|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
People can argue all they want about if it is wrong or right, if it's stealing or not, they can add all laws they want to protect present intellectual proprieties, add this or that fine or sanction etc.. but the fact is intellectual property needs to be redefined, if not, reality will simply bury it and move on.
+ Show Spoiler +
..patenting, copyright etc.. are antiquated and counter productive concepts that are in dire need of revision, if not extinction. The very term "intellectual property" is an oxymoron. It is an artificial construction that today hinders the evolution of ideas and progress far more than any of its proposed benefits. It has gone as far as people patenting naturally occurring genes!?! lol.. Imagine if the chemists of our past, upon discovering how to make water or oxygen, or upon discovering the molecular composition of water or oxygen had tried to patent these compounds! If I were a young man today, and not my cynical old self too tired or too comfortable to care, I'd probably be a hard core activist against all this sort of shit going on today.
As for piracy it can not be stopped or limited in todays world; on the other side the smart ones are fighting a battle for information control not piracy and the dumb ones are just plain retarded coming up with absurd laws (like arresting people taking photos inside a cinema). Worst are those with more sinister interests use intellectual property laws and anti-piracy campaigns to achieve other goals beyond the control of information..
A series of videos that dwels decently into the subject:
+ Show Spoiler +
My summary:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://www.yellowchrome.org/infoanarchism.jpg) i.e. you shouldn't be able to own people, people speech, or people ideas I sound like an old drum but some subjects will always get me going again...
|
Let's assume for a moment the following:
1) The music industry cannot make enough money to make music without selling CD's/downloads/etc. (This is of course highly debatable but we're playing devil's advocate here)
2) As a society, we believe it would be a proper role for the government to ensure that the music industry makes money and therefore continues to produce music.
Now let's consider two possible solutions:
1) Subsidize the music industry. They can afford to continue making music, and everyone in society gets as much free music as they want. Perhaps the degree of subsidizing could be determined by analyzing download counts of songs or albums, thereby ensuring that market demand dictates production.
2) We create regulatory agencies and police the market, attempting to track down, fine, and punish individuals who share a naturally unscarce good that we value, in order to artificially restrict the supply, raise the price of music, and to force people to purchase individual songs. The agencies will do a generally terrible job of achieving this goal, and will settle for arbitrarily punishing individuals to serve as a warning to the rest of society. Meanwhile, society as a whole continues to have less of this good they value, and music industries continue to lose money to piracy.
One thing that the study of economics teaches is this: It is almost always better to simply subsidize something than to attempt to manipulate supply, cost, price, etc.
|
|
|
I have always wanted to live there, neutral country with rich people. ^^
|
On December 05 2011 06:08 liberal wrote:
Let's assume for a moment the following:
1) The music industry cannot make enough money to make music without selling CD's/downloads/etc. (This is of course highly debatable but we're playing devil's advocate here)
2) As a society, we believe it would be a proper role for the government to ensure that the music industry makes money and therefore continues to produce music.
Now let's consider two possible solutions:
1) Subsidize the music industry. They can afford to continue making music, and everyone in society gets as much free music as they want. Perhaps the degree of subsidizing could be determined by analyzing download counts of songs or albums, thereby ensuring that market demand dictates production.
2) We create regulatory agencies and police the market, attempting to track down, fine, and punish individuals who share a naturally unscarce good that we value, in order to artificially restrict the supply, raise the price of music, and to force people to purchase individual songs. The agencies will do a generally terrible job of achieving this goal, and will settle for arbitrarily punishing individuals to serve as a warning to the rest of society. Meanwhile, society as a whole continues to have less of this good they value, and music industries continue to lose money to piracy.
One thing that the study of economics teaches is this: It is almost always better to simply subsidize something than to attempt to manipulate supply, cost, price, etc.
or you could let the music industry die. if they can't make money, tough shit. its very possible that a better more efficient business structure out there that companies don't want to adopt.
where did you get that last line. subsidization is the manipulation of price, consequentially manipulation of demand/supply.
|
Aaaaargh my aunt lives in switzerland! I'd go there... just that would mean I'd have to learn french 
|
2) As a society, we believe it would be a proper role for the government to ensure that the music industry makes money and therefore continues to produce music.
