Study Shows Educational And Social Harm 'Three Strikes' Punishment Would Cause Young People
from the better-late-than-never dept
One of the extraordinary aspects of the “three strikes” approach to copyright enforcement is its blind vindictiveness. After three or so alleged acts of infringing on copyright, it’s not one individual that’s punished, but the entire household that depends on the family Internet connection in question, irrespective of the personal situation of those affected. This kind of collective punishment is something that is regarded as abhorrent in other contexts, but the power of the copyright industries is such that several governments around the world followed the French lead and introduced precisely this kind of scheme, and to hell with the damage it might cause to innocent and vulnerable people caught up in it.
A major issue is that no research was carried out before introducing the legislation in order to understand just what its wider effects might be — pretty much the only exploration of the consequences is in Cory Doctorow’s “Pirate Cinema”, the Techdirt Book Club’s current choice. That’s typical of the evidence-free way that copyright legislation is drawn up and passed, but it is particularly unforgiveable here because some belated research shows just how serious the knock-on damage is likely to be for some:
Teenagers who do not have access to the internet in their home have a strong sense of being ‘educationally disadvantaged’, warns the study. At the time of the study, the researchers estimated that around 10 per cent of the teenagers were without online connectivity at home, with most of this group living in poorer households. While recent figures from the Office of National Statistics suggest this dropped to five per cent in 2012, the researchers say that still leaves around 300,000 children without internet access in their homes.
The researchers’ interviews with teenagers reveal that they felt shut out of their peer group socially and also disadvantaged in their studies as so much of the college or school work set for them to do at home required online research or preparation.
The research is about homes that do not have an Internet connection for economic or other reasons, but clearly the same consequences could be expected for those that were cut off as a result of a “three strikes” punishment against someone in the same household. Students in families affected are likely to be educationally and socially at a considerable disadvantage. Fortunately, as Techdirt has reported, the “three strikes” approach seems to be collapsing under its own weight in France, and more or less ruled out in the UK for legal reasons.
That’s just as well, since this new research suggests that the knock-on consequences for young people caught up in this scheme would have been serious and long lasting as far as their employment prospects and social integration were concerned. Moreover, it’s not hard to see that the impact on everyone in the families affected would have been similarly disproportionate in terms of cutting them off from online government and business services that are now practically indispensable for modern life.
It’s shameful the governments concerned either didn’t even consider these issues before plunging ahead with their “three strikes” laws, or did, but simply didn’t care about the suffering they would cause. In either case, it shows once more how they are more interested in pleasing their friends in the copyright world than in serving the people that elected them.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Filed Under: harm, three strikes, uk
Comments on “Study Shows Educational And Social Harm 'Three Strikes' Punishment Would Cause Young People”
So this time we will be the ones using the “for the children” argument to repel draconian copyright laws? Ironically and sexily interesting 😉
You manage to ignore the fact that there are (often many) warnings issued the account holder- presumably a responsible adult. So if the adult is not the one infringing s/he has ample opportunity to act.
Perhaps you can tell us how many people have actually been disconnected and what the circumstances were.
Re: Re:
You manage to ignore the fact that an IP address is not a person.
You also manage to ignore the fact that this is an accusation of infringement, not proof of anything.
If the account holder is not the one infringing, and they cannot identify anyone else infringing, then what are they supposed to do?
Perhaps you can tell us how many times you’ve correctly identified an individual infringer, proven actual infringement and what the circumstances were.
Re: Re: Re:
The IP address is better evidence than we have in almost every other crime. Fingerprints and eye witnesses are even more unreliable but still we put people in jail because they’re pretty good indicators.
The fact is that even if the IP address doesn’t identify the person directly, there’s an excellent chance that the billpayer will know just who did it.
The same goes for speeding tickets tied to license plates. Oh sure, we don’t know who’s behind the wheel but there’s a great chance that the car owner will know the person.
We make compromises all of the time in the legal system. It’s not pretty but it gets the job done.
The fact is that it’s soooo easy to just go to iTunes and buy the legit content. So quit whining.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes there is a chance that the bill payer would know who is doing the infringing.
We make compromises all of the time in the legal system. It’s not pretty but it gets the job done.
So it’s best to just continue down that ugly because they get right sometimes?
That’s the thing the versions of these legislations that are popping are getting put on the books with little to know preliminary research of the consquences.
Are the old guard of copyright really going to go out of business so fast that protectionist laws must be rushed through without even taking time to think about them first?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“The fact is that even if the IP address doesn’t identify the person directly, there’s an excellent chance that the billpayer will know just who did it.”
Which again is irrelevant. As there is no proof of infringement occurring. All that is going on is an allegation. ALLEGATION. I know you suck with definitions and actual meanings of words (see your definition of paywall for that, having to pay for something DOES NOT a paywall make) so I won’t bother defining the term. But an allegation is NOT enough to warrant someone having internet access cut off.
