how future ones can make it even worse. That is very on-topic. > That you're able to name some implementations you don't like isn't really relevant Vast majority of them are terrible, that is relevant. > Many of these laws exist that you will never learn about because they don't affect you in any way Even if that were the case, which it isn't, that doesn't make them good. There's literally no merit you can infer from saying "you don't know about those laws". > It's like picking the worst politician you can name to show why everyone in the other team is bad It's like picking a party and listing what they've done and generalizing from that, that they aren't doing good things. > Overbroad to the point of missing what you were arguing against Intentional attempt at excluding parts of the discussion because you don't have good arguments against them.
- JohnHaugeland 4y ago
  > Vast majority of them are terrible No evidence supports this I'm not interested in arguing with a set of unjustified faiths