I dislike the idea. I know that trolls can be annoying, but I think we'd lose a lot of quality discussion if we set up a system like you're describing. The mechanisms we have in place --such as public ridicule -- work well enough to keep them down to a low rumble, and I've seen a lot of though-provoking comments made in response to stupid troll comments.
Why is it evil when a service provider does it, but not when an artist does it?
I think you're right about their chicken-little'ing, but I also think you're misreading them. The crime isn't that they want to make money. The crime is that they're foisting all of the legal liability on to their users, so that they can rake in the cash and let "the little guy" take the fall when upset artist come calling about copyright infringement.
As a prolific pinner I think that's a fair concern, but I don't think it's the problem everyone is making it out to be.
"it is supposed to compliment it not be a main stay"
It's not supposed to be anything more or less than what the creators intended it to be. Jurassic Park would tell the same story no matter what soundtrack you put on it, but it wouldn't be the one we all know from the theatres. Wizard of Oz has a very different feel if you watch it with the original audio versus dubbing in Dark Side of the Moon (Pink Floyd, not Transformers). And if a show like Daria or WKRP in Cincinnati makes it a bigger part of what they're show is saying, they aren't doing it wrong.
Some shows or movies might not use music as centrally as others, but that doesn't mean others don't (or shouldn't) use it as a centerpiece.
Seconded. There are benefits to both digital and physical books. Digital is great because I can carry my whole library with me on long business trips, or just about anywhere else I go. It's quick and convenient. But you can't put an ebook on a bookshelf or a coffee table. A huge portion of my home decoration centers around books, and I don't see that going away any time soon.
That's a gross misunderstanding of life expectancy numbers. A healthy person in the colonial era lived just as long as a healthy person does today. The "life expectancy at birth" was half of what it is today because of the high rates of infant- and child-mortality, due mostly to diseases we've learned to treat and cure.
By the time most people were old enough to create something subject to copyright, they would have been expected to live to at least 65 or 75.
In my mind, censorship only applies if there was an ethical obligation to not censor or otherwise restrict the material. Commercial businesses and individuals have no such ethical obligation.
But I don't think that's true. I think the ethics of a thing extends beyond Government vs Corporate, or even Public vs Private, and transcends discussions of legal vs illegal. Something can be ethical and illegal -- just make a bad law. And in the same way something can be unethical and legal! Philosophers have been talking about what is and is not ethical for millenia, so you'll have to excuse me if I'm not compelled by your dismissal that ethics doesn't play into it because it was a corporate entity doing so.
By your line, we should have no problem at all with the fact that none of them are discussing SOPA. Unless you think that newscasters should be held to a higher standard of ethics than satirists.
Do they think that Netflix is making money that ought to go to them?
In short, yes. They (and others like them) have convinced themselves that all of the value is in their content, and they utterly ignore any value that someone else might add. If you make money and their product was somehow involved, you've stolen from them.
"Torrents are the biggest economic problem in fighting piracy"
'Fighting piracy' is the biggest economic problem in fighting piracy. With a small percentage exception, pirates are your biggest fans and strongest supporters -- you just aren't selling them what they want. Focus on making your product better and meeting the desires of your customers, and the piracy 'problem' will go away. 'Fighting piracy' just means throwing money at a symptom.
I think you're misunderstanding the phenomenon. I think people want to BELIEVE that piracy works because it's profitable, but I don't think that's the case in reality. Piracy works because of underserved consumers. Piracy has existed for a very long time; the advent of the Internet and digital content has just made it more widespread and apparent. Piracy exists because people want to share content they like, and use content the in the ways and places they want. None of that will change if you cut the funding lines to a few websites. The pirates will sneakernet the content if they have to. It's not about money.
You start off by saying that Big Game Companies have been boiling us like frogs, which is generally true. But then you seem to say we have no choice because The Big Guys have already eaten all the smaller publishers, and if we don't buy their DRM'd crap they'll just stop producing anything.
That simply can't be true. Either people refuse to buy sub-par or DRM'd games and The Big Guys die or bend their knee to the Consumer, or people don't refuse to buy the same and effectively reward The Big Guys. If their response to dying slowly is to "turtle up" and die quickly, then it's only a matter of time before someone else steps into the void. Video Games will survive even if Nintendo, Sony, EA, and the rest all die today.
Because over the last couple of decades we've trained them to believe that the American people are ambivalent and despite what they may SAY they won't really DO anything about it. And the few that do can be marginalized and demonized and the big machine keeps on running.
Wow, I guess I SHOULD have added a /s on the end of my post.
Unauthorized content is still information, and it's almost impossible to make a distinction between the two -- certainly not without a massive effort, and almost certainly not in an automated way. The flow of unauthorized content is the "acceptable losses" or "collateral damage" of vigorously allowing the flow of ideas and information. Your business is not more important than freedom of speach; find some other solution to your problems.