“The same goes for speeding tickets tied to license plates. Oh sure, we don’t know who’s behind the wheel but there’s a great chance that the car owner will know the person.”
A great chance indeed, but if you can effectively argue that you as the owner of the vehicle MAY NOT have been the person driving the vehicle you can avoid paying the ticket entirely. There’s a guy I forget where who received over 30 speeding tickets, caught by speeding cameras. He refused to pay because despite the fact that he was the registered owner of the car it could not be proven that he was driving the car at the time it was speeding. The driver was wearing a monkey mask every time he’d speed by said speed cameras, just to prove a point. Since it could not beyond a reasonable doubt be determined just who was speeding all 30 tickets were dismissed against the registered owner of the vehicle.
“We make compromises all of the time in the legal system. It’s not pretty but it gets the job done.”
Uh no, we don’t. The legal system is not composed of compromises. It is composed of clear facts and evidence. BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. That’s perhaps the most damning point against anything you’ve said.
“The fact is that it’s soooo easy to just go to iTunes and buy the legit content. So quit whining.”
Unless you live in Canada or anywhere that isn’t the United States. So fuck you. Your “point” was beaten by myself in not even half a second. iTunes isn’t accessible everywhere. Ditto Amazon. Ditto the Play Store. Ditto everything else. Until such time that getting content legally is not comprised of regional restrictions you can go fuck yourself.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“The IP address is better evidence than we have in almost every other crime. Fingerprints and eye witnesses are even more unreliable but still we put people in jail because they’re pretty good indicators.
Cite Please!
“The fact is that even if the IP address doesn’t identify the person directly, there’s an excellent chance that the billpayer will know just who did it.“
Really, What if I have an Open WIFI connection? What if I am a business owner? What if someone hacked into my secured WIFI (it isn’t usually that hard)? What if my kid shared the wifi password with a friend? What if my router or computer has been hacked?
the fact is you have no real proof, and are to lazy to do the real work involved to get it. The fact is if the MAFIAA would make smart business decisions piracy would virtually disappear and their profits would soar.
As it is I have little choice but to download my ebook and then strip the DRM out of it so that, much like a REAL book I have control over the digital file.
DRM is a big fat FAIL and has caused a lot more piracy than it has stopped.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The IP address is better evidence than we have in almost every other crime. Fingerprints and eye witnesses are even more unreliable
In general we do NOT put people in prison based on any of those types of evidence unless it is CORROBORATED by other evidence. Also, fingerprints are, in principle, more reliable than IP addresses.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL
Yes, go buy the latest Taylor Swift album from iTunes and all will be right in the world.
FOAD, bob. Luddite to the end.
Re: Re: Re: Fingerprints and IP numbers
When I was younger, I did not believe people like you existed.
For the record, it is impossible to find out what the probability of two fingerprints being identical even is. You have to have a certain number of fingerprints and then check for uniqueness to even get an outside figure using mathematical probability calculations.
Whenever they finally get IPv6 rolling, the number of unique IP’s will be 3.4?10^38 if you want to take Wikipedia’s word for it. Whatever it is, it is going to be significantly less than the effectively infinite variety of fingerprints.
And the IP address is not associated with any specific person, which you and yours continually ignore.
Some people in this world do not like to deal in facts, but instead dangerously cling to whatever they perceive as the authority of their time. Sadly, facts trump perceptions of authority, and have a well documented influence over who wins physical conflicts.
I’ve watched a man die because of current application of IP law coupled with the utter mismanagement of our monetary system and our medical system. Life saving treatment is too expensive in no small part because of IP law. Artificial money, constantly inflated to keep up with the interest payments necessary to motivate bankers to lend, pools in what investors perceive to be reliable investments. Medical technology is a secure investment because people, by and large, will pay whatever it takes to stop suffering or to prolong life. Therefore, the cost of medical care skyrockets in comparison to other living costs, and people cannot afford it.
In trying to right this wrong artificially while maintaining our ridiculous monetary and IP laws, various systems have been put in place. The catch all in the US was supposed to be that if you had an emergency, you went to the emergency room where they were not allowed to refuse treatment.
The man I am speaking of had a grapefruit sized tumor growing on his neck when he walked into the emergency room. Since he was not strangling to death yet, they sent him home. This happened on at least one more occasion.
Predicably, the man strangled to death in his sleep a week or two later.
I hold you and people like you accountable for what we have become as a nation. Wake up, sir. Wake up.
Re: Re: Re:2 Fingerprints and IP numbers
“Medical technology is a secure investment because people, by and large, will pay whatever it takes to stop suffering or to prolong life. Therefore, the cost of medical care skyrockets in comparison to other living costs, and people cannot afford it.“
While I don’t disagree with your overall point, I do have to say that insurance also has a huge influence over the costs of Medical procedures and supplies. Now that everyone will soon have the ability to pay (because they will be forced to buy insurance) you can be quite certain that costs will rise.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“The IP address is better evidence than we have in almost every other crime. Fingerprints and eye witnesses are even more unreliable but still we put people in jail because they’re pretty good indicators.
