News Wikipedia Calls for Anti-SOPA Blackout Jan 18

[Curious3141]

If the end result is loss of income, it's the same damage to the victim. That's the point. Anyone really not understand that?

Nope, not the same damage at all. I do understand that there *may be* fiscal damages to the copyright holder in the case of copyright infringement - and even this has NOT been conclusively proven. There are definitely very tangible material and financial losses suffered by the victim in cases of actual theft.

My understanding is fine, thanks very much.

(Not to nitpick - but the issue in theft is not the loss of *income*).

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

There is no material loss in infringement.

Don't be silly. The monetary loss in copyright infringement can be substantial.

 

[Curious3141]

Don't be silly. The monetary loss in copyright infringement can be substantial.

Prove it.

Essentially, you have to prove that all (or even most of) those "infringers" would've paid for the product if they could not have procured it illegally.

Noone has yet been able to do this. All we have is a massive smokescreen fudging the issues.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Essentially, you have to prove that all (or even most of) those "infringers" would've paid for the product if they could not have procured it illegally.

Does he? Or does he have to show that there was one lost sale?

There is a difference between saying "a little theft is too much trouble to try to counter" and "a little theft is morally OK".

 

[Curious3141]

Does he? Or does he have to show that there was one lost sale?

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]

Don't be silly. The monetary loss in copyright infringement can be substantial.

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?

Just one kind of copyright infringement...

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 that's 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]

Just one kind of copyright infringement.
Cost of movie piracy

Where's the methods for their calculation?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Keep in mind that when someone downloads a movie instead of paying for it, they eventually spend that $1 (I think that's the redbox rate?) somewhere else.

Small comfort to the owner of the copyright.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Small comfort to the owner of the copyright.

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]

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.

Simply report the offending posters to the moderators :)

 

[IMP]

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/396033_3172094104461_1328786850_3386526_1964119875_n.jpg

 

[ThomasT]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/01/16/wikipedias-community-calls-for-anti-sopa-blackout-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-organizations-and-individuals-opposing-sopa

 

[MarcoD]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.