Lawrence Dignan
Decidedly Yes
or
A Resounding No
Zack Whittaker
Best Argument:
A Resounding No
Audience Favored:
A Resounding No (92%)
List of Events:
Opening Statements
It isn't the Wild West anymore
Larry Dignan: The Internet has grown up with this somewhat ludicrous idea that there's this heavy dose of freedom and anything goes. The reality is that every entity that plays on the Internet---advertisers, content providers, information producers, service providers and the U.S. government---all have a role in tracking what you do and roles to thwart piracy. The Internet just isn't Wild West anymore although some folks like to portray it that way. If we want professional content and capital risk, we have to fight piracy. This argument also goes beyond Hollywood and the music industry. Pirated software costs technology giants a bundle too. Will that anti-piracy movement mean that some freedom falls away? Yes, for people who are pirates/criminals. Criminals sacrifice freedom in real life. Is the Internet all that different?
For me, the question about whether Internet freedom can ever be sacrificed for piracy is decidedly yes. We just have to be smart about who loses the freedom.
We would not stand for it
Zack Whittaker: The answer of course is simply a resounding "no". As seen in recent weeks with the SOPA and PIPA protests, the Web would become a stagnating pool of offline sites and 404 messages.
Pandora's box was opened with peer-to-peer file-sharing during the late '90's. Nothing was done at the time, and now our respective governments are trying to claw back what little control it has on Web users' actions.
We as a society have seen what a "free and open" Web is---something the founding fathers of the Internet prescribed---and it would be inconceivable to see a fragmented, distorted and 'broken' online world.
Simply put, we would not stand for it. We can only really miss something once it has gone, and as seen with recent protests, a significant minority speaking on the vast majority would not let such infringed freedoms happen.
If it started with piracy, it would never stop.
The Rebuttal
Closing Statements
There needs to be a middle ground
Lawrence Dignan
The Internet should be open and free and all that wonderful stuff. But the reality is that piracy is out there and there has to be some common sense guidelines to prevent it. Why? If there are no incentives to create great content you'll be stuck with crap. Where the debate should really focus on is how some middle ground can be achieved. SOPA was a debacle that was created behind the scenes. Unfortunately, government and common sense are two things that often don't go together.
It's not the tool that needs fixing
Zack Whittaker
The Internet should be free and open. Tea tastes better with a dash of milk. Cows like water. It's a given, really. Instead of censorship and domain-name blocking, change needs to come from the very heart of who we are and what we do. Just because you hit your thumb with a hammer doesn’t mean you punish the nail. It’s not the tool that needs fixing. It’s us. Ultimately, our behaviour needs to change, and with that, the music and film industry needs to adapt first. Censorship is for the oppressive regimes. Let’s not bring China’s firewall to the United States, please.
Don't punish those who play by the rules
Jason Hiner
I'm really glad that we did this debate and brought some reasonable dialog to what is a highly-charged and often irrational subject. Ultimately, Larry is right that the Internet is badly in need of some common sense guidelines to help protect copyright holders in order to incent people to create, innovate, and market their products. But, as Larry also pointed out, getting today's governments to produce common sense guidelines is a rare if not impossible thing. As a result, giving up any freedoms to fight piracy usually ends up punishing the people who already play by the rules, while the pirates find new ways around the rules. For that reason, Zack is on the right side of this one.
More from "The Great Debate"
Industry "talking points" don't convince me.
I have some sympathy for the MPAA members, but I don't have any for the RIAA members.
All of these so-called "anti-pedo" and "anti-piracy" laws, are deliberately worded to facilitate abuse, by Corporations and the Government.
Money that isn't paid to the multi-national media companies, can be spent at local businesses.
I have some sympathy for the MPAA members, but I don't have any for the RIAA members.
All of these so-called "anti-pedo" and "anti-piracy" laws, are deliberately worded to facilitate abuse, by Corporations and the Government.
Money that isn't paid to the multi-national media companies, can be spent at local businesses.
@lehnerus2000
After reading the debate and having followed this issue closely, while I do agree with Larry's points, he looks to be missing something critical.
The internet is comprised of what I call three buckets:
1. Economic
2. Social
3. Communication
There is a lot of overlap betwixt these depending on the specific use.
I am seeing almosy all of Larry's points factor in Economic.
Zack's spread more across all three (EU background?).
Then I have one last question: Why should the USA become the "policeman" of the internet?
I'm voting a resounding "No".