The fact is that even if the IP address doesn’t identify the person directly, there’s an excellent chance that the billpayer will know just who did it.”
This speaks for itself.
Again, your idea is that IDing someone who you think has “an excellent chance (of) know(ing) just who did it” is BETTER than finding an actual eyewitness or getting fingerprints.
Just repeating what you said. Not even arguing with you.
Reread before you post.
Re: Re:
You seem to ignore the fact that no proof is required: only allegations. Even a responsible adult who receives three erroneous allegations is cut off.
Also, you may recall that the number of people prosecuted under HADOPI to date is one, and he wasn’t the infringer. I’m waiting for your glowing report of such programmes’ usefulness.
Re: Re:
“So if the adult is not the one infringing s/he has ample opportunity to act.”
You manage to ignore the fact that that will require lawyers and a few years of struggle to sort things out.
In short, time and money, which is precisely what the average joe doesn’t have. Confronted with the situation, people will just surrender with silent resignation…and probably switch ISPs when the axe falls.
Such is the system we have in place: we screw the life of everyone to benefit a handful.
Re: Re:
“You manage to ignore the fact that there are (often many) warnings issued the account holder- presumably a responsible adult. So if the adult is not the one infringing s/he has ample opportunity to act. “
The strikes ARE the warnings. What part of three strikes made you think “OK, three strikes and often many other warnings”?
There are two types of infringers: Those who now they are infringing and hide their activities, and those who don’t know they’re infringing and so get strikes. And since they didn’t know the first time, how will they know not to do it again?
Copyright infringement assertions are impossible to follow for people who understand them ? for example, how many of us streamed/downloaded that infringing copy of the Harvey Danger song yesterday? Violating that assertion is literally the only way to post or view that video.
People who don’t understand infringement claims well enough to mask their activities and avoid one strike have no chance on the next two … unless, of course, they confine all their future Internet activity to purchasing things.
Re: Re:
The copyright trolls consider them-selves at war with “copyright infringers”‘ but they cant’t properly identify the infringer, so damm ethical behaviour lets punish the IP address
Collective punishment is a war crime under the geneva convention. and when a corporate entity
mpaa, rpia, sony, emi, universal , etc) commits a crime the board of directors are responsible and need to serve serious time. And if the crime was intigated by some underling against the cpompany policy, obviously the board might be of the hook but the company owes the affected people big. The board might have questions to answer for not forfilling their duties as directors and keeping informed of events inside the company.
Re: Re: Re:
The copyright trolls consider them-selves at war with “copyright infringers”‘ but they cant’t properly identify the infringer, so damm ethical behaviour lets punish the IP address
You mean the way the owner of a crack house is fined or has his property confiscated for allowing his property to be used for unlawful purposes?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only if done so knowingly, which again is a point you refuse to acknowledge when people make said statement known. AGAIN you’re being disingenuous.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Don’t you think multiple notices to the account owner implies “knowingly”?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Considering how easy it is to hack WIFI, no. And let’s not forget no proof is required.
Which is just bullshit, but you seem happy with that.
Re: Re:
I’m sorry, but Pepsi noticed you were trying to mix Pepsi products with rum. They don’t agree with this and we, your water company, will be forced to shut you off from having access to water.
Sounds fair to me.
I love analogies.
Youth?
What about the starving corporat… I mean artists? What about their rights being trampled on by Pirate Mike, his TechDumb minions, and their Google backed Silicon Valley corporate elitist culture killing thieving gang of freetards?
What detrimental harm have they caused to artists? Not just rich people like Lars Ulrich or Bono, but little people like Zoe Keating or Amanda Palmer? What about unknown artists? How ever will they be heard if not through our God channels, the only way to hear anything worthy of being called “cultural”? Will Google’s Pirate Mike promote artists while keeping their copyrights locked away, safely, from the public domain?
We all know the public, our bread and butter, need to be told what’s good and what’s not, where to buy, how much to spend, and what to spend their money on! Food, rent, video games, other forms of entertainment? Bah, that is bullshit, our industry could be 75 billion pounds every month if it not for that pesky Interweb tubes and people’s freedom to do as they please with their hard-earned money!
3 Strikes can’t harm anyone except our precious artists. That’s two strikes Justin Bieber and Chad Kruger lose out on because of the 3 strikes policy. It’s only because our politicians only understand baseball. We wanted 1 strike and execution, after taking their assets, liquid or not.
There’s no harm to anyone, we’re being as fair as we can be while you greedy freetards steal our copies so we no longer have any to sell! Who’d buy our copies and support our old way of doing things if they could get it for free? iTunes proves that! When was the last time you saw iTunes selling $15 billion a month? Exactly!!!
