3 ms·
The way they are proposing is clearly not the way to do it. Just because Hollywood is contributing to the economy, doesn't mean they are the only ones, and you
by nextparadigms 15y ago
The way they are proposing is clearly not the way to do it. Just because Hollywood is contributing to the economy, doesn't mean they are the only ones, and you should throw the Internet away just to save Hollywood. Because apparently that's how they think, when they try to push for laws like these. They really don't care about the consequences. They just want something to stop piracy.
And worst of all, just like DRM and any other anti-piracy measure in history, it will still probably not stop piracy. There will be made other encrypted and anonymous tools to deliver piracy files to the people who want them, and so on. In the meantime, it will break the Internet for the rest of us.
Plus, who's to say the Internet isn't disrupting the big content industry, just like it has disrupted pretty much everything else? So far it has turned out a net positive results. Why should the Government save an industry from disruption? It's not their job to do that, and it will have a negative effect in the long term. This is almost like the bailouts all over again.
If you ask me, I think we'll need an #OccupyHollywood soon.
- rasur 15y agoI think the usual refrain is "Burn Hollywood, Burn"..
- earbitscom 15y agoWhat I'm saying is that they are going to propose whatever is easiest for them to use to achieve their goal. They're not going to put in their own limitations. If people who care about this want reasonable laws, they need to propose some of their own. Theirs are usually equally in the opposite direction. And, most on the other side need to change their attitude about copyright because it's not likely to change and you lose credibility fighting for privacy and reasonable laws in the same breath as you say that information wants to be free when referring to copyrighted material.