MegaUpload Has Been Taken Offline

Forums › Off topic › MegaUpload Has Been Taken Offline

1 | ... | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | ... | 40

1924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#576835 3-Feb-2012 14:28

nzlemming:
marmel:
I think the laws around assaulting someone are pretty good. Plenty of people ignore that?

The majority of people do not assault others and even those who do assault others mostly recognize that the law is a good one. That's not the same thing as ignoring a bad law.

The fact is people ignore laws all the time for a large number of reasons. Sit in court for a few days and you will hear the same stupid excuses time after time.

Actually, I have and have been on juries as well.

You're making an illogical connection: bad laws are ignored by people, therefore all laws people ignore must be bad laws. I did not say that (and would not) but feel free to work without a logical framework to support you.

Nothing wrong with my logic.

You seriously think people started downloading movies/music etc from the web because they had thought about copyright and decided it was a bad law?

People did this for a couple of reasons, firstly because they could and knew the chances of any repurcussions were extremely low and the second is a fairly basic concept, greed. Why pay for something when you can get it for free?

To try and partially justify illegal downloading due to copyright being a bad law is farcical in my opinion.

The point I was making was that in 99.9% of cases people don't break laws because they are "bad laws" in their opinion. People break laws for all kind of silly reasons.

Ever seen anyone try to justify their actions to a judge based on a bad law? Won't get you very far.

sen8or

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#576842 3-Feb-2012 14:35

Unless you are Alan Shaw or Denny Crane on Boston Legal :)

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#576844 3-Feb-2012 14:36

sen8or: Unless you are Alan Shaw or Denny Crane on Boston Legal :)

True :-)

nzlemming

79 posts

Master Geek

#576845 3-Feb-2012 14:39

tdgeek:

How can these items have no intrinsic value? I assume you refer to the download?

Any item is only worth what people will pay for it. If you make widgets at a cost of $200 per item, but people only want to spend $20 to buy the item because that's all it's worth to them, then you should not have got into the widget making business without first doing your homework. The widget may cost you $200 to make, but if people won't even pay that much, let alone the extra you want for profit, you're going to be out of business pretty quickly.

In a strict market world, nothing has a particular intrinsic monetary value. Some things appear to have it, such as gold or major works of art, but they're really only items with a persistent market price. The intrinsic value of gold is actually that it's a) very durable and b) a great conductor which makes it excellent for important electronic connections. Neither of those properties would appeal to a jeweller, however, who is dependent on the market value both as a cost and for revenue.

Similarly, a recording of a song has no intrinsic value. It has only the value that the market will pay. When you can manipulate the market, by controlling the distribution network, for example, you can force an artificially high price by creating an artificial scarcity. This is why parallel importing tends to lower prices by providing alternate distribution networks for products. And when you can duplicate and distribute the item infinitely at almost no cost for the activity, any scarcity disappears and with it any value.

Digital technology has changed the marketplace and the labels and studios are not keeping up. In order to survive they must change their business models. Instead they are spending money to get legislative change to give them back their artificial control, and we get caught in the cross-fire of DMCA and 3 Strikes laws.

None of this suggests that artists/creators should not be paid, but that is largely in the hands of the labels and studios because they set the system up that way. The bulk of the profits go to the middlemen, not to the creators. The arguments about "won't somebody think of the struggling artist?" are, to borrow a phrase, a smokescreen to hide the fact that a) creators are not rewarded well by their industry, b) change is hard and might be expensive so the middlemen don't want to do it.

So they dress it all up as a moral issue, rather than an economic one, and judging by some of the comments here, they're doing well at their propaganda. Go read some of the stuff on the Techdirt link I posted earlier. There's some very good commentary about the economics of copyright and how some artists are doing very well out of giving their work away.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#576848 3-Feb-2012 14:42

marmel:
nzlemming:
marmel:
I think the laws around assaulting someone are pretty good. Plenty of people ignore that?

The majority of people do not assault others and even those who do assault others mostly recognize that the law is a good one. That's not the same thing as ignoring a bad law.

The fact is people ignore laws all the time for a large number of reasons. Sit in court for a few days and you will hear the same stupid excuses time after time.