Spare us the bullshit Pirate Mike Masnick! Admit it you work for GoorateBay and all you want is to kill culture by holding copyright laws accountable to their original intentions!
Re: Youth?
Youth really are the problem. If we just get rid of everyone below some arbitrary age, we’ll solve the piracy problem forever!
As a side benefit nobody will care if copyright is extended to forever minus one day — which technically qualifies as the constitutional “for limited times”.
Re: Youth?
You joke about starving corporations, but corporations are just groups of people. Sure there are a few rich people on the top, but most are just trying to get by. If the corporations “starve”, they fire people who then go on to starve.
Re: Re: Youth?
Yup, my last company was sinking, so rather than get a new job because said company would not adapt, I am just starving.
Seriously though, people have to look after themselves. YOU are responsible for your career, NO ONE ELSE!
No one owes you ANYTHING, not a career, not payment, nothing. You have to provide a reason to buy! And I buy, lots, because of good reasons (price, supporting the artist, etc…).
You sound, Bob, just as bad as MPAA going on about caterers going under because the studios can’t afford to pay them (like they would not go find other clients!).
Your arguments are toilet paper, don’t hold water and good for shit!
Re: Re: Youth?
“You joke about starving corporations, but corporations are just groups of people.”
Corporations REPRESENT groups of people. You can protect and respect those people without protecting or respecting the corporation.
Re: Re: Re: Youth?
Michael Moore kinda (wishy-washily) proved corporations (which are legal entities, though puppets really, controlled by the people running them) are psychopaths.
The funny part, that bullshit about creating a legal entity was to protect the honest controllers from the illegal actions of a rogue employee, or so we’re told.
Today they all hide behind that, act corrupt, steal, rip consumers off, bribe governments, extort, exploit, and then let the imaginary, brainless entity known as the Corporation, take the fall for it while the people doing the wrong walk away scot-free (please note, that does not mean they walk away free of anyone named Scott).
Bob knows this but he’s probably a corporation himself, controlled by bubbles of gas.
Re: Re: Re:2 Youth?
This anti-corporation rhetoric is pretty extreme. You know that coffee shop on the corner? It is most likely a corporation. Incorporating is easy and smart to limit liability (ie, not losing your house when some idiot spills coffee on himself and sues you).
Re: Re: Re:3 Youth?
Like anything with good intentions, it can be used for bad.
Oh wait, if we follow Bob/OOTB/AverageJoe/Lowery/Simmons/Et. al. we would legislate against such possibilities because some use it for bad.
Re: Re: Re:3 Youth?
Actually there are plenty of examples where a corporation’s owners escaped without harm. Vermiculite, a one-time popular material used for attic insulation, came from a mine known to have asbestos (one of two minds I think where the vermic cam from). The owners closed up shop and let the company take the fall.
Ford chose to pay people out when they die rather than recall their vehicles in the 80’s. That’s pathetic. That’s a corporate decision.
Environmental problems (animal and public health) are another example of how decisions that would not normally be made by an individual are “acceptable” and the people who collectively made said decision are unpunished.
Seriously, if they closed down Exxon Valdez or British Petroleum, do you really think those at the top would go to jail? What about the banks, they get bailed out, no jail time. They managed to convict one guy of a ponzi scheme. No execs at Fanny Mae or Freddie Mac were punished.
That’s the problem, it’s not just entertainment corps, it’s corps in general. Yes, it’s a good wait to avoid losing your shirt because of some idiot. But what if the “some idiot” was really the collective idiot consortium that runs said corporation? They SHOULD lose their shirts!
That’s why I have such a negative view of corporations. And that doesn’t include the impact of tax write-offs like GE and they hire people for $15/hr and say “wow, look at us, we’re supporting the economy” when they could have paid $20 (given their tax breaks provided on the promise of hiring workers – who’d likely buy their shit!) and helped the economy.
Re: Re: Re:3 Youth?
I don’t think it’s extreme at all. Nobody is saying that a corporation is bad just because it’s a corporation. People are saying that some corporations are abusive to an extent that would get real people put in jail (even though corporations have privileges that are unavailable to actual people), but corporations get off without, or with minimal, penalty and this shouldn’t be allowed.
Re: Re: Youth?
Not so. Corporations are legal entities independent of the people who work for them. Starving a corporation does not starve actual human beings. If a corporation dies, no people do — they just have to work elsewhere.
Re: Youth?
The artists are probably starving whether their records are pirated or not.
I always thought beer was the cause of young people.
Re: Re:
SEVEN: “Hi, Daddy. I had a question but Mommy said to ask you. Where do babies come from?”
