Internet Regulations


by Drakkith
Tags: internet, regulations
Drakkith
Drakkith is offline
#55
Nov19-12, 04:35 PM
PF Gold
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,055
Quote Quote by Borek View Post
That's the derivative of the way this system is set up, so it doesn't mean it HAS to be this way. Sure, for these people it is nice that it works this way. But there are bands that have cheap CDs and cheap concert tickets and they still make a decent money (although for sure not comparable with the major stars). I believe by redefining the approach (law) you will change money distribution and the constellation of stars would be different, but I don't think it will kill the idea that some people want to play and others want to listen.
I don't see what the law has to do with how the music industry runs itself other than to enforce certain things like copyright issues and the like.

Quote Quote by nazarbaz View Post
A new set of laws won't change anything. They tried in France with the HADOPI Law : a true failure. My ISP is still reluctant about snitching on its subscribers. Welcome to life too.
I don't think you can reasonably claim that new laws won't change anything. The internet presents a vastly different landscape than anything prior to it and requires a substantial change in how we go about enforcing laws if we want to be effective. I personally just don't understand the near absolute refusal of most people to accept ANY new regulations regarding the net. It's like people absolutely don't even understand that some activities might be wrong.
TheMadMonk
TheMadMonk is offline
#56
Nov19-12, 04:36 PM
P: 11
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
The problem is that it is broken. The laws are outdated and don't address the current problems. Due to the internet, there are new types of theft and the laws need to be re-written to include them.
What evidence do you have for things being broken? We don't struggle to prosecute people who break the law where I live despite the fact that copyright infringement isn't theft. What need is there to redefine theft? I'm really struggling to see why it needs to be redefined and you are yet to present a shred of evidence to support your position.
nazarbaz
nazarbaz is offline
#57
Nov19-12, 04:42 PM
P: 43
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
New laws, if properly enforced, can change things. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, going after the people that run illegal websites would be the easiest and most likely target. If you download from them then your information has been captured on their side. Probably only people that steal unusually large amounts of the products would be individually targeted, but that's just a guess. Did you know that when you visit a website that your information is captured?
For that kind of strategy to work, you'll have to standardize the laws in a vast majority of countries... Some of them will never do that just to annoy some other countries...
According to your standards, I must be a real gangster...
nazarbaz
nazarbaz is offline
#58
Nov19-12, 04:49 PM
P: 43
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
I don't see what the law has to do with how the music industry runs itself other than to enforce certain things like copyright issues and the like.



I don't think you can reasonably claim that new laws won't change anything. The internet presents a vastly different landscape than anything prior to it and requires a substantial change in how we go about enforcing laws if we want to be effective. I personally just don't understand the near absolute refusal of most people to accept ANY new regulations regarding the net. It's like people absolutely don't even understand that some activities might be wrong.
We had experienced it and it simply failed. Downloaders adapted. I'm not against Internet regulation per se. I'm not convinced by the logic of intellectual property itself.
Borek's attitude seems right to me : the business of cultural products needs to change and to adapt.
SixNein
SixNein is offline
#59
Nov19-12, 04:55 PM
PF Gold
SixNein's Avatar
P: 183
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Sixnein, what I am discussing is simply the theft of artistic products - music, films, literature, where profits due the artists are stolen from them. That's all. Something needs to be done to address this as more and more of these products are produced/made available through the internet instead of traditional physical products.
But your confusing legislation to promote the arts with legislation to protect property. And there are many consequences that go along with such a line of thinking. For example, why wouldn't their "property" be perpetual? Why would fair use ever be considered? So lets get away from that line of thinking a moment and talk about legislation to promote the arts.

Does there need to be additional legislation for the promotion of the arts? I don't think such promotion is needed or warranted at the moment. In my opinion, the current woes of the entertainment industry are self inflicted because they refuse to change outdated business models. In fact, they have been going to some great lengths to avoid having to complete on the internet. For example, cable companies have a conflict of interest in the internet. If they released their stuff over the internet, they would eventually lose their television subscriptions. So their business model is to force people to buy both while strongly limiting the capacity of the internet. Hence why we are now seeing bandwidth usage caps being implemented. And they have consistently refused to release stuff on the internet for this very reason, and so copyright infringement is the only way to obtain their material. In addition, they are shutting out competition from the internet through such limitations. For a moment, think of how these bandwidth restrictions effect companies like netflix.

If these people were making genuine efforts to change their business models, maybe some legislation would be needed. But until they do it, I don't see any legitimate reason to step in with government. Technological progress is already being severely harmed for no other reason than to protect old industries like telephone and cable from open markets.
Drakkith
Drakkith is offline
#60
Nov19-12, 05:13 PM
PF Gold
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,055
Quote Quote by nazarbaz View Post
We had experienced it and it simply failed. Downloaders adapted. I'm not against Internet regulation per se. I'm not convinced by the logic of intellectual property itself.
Borek's attitude seems right to me : the business of cultural products needs to change and to adapt.
What? You aren't convinced by the logic of intellectual property? What exactly are you saying here?
Evo
Evo is offline
#61
Nov19-12, 05:20 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 25,958
Quote Quote by TheMadMonk View Post
What evidence do you have for things being broken? We don't struggle to prosecute people who break the law where I live despite the fact that copyright infringement isn't theft. What need is there to redefine theft? I'm really struggling to see why it needs to be redefined and you are yet to present a shred of evidence to support your position.
In the US, there is already the No Electronic Theft Act.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...:H.R.2265.ENR:

Notice it says theft? I don't see the point in nitpicking over words though. It's just amazing that without the word, some people don't get the point that it is illegal and prosecutable. And we're talking about the US in this thread, unless otherwise specified.