Please tell me where this terrifying society exists, so I can make sure I never go there?
|
AFAIK There aren't many studies showing that piracy is actually hurting anything, industry figures keep counting everything downloaded as a lost sale which simply isn't true. You also have to actively seek pirated content, because it isn't advertised anywhere, which means you are a lot more interested in what you are getting. You can also listen to the songs as many times as you want on youtube and my untrained brain can't see much difference between that and listening to the same song on my mp3 player. One is lighter on the bandwith and that's about it.
Active interaction with the consumer and abolishing any state borders would work much better for any entertainment industry. I WANT something like Steam for music, with all the deals and reasonably priced stuff all concentrated into a single place, but all I have in my country is iTunes and I really hate Apple.
|
On December 05 2011 06:23 Zihua wrote:Show nested quote +
2) As a society, we believe it would be a proper role for the government to ensure that the music industry makes money and therefore continues to produce music.
Please tell me where this terrifying society exists, so I can make sure I never go there?
I thought that was the foundation for intellectual property rights in every nation on the planet.
Doesn't the argument essentially go: "if someone can't make money selling their product then they won't invest the time or resources to create it." It doesn't really matter whether we are talking about cancer drugs or music, the argument is the same.
That doesn't mean I agree with the argument. I very clearly stated I was playing devil's advocate, but I'm used to being misread 
|
That particular argument on "suppresing progress" oh man... But I really do think the entertainment industry has to adapt regardless. Piracy is huge, and somewhat comparable to the war on drugs. There's no real way to fight piracy unless you completely censor the internet.
|
Personally I think it's ridiculous. I think a very large majority of the reason people don't pirate at the moment is because it's illegal, and they don't want that off chance of getting caught.
If it becomes legal, I would pirate EVERYTHING and not pay a single dime. Sorry, but all I consider that is charity to companies that did a good job, and I'm not a charity person when my disposable income comes from a $10.40/hr job.
|
MOVING TO SWISSLAND
HAIL PIRATE PARTY
|
On December 05 2011 06:29 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 06:23 Zihua wrote:
2) As a society, we believe it would be a proper role for the government to ensure that the music industry makes money and therefore continues to produce music.
Please tell me where this terrifying society exists, so I can make sure I never go there? I thought that was the foundation for intellectual property rights in every nation on the planet. Doesn't the argument essentially go: "if someone can't make money selling their product then they won't invest the time or resources to create it." It doesn't really matter whether we are talking about cancer drugs or music, the argument is the same. That doesn't mean I agree with the argument. I very clearly stated I was playing devil's advocate, but I'm used to being misread
No, not every country in the world is a capitalist democracy.
|
On December 05 2011 06:07 Physician wrote:People can argue all they want about if it is wrong or right, if it's stealing or not, they can add all laws they want to protect present intellectual proprieties, add this or that fine or sanction etc.. but the fact is intellectual property needs to be redefined, if not, reality will simply bury it and move on. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +..patenting, copyright etc.. are antiquated and counter productive concepts that are in dire need of revision, if not extinction. The very term "intellectual property" is an oxymoron. It is an artificial construction that today hinders the evolution of ideas and progress far more than any of its proposed benefits. It has gone as far as people patenting naturally occurring genes!?! lol.. Imagine if the chemists of our past, upon discovering how to make water or oxygen, or upon discovering the molecular composition of water or oxygen had tried to patent these compounds! If I were a young man today, and not my cynical old self too tired or too comfortable to care, I'd probably be a hard core activist against all this sort of shit going on today. As for piracy it can not be stopped or limited in todays world; on the other side the smart ones are fighting a battle for information control not piracy and the dumb ones are just plain retarded coming up with absurd laws (like arresting people taking photos inside a cinema). Worst are those with more sinister interests use intellectual property laws and anti-piracy campaigns to achieve other goals beyond the control of information.. A series of videos that dwels decently into the subject: + Show Spoiler +My summary: + Show Spoiler +i.e. you shouldn't be able to own people, people speech, or people ideas I sound like an old drum but some subjects will always get me going again...