AL: “Well, generally speaking a six-pack and two horny teenagers.”
i was of the opinion that there had been numerous independent studies done in several countries. those reports all reached the same conclusions, that the ‘3 strikes’ would do more harm than good and in actual fact, have almost no reduction in file sharing. i was also of the opinion that, as per usual, all governments and entertainment industries totally ignored all of the independent reports as being unsubstantiated, but accepted every report commissioned by the very bodies that wanted to start ‘3 strikes’. that the bodies themselves paid for the reports that were taken notice of and the fact that the information contained was probably altered to suit just to back up what those bodies wanted and justify the ‘3 strikes’ was ignored. the abuse of power is disgraceful!! the conduct of the governments is equally disgraceful!!
This isn’t a “study”. It’s the usual tech-lobby propaganda from a well known anti-copyright zealot.
You guys really aren’t even trying anymore, are you?
Re: Re:
Prove it wrong then. Prove that 3 strikes does more good than harm.
Re: Re: Re:
lol
HADOPI’s intention, just like any law, was to slow, not stop, lawbreaking.
And it clearly worked:
http://www.hadopi.fr/sites/default/files/page/pdf/note17EN.pdf
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, that’s why they’re totally continuing with HADOPI. Oh wait, they’re not because it was an utter failure and waste of money.
But I knew you didn’t have much of an argument with your opening of “lol”. At least bob tried. You troll are even more pathetic/moronic than bob. Which is hard to believe but I suppose it’s possible, it’s also quite pathetic.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I know you think HADOPI was cancelled… but it wasn’t.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
[citation needed]
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
uh, what?
Please post a link from an actual, real news source that says HADOPI was canceled.
Good luck with that.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Yes, because a government citation that funding will be cut to HADOPI is proof that it’s flourishing.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
HADOPI was so successful that its budget being cut (as every government endeavor in France was- the country is broke), won’t impede the effectiveness of the program.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Yes, they managed to drag one person to court and that wasn’t even the person who committed the infringement. You have a pretty odd definition of what constitutes effectiveness.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
I will, though, grant you this much. HADOPI will be as effective regardless of how much funding is cut; the only difference will be how much its enforcers’ pockets are lined.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I know you think HADOPI worked… but it didn’t.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
You better get back upstairs before Mommy notices you snuck out to play on the computer again.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
u mad, bro?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“HADOPI’s intention, just like any law, was to slow, not stop, lawbreaking.”
The intent of every law is to STOP lawbreaking, not “slow” it.
The intent of laws against rape are not to “lessen” rape. The intent is to punish every proven rape.
But copyright infringement assertions ARE intended to lessen something. They are not themselves law, so they can be used for that purpose. That’s why you’re confused.
HADOPI did not address an unlawful activity. It was a quasilegislative response to a gray activity. That’s why it failed. Old wine, new wineskins.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Incorrect.
Free will exists amongst humans; you can not unilaterally stop any behavior; you can only impede it or retard the rate of its occurrence.
This is the basis for all law enforcement; what you pirate types like to refer to as “whack a mole”.
All law enforcement, by definition, is “whack a mole”.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Whack-a-mole still occurs within rationale, though. The rationale of copyright enforcement is often akin to torching an apartment of flats because someone claimed there was a cockroach, therefore there was an infestation. Best part of the story is, often there isn’t even a single cockroach. And somehow this is treated as Nobel Prize-winning logic.
Re: Re: Re:
How about you just suck it instead?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I think realising that you can’t prove the point so you have to resort to insults is far more rewarding.
Re: Re:
BTW, just to make a point…
http://www.cracked.com/article_17216_the-5-most-popular-safety-laws-that-dont-work.html
Look at #4.
Three Strikes Law is brought up.
Re: Re: Re:
That article is pathetic. Easy for that bozo to say none of those work.
Until of course, he’s ripped off, molested, shot, or killed by a reckless driver.
I don’t want to live in that assclown’s “society”, thanks.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good news!
You already do.
Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re:
Who pays to produce the content on that box?
/facepalm
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Who pays to produce the content on that box?”
Exactly … and who isn’t getting that money back because of poor distribution and marketing decisions?
WHICH WAS HIS POINT.
/facepalm
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
If you live in the US (where the vast majority of pirated content is produced), your excuse is a non-starter, as people have literally dozens of options.
If you don’t, and can’t access the content, then I can understand downloading.
But then you’d still have to explain piracy in the US.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Where the content is produced is by and large irrelevant. If it’s not legally available globally then by default it will be pirated. So no, my excuse is not a non-starter. It is very much one of, if not perhaps the biggest, talking point when it comes to “why does piracy happen”. Content is not legally available to a majority of the world.
If you’re lucky enough to live in the United States, then yes you have literally dozens of options. Unless of course you want something older, foreign or that copyright holders feel there is not enough interest in. In which case you’re SOL. And truth be told, if it isn’t mainstream or wasn’t made within the last 45 years then there’s a better than 50% chance you won’t be able to legally purchase what you’re looking for.