Nice debate
After reading the debate and having followed this issue closely, while I do agree with Larry's points, he looks to be missing something critical.
The internet is comprised of what I call three buckets:
1. Economic
2. Social
3. Communication
There is a lot of overlap betwixt these depending on the specific use.
I am seeing almosy all of Larry's points factor in Economic.
Zack's spread more across all three (EU background?).
Then I have one last question: Why should the USA become the "policeman" of the internet?
I'm voting a resounding "No".
Nice debate
No, no and no. The way I see it, the fight against piracy is just a front for something more sinister: the control over content and distribution by governments and corporations.
I don't claim ignorance of the fact that piracy causes lost revenues, but let's be realistic. Those pushing the legislation claim piracy is causing missed revenues. What about local libraries? They provide media for no cost (which could subsequently be copied) to a any number of people. What about Joe Smoe's video store? Is he really paying royalties to the movie studios whenever he rents a video out... especially considering he bought the video at Wal-Mart? What about Bootleg Bobby that drives up to my office every Thursday with last week's newest release? Is this legislation going to shut him down? Now if the legislation passes, I wonder how people will ever find another venue to "back-up" their media from...
This legislation is just a golden ticket for the media industry to get what it wants the way it did in the golden years.
This legislation is just a golden ticket for the media industry to get what it wants the way it did in the golden years.
@AnAccountICreated I don't believe the claims that piracy causes lost revenues; at least, not piracy at the individual downloader level. Sure, big "DVD factories" (located in Third World nations and China, usually) might be causing *some* lost sales, but generally the prices that *can* be paid in those places are a tiny fraction of the retail prices of the "legitimate" products. Furthermore, the RIAA's figures claiming revenue loss have been shown to be mathematically impossible, and are predicated on the theory that every single human using the Internet would spend his or her entire annual income on music CDs if only piracy didn't exist.
It's all a lot of lies made up by Marketing departments and lawyers.
It's all a lot of lies made up by Marketing departments and lawyers.
@AnAccountICreated In response to your whole query about rental stores, WE DO in fact have to pay royalties for every video rented. It's very heavily monitored and can get heavy repercussions if anything funny happens. If you make money off of media, you have to pay royalties.
Personally I'm keeping an open mind until the debate. No point going in headstrong.
Personally I'm keeping an open mind until the debate. No point going in headstrong.
@Gavello If that's the case (all across the board), then I am corrected. I know of one video store in my town which I would seriously question whether or not they actually pay such fees, and I'm 99% sure my parent's friend back in the VHS days wasn't doing so... hence my rant.
@AnAccountICreated
I know of one video store in my town which I would seriously question whether or not they actually pay such fees
And just as there are those who do illegally pirate stuff to pocket the savings, there will be stores like the one you mentione that will, too.
Just as there are alot of people who are honest and don't pirate, they pay their share, there are stores that are honest and pay their share.
I know of one video store in my town which I would seriously question whether or not they actually pay such fees
And just as there are those who do illegally pirate stuff to pocket the savings, there will be stores like the one you mentione that will, too.
Just as there are alot of people who are honest and don't pirate, they pay their share, there are stores that are honest and pay their share.
@AnAccountICreated In response to your whole query about rental stores, WE DO in fact have to pay royalties for every video rented. It's very heavily monitored and can get heavy repercussions if anything funny happens. If you make money off of media, you have to pay royalties.
So if you sell a used CD or DVD from your own personal collection on ebay and make a profit, are you going to write to the content creators and offer them a big cut?
lol...
So if you sell a used CD or DVD from your own personal collection on ebay and make a profit, are you going to write to the content creators and offer them a big cut?
lol...
@ScorpioBlue
Game, set, match!
They always seem to forget these things.
Game, set, match!
They always seem to forget these things.
@ScorpioBlue
business model
When you buy a DVD, the royalty on that DVD is part of the price, so it's accounted for. At that point on you're free to sell it as you like on ebay.
For rental places, they have to pay on the number of times rented, as why would an artist or creator want to settle for royalties on a single DVD sale to teh store, giving up royalties from the 5000 or so rentals?
Otherwise why would a content owner allow it to be rented? Better off to just sell it and earn the royalty from each of those 5000 sales
business model
When you buy a DVD, the royalty on that DVD is part of the price, so it's accounted for. At that point on you're free to sell it as you like on ebay.