Actually, I have and have been on juries as well.

You're making an illogical connection: bad laws are ignored by people, therefore all laws people ignore must be bad laws. I did not say that (and would not) but feel free to work without a logical framework to support you.

Nothing wrong with my logic.

You seriously think people started downloading movies/music etc from the web because they had thought about copyright and decided it was a bad law?

People did this for a couple of reasons, firstly because they could and knew the chances of any repurcussions were extremely low and the second is a fairly basic concept, greed. Why pay for something when you can get it for free?

To try and partially justify illegal downloading due to copyright being a bad law is farcical in my opinion.

The point I was making was that in 99.9% of cases people don't break laws because they are "bad laws" in their opinion. People break laws for all kind of silly reasons.

Ever seen anyone try to justify their actions to a judge based on a bad law? Won't get you very far.

I downloaded some music for several reasons:

1. I wanted to know if I liked the song. If i did, I usually bought it. If I didn't....file deleted and wiser for the experience.

2. I had bought hundreds of albums over the years where it turned out only one or two songs were worth listening to....and the rest not. Still cost $30 though. A sense of grievance.

3. The media was no longer appropriate. I wanted the song in MP3 format but didn't have the time / knowledge / capability to do the conversion myself easily....so I downloaded it, effectively 'outsourcing' the conversion of songs i already owned.

4. I had paid $150 for a number of songs that iTunes now decided I didn't own any more and insisted I buy again. No thanks.....I replaced them by other means (having already paid for them once).

Add you own reasons to the list.

What I don't do is download songs I like and not pay for them. But that said....I don't like many songs, so paying for what I like is a very low budget item.

Many people consider themselves to have been ripped off enough over the years that downloading a few files felt like redress for past wrongs.

To be honest....I have little time for copyright any more. It's become a monopolist's scam...and does nothing to enable innovation. Freemusicarchive.org is my main source for music these days. I can download all I want for free and the RIAA can go suck RRS.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

gzt

17127 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#576852 3-Feb-2012 14:48

nzlemming:

marmel: People did this for a couple of reasons, firstly because they could and knew the chances of any repurcussions were extremely low and the second is a fairly basic concept, greed. Why pay for something when you can get it for free?

This is what it developed into. The reality is there were and are many barriers, the first of which is lack of online retail channels. The problem should be clearly seen as lack of industry engagement for the first 10 years of the market, now they have some catching up to do. It's their problem. They are gradually beginning to accept that DRM free is the way to go and does not damage their business, but still they are very slow on allowing more retailers into the market, and giving them the flexibility required to run the retail side effectively.

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#576853 3-Feb-2012 14:48

Linuxluver:
marmel:
nzlemming:
marmel:
I think the laws around assaulting someone are pretty good. Plenty of people ignore that?

The majority of people do not assault others and even those who do assault others mostly recognize that the law is a good one. That's not the same thing as ignoring a bad law.

The fact is people ignore laws all the time for a large number of reasons. Sit in court for a few days and you will hear the same stupid excuses time after time.

Actually, I have and have been on juries as well.

You're making an illogical connection: bad laws are ignored by people, therefore all laws people ignore must be bad laws. I did not say that (and would not) but feel free to work without a logical framework to support you.

Nothing wrong with my logic.

You seriously think people started downloading movies/music etc from the web because they had thought about copyright and decided it was a bad law?

People did this for a couple of reasons, firstly because they could and knew the chances of any repurcussions were extremely low and the second is a fairly basic concept, greed. Why pay for something when you can get it for free?

To try and partially justify illegal downloading due to copyright being a bad law is farcical in my opinion.

The point I was making was that in 99.9% of cases people don't break laws because they are "bad laws" in their opinion. People break laws for all kind of silly reasons.

Ever seen anyone try to justify their actions to a judge based on a bad law? Won't get you very far.

I downloaded some music for several reasons:

1. I wanted to know if I liked the song. If i did, I usually bought it. If I didn't....file deleted and wiser for the experience.

2. I had bought hundreds of albums over the years where it turned out only one or two songs were worth listening to....and the rest not. Still cost $30 though. A sense of grievance.

