I actually use non-U.S. resources pretty frequently, without any problems. Sometimes IP sniffers smell me out as being in Texas, but a run through a proxy fixes them up.
In countries where the government becomes oppressive, these techniques are in wide use by everyone. PROTECT IP is likely to build that market here. Nothing will change except how one goes about doing what they want to do.
It doesn't matter if you bought it, you can't use it as you wish because all you have is a *license* to the content, not the content itself. Oh, bought a copy? Well, you still don't have a right to download that content again, because all you bought was the content, not a license to the content.
In other words, if we are to believe Big Content, the answer to any question is to pay Big Content more/again/often.
In this particular case, the answer is that we should spend OUR tax dollars to solve THEIR problem, but they don't have to pay one single dime more to support the effort.
Let's quit debunking the 135 Billion figure for copyright.
Seriously. Let's let the Chamber of Commerce have their number. 135 billion would have gone to the Movie Studios and Record Labels and Publishers if we just choked down on copyright more.
This means this bill is going to take 135 billion that would have been spent in your local farmer's market, your local auto repair shop, buying kids lunches, and feeding families and divert it away to the content companies.
Instead of feeding families (with 25 percent of children under 6 in the U.S. living in poverty) we are going take out of the market 135 billion and divert it to companies like Disney (who famously can't make a dime to pay royalties to artists no matter how much money comes their way).
Instead of paying for healthcare, families are going to pay 135 billion to Hollywood.
Instead of companies hiring people locally with the income from the 135 billion in sales currently spent in the market place for various tangible goods (money that gets spent over and over as goods have to be manufactured, transported, sold, and maintained), we want to take that SAME 135 billion and give it to industries that will NOT hire anyone extra. Their product already exists, and being digital, requires no significant extra labor to produce the additional copies transported over the Internet. NONE of this 135 billion will be local sales (well, assuming you don't live inside the Disney compound or some place similar), and ALL of the 135 billion will be sucked from our communities.
But of course, since 135 Billion would have been spent multiple times within communities, leading to a multiplier effect. The Chamber of Commerce is quite quick to apply such effects when estimating the impact of spending or business in a community. For example, the CoC stated
Using their multiplier of 2.70266 (which HAS to be valid, being such an exact number!) the 135 billion removed from our communities will actually cost our communities 364.86 billion in terms of lost wages, lost sales, lost net worth, and lost jobs.
This is such a good idea, I am absolutely thrilled to believe these numbers!
In this Economy, we do NOT need ~365 billion wasted in our communities on food, health care, jobs, and commerce when it can be stashed away into the coffers of (for the most part) a very few big Content Companies as a purely ADDITIONAL fee for work already produced as a product today.
Note that none of these calculations include the COST to the tax payer to execute PROTECT IP without a dime of funding from these same content companies.
If a car could not pass you on a skateboard, could they have passed a car? I doubt it.
And a speed *limit* is the maximum you can go. It is perfectly legal to drive under the speed limit within reason. I would expect anything above 20 mph to be absolutely acceptable in a 35 mph zone, legally speaking.
This comes from perhaps the only guy you will ever meet who had their mother take over the wheel on a road trip because, and this is the quote, "You drive too slow."
What about the costs to the Government? To the People? To the Economy?
This is less understandable when you realize that the government is the biggest single customer of the Pharma industry via Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, etc.
This is most definitely a Job Killer and Bad for the budget and bad for the economy.
This boosts the costs of Small Business to provide health plans to workers. It reduces the money in the pockets of the common man to buy products. And it costs Tax Payers who pay the premium price for drugs under Government programs.
All to line the pockets of a VERY rich set of companies.
I don't know where the money is going. I said that. If I strongly believed this was about Police protecting the number of police I would have said that to be the case. If this is an intentional policy, I would almost bet it makes some money for someone involved.
Of course, it *could* have been unintentional. Like just stupidly applying a law for one situation (people just stepping out into the street and directing traffic for no good reason) to another (people stepping out to solve a serious problem).
Whatever the justification, I don't think it is about liability.