For rental places, they have to pay on the number of times rented, as why would an artist or creator want to settle for royalties on a single DVD sale to teh store, giving up royalties from the 5000 or so rentals?
Otherwise why would a content owner allow it to be rented? Better off to just sell it and earn the royalty from each of those 5000 sales
When you buy a DVD, the royalty on that DVD is part of the price, so it's accounted for. At that point on you're free to sell it as you like on ebay.
But let's say I'm buying a used CD or DVD off ebay. I'm not paying any royalties on that. Especially since it only cost a $1
Game, set, match, part 2!
~
And I wasn't talking about "rentals" so why are you addressing me?
But let's say I'm buying a used CD or DVD off ebay. I'm not paying any royalties on that. Especially since it only cost a $1
Game, set, match, part 2!
~
And I wasn't talking about "rentals" so why are you addressing me?
@ScorpioBlue
As he never said that they pay a royalty when they sell.
But then you can't see that, as you don't understand the business model.
Game set and match for me. (Like there was ever any doubt)
As he never said that they pay a royalty when they sell.
But then you can't see that, as you don't understand the business model.
Game set and match for me. (Like there was ever any doubt)
@Willie, he made a generalized statement at the end of his piece. He said;
If you make money off of media, you have to pay royalties.
And I brought up a situation that disputes that generalized statement. I could care care less what rental companies have to do.
Even @Sceptical Observer saw the point I was trying to make. Why can't you? Are you that dense?
Looks like I still win. Triple game set match!
If you make money off of media, you have to pay royalties.
And I brought up a situation that disputes that generalized statement. I could care care less what rental companies have to do.
Even @Sceptical Observer saw the point I was trying to make. Why can't you? Are you that dense?
Looks like I still win. Triple game set match!
Then we have lost everything. We cannot speak out against evil and oppression. We would not be entitled to protections of due process.
Those who support this are asking for horrors to be done to them with these granted powers.
Those who support this are asking for horrors to be done to them with these granted powers.
@symbolset Did you even read the bills????? They stunk but had little to do with this. All of us need to read the bills. Read OPEN which while also not perfect is not at all an assault on Internet freedon
@rheiblim
Shops suffer from shoplifting, should we all be forced to wear GPS trackers to combat this?
How about alcohol, that can be a problem for society. How about the police make random checks in your home, to see if you have "a problem".
In your strange little world, that's perfectly acceptable.
Shops suffer from shoplifting, should we all be forced to wear GPS trackers to combat this?
How about alcohol, that can be a problem for society. How about the police make random checks in your home, to see if you have "a problem".
In your strange little world, that's perfectly acceptable.
@rheiblim...
rheiblim, you must not have read those bills properly. Yes, they were assaults on Internet Freedom, the founders of the internet (back when it was DARPANet) said it was, numerous technological companies said it was, etc.
You are obtuse in the extreme if you truly think that those laws that they have been pushing, from SOPA to OPEN to PIPA are not attempts at cutting down on internet freedom.
Simply put, piracy is NOT AT ALL a big problem today. 99% of 'pirated' stuff outside of console/phone games is just people doing timeshifting of TV shows/music/movies that they have already paid via cable TV memberships for or downloading the latest episodes of TV shows that they missed because of the obscene restrictions on recording of HD TV shows in the United States today.
rheiblim, you must not have read those bills properly. Yes, they were assaults on Internet Freedom, the founders of the internet (back when it was DARPANet) said it was, numerous technological companies said it was, etc.
You are obtuse in the extreme if you truly think that those laws that they have been pushing, from SOPA to OPEN to PIPA are not attempts at cutting down on internet freedom.
Simply put, piracy is NOT AT ALL a big problem today. 99% of 'pirated' stuff outside of console/phone games is just people doing timeshifting of TV shows/music/movies that they have already paid via cable TV memberships for or downloading the latest episodes of TV shows that they missed because of the obscene restrictions on recording of HD TV shows in the United States today.
@symbolset
I agree. Unreasonable search and seizure just to protect the the profits a few fat cats are not acceptable. The content provider should look into a technical solution like the awful DRM if they are are really concern about protecting their work, not causing havoc on the Internet or filling the jails with 'copyright infringers'.
I agree. Unreasonable search and seizure just to protect the the profits a few fat cats are not acceptable. The content provider should look into a technical solution like the awful DRM if they are are really concern about protecting their work, not causing havoc on the Internet or filling the jails with 'copyright infringers'.
