5 ms·

Laws that breed contempt for themselves won't be followed. If we had a respectable copyright regime, content producers would have a leg to stand on. There wil

by tsuraan 17y ago

Laws that breed contempt for themselves won't be followed. If we had a respectable copyright regime, content producers would have a leg to stand on. There will always be scofflaws in any society; the goal is to minimize that behaviour, not to eliminate it. Besides that, what is lost when a penniless student downloads a song? A sale? From a student who has no money? The losses are from people who can afford to make purchases. Those people must be convinced to follow the law, and the essential first step is to make the law something that people can respect.

tjr 17y ago
If one can't afford something, one generally doesn't get it at all.
- apotheon 17y ago
  Are you aware you just made an argument to the effect of people who can't afford things not representing a loss of revenue when they download it for free?
  - tptacek 17y ago
    I have $3. I can afford a bag of peanut M&Ms, a small bag of goldfish crackers, and a ham sandwich --- but not all three. Therefore, I should get all of those things for free.
    - apotheon 17y ago
      If they were freely copyable, and you had a more pressing need for that $3 than any of them, I'd say go for it. If you have to steal them from someone, on the other hand, you should probably refrain from actually taking away their candies, crackers, and sandwiches. Your analogy sucks.
tptacek 17y ago
Your arguments against copyright are so solid that they appear to change with each comment you make. Cory Doctorow may care a lot about Steamboat Willie, but the overwhelming majority of copyright scofflaws do not; they're downloading new release movies and music. What evidence can you present that they're doing this as a statement against the Sonny Bono act? Because you're making an extraordinary claim: that people who are picking up movie torrents from torrent search engines are doing so as a political statement. Your second argument is just as specious. What is lost when a penniless student downloads a song? Not much. What is lost when every penniless student downloads a song? Tens of millions of dollars. Moreover, you have no evidence to present that most downloaders "can't afford" what they're taking, and are thus creating some kind of media social safety net on the P2P networks. People download because technology has, for the time being, made it easier to download than to buy. That simple fact has no bearing on whether it's right to download without buying. A lot of things that clearly need to be illegal (for instance: credit card fraud) have also been made vastly easier by technology.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- apotheon 17y ago
  > Your arguments against copyright are so solid that they appear to change with each comment you make. I don't think you're reading very carefully, then. > What is lost when a penniless student downloads a song? Not much. What is lost when every penniless student downloads a song? Tens of millions of dollars. You're assuming they'd all spend money on the song -- which, if they're penniless, they wouldn't. The only difference for most of them is whether they hear the song -- and tell their friends (who have more money to spend) about how highly they esteem the song. Whoops, now you're talking about free advertising. It's worth considering not only how much money each song is supposedly worth per customer, but how many people would actually get the song if the only way they could get it was by paying for it. The real question for a business would not be "How many people are listening without paying?" but, instead, should be "Would we get more money if we punish people for listening without paying, or for encouraging them to share with others who might then spend money to get more songs because they liked what they heard?" Conflating punishment for not paying with actual potential profits isn't really very useful as an economic metric. > People download because technology has, for the time being, made it easier to download than to buy. That simple fact has no bearing on whether it's right to download without buying. True. The same is true of the law. We need to look elsewhere than what laws are on the books and how many people are downloading illegally to find a basis for the ethics of the situation.

by tsuraan 17y ago

tjr 17y ago

If one can't afford something, one generally doesn't get it at all.

apotheon 17y ago
Are you aware you just made an argument to the effect of people who can't afford things not representing a loss of revenue when they download it for free?
- tptacek 17y ago
  I have $3. I can afford a bag of peanut M&Ms, a small bag of goldfish crackers, and a ham sandwich --- but not all three. Therefore, I should get all of those things for free.
  - apotheon 17y ago
    If they were freely copyable, and you had a more pressing need for that $3 than any of them, I'd say go for it. If you have to steal them from someone, on the other hand, you should probably refrain from actually taking away their candies, crackers, and sandwiches. Your analogy sucks.

tptacek 17y ago

Your arguments against copyright are so solid that they appear to change with each comment you make. Cory Doctorow may care a lot about Steamboat Willie, but the overwhelming majority of copyright scofflaws do not; they're downloading new release movies and music. What evidence can you present that they're doing this as a statement against the Sonny Bono act? Because you're making an extraordinary claim: that people who are picking up movie torrents from torrent search engines are doing so as a political statement. Your second argument is just as specious. What is lost when a penniless student downloads a song? Not much. What is lost when every penniless student downloads a song? Tens of millions of dollars. Moreover, you have no evidence to present that most downloaders "can't afford" what they're taking, and are thus creating some kind of media social safety net on the P2P networks. People download because technology has, for the time being, made it easier to download than to buy. That simple fact has no bearing on whether it's right to download without buying. A lot of things that clearly need to be illegal (for instance: credit card fraud) have also been made vastly easier by technology.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
apotheon 17y ago
> Your arguments against copyright are so solid that they appear to change with each comment you make. I don't think you're reading very carefully, then. > What is lost when a penniless student downloads a song? Not much. What is lost when every penniless student downloads a song? Tens of millions of dollars. You're assuming they'd all spend money on the song -- which, if they're penniless, they wouldn't. The only difference for most of them is whether they hear the song -- and tell their friends (who have more money to spend) about how highly they esteem the song. Whoops, now you're talking about free advertising. It's worth considering not only how much money each song is supposedly worth per customer, but how many people would actually get the song if the only way they could get it was by paying for it. The real question for a business would not be "How many people are listening without paying?" but, instead, should be "Would we get more money if we punish people for listening without paying, or for encouraging them to share with others who might then spend money to get more songs because they liked what they heard?" Conflating punishment for not paying with actual potential profits isn't really very useful as an economic metric. > People download because technology has, for the time being, made it easier to download than to buy. That simple fact has no bearing on whether it's right to download without buying. True. The same is true of the law. We need to look elsewhere than what laws are on the books and how many people are downloading illegally to find a basis for the ethics of the situation.