> In the modern world, where everyone is the media, they are completely impractical.
That's not a very good argument.
There's a lot of people in the world, so stopping them doing anything could be considered 'impractical' but that doesn't mean that that is the correct course of action.
People need to understand and accept their responsibilities when acting as 'broadcasters'. Just because it is easy for someone to broadcast to millions doesn't mean that they should not bound by the same rules and conventions - see the current problems in the UK where people have used Twitter to name rape victims (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17822719).
> So we should pay over and over again for the same shit in a slightly modified format?
No one says that you must get it in the new format, it's your choice. No one forces you to move from VHS to DVD to BluRay, but you do it because you perceive their to be some benefit to yourself.
> The entity that wants money for downloading didn't create
> the art, it's merely attempting to get you to pay for it.
They paid the artist. The paid the manufacturers. They paid the PR people. They paid!
> And before you say "they give the artist a cut", be aware
> that a number of the companies list downloads (even paid
> ones) as "promotion" and don't pay the artist a cent for them!
Which, even if true, is irrelevant: the artist knew and accepted these conditions.
Before the internet, it was incredibly hard to communicate around the world. Many researchers would have been isolated, with no way to "hook up" with others that have similar interests
Not entirely true, there were printed media in which researchers would discuss their work. They could even ring one another if they wanted to.
The Internet has made it much easier for people to contact one another in a manner that cannot be regulated and is largely 'unseen'. It differs from 'traditional media' in that don't even need to know who you are talking to or even how to contact them.
Not necessarily true. I buy something from a reputable shop and part of that money goes into the economy through taxes, rent, wages, buying the product, etc.
If I buy something from the man-on-the-corner, he takes all that money and none of it needs to be seen within the wider economy - he might buy a Rolls Royce and so allow someone else to pay taxes, etc. or he might just ship the money abroad. Either way, I suspect that he doesn't see a social responsibility in sharing his wealth.
If the counterfeit goods are sold in reputable shops then, again, some of that money does make it into the economy through the taxes, etc. but the majority for the product will just disappear.
But if you look at their policy document people are not signing away their rights:
"we encourage volunteers to use social media within the following guidelines" and people sign to say that "I have read and understand the guidelines..."
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Badger.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate it
Forbes reviewed costs earlier this year, came up with costs of between $1.3billion and $4.5billion per drug that reaches the market.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-truly-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/
Re: Re: Hate it
They're in business... what do you expect them to do? Are you about to hand over a few billion in R&D to your local doctor?
> In the modern world, where everyone is the media, they are completely impractical.
That's not a very good argument.
There's a lot of people in the world, so stopping them doing anything could be considered 'impractical' but that doesn't mean that that is the correct course of action.
People need to understand and accept their responsibilities when acting as 'broadcasters'. Just because it is easy for someone to broadcast to millions doesn't mean that they should not bound by the same rules and conventions - see the current problems in the UK where people have used Twitter to name rape victims (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17822719).
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> So we should pay over and over again for the same shit in a slightly modified format?
No one says that you must get it in the new format, it's your choice. No one forces you to move from VHS to DVD to BluRay, but you do it because you perceive their to be some benefit to yourself.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> The entity that wants money for downloading didn't create
> the art, it's merely attempting to get you to pay for it.
They paid the artist. The paid the manufacturers. They paid the PR people. They paid!
> And before you say "they give the artist a cut", be aware
> that a number of the companies list downloads (even paid
> ones) as "promotion" and don't pay the artist a cent for them!
Which, even if true, is irrelevant: the artist knew and accepted these conditions.
Re: Re: Re:
> it shouldn't be the governments job to micromanage
> morality and ensure that everyone 'does the right thing'
So, how low do you want to set your bar? If the law shouldn't be used to deal with theft, then what comes next?
Re: Re: Re: Blanks Law
Not entirely true, there were printed media in which researchers would discuss their work. They could even ring one another if they wanted to.
The Internet has made it much easier for people to contact one another in a manner that cannot be regulated and is largely 'unseen'. It differs from 'traditional media' in that don't even need to know who you are talking to or even how to contact them.
Re: Re:
But that sort-of begs the question "how much money does the problem have to represent before we're bothered?".
Even if the problem were only a tenth of that quoted, $10billion, that still sounds like a lot of money to me.
(Not that I agree with the SOPA approach)
Re: There is no cost to the economy
Not necessarily true. I buy something from a reputable shop and part of that money goes into the economy through taxes, rent, wages, buying the product, etc.
If I buy something from the man-on-the-corner, he takes all that money and none of it needs to be seen within the wider economy - he might buy a Rolls Royce and so allow someone else to pay taxes, etc. or he might just ship the money abroad. Either way, I suspect that he doesn't see a social responsibility in sharing his wealth.
If the counterfeit goods are sold in reputable shops then, again, some of that money does make it into the economy through the taxes, etc. but the majority for the product will just disappear.
Re: Re: Binoculars next?
So... am I allowed to look if you left the curtains open?
Binoculars next?
So, it's *bad* to use a device to 'search' for you by the device that you're carrying?
Surely it's far worse to 'search' for you using a pair of binoculars to actually look at you?
Maybe...
Sounds OK to me...
I assume that the PD may still check whether premises are unlocked at night and warns the owners? What's the big difference?
Weird...
So, in America, businesses *have* to provide mobile phone communication systems because otherwise you're denying people of their right to free speech?
Interesting place...
Re: Duck and cover
"If it walks like a duck... If they are forcing volunteers to sign non-disclosure agreements..."
So, if they're not forcing volunteers to sign non-disclosure agreements?
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think you're signing away your rights...
Correct - libel and slander are illegal.
But if you look at their policy document people are not signing away their rights:
"we encourage volunteers to use social media within the following guidelines" and people sign to say that "I have read and understand the guidelines..."