@The Linux Geek
Ironically their products would be much cheaper, if they didn't waste millions of man-hours and dollars on DRM.
Ironically their products would be much cheaper, if they didn't waste millions of man-hours and dollars on DRM.
People have committed crimes for hundreds if not thousands of years so should we stop policing the matter now? Just because the Internet was designed to connect people around the globe and support freedom of expression doesn't mean there shouldn't be any control. Everything needs to be regulated because some humans need to be contained.
First off we need to know what is legal and what isn't. This is where things get complicated because some feel freedom is right while others don't. Should i be allowed to make a copy of a CD to play in my vehicle? Should i be allowed to lend a copy to a friend? Should i be allowed to make a copy for my friend? Should i be allowed to offer a copy on the Internet? See the progression for freedom just in that isolated case?
First off we need to know what is legal and what isn't. This is where things get complicated because some feel freedom is right while others don't. Should i be allowed to make a copy of a CD to play in my vehicle? Should i be allowed to lend a copy to a friend? Should i be allowed to make a copy for my friend? Should i be allowed to offer a copy on the Internet? See the progression for freedom just in that isolated case?
@MasterBeef - Should you be allowed to make a copy of a book or magazine? Should you be allowed to lend a copy to a friend? Should you be allowed to make a copy for a friend? Should you be allowed to offer a copy in coffeeshops or bookstores?
If you doodle Mickey Mouse onto a table napkin during lunch... should you be forced to pay Disney money for infringement of a character created nearly a century ago by a man now dead?
The laws already governing copyright will apply just fine to the internet.
If you doodle Mickey Mouse onto a table napkin during lunch... should you be forced to pay Disney money for infringement of a character created nearly a century ago by a man now dead?
The laws already governing copyright will apply just fine to the internet.
I don't have a problem with fighting piracy.
I DO have a problem with the way a solution is being proposed. Anytime you kill flies with hand grenades you have a lot of collateral damage. Too much.
There is no reason existing laws cannot be used or modified to deal with the problem. If you want to solve a technical problem use a technical solution, not some excessive legalistic junk devised by someone who doesn't even know how it all works.
One last point: if we finally fiqure this out and a takedown is implemented on a site, if the charge turns out to be wrong the party making it needs to be liable for the damages caused. No excuses.
I DO have a problem with the way a solution is being proposed. Anytime you kill flies with hand grenades you have a lot of collateral damage. Too much.
There is no reason existing laws cannot be used or modified to deal with the problem. If you want to solve a technical problem use a technical solution, not some excessive legalistic junk devised by someone who doesn't even know how it all works.
One last point: if we finally fiqure this out and a takedown is implemented on a site, if the charge turns out to be wrong the party making it needs to be liable for the damages caused. No excuses.
@lars626 : Congrats on a clear, concise and logical post. You managed to wrap up a lot of details in a few words.
Roflcake.
And I thought us westerners had grown completely apathetic! Apparently not when it comes to our main source of procrastination.
I enjoy the irony.
And I thought us westerners had grown completely apathetic! Apparently not when it comes to our main source of procrastination.
I enjoy the irony.
The arguments FOR SOPA/PITA are just Mickey Mouse debating points. Oh geez, I used a Disney trademark without paying them. Better take down ZDNet now -- Hey that's what the law wants to accomplish. Well that and suppressing free speech on inconvenient blogs and discussion forums.
is to arrest them for piracy. Not destroy the Internet.
Piracy is already illegal, and we already know who is doing it and who is facilitating it. The megaupload thing is all the evidence needed that they already have the tools they need to do the job, so let's get on with it.
Piracy is already illegal, and we already know who is doing it and who is facilitating it. The megaupload thing is all the evidence needed that they already have the tools they need to do the job, so let's get on with it.
@rbethell
Well said. The proposed solutions target everyone except the real offenders.
Well said. The proposed solutions target everyone except the real offenders.
to the United States and cooperated with them. If Megaupload were located in Venezuela, what do you think would have happened?
The movie industry is going through what the music industry faced several years ago with Napster. How did the music industry get through it? It wasn't because of Lars and fighting back with laws and arrests. The industry changed by offering quick, cheap and convenient music downloads. Most people today would rather buy a song from itunes than pirate it. The movie industry has to realize that buying a digital download for $30+ is absurd. Move their prices to $3-4 for a digital rental $7-$10 to digital download, make it convenient and any lost profits from the price decrease will be made up through the sheer quantity of purchases. I also don't think the movie industry gets a lot of sympathy on this issue when you look at the enormous amounts of cash they bring in and the stupid salaries that actors/actresses make. Besides, one thing that is proven on the Internet is that there is a way around anything so these laws and policies won't have an affect for very long.