As for the “you’d still have to explain piracy in the US” bit, well, no, I don’t. Because I quite clearly was replying to bob who pretty much said, “iTunes, ’nuff said”. My reply was simply pointing out that iTunes isn’t available to the rest of the world. So yeah, we at least have you, an obvious copyright maximalist, FINALLY acknowledging that the reason piracy happens is because content is not legally available for purchase. Congratulations, you just took the first step down the road to recovery. So now that we’ve gotten you to agree to a degree that piracy is a service problem, or better said lack thereof, can we also get you to admit that piracy could easily be fought by making content more widely and easily accessible for the rest of the world?
Or should we just talk about the U.S.? So you can wag your finger at all those horrible American pirates. Because, America! Fuck yeah! Right? America isn’t the world.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
the reason piracy happens is because content is not legally available for purchase.
So why are people in the US pirating content that they can easily and legally pay for?
If you can’t explain that, then your blanket argument is most certainly, a non-starter.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Because the legal versions half less than half the convenience, ownership or, y’know, sanity.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Again, I was talking about the rest of the world.
As for why people in the US pirate, since you’re like a dog with a fucking bone, there are many:
1. Pirated versions are often superior than the legal equivalent. (Lack of DRM. Lack of unskippable commercials, previews and anti-piracy warnings. Lack of device/user limitations. Those three reasons alone are the main complaints legitimate paying customers make about the legal offerings being sold and released in the U.S. The pirates meanwhile avoid all those issues/complaints faced by paying customers.)
2. Not all content, even in the United States, is legally available for purchase. The other day a number of people posted examples. I’m not going to link to it for you. But suffice it to say that in no way is all content available. Either digitally or physically. A shockingly large amount just straight up isn’t available in one format or another. (And no, telling people “tough, do without” is not acceptable. Not when pirated versions are out there. If the pirates can release it why can’t the copyright holders? It makes no logical sense for one to be able to do so and not the other.)
3. Pricing. Why is the digital equivalent of a book more costly than the physical version? That’s but one example. You really want me to believe that the cost involved with cutting down a tree, shipping it to a given location, converting it to paper, then printing a book on it and binding it and shipping it to a store are less than creating a digital copy (which is easily accomplished, literally at the click of a mouse)? And that’s not even taking into account the cost associated with the printing part of the equation. I can get the latest Tom Clancy book from a retail store for less than $10. But if I want the digital equivalent it is going to cost at the minimum $15. Wtf?!
And that is just three reasons why people in the US pirate content that they can easily and legally pay for.
Explained. Blanket argument thus converted to MOST CERTAINLY A STARTER.
Nice way to avoid responding to any of the other points I made. Like I said, like a dog with a bone you are.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
“Ed? What’s wrong with the dog?”
“Oh he’s just yacking on a bone” dog barfs “He’s got it up, he’ll be alright.”
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
3.What is unreasonable about 99 cents for a song? Or 9.99 (often less) for an album?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
What about music that is legal and easy to purchase? Why is that being pirated?
Because little teenagers. “Mommy, can you buy me L’il Wayne?”
Can you not see the workaround here?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
You seem to only want to focus on one thing, because you know I’m correct and thus you want to avoid actually responding to the very valid points I’m making.
Movies have commercials, previews and anti-piracy warnings. All which are unskippable. And all of which are forced upon the paying customers. The pirates don’t have to deal with any of that, which is an area where the pirated version provides a superior product/service.
But fine let’s play your game since you seem to be one of those “it’s my ball, I’ll take it home!” types.
Reasons for why some music is pirates varies. It could be because despite being legal and easy to purchase people want to preview it. And a 15 second clip is not a preview. Nor is listening to one specific album entirely a preview, as artists can and have radically changed their music from one album to the next. Another reason is some people don’t want to give any money to the labels, who do not always pay what they’re supposed to in royalties to artists. Another reason is that some people are UNABLE to legally and easily purchase music. They either DO NOT have credit/debit cards, are minors, etc. Another reason is simply that contrary to your opinion, not all online offerings are convenient/easy to use. Else people wouldn’t complain.
So yeah, would you like to discuss something besides the U.S. and music? Or do you want to just focus on one thing because you can’t respond to anything else? At least not without getting your arguments ripped to shreds.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
lol You didn’t rip a single thing to shreds.
You know damn well most people rip off content because they’re greedy and think they can get away with it.
This little exercise proved you’re too intellectually dishonest to admit it.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
“lol You didn’t rip a single thing to shreds.
You know damn well most people rip off content because they’re greedy and think they can get away with it.
This little exercise proved you’re too intellectually dishonest to admit it.”
Actually I did. Because the fact of the matter is you refused to discuss anything that wasn’t about digital music in the United States. Like at all. I’d reply to your questions/points and then ask/make a few of my own and you’d completely ignore them. That says a lot.