3. The media was no longer appropriate. I wanted the song in MP3 format but didn't have the time / knowledge / capability to do the conversion myself easily....so I downloaded it, effectively 'outsourcing' the conversion of songs i already owned.

4. I had paid $150 for a number of songs that iTunes now decided I didn't own any more and insisted I buy again. No thanks.....I replaced them by other means (having already paid for them once).

Add you own reasons to the list.

What I don't do is download songs I like and not pay for them. But that said....I don't like many songs, so paying for what I like is a very low budget item.

Many people consider themselves to have been ripped off enough over the years that downloading a few files felt like redress for past wrongs.

Your reasons are quite different from the main MU user downloading illegal content who simply doesn't want to pay for content.

I think this is the vast majority of people who choose to download content for free. They don't have any moral issues with record compaines, they don't have any thoughts about copyright being bad, they don't give a s**t about knowledge being shared amongst humanity, they don't have any concerns about censorship on the internet, they just want something and don't want to have to pay to get it.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#576854 3-Feb-2012 14:51

gzt:
nzlemming:

marmel: People did this for a couple of reasons, firstly because they could and knew the chances of any repurcussions were extremely low and the second is a fairly basic concept, greed. Why pay for something when you can get it for free?

This is what it developed into. The reality is there were and are many barriers, the first of which is lack of online retail channels. The problem should be clearly seen as lack of industry engagement for the first 10 years of the market, now they have some catching up to do. It's their problem. They are gradually beginning to accept that DRM free is the way to go and does not damage their business, but still they are very slow on allowing more retailers into the market, and giving them the flexibility required to run the retail side effectively.

Definately agree digital distribuition was/is behind where it needs to be.

I would never use this as justification though to download it for free.

jpollock

600 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#576864 3-Feb-2012 15:12

I find it interesting that people are using assault as an example of a law that people ignore.

How about speeding? More people ignore that law. In fact, the typical behaviour in many jurisdictions is to enforce to the speed of traffic, rather than the regulated speed. The same goes for most traffic rules. They are legislated, but largely unenforceable.

How much effort should we put into stopping people from speeding? Do we modify vehicles (including bicycles) so it's impossible to speed? Total coverage of all roads by speed cameras?

How much freedom are we willing to give up to stop speeders?

---
http://blog.jason.pollock.ca

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#576867 3-Feb-2012 15:19

jpollock: I find it interesting that people are using assault as an example of a law that people ignore.

How about speeding? More people ignore that law. In fact, the typical behaviour in many jurisdictions is to enforce to the speed of traffic, rather than the regulated speed. The same goes for most traffic rules. They are legislated, but largely unenforceable.

Wrong.

Speed limits in NZ are policed with a 10km tolerance, nothing to do with the speed of the traffic.

There are some exceptions to this such as outside schools and if a campaign is run by the police over a long weekend etc but this is only to lower the tolerance.

What is happening is that laws and other tools are being put in place to enforce exsisting laws in relation to copyright.

With relation to online piracy previously the law had been largely unenforceable, content holders are making efforts to change this.

Some people aren't too happy about that.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#576874 3-Feb-2012 15:23

jpollock: I find it interesting that people are using assault as an example of a law that people ignore.

How about speeding? More people ignore that law. In fact, the typical behaviour in many jurisdictions is to enforce to the speed of traffic, rather than the regulated speed. The same goes for most traffic rules. They are legislated, but largely unenforceable.

How much effort should we put into stopping people from speeding? Do we modify vehicles (including bicycles) so it's impossible to speed? Total coverage of all roads by speed cameras?

How much freedom are we willing to give up to stop speeders?

Of course it's a balancing act. We give up plenty of freedom when it comes to cars; the requirements of licencing, WOFs, seat belts and all sorts.

I believe the point that was being made was this:

A law which the public have faith in will always be more effective than a law which people have no, or little, faith in.

We could probably get away with shoplifting every time we go to a supermarket. Partly we don't steal in this instance because we are afraid to get caught but also we think it is wrong, we have faith in the law. Both factors play a part, the emphasis depends on the circumstances.