The thing is, if companies (mostly advertizing company) have access to web pages I am browsing, and they are invading my privacy (on my monitor) with me asking them, and no one interfering with them, I too want to go online without no one interfering with me.
If whatever regulation is going to pass, restricting the way I go on the internet, I also want a law to prevent the ads from coming into my browser.
I know I am not drawing a clear picture between the two, but if the government decided to interfere now, I would love them to add the option for the users to opt out of internet advertizing as well (same way you have a cumbersome way to opt out of junk mail). And then it will be the end of the internet as we know it, companies will go bankrupt, and people will have less incentive to publish online (less or no pay per click revenues)
If whatever regulation is going to pass, restricting the way I go on the internet, I also want a law to prevent the ads from coming into my browser.
I know I am not drawing a clear picture between the two, but if the government decided to interfere now, I would love them to add the option for the users to opt out of internet advertizing as well (same way you have a cumbersome way to opt out of junk mail). And then it will be the end of the internet as we know it, companies will go bankrupt, and people will have less incentive to publish online (less or no pay per click revenues)
Wrong-thinking being anything that the power elites wish to extinguish. Even facts, eg history, can be and are routinely flushed down the memory hole. This legislation, and much else like it in different areas of your lives (think TSA on every street, co ming soon) is purely for the total identification and domination of the entire human race.
And you're paying for it, buying your personal tracking device (smart phone or tablet) and spewing loads of your personal information with it into government and other secretive databases. (facebook, google +)
And you're paying for it, buying your personal tracking device (smart phone or tablet) and spewing loads of your personal information with it into government and other secretive databases. (facebook, google +)
Just look at MegaUpload. Without SOPA/PIPA, the authorities were still able to use (abuse?) existing law to get the job done.
Any changes should be in the direction of freedom, not tyranny.
Any changes should be in the direction of freedom, not tyranny.
cooperated with the United States. What if Megaupload had been located in Venezuela?
@baggins_z
They wouldn't have been able to shut down a legal company without a trial.
Yeah, that's terrible.
They wouldn't have been able to shut down a legal company without a trial.
Yeah, that's terrible.
Don't we have enough copyright infringement laws? Do we really need laws that will take down an entire website over one piece of allegedly infringing content, and tough luck to the rest of the content?
As in everything, piracy only leads to less creation and higher prices for legal content, and even to unavailability of content in certain markets in which there isn't enough demand to cover the costs of providing some contents (I'm thinking about books and movies in some Latin American countries, like Peru, where I live). I have to pay higher prices for the content I want because there are people who sell massive quantities of original-quality DVDs (no blurry image, no shadow head crossing before the screen) for around US$ 1.
However, the line is very thin here. If it's true that Internet should be regulated in such a way that promote also the freedom of creation for those who want to share and the freedom of selling their own products for those who want to sell, laws shouldn't be worded in such a way that megacorporations might have their way at the slightest hint or suspicion of piracy. Sometimes, what seems piracy is nothing else than alternative distribution, IF the one sharing has the rights to do so.
Big media corporations are trying to defend an obsolete business model. I'm all for protecting their ways of doing business legally (if they want to sell CDs and DVDs and charge high prices for their distribution channels, who am I to protest? I just won't buy their content if there's another, cheaper channel available); but I'm so against letting them to close and crush alternative legal channels, like online marketplaces where artist could freely sell their content directly to the masses without a media corp. behind.
And if there could only be two extremes, say, no regulation or full regulation that gives all power to the corporation, I'm all for no regulation at the end of the day.
However, the line is very thin here. If it's true that Internet should be regulated in such a way that promote also the freedom of creation for those who want to share and the freedom of selling their own products for those who want to sell, laws shouldn't be worded in such a way that megacorporations might have their way at the slightest hint or suspicion of piracy. Sometimes, what seems piracy is nothing else than alternative distribution, IF the one sharing has the rights to do so.
Big media corporations are trying to defend an obsolete business model. I'm all for protecting their ways of doing business legally (if they want to sell CDs and DVDs and charge high prices for their distribution channels, who am I to protest? I just won't buy their content if there's another, cheaper channel available); but I'm so against letting them to close and crush alternative legal channels, like online marketplaces where artist could freely sell their content directly to the masses without a media corp. behind.