Thank you. That was a very informative, amusing and even moving post. I don't have anything to say in this thread. My opinions on piracy aren't going to change nor are my opinions on the greed culture of the music industry. But I had to say thank you for that post.
|
Finally a win for common sense over industry lobbying governments around the world. Unfortunately I can't see the same good news happening for Australia, we have a very weak government that is easily swayed by political 'donations' ie. legal bribes.
|
On December 05 2011 06:51 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 06:29 liberal wrote:On December 05 2011 06:23 Zihua wrote:
2) As a society, we believe it would be a proper role for the government to ensure that the music industry makes money and therefore continues to produce music.
Please tell me where this terrifying society exists, so I can make sure I never go there? I thought that was the foundation for intellectual property rights in every nation on the planet. Doesn't the argument essentially go: "if someone can't make money selling their product then they won't invest the time or resources to create it." It doesn't really matter whether we are talking about cancer drugs or music, the argument is the same. That doesn't mean I agree with the argument. I very clearly stated I was playing devil's advocate, but I'm used to being misread No, not every country in the world is a capitalist democracy.
I thought that was the foundation for intellectual property rights in every nation on the planet WHICH ENFORCES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.
There. Anymore nitpicking? I apologize for assuming people could make common sense extrapolations from such a sentence.
|
On December 05 2011 06:31 FabledIntegral wrote:
Personally I think it's ridiculous. I think a very large majority of the reason people don't pirate at the moment is because it's illegal, and they don't want that off chance of getting caught.
If it becomes legal, I would pirate EVERYTHING and not pay a single dime. Sorry, but all I consider that is charity to companies that did a good job, and I'm not a charity person when my disposable income comes from a $10.40/hr job.
Agreed.
I also believe this is why the PC industry is struggling, you can just download th games =/
The Witcher 2 has lost hundreds of thousands of sales to piracy.
If their sales differences are "negligible", why are small companies and indie devs struggling while large companies with massive shitty DRM doing amazing?
|
On December 05 2011 06:57 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 06:51 Chargelot wrote:On December 05 2011 06:29 liberal wrote:On December 05 2011 06:23 Zihua wrote:
2) As a society, we believe it would be a proper role for the government to ensure that the music industry makes money and therefore continues to produce music.
Please tell me where this terrifying society exists, so I can make sure I never go there? I thought that was the foundation for intellectual property rights in every nation on the planet. Doesn't the argument essentially go: "if someone can't make money selling their product then they won't invest the time or resources to create it." It doesn't really matter whether we are talking about cancer drugs or music, the argument is the same. That doesn't mean I agree with the argument. I very clearly stated I was playing devil's advocate, but I'm used to being misread No, not every country in the world is a capitalist democracy. Show nested quote +I thought that was the foundation for intellectual property rights in every nation on the planet WHICH ENFORCES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. There. Anymore nitpicking? I apologize for assuming people could make common sense extrapolations from such a sentence.
You were wrong. Don't try to pin your bad logic on me. When you're trying to make a point all you have are your words. When you say "EVERY COUNTRY ON THE PLANETZ GUIZ" it's not assumed that you're restricting that, and that's why you used the all inclusive term "every". I can't say "everyone on the planet is male" and expect people to think "obviously he means everyone but females, so his statement is correct".
|
Switzerland the last beacon of common sense.
|
On December 05 2011 07:00 SafeAsCheese wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 06:31 FabledIntegral wrote:
Personally I think it's ridiculous. I think a very large majority of the reason people don't pirate at the moment is because it's illegal, and they don't want that off chance of getting caught.
If it becomes legal, I would pirate EVERYTHING and not pay a single dime. Sorry, but all I consider that is charity to companies that did a good job, and I'm not a charity person when my disposable income comes from a $10.40/hr job. Agreed. I also believe this is why the PC industry is struggling, you can just download th games =/ The Witcher 2 has lost hundreds of thousands of sales to piracy. If their sales differences are "negligible", why are small companies and indie devs struggling while large companies with massive shitty DRM doing amazing?
How much money are those Indie devs spending on advertising compared to these "large companies with massive shitty DRM?"
It is unfortunate if/when sales are lost due to piracy, especially in the gaming industry. But how are their profits compared to before? Are they going bankrupt by these "hundreds of thousands of sales lost?" Are they actually making more money than they were previously? It's important to keep this in context instead of spewing hyperbole or inaccurate statements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://naturesgraffiti.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/the-birth-evolution-and-death-of-intellectual-property.jpg)
