The collateral damage we're talking about here is the crippling of people's ability to find and share information. From the viewpoint of profitability, the AAs have no incentive to distinguish between stopping piracy of their stuff, and, whoops, so sorry, shutting down the means by which people can access and spend money on competing property. It's all profitable, baby. Fewer choices in a reduced marketplace means every dollar in search of entertainment and other information stands a better chance of winding up in their pockets. The MPAA even provides a list* of "safe" places to access legal content, with no need for consumers to risk venturing out onto that scary, scary web. (*No link. Screw 'em.)
While China's motives are probably more ideological and less financial than the AAs', they're still allies in wreaking havoc on the net and free speech. As far as the copyright industrialists not intending the damage that will result from their actions, I don't buy it. They're evil, not stupid.
the copyright industry doesn't seem to care in the slightest about collateral damage from its quixotic effort to stop piracy, . .
I cringe when I see statements like this that seem to accept the copyright industry's stated intentions as genuine. When collateral damage equals suppression of competition, it's a feature of their strategy. Seriously- the word "Piracy" is merely a Frank Luntz-esque hook the MPAA and cohorts can hang their hat on as they work to enhance market share by any and all means. And their strategy is not "quixotic" when any tilt of the market means profit.
Cool. But continuing along that train of thought, how about the possibility of the US government being sued by multiple parties- for making laws stronger, making laws weaker, and keeping laws the same. And losing every which way.
Hey, I guess this means our modern free-for-all global marketplace operates just as efficiently as the natural world after all. No part of a dead carcass will go to waste; too bad that carcass had been a living, breathing democratic society. -
Debate? No, debate's not possible, not when there's so little common ground in our understanding of history, sociology, and economics.
We could start with a little history, maybe. Look at how the free ungoverned new world residents were suddenly not-free, when Christopher Columbus' heavily armed free enterprise practitioners came ashore. So what is meant by "freedom," and for whom? We could examine the nightmare socialist nations of Scandinavia and compare standards of living there with Somalia's, where freedom reigns. We could try to unpack your "free market in India has solved poverty" claim, by working our way through several centuries of history related to that populist Ghandi (Boooo!) who helped free India from the oppressive British government (Yaaay!) which led to millions dying as Muslims and Hindus separated into Pakistan and India (Booo!) after which India formed a more stable government (Boooo!) which laid the social and regulatory framework on which business depends today. (Booo! Yaaay! I think, . . . ) Then of course delve into how a century of progress in technology independent of events in India makes your arithmetic of government and free market just a tad simplistic. But I'll leave it at that. You can stay in your corner rocking to your libertarian mantra if that's what makes you happy.
I'm of course addressing EconProf, who's argumentation format is typical of cult members and libertarians alike (OK, so that's redundant.) Simply lay on the baloney so fast and so thick that no one's going to bother picking the train wreck apart in order to respond in detail. Maoist communists, Title II proponents, and populists everywhere are all the same. Yep, sure. Poverty's solved. Check. Regulation always corrupts. Okeedokee. Like the laws of physics are to physicists. Geez, we're stoned now.
You know how we can tell it's all Kabuki? We don't see fist fights breaking out like in the Ukrainian or Turkish parliaments. If our elected reps actually BELIEVED their crap, we'd see them overdose on BS once in a while and clobber some lying sack. God knows there's enough bull flying about. (I got your snowball right here, Inhofe.)
If you haven't worked up enough rage yet to rush out and stock up on torches and pitchforks (hurry while supplies last) then go beyond just looking at what the U.S. doesn't have; look at what's going on elsewhere. Try Googling "Broadband Delivery UK" or "Superfast Broadband Programme."
It seems they're working hard in the UK to extend high speed broadband (24 Mbps+) to nearly every friggin' homestead, no matter how rural.
The situation may be more nuanced than what I see from my personal surfing (of course it is) but it looks like the citizens, telecoms and government in the UK are working reasonably well together to get it done. But what really kills me were the things that did not turn up in my research to any noticeable degree- ALEC-like obstruction, lobbyists and politicians crying that socialism is killing puppies, telecom propaganda insisting that all you citizen/serfs should just be patient, and that the free market fairy and/or Google fiber will be along to save you any day now.
Last year I stumbled on the website of a project in the UK, B4RN (Broadband for the Rural North) a non-profit social enterprise set up to organize local citizens and resources to build out fiber to homes in rural communities where British Telecom and Virgin are unable to do so profitably. From the B4RN site- "The aim is to build a community-owned gigabit Fibre To The Home (FTTH) network in the scarcely populated, deeply rural uplands of Lancashire in the north west of England utilising the skills, time, energy and ingenuity of the local residents and businesses."
B4RN’s purpose is to undertake the supply, installation and operation of a full FTTH network providing a fibre link directly into every property in its service area. It works on a parish by parish basis and aims to deliver both technical excellence and 100% inclusivity within those targeted parishes. No exclusions because a property is too far away or too difficult to reach – it will be available to everyone. This is world class broadband offering 1Gbs (1000 megabits a second) service speeds and will jump our rural community from the slow lane to the leading edge of technology and keep it there for decades to come.
Wouldn't it be great to have some such community based non-profits on the loose in West Virginia, working in partnership and getting serious support from both the Federal government and telecoms? Oh, right, U.S. telecom profits are sacred, and that sort of thing is either banned or discouraged here, thanks to ALEC and others. Maybe we'll catch up to the Brits in a few decades, once the legal challenges to our latest FCC regs finally get through our court system.
In short, damned if you do, damned if you don't. This is the justice system, ladies and gentlemen. The DOJ gets to seize and keep all your money, and merely asking for access to it to fight to show your innocence is used as a reason to allow the DOJ to keep it.
Sweet! This means no more of this "we can't criminally prosecute anybody, it'd be too hard" nonsense, DOJ can just clean out the rats nests of conspirators at Bank of America, HSBC, JP Morgan-Chase. I can't wait to read tomorrow's papers, . . . --
We're not there yet, not quite. We still have some vestiges of governmental authority that our oligarchs are crying hot tears over. Russia, on the other hand, seems to have arrived. About the only difference between them and 16th century Sienna is that the modern Russian serfs have cell phones.
Careful now, that's the card holding up the magnificently constructed house of Libertarian thought. If the power government wields doesn't just magically disappear when the government goes away, then what? Oh right, Papal armies, warlords, chaos of Italian city-state warfare, and all the history of the middle ages, cited in the Federalist Papers as reason for why a strong central government is essential.
Think Goldmad Sacks wouldn't assemble an army of mercenaries if they could? Let's completely de-fang the federal government and find out. -
To listen to the soundtrack in Hal Singer's head, just swap "innovation" for "undercover." Undercover Angel, Alan O'Day. Be warned, 70's music. Could cause irreversible damage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-xRMw0NyW0 --