And if there could only be two extremes, say, no regulation or full regulation that gives all power to the corporation, I'm all for no regulation at the end of the day.
@cherry_lyptus
It's debatable that piracy only leads to less creation and higher prices. There is evidence that the opposite is true. It is even more debatable that piracy only leads to lost profits (ask Mercedes Lackey about freely distributed ebooks and increased sales of her other books). Before enacting new laws, we need to know what the real problem is.
It's debatable that piracy only leads to less creation and higher prices. There is evidence that the opposite is true. It is even more debatable that piracy only leads to lost profits (ask Mercedes Lackey about freely distributed ebooks and increased sales of her other books). Before enacting new laws, we need to know what the real problem is.
The Copyright laws were 'broken' when Copyright material hoarders gamed the legal system to allow them to stop releasing Copyright material into the public domain. Historically, Copyright was granted to material for a limited time in exchange for its eventual release into the public domain. There has been no release of any American Copyright material into the public domain for years. None, not a bit. And none is scheduled to be released until 2019. And, maybe nothing after 2019, if the Copyright 'Hijackers' push release dates out with future legislative changes.
Copyright holders 'broke' the law. They didn't technically violate it, they simply 'broke' the social contract. They have 'Hijacked' every every bit of Copyright material which should have entered the public domain for years and years to come. They own the law, but by violating the social contract, they have debased the concept of Copyright.
There is no reason to respect their 'broken' law until they respect the social contract and begin releasing material into the public domain. Copyright law no longer has any moral standing until the Copyright social contract is legally restored. Until then we will have 'Pirates' copying 'Hijackers' booty.
Copyright holders 'broke' the law. They didn't technically violate it, they simply 'broke' the social contract. They have 'Hijacked' every every bit of Copyright material which should have entered the public domain for years and years to come. They own the law, but by violating the social contract, they have debased the concept of Copyright.
There is no reason to respect their 'broken' law until they respect the social contract and begin releasing material into the public domain. Copyright law no longer has any moral standing until the Copyright social contract is legally restored. Until then we will have 'Pirates' copying 'Hijackers' booty.
Enough with the conspiracy theories that these laws are being designed to eliminate democracy or some such. People need to put down the Ron Paul pipe. Enough with the - outdated business model, costs too high, etc. We can now download games via Steam and others, books via Amazon, B&N and others (for less money), music, tv and movies via Amazon, Apple and others. Piracy still exists. How many people do you know who have a *legal* copy of Photoshop? And no, the piracy isn't Adobe's "fault". Concessions are going to have to be made somewhere. The content providers *did* change but piracy hasn't stopped. Now it's time for the consumers to give a little too. Being blocked from a file-sharing site is no different than a police car at the top of the street stopping anyone who seems to be heading to the local crack house. Instead of blaming DMCA for piracy, blame piracy for DMCA. Less piracy and less extreme measures accepted by consumers means less need for tougher measures.
The 2 are not mutually exclusive unless you have a very broad definition of "Internet freedom" and or "piracy". Should someone be able to download every top 40 song for free from Rapidshare? No. Should YouTube be taken offline because I posted a 45 second clip of my 2 year old dancing because the latest #1 song appeared in the background? No. We need reasonable laws and enforcement, not some MPAA/RIAA wet dream that destroys the concept of due process and puts incredible power in the hands of the accuser, not to mention the ISPs who become the de facto piracy cops. Given many of the ISPs are also providing television services, who do you think they're going to side with under SOPA/PIPA?
Piracy is something that needs to be stopped - there is no debate about that. The means to stop piracy is not going to be accomplished by punishing the innocent - which is what would happen with the proposals the politicians that the RIAA and MPAA purchased. This is not even putting an band aid on it, this is like rubbing raw sewage into a wound. The root cause needs to be ferreted out. Regulations like SOPA and PIPA would simply bypass the judicial system and essentially put the internet in the hands of the RIAA and MPAA - is this something you want? I for one surely do not.
The question should be wether we should ditch the copyright system for good, in order to protect the general freedom and freedom of information, now that the system is clearly showing it's maximum limits.
That poll could have some more 50-50 like pattern... what debates is this, where almost everyone agree?
Still all thanks to ZDNet that also has to show the obvious truth to those who do not understand IT.
That poll could have some more 50-50 like pattern... what debates is this, where almost everyone agree?