The City doesn't incur additional liability when someone breaks or bends a law, and the police don't ticket. They can just tell the guy to quit, and warn him. People break or bend the law all the time and get warnings. The police can always issue a ticket *after* a bad outcome to protect against liability.
A review of what I wrote doesn't yield (at least to me) anything that would warrant an accusation of "Charlie Sheen" thinking. Maybe light on details, but it wasn't deranged.
I find that when a course of action is defended on the basis of liability, there is almost always dollars involved, and the dollars are the *real* reason.
For example: Doctors order useless tests because of "liability"; At the same time, doctors are paid for said tests even though their time commitment is often no more than the time it takes to put a check mark on a box, and (maybe) to read the results afterward.
For example: Cities often do not allow unlicensed food service (such as a fireman's pancake fundraiser). Cities are paid fees for such licences.
I don't know where the money is going here. Maybe the Police don't want jobs reduced because they are not really needed? But I doubt there is any real liability reason here.
"Tim Lee points us to James Besson's most recent paper, in which he analyzes a generation's worth of software patents and shows how such little most in the software industry actually seem to want patents."
Re: "Restricting people doesn't help you get paid."
I think truly effective restrictions on piracy would....
... Drive people to reading their ebooks
... Encourage more time on Social Networks
... Allow Internet based programming access to more people
... Boost sells of video games
... Increase Movie ticket sells
... Provide more opportunity for Web based sports offerings
... Finally deliver reform of copyright in favor of the people.
Let's make something really crystal clear. You are increasingly talking to a high tech generation. Kids are used to seeing price cuts of 50% on 3 or 4 year old technology. Every year, their dollar buys MORE and BETTER technology than it did the year before.
Why in the world do you think that the Content Industry (who gets to benefit from drastic cuts in costs to produce content, market content, and distribute content) is not going to be expected to produce MORE and BETTER content for the same dollars spent?
Who died and exempted the Content Industry from competition?
One of the reasons GOOD journalism provides comments from users is that they can provide perspectives that might be missing from an article. The need for sources in this one was just such a problem requiring some research, and the comments yield the most likely source used by the author. This isn't my comment, but is duplicated for your pleasure:
Rick Falkvinge 2 days ago
You're right to ask for sources. One of the primary sources is a book in Swedish on the era of mercantilism on the Continent (meaning Europe).
The original article in Swedish is here and there are lots of sources in the comments.
Notably, there's this quote from Merkantilismen by Eli Heckscher, fifth chapter, regulation of trade in France:
“Of course, the attempt to stop a development supported by a violent fashion trend, carried by the... influential female kin, could impossibly succeed. The policy is considered to have cost 16,000 people their lives, through executions and armed clashes, plus the yet uncounted who were sentenced to slavery on galleys and other punishments; in Valence, on one single occasion, 77 people were sentenced to hang, 58 to be broken on the wheel and 631 to the galleys, one was acquitted, and none were pardoned. But this was so far from effective, that the use of printed kattuner (English?) spread through all social groups during this period, in France and elsewhere.”
If we were talking about some other issue, such as civil rights for example, I think we would count all the deaths in violent clashes to the death toll on the issue.
And certainly if the deaths did not lead to people avoiding these clashes, then it still makes the point of the author, i.e. even death and violence did not deter the behaviors (and protests) on the issue.
I was unaware of this example prior to the article, (even if I did read it from another source first...) and was impressed that we could have modern day issues so reasonably illustrated in past struggles with technology.
Don't forget the Fashion Industry in the U.S. Without patents and without copyright we can all go into the store and find the new fashions which are developed, marketed, and sold year after year after year after year.
All without any patent or copyright protection.
One might also point out that this planet had no copyright or patents until the last few hundred years. The Bible, Greek tragedies, Shakespeare, the Koran, King Author, Most of Newton's work, Galliao's work... all done without patents or copyrights.
We have no reason to believe patents would have helped the development of technology at all in the past, and no reason to believe it helps today.
Can you even name one product that came to market *because* of a patent? One inventor that was able to produce a product because of patents that could not have without them? Just one?