Register to reply

Wikipedia blackout

by Hurkyl
Tags: blackout, wikipedia
Share this thread:
ParticleGrl
#217
Jan24-12, 12:44 AM
P: 685
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
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
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
#218
Jan24-12, 01:20 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by ParticleGrl View Post
Do you mean entertainment sector, rather than financial sector? If you mean financial, why do you believe this?
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.

Quote Quote by ParticleGrl View Post
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.
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.

Quote Quote by ParticleGrl View Post
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.
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.

Quote Quote by ParticleGrl View Post
The problem with trying to police IP too strictly is that you end up with less overall money in entertainment + everywhere else.
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
#219
Jan24-12, 02:23 AM
P: 463
Quote Quote by Hurkyl View Post
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/01/16...ut-january-18/

Very unfortunate -- they lose a lot of standing in my own eyes.

When I see things like this, one of the first things I look for is whether they are taking a reasonable position, or if they are taking an infeasible cartoonish position.

All around the world, we're seeing the development of legislation intended to fight online piracy, and regulate the Internet in other ways, that hurt online freedoms ... We want the Internet to remain free and open, everywhere, for everyone.


and this quote looks like they're taking the cartoon position: that any laws and regulation regarding the internet should be rejected on pure principle.



I don't know anything about the particular laws they're protesting -- and their stated reasons for protest do not fill me with confidence that their protest has merit. In fact, such extreme positions have a counter-productive effect from me -- they've pushed me from apathy to actually feeling antagonistic to their cause.

I really hope that the editors just dropped the ball on this one, rather than this being a sign of Wikipedia's political direction....
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
#220
Jan24-12, 09:48 AM
P: 98
All around the world, we're seeing the development of legislation intended to fight online piracy, and regulate the Internet in other ways, that hurt online freedoms ... We want the Internet to remain free and open, everywhere, for everyone.
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
#221
Jan24-12, 01:59 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,500
The more I think about it that would mean to me the public wouldn't have access to the Library of Congress
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
ViewsofMars
#222
Jan24-12, 02:07 PM
P: 463
Quote Quote by Office_Shredder View Post
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
In the future please don't quote-mine me!

Quote Quote by MarcoD View Post
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.
MarcoD, the quote you are referring to isn't on the link(url) website that Hurkyl
seemed to imply within his statement. Also, I do not support people who think it is ok 'giving up on copyright law' as you mention, nor do I think it wise to be stealing a person's idea. Idea's pertain to scientific articles which
oftentimes appear in peer-reviewed journals. I don't have a problem using those articles online as long as I name the author, subject matter, and link (url) to the article.
Evo
#223
Jan24-12, 02:07 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,557
Quote Quote by MarcoD View Post
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.
If no one can make a living off of their work, not many would be able to afford to work for free. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that people not be paid for what they do.

You also forgot to show which post you are quoting.
ginru
#224
Jan24-12, 03:21 PM
P: 2
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
If no one can make a living off of their work, not many would be able to afford to work for free. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that people not be paid for what they do.
But they need to adapt and evolve with the market to stay competitive at getting that living. I had a boss that would always tell me to think like the customer and then I'll know how to sell to them. The bottom line is that it's the consumer's money. Earn it.
Evo
#225
Jan24-12, 03:32 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,557
Quote Quote by ginru View Post
But they need to adapt and evolve with the market to stay competitive at getting that living.
The comment was that everything on the internet should be free, and that includes a person's work that was placed there illegally without their consent. Just how do you propose that the artist, writer, etc... "adapt and evolve with the market to stay competitive at getting that living" when their work is illegally being giving away?

The bottom line is that it's the consumer's money. Earn it.
Earn it how after it's been illegally given away?
ginru
#226
Jan24-12, 04:02 PM
P: 2
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
The comment was that everything on the internet should be free, and that includes a person's work that was placed there illegally without their consent. Just how do you propose that the artist, writer, etc... "adapt and evolve with the market to stay competitive at getting that living" when their work is illegally being giving away?
I said before that it's the fan following that holds the greatest value and it's through this base that you can make money from advertising, endorsements, donations, touring, club merchandise, etc. IMO, both the artists and the consumers are empowered by the web's freedom while it's the old-school, talentless middleman that gets the short end of the stick. So once you establish that fan following (through free distribution of your foundation work, perhaps), then you can make money in a variety of ways but you have to keep the interest of those fans as many creative folk on Youtube must do. I think networking and collaborating with other artists/creators to overlap fan bases while maintaining steady buzz is becoming much more essential in such a dynamic system.
russ_watters
#227
Jan24-12, 06:33 PM
Mentor
P: 22,303
Quote Quote by ParticleGrl View Post
There is actually a tremendous difference between the two. Theft deprives someone of a good, copyright infringement does not. If I break into a bookstore and steal a bunch of books, or break into a Best Buy and take a bunch of software, the store no longer has the property I stole.

Now, if I break into a bookstore and photocopy the books, or into the Best Buy and copy all the software, they still have the property. This is an important distinction. There is no material loss in infringement.
It isn't Best Buy who is most at risk here, it is Microsoft and Penguin Books. That's what how you need to structure the analogy to make them similar and what you're missing. People aren't stealing music and books from Amazon, they are copying legally bought ones and then distributing them without going through Amazon. Amazon loses some money from not being able to sell as much, but most of the loss is for the creator of the content.

Now Best Buy and the bookstore probably boughth their merchandise and thus stands to lose money from having them stolen. So the difference is that the record company and artist haven't lost anything by having the content stolen, right? Wrong. The record company spent money and the artist spent time and intellectual effort to create that content. Losing sales creates the potential for losing money on creation of the product instead of profiting.

Either way, the harm done is the same: you've deprived someone of money.
Char. Limit
#228
Jan24-12, 09:51 PM
PF Gold
Char. Limit's Avatar
P: 1,951
Are we really arguing here over the difference between piracy and theft? They're both bad, enough said. The point of this thread was that SOPA is overly oppressive. Or maybe that was a different thread. Whatever.

With SOPA dead in the water, and PIPA joining it, does this thread really serve a purpose?
Evo
#229
Jan24-12, 10:03 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,557
Quote Quote by Char. Limit View Post
Are we really arguing here over the difference between piracy and theft? They're both bad, enough said. The point of this thread was that SOPA is overly oppressive. Or maybe that was a different thread. Whatever.

With SOPA dead in the water, and PIPA joining it, does this thread really serve a purpose?
Agreed.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Interferometer BlackOut General Physics 8
Blackout Bomb Current Events 22
Winter blackout General Discussion 9