It says that you have no valid response to any of the legitimate points made about why piracy happens. One of the primary ones being that content is not legally available to all corners of the globe. Another point was that the pirated versions of films/music/games/etc tend to be for the most part vastly superior to the legitimately paid for versions (as in all the things legitimate customers complain about the pirates don’t have to deal with).
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Some will be sampling before they buy, and stopping the sampling will reduce sales.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
again with the chasing of your own tail. if you make it available for a reasonable price, people will pay for it.
if you refuse to make it available or even refuse to make it available at a reasonable price, people will find a way to get it in a format they want it in. its very very simple…
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
How is 99 cents for a song unreasonable? iTunes sells billions of them to people who find the price perfectly reasonable.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
So every movie or song ever created is on iTunes? Not even close!
But it IS available from the “pirates.”
Even in the US!
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
You avoided the question.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
You’re avoiding the details! The devil is in the details.
Someone like you can say “Look Bieber is on iTunes, so why pirate anything in the US?”
Meanwhile, in reality, Beatles joined iTunes how long ago? AC/DC just this year? People who own the records or tapes should go and buy it again? Yeah, I think not.
They already paid for the license to listen to the music! Format shifting is not stealing and why charge people twice?
So again, is $0.99 reasonable? Yes, for WHAT IS THERE!!!!
Do you have the stats on who is pirating, where and how much? Did you sample it yourself or just pull numbers from your backside (or the RIAA – not that there’s much of a difference).
Considering how many proxies are in the US – are you taking that into account when figuring the US citizen piracy rates? How about the US just slowly crawling out of the recession, but close to slipping back in?
So am I avoiding the question? No, you’re being disingenuous with your line of questioning and you know it!
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
“for WHAT IS THERE AND WHAT HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR VIA A DIFFERENT FORMAT“
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“How is 99 cents for a song unreasonable? iTunes sells billions of them to people who find the price perfectly reasonable.”
Some people would have paid more than 99 cents for a song and are glad to buy one for that price on iTunes.
Some people find 99 cents for a song to be a tolerable price, so they buy them on iTunes but aren’t that happy about it.
Some people don’t want to pay 99 cents for a song or don’t have that kind of scratch, so they do without or get it some other way.
That’s how demand curves work. This isn’t hard.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Some people don’t want to pay 99 cents for a song or don’t have that kind of scratch, so they do without or get it some other way.
lol, you can’t even bring yourself to say the real words. Hiding in euphemisms is so honest.
That’s how demand curves work. This isn’t hard.
Economic theory doesn’t use law breaking as part of its models, so try again.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Economic theory doesn’t use law breaking as part of its models, so try again.
Not quite where you studied economics, but that’s a completely bullshit statement. I’d ask for money back on your degree.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
citations coming in regard to demand curve theory, I assume?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
citations coming in regard to demand curve theory, I assume?
Not really sure what you are asking for here and I am obviously not Mike, but what the heck, I’ll give it go.
I am assuming you mean citations regarding this statement as being bullshit:
Economic theory doesn’t use law breaking as part of its models, so try again.
Here is one that might help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States
Alcohol was made illegal, but the demand for alcohol remained the same (if not increased), so much so that the enormous black market and the organized crime surrounding it became so bad the law was repealed, because the results were worse than the “problem” it was trying to solve.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Oops. I might have misspoke.
According to my own link (duh!) “The consumption of alcohol overall went down by half in the 1920s; and it remained below pre-Prohibition levels until the 1940s.”
I will have to investigate how that statement was derived and whether it’s really of more of a matter of the admittance of alcohol consumption went down as opposed to actual consumption.
But my original point still stands, there was enough demand for alcohol that an entire, separate underground market was created to trade it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re:
Erm… Read that article you linked. It’s a highly questionable device that might not even really exist. As the article notes right below the picture, ‘The provenance of the BBK BitTorrent Certified Box is highly questionable.’
Re: Re:
Its not a study? Oxford is lying?
And is at the same time a well known anti-copyright zealot?
And did you know that Glyn Moody wrote this? Maybe that wasn’t the person you were thinking of?
Otherwise, I can’t make out what you are saying.
Re: Re:
This isn’t a “study”. It’s the usual tech-lobby propaganda from a well known anti-copyright zealot.
Oxford University is a well known anti-copyright zealot?!?
You guys really aren’t even trying anymore, are you?
When you dismiss a study from Oxford as not being a study and then claim that one of, if not the, most respected universities on the planet is nothing more than a “tech-lobby propaganda / anti-copyright zealot” then I would argue that perhaps it is you who isn’t trying.
Re: Re: Re:
ah the usual intellectual dishonesty from Mike Masnick.
There is no study saying 3 strikes punishment harms kids.
No more than there’s a study saying going to prison “harms” murderers.
You’re hilarious.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So now you’re a psychologist? Ever read the studies on the effectiveness of the prison system? What percentage of those in the prison system are actually helped by said system?
That’s a pretty erroneous analogy.