Still all thanks to ZDNet that also has to show the obvious truth to those who do not understand IT.
Low Prices / High Volume = Money ( Example: Netflix, $5.00 Footlong Subway, Dollar Menu at Mcdonalds )
High Prices / Low Volume = Money (Example: Bose, Rolex, Ferrari)
Both companies are making profit. Profit is what it is all about. Americans like a deal, and when you flash low price that fits a minimum wage society you will see the money.
High Prices / Low Volume = Money (Example: Bose, Rolex, Ferrari)
Both companies are making profit. Profit is what it is all about. Americans like a deal, and when you flash low price that fits a minimum wage society you will see the money.
For starters, No one in the industry is losing sales because of file sharing, what they are gaining in file sharing is "Market share", these people otherwise would not be purchasing it to begin with. The ones least hurt by music sharing is the artists, if you've seen the statistics, their piece of the pie is more like a morsel compared to the "Industry".
With regard to piracy, yes there is money lost there, if someone is selling black market copies of a product obviously the purchasers had the funds and the interest in buying the product but didn't want to pay full price.
Larry Dignen, you said it... "Hunt them down", this is how you stop them cold otherwise, by shutting down a domain, they just move on to another domain and continue business as usual until someone catches up to them and shuts down that domain. When all is said and done, you've got all these domains blocked and still no "perpetrator in custody". They've done it, we've seen them do it, it can be done.
With regard to piracy, yes there is money lost there, if someone is selling black market copies of a product obviously the purchasers had the funds and the interest in buying the product but didn't want to pay full price.
Larry Dignen, you said it... "Hunt them down", this is how you stop them cold otherwise, by shutting down a domain, they just move on to another domain and continue business as usual until someone catches up to them and shuts down that domain. When all is said and done, you've got all these domains blocked and still no "perpetrator in custody". They've done it, we've seen them do it, it can be done.
@kfortner51 It's a completely unsupported and illogical notion to claim that no one is pirating anything that they would have bought if the piracy option wasn't available.
@jgm@...
This has been beat to death in the past - the majority of pirates had no intention of buying the downloaded file(s).
This has been beat to death in the past - the majority of pirates had no intention of buying the downloaded file(s).
Giving up a "little" freedom on the internet is like being a "little" bit pregnant. There is no such critter.
The government is for supporting the "industries" because it gives them back doors into controlling/monitoring the internet and it's users whether they are criminals or not.
That is decidedly un-American.
The government is for supporting the "industries" because it gives them back doors into controlling/monitoring the internet and it's users whether they are criminals or not.
That is decidedly un-American.
@Sceptical Observer That is decidedly un-American.
Perhaps it is compared to what the founding fathers envisioned... Unfortunately, it is decidedly American these days.
Perhaps it is compared to what the founding fathers envisioned... Unfortunately, it is decidedly American these days.
@Badgered
Then it's time "We the People" take it back to what it was instead of letting corporate "quasi" citizens tell our government how things should be!
Then it's time "We the People" take it back to what it was instead of letting corporate "quasi" citizens tell our government how things should be!
Internet Freedom should not be sacrificed for the sake of combating piracy. That is just a poor excuse to curb freedom of speech. Perhaps all these big corporations should not be so greedy and come up with more reasonably priced products so people can buy them instead of curbing them.
Join the conversation!
Debate Event Reminders
The Great Debate Newsletter
With the Great Debate newsletter, you get a front-row seat to every argument until the final gavel falls.
Upcoming Debate
-
Can PC makers survive in a post PC world?
May 29, 2012 | 7:00 AM PDT
Add to Calendar
Comments from the floor
Facebook Activity
No to Censorship
RE: Should any Internet freedom ever be sacrificed to fight piracy?
RE: Should any Internet freedom ever be sacrificed to fight piracy?
RE: Should any Internet freedom ever be sacrificed to fight piracy?
If you make money off of media, you have to pay royalties.
And I brought up a situation that disputes that generalized statement. I could care care less what rental companies have to do.
Even @Sceptical Observer saw the point I was trying to make. Why can't you? Are you that dense?
Looks like I still win. Triple game set match!
RE: Should any Internet freedom ever be sacrificed to fight piracy?
It's debatable that piracy only leads to less creation and higher prices. There is evidence that the opposite is true. It is even more debatable that piracy only leads to lost profits (ask Mercedes Lackey about freely distributed ebooks and increased sales of her other books). Before enacting new laws, we need to know what the real problem is.