What is the No Electronic Theft Act?
Congress enacted the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act in 1997 to facilitate prosecution of copyright violation on the Internet. The NET Act makes it a federal crime to reproduce, distribute, or share copies of electronic copyrighted works such as songs, movies, games, or software programs, even if the person copying or distributing the material acts without commercial purpose and/or receives no private financial gain. Prior to this law, people who intentionally distributed copied software over the Internet did not face criminal penalties if they did not profit from their actions. Electronic copyright infringement carries a maximum penalty of three years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

The NET Act is applicable in situations such as running a file sharing application with outgoing transfers enabled, hosting files on a web account, transferring files through IRC, and other methods of making copyrighted material available over networks.
http://kb.iu.edu/data/aliv.html

This law is very aggressive since it allows people that have no intention of profiting to be prosecuted for federal criminal charges.

Perhaps this law is sufficient.
Evo
Evo is offline
#62
Nov19-12, 05:32 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 25,958
Here is a very interesting explanation.

"Promoting Investment and Protecting Commerce Online: The ART Act, the NET Act and Illegal Streaming"

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat060111.html
nazarbaz
nazarbaz is offline
#63
Nov20-12, 12:23 AM
P: 43
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
What? You aren't convinced by the logic of intellectual property? What exactly are you saying here?
For me, a work of art is not a product that you can sell and buy for a fee. When you've done it, it's not yours anymore. I'm not going to justify it : there's no rational foundation to it in a capitalist society where ownership is a matter of survival. The relationship that this model has set in stone between an artist and its audience is coarse though. Not less vulgar than this situation where poor people and kids have no access to culture.
Do you know this Tool song, "Hooker with a penis" ?
Evo
Evo is offline
#64
Nov20-12, 12:39 AM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 25,958
Quote Quote by nazarbaz View Post
For me, a work of art is not a product that you can sell and buy for a fee. When you've done it, it's not yours anymore.
Well, that's just nonsense. Of course a work of art can be bought and sold. What do you mean
When you've done it, it's not yours anymore
Are you just making stuff up as you post? We don't allow nonsense posts or misinformation here.

This law ought to really upset you.

For instance, a painter may insist on proper attribution of his painting and in some instances may sue the owner of the physical painting for destroying the painting even if the owner of the painting lawfully owned it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act

I suggest that you actually read the rules to which you agreed when you registered before posting again.
Galteeth
Galteeth is offline
#65
Nov20-12, 12:53 AM
P: 320
Quote Quote by nazarbaz View Post
For me,

I could be wrong, but it seems the poster was making a statement of personal moral feeling rather then commenting on the law as it is written.
nazarbaz
nazarbaz is offline
#66
Nov20-12, 12:57 AM
P: 43
I agree : it probably doesn't make sense in your thinking framework and that's basically what I said... It's not meaningless, though...
Evo
Evo is offline
#67
Nov20-12, 12:59 AM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 25,958
Quote Quote by nazarbaz View Post
I agree : it probably doesn't make sense in your thinking framework and that's basically what I said... It's not meaningless, though...
But it is nonsense. Just becasue it's how you *feel* doesn't make it sensible. And by law, even after you sell it, it may still be yours to control.

You really should do some research before you post.
Galteeth
Galteeth is offline
#68
Nov20-12, 01:00 AM
P: 320
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Did you know that when you visit a website that your information is captured?
People should be more aware of this, and getting back to the general topic of internet regulation, I think some of the concern from the citizen side has to do to how much information is being kept without many people realizing it. Of course with a little bit of care you can prevent websites from storing information about you and remain "invisible", but most people don't have a good grasp of just how large a footprint their activity leaves. I disagree though that the honus is on website owners to not collect data, after all they have a right to make a profit. There are programs out there that allow you to use the internet anonymously, and I think that once people (the ones who are paying attention anyway start to see their internet activity used against them, more and more people will shield themselves in various manners.
nazarbaz
nazarbaz is offline
#69
Nov20-12, 01:05 AM
P: 43
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
But it is nonsense. Just becasue it's how you *feel* doesn't make it sensible. And by law, even after you sell it, it may still be yours to control.

You really should do some research before you post.
It makes a lot of sense to the artists I know...
Evo
Evo is offline
#70
Nov20-12, 01:07 AM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 25,958
Quote Quote by nazarbaz View Post
It makes a lot of sense to the artists I know...
Then it doesn't concern the thread topic.
Drakkith
Drakkith is offline
#71
Nov20-12, 04:58 AM
PF Gold
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,055
Quote Quote by nazarbaz View Post
For me, a work of art is not a product that you can sell and buy for a fee. When you've done it, it's not yours anymore.
The issue arises because a great many people don't hold this view, hence copyright laws.

Also I'd like to remind anyone reading this that this thread isn't just about artists and music. Film, TV, animation, software, artwork, and more are all relevant.
nanosiborg
nanosiborg is offline
#72
Nov20-12, 07:20 AM
P: 79
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
What does "regulation" mean first of all?

I've heard arguments for and against regulating the internet, and I have no idea what the issues are beyond the usual ramblings of morons in online places like facebook. Why would regulation be bad for the net? Obviously this isn't a black or white situation, or else it wouldn't be an issue.
I suppose you now have a better idea what it means. Several examples of "internet regulation" have been presented.

I wonder if a site like, eg., YouTube would or could ever be shut down.

Even with the shutting down of hosting service websites like Megaupload, it seems to be as easy now as ever to download just about any music, movie, and print stuff for free.

What about populist movements 'promoted' by the existence and use of social networking sites such as facebook. Could facebook ever be shut down "in a national interest"?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Safety regulations for motorcycle frames Automotive Engineering 14
Federal regulations on privacy may be coming soon Social Sciences 0
Cost of Regulations? Nuclear Engineering 6
Credit card regulations Current Events 3
Research and Regulations Biology 13