Again, your arguments are like toilet paper, they don’t hold water and good for shit!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No more than there’s a study saying going to prison “harms” murderers.
And we don’t punish entire families and households for the illegal actions of one member either, do we?
You’re hilarious.
Actually, you’re the one I find to be hilarious. If I was on your side of these arguments, I’d be pissed that someone like you was making such stupid arguments.
The Poor Artists
Stories like this always remind me that I have no real sympathy for artists anymore.
Art has ALWAYS been a fairly limited profession that depends upon the largess of some sort of patron or other. I, personally, hold artists accountable for the patronage they are willing to take.
The entertainment industry, top to bottom and side to side, is at this point one of the most dangerous aspects of our society. The control a tiny minority have over what we hear, see, and therefore think about is unacceptable.
I’m beyond freetardism at this point. I believe all intellectual property is an active violation of the natural right of people to do things for themselves barring direct, personal wrongdoing to another person.
Making your own copy or version of anything is not doing any such direct harm. You will not find any mention of a punishment for making copies in ancient works such as the Bible, Q’ran, or the Dao De Jing. The legal history of intellectual property is one of disorganized, experimental laws leading eventually to an openly totalitarian and centralized control over speech and information. This sort of control has been deemed inappropriate. The utility of intellectual property apart from centralizing control has now run its course as well. It is destroying rather than encouraging innovation and progress.
The rights being infringed here are mine, not theirs.
Re: The Poor Artists
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121216/18210321398/australia-says-lets-update-copyright-digital-economy-legacy-industries-say-lets-pretend-its-still-1968.shtml#c230
more interested in
“more interested in pleasing their friends in the copyright world than in serving the people that elected them.”
honestly, what percentage of people elected for a second term do you believe have “serving the people” as their top priority?
As far as I know, only George Washington didn’t want to serve, but served grudgingly. everyone else seems to make politics a “career”. meaning they are more interested in doing things that will keep them in office than in the hard things that are “right” but might not get them re-elected.
so, honestly, what percentage of those elected for a second term do you think have “serving the people” as their top priority?
and, in the US, “serving the people within the confines set forth by the constitution”.. 😛
Re: more interested in
So what you’re saying seems to be: since everyone is doing it, that makes it okay.
Thanks.
The bit torrent people should know this.
Re: more interested in
“honestly, what percentage of people elected for a second term do you believe have “serving the people” as their top priority?”
That’s kind of a cynical point of view. People who choose anything as a career don’t set out to suck at that career.
Who wants low quality, bound down by DRM, iTunes? You couldn’t give one of those to me. It is beyond me why anyone would so much as think iTunes is a place to go buy music.
It is precisely actions like this is the reason I won’t buy major music. I don’t want so much as a penny going to them of my money over actions just like this. If you are an artist with your purse strings tied to major labels… too friggin’ bad. You can ride the ship down into Davie’s locker for all I care.
So now we have this idiot idea coming up of 6 strikes in the US. With all the crap in the past showing just how poorly IP numbers are checked, suddenly accusations stand enough force of action as to make it similar to a law? Guilty until you pay up to attempt to prove your innocence?
Yeah, that is exactly why I look forward to all these court actions hopefully bankrupting the major labels. I eagerly await such an event and on that day will most likely go buy some campaign to celebrate marking such a milestone.
Go check out the link below from 2008 that shows just how accurate an IP is for purposes of infringement.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/the-inexact-science-behind-dmca-takedown-notices/
Re: Re:
Who wants low quality, bound down by DRM, iTunes?
If you purchased music, instead of ripping it off, you would have known that it’s been years since iTunes used DRM.
The rest of your post is nothing but the usual moronic pirate drivel.
Re: Re: Re:
Let me get this straight: you don’t expect us to take you seriously because you don’t take us seriously?
Right?
Speaking of moronic drivel…you attempt to serve it up every day and yet to get serious about anything other than running your mouth.
You know better than respond to most of the posters here because they show you just what an idiot you are day after day.
Go get a life. If what you depend on for a life is here… it shows what a sad little sorry puppy you are.
Re: Re:
I drag your sorry asses up, down and sideways every time I come here. And you know it.
And so do my congresspeople, as I fwrd them my conversations with you people so they’re aware of your mentalities towards the law.
I like to let you people speak for yourself.
Re: Re: Re:
If you forward the raw conversation, including your own unmolested text you provide here, and the articles, I’m sure by now their spam filters take good care of your emails.
If you use snailmail, I’m sure their shredders are taking care of your letters.
If they read the articles and non-you-comments, they’d be far more enlightened than reading your comments.
Re: Re: Re:
And so do my congresspeople, as I fwrd them my conversations with you people so they’re aware of your mentalities towards the law.
Good for you. The more congresspeople that know their constituents disagree with certain laws, the better.
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, that proves it then. You’re an active shill for Big Entertainment Industry. Thanks for confirming what we already know.