With traffic laws if people really didn't care they would drive as fast as they like and run from police, some do. But the vast majority mostly obey the law, at least partly because they believe in it.

In regard to copyright, as has been said many times on here before, if there was a legal, reasonable alternative there would be less piracy, there would still be some. But it's a balancing act.

BTW: Does anybody else keep typing 'privacy' when they mean to write 'piracy'? Is Google getting to me?

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

sen8or

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#576875 3-Feb-2012 15:23

Its not how much freedom do we give up to stop them, but peoples refusal to accept that they have broken the law when caught.

Doing 54 in a 50 zone and you get a ticket. Whoes to blame, the cop for being bored or yourself for breaching the limit in the first place?

NZers tend to expect tolerance in most things and whoa any company that actually wants to enforce its policies. Remember the uproar over an airlines "strict" 30 minute check-in. The rules were clear and no tolerance given, leading story on both networks if I remember correctly.

Don't see this as much different really, I don't think it should be illegal, therefore I'll do it anyway mentality

jpollock

600 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#576886 3-Feb-2012 15:58

marmel:
jpollock: I find it interesting that people are using assault as an example of a law that people ignore.

How about speeding? More people ignore that law. In fact, the typical behaviour in many jurisdictions is to enforce to the speed of traffic, rather than the regulated speed. The same goes for most traffic rules. They are legislated, but largely unenforceable.

Wrong.

Speed limits in NZ are policed with a 10km tolerance, nothing to do with the speed of the traffic.

There are some exceptions to this such as outside schools and if a campaign is run by the police over a long weekend etc but this is only to lower the tolerance.

What is happening is that laws and other tools are being put in place to enforce exsisting laws in relation to copyright.

With relation to online piracy previously the law had been largely unenforceable, content holders are making efforts to change this.

Some people aren't too happy about that.

How is it wrong? People speed. LOTS of people speed. Otherwise, police wouldn't have a 10km tolerance, they would have a 0km tolerance. People only get _caught_ speeding when there is a police officer or a speed camera. The same applies to the "right hand rule". It was so ignored that the law is changing. The same goes for the US, where in some locations people go 90mph on a 65mph highway.

So, the question still applies. How much freedom are you willing to give up in order to stop people from speeding?

I would even propose that even if you were able to catch everyone who speeds and instantly fine them you still wouldn't stop speeding. People would just make the economic decision of whether or not the cost of speeding ($$) is worth the time saved or enjoyment had. If it costs you $500 when you pass a speed camera going 150kph, and you make $500/minute, do you _care_?

crackrdbycracku:
Of course it's a balancing act. We give up plenty of freedom when it comes to cars; the requirements of licencing, WOFs, seat belts and all sorts.

Yes, it's a balancing act. I'm just curious where people see the line.

Going back to the awesome car analogy, we could easily enforce the vast majority of traffic rules by putting high resolution GPS tracking on vehicles. You are immediately able to enforce speed rules. Once you know the position of every car, you can enforce things like the "right hand rule". Add in information about red light timings, and you also get everyone running a red light. RFID driver license and then you can enforce drink driving and deduct points.

But would we want to do that? Would we be comfortable in a country where the government was able to track your location in real time?

The same level of intervention is going to be required to stop copyright infringement. So, where's the line? How much freedom are we willing to give up to stop infringement? Are we willing to give up on general purpose computers? Putting borders on the Internet? Making SSL/SSH illegal? Making steganography illegal?

---
http://blog.jason.pollock.ca

jpollock

600 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#576889 3-Feb-2012 16:01

sen8or: Its not how much freedom do we give up to stop them, but peoples refusal to accept that they have broken the law when caught.

[...]

Don't see this as much different really, I don't think it should be illegal, therefore I'll do it anyway mentality

Ignoring a law is a very time honored way of protesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi

Not to say that this in any way approaches the Indian fight for independence, just pointing out that it has a lot of history behind it. :)

---
http://blog.jason.pollock.ca

sen8or

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#576893 3-Feb-2012 16:11

you break the law, you take your chances

1 | ... | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | ... | 40