Wikipedia blackout

Curious3141

Well, he did use the word "substantial", didn't he?

Curious3141

It's good if we got back to the issues here. I freely concede that copyright infringement is legally wrong (in many jurisdictions). I am also willing to concede that it is morally wrong, although nowhere near as abhorrent as actual theft (in whatever form).

Given those, the law is justified in trying to shut down copyright infringement (piracy is another emotionally-laden term, so I'll eschew using it). But how extensive should their powers to do this be? This is the crux of the SOPA/PIPA debate. Most people feel that these bills, if passed, would place too much power into the hands of bullies (as they've repeatedly shown themselves to be). *This* is what this debate should be about, so please let's get it back on track (I'm sorry for my part in having skewed it off track).

Jimmy Snyder

Just one kind of copyright infringement.
Cost of movie piracy

ParticleGrl

I didn't say it wasn't. I said that if I photocopy your book, YOU STILL HAVE YOUR BOOK. If I copy your software, YOU STILL HAVE YOUR SOFTWARE.

If I steal them, you no longer have them. Thats what I meant by "loss." Not indirect revenue considerations.

As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no way to enforce IP more effectively that doesn't result in enormous costs/dead-weight loss (in this case born by the taxpayer). We already have enough enforcement that entertainment industry is very profitable. The average taxpayer is enormously entertained: we are suffering no loss of entertainment product.

So, why should I (as a taxpayer) have to pay more taxes AND deal with the annoyances of a potentially fragmented internet FOR NO BENEFIT?

The source's numbers are hokey. Keep in mind that when someone downloads a movie instead of paying for it, they eventually spend that $1 (I think thats the redbox rate?) somewhere else. Piracy redistributes resources, it doesn't remove them from existence. When I watch a movie my neighbor rented, I don't simultaneously set my cash on fire. I use it to buy popcorn or chips or whatever I'm bringing over. Less jobs for redbox, perhaps, more jobs for the grocery store.

Pythagorean

Where's the methods for their calculation?

Jimmy Snyder

Small comfort to the owner of the copyright.

ParticleGrl

I can't help but feeling your are simply trolling. Instead of addressing the meat of anything I've said, you are taking quick potshots.

My point was that any numbers that say $x lost to the economy/$y dollars lost in tax revenue,z jobs destroyed should be immediately suspicious.

Pythagorean

no methodology, bleeding heart global crisis.... makes me suspect bias research.

Char. Limit

I see a lack of reasonable discussion from at least one side here. This thread needs to be locked. Maybe someday we can have a reasonable discussion, from both sides, about piracy.

Pythagorean

Simply report the offending posters to the moderators :)

IMP

ThomasT

Your points make sense to me. Here's a thought:
Maybe the net effect of internet piracy of movies and music is that it actually benefits the general economy. This conjecture is based on the assumptions that (1) a significant portion of the revenues from sales of dvd's and cd's is kept in the financial sector, and (2) virtually all of the money saved by downloaders of pirated stuff is spent in the general economy.

ParticleGrl

Do you mean entertainment sector, rather than financial sector? If you mean financial, why do you believe this?

Its not obvious to me that having less money in the hands of piraters/more money in the hands of equity holders in the entertainment industry is somehow worse overall. Its just different. Having less grocery store workers and more entertainment workers isn't obviously bad, but (and this is important) having more grocery store workers and less entertainment workers isn't obviously bad. If we ever start suffering from a lack of entertainment, we will certainly need to push more people into that sector. Cross that bridge when we come to it, its not now.

The problem with trying to police IP too strictly is that you end up with less overall money in entertainment + everywhere else. That gets siphoned off to pay the IP police. If there is no problem that needs solving why should we do this?

ThomasT

I meant financial. The money spent in the entertainment sector wrt labor, materials, technology, etc. is mostly, I would suppose, eventually entering and positively affecting the general economy. But I'm also assuming that a (significant) portion of the profits from a dvd or cd are invested in the financial sector.

I'm assuming that piraters spend a greater percentage of their liquid assets in the general economy than do equity holders in the entertainment industry -- and that this translates to more money in the general economy.

I don't think that we're going to have to worry about a lack of entertainment. My take is that the entertainment industry hasn't really suffered from internet piracy. If revenues are down, then maybe that's mostly attributable to a downturn in the general economy.

Maybe the entertainment industry will make more money if all internet pirating is shut down. It's an empirical question, but, imho, not a particularly interesting or important one. Most of the, possible, increased revenues won't be going to the creative artists anyway, but to the big corporations that control them.

I don't think that the policing/enforcement of internet piracy is so much a matter of money as of priorities. Imho, it's just way way down on the list. But, apparently, the lobbying money of the entertainment industry has been well spent so far. Pressure has been put on the DoJ to pay attention to this problem, and it's responding predictably.

I don't think that strictly policing IP necessarily means less money in the general economy. I do think that more money spent on dvd's and cd's means less money in the general economy.

ViewsofMars

Hi Hurkyl I think that Wikipedia along with quite a few other organizations are protesting for *good* reason. One thing is that it might shut down online libraries. The more I think about it that would mean to me the public wouldn't have access to the Library of Congress whose mission is: "The Library's mission is to support the Congress in fulfilling its constitutional duties and to further the progress of knowledge and creativity for the benefit of the American people."(1) And take a peek at the Library link (url) below as noted in my #2. It has a section on Film and Sound Recordings. It makes me wonder what the heck is going on. Honestly, I see a conflict of interest regarding what Congress was attempting to do but thank goodness the President stepped in right away and put a hold on that stuff for the time being.

1. http://www.loc.gov/about/mission.html

2. http://www.loc.gov/index.html
###

Here's a very impressive website that lists organizations and people opposing SOPA and PIPA: 'List of Those Expressing Concern With SOPA & PIPA'
http://www.cdt.org/report/list-organ...-opposing-sopa

MarcoD

I am not sure you should describe that as 'cartoonish,' not all principles can be disregarded that easily. Beside the pragmatic consequences, I too do feel that information should be 'maximally free.' Because I believe an open unregulated Internet is a great asset for humanity. If that means giving up on copyright law, I personally couldn't care less. I don't even think ideas should be patented. Artists will manage to make money in another manner no matter what.

Office_Shredder

Let's not go overboard here. There's no way the Attorney General decides to shut down the Library of Congress's website, even if he's given the power to do so