4 ms·

CISPA PIPA SOPA DMCA takedown abuse Foreign raid on Megaupload Mickey-Mouse copyright extensions huge fines for filesharing I think the list could go on.

by bo1024 14y ago

CISPA PIPA SOPA DMCA takedown abuse Foreign raid on Megaupload Mickey-Mouse copyright extensions huge fines for filesharing I think the list could go on. These are all outside-of-market solutions to the content industry's competition problem. The hope is that if these avenues are no longer available to the MPAA/RIAA, they will be forced to consider collaborating with modern technology solutions that give consumers more freedom, more choices, and more control (because the competitor, piracy, gives people these things already).

rayiner 14y ago
> I think the list could go on. These are all outside-of-market solutions to the content industry's competition problem. In a way they are, but so are the laws against theft, fraud, embezzlement, tortious interference with a contract, you name it. You can argue about what the scope of the "right" here should be, and that is a separate argument, but once a right is established, people should have the protection of the government, within reason, in securing that right. You probably don't oppose the fact that we don't leave protection of more traditional property rights to "market solutions." That would of course be ridiculous because you can't have markets without property rights.
Gormo 14y ago
I'm not sure how any of these examples necessarily reflect money as the root systemic cause of the vulnerability of the political process to being co-opted by factional interests. If money were somehow removed from the equation, surely the same concentration of political power would exist, and the same parties would possess the same interest in directing its use; it doesn't seem that itself is a source of influence, but just a means employed in applying that influence. So how does removing money from the politics actually prevent the MPAA, RIAA, and other cartels from using politics as a means to alter market conditions in their favor? I think we might need significantly more fundamental reforms; trying to restrict the role of money in politics, with all else being equal, might even backfire, and cause something even more concerning than money to become the dominant medium for influencing politics.

by bo1024 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

> I think the list could go on. These are all outside-of-market solutions to the content industry's competition problem. In a way they are, but so are the laws against theft, fraud, embezzlement, tortious interference with a contract, you name it. You can argue about what the scope of the "right" here should be, and that is a separate argument, but once a right is established, people should have the protection of the government, within reason, in securing that right. You probably don't oppose the fact that we don't leave protection of more traditional property rights to "market solutions." That would of course be ridiculous because you can't have markets without property rights.

Gormo 14y ago

I'm not sure how any of these examples necessarily reflect money as the root systemic cause of the vulnerability of the political process to being co-opted by factional interests. If money were somehow removed from the equation, surely the same concentration of political power would exist, and the same parties would possess the same interest in directing its use; it doesn't seem that itself is a source of influence, but just a means employed in applying that influence. So how does removing money from the politics actually prevent the MPAA, RIAA, and other cartels from using politics as a means to alter market conditions in their favor? I think we might need significantly more fundamental reforms; trying to restrict the role of money in politics, with all else being equal, might even backfire, and cause something even more concerning than money to become the dominant medium for influencing politics.