US ISPs become 'copyright cops' starting July 12

  • Thread starter Thread starter pcgame
  • Start date Start date
live theaters tried to block the movie industry in the 20s
the movie industry tried to block radio and then tv
they all tried to block the VCR, which became the dvd player

technology always finds a way around it. and Hollywood in the end benefits.
qft music industry, too. Grateful Dead and Allman Bros. Band became legendary in quite a large part because of bootlegs of their concerts.
 
qft music industry, too. Grateful Dead and Allman Bros. Band became legendary in quite a large part because of bootlegs of their concerts.

That's the ironic thing, pirating can make companies and musicians explode, a lot of people pirate games to test them, then buys them for the full features like online play, and the end result is positive for the publishers.

I can see how pirating would affect individuals though, but they're not the reason for this anyway the big companies are. I guess they look at how many pirated copies of their music/software there are and idiotically factor that into instant profits if they could magically stop pirating.
 
That's the ironic thing, pirating can make companies and musicians explode, a lot of people pirate games to test them, then buys them for the full features like online play, and the end result is positive for the publishers.

I can see how pirating would affect individuals though, but they're not the reason for this anyway the big companies are. I guess they look at how many pirated copies of their music/software there are and idiotically factor that into instant profits if they could magically stop pirating.
If we're going to use the word "pirating" it should be in quotes IMO. "Pirating" implies a type of crime-and copying is not a crime (regardless of how much corporations and greedy "creators" want it to be).
 
This is an outstanding summary.

Whether or not you believe in copyrights/patents, please don't use the phrase "intellectual property." It's a propaganda term coined in the 20th century by the copyright lobby to conflate patents, copyrights, and trademarks in the court of public opinion and treat each of them like any of the others at the most convenient possible times. In reality, the three concepts each have their own distinct history and purpose.

Patents are not property, and neither are copyrights: They are limited-time government-granted monopolies intended to promote progress in the arts and sciences by artificially and coercively maintaining profit motive for easily replicated works. However, they are not property or an individualist construct; they're a collectivist construct, and they're not natural to the market but alien to it. The difficulty of enforcing them (and the typical drive to create a police state to do so) should be your first hint.

Physical property is property, and "intellectual property" ironically infringes upon people's right to do what they want with their physical property, for the benefit of the "greater good." Copyrights and patents function by coercively protecting a monopoly supplier and maintaining their desired cost-based price levels (Marxist labor theory of value) through artificial scarcity, but that's not how the market works...in a free market, competition/imitation/reproduction/etc. is intrinsic, and buyers determine the legitimate value of any good or service without respect to initial production cost. techdirt has great articles on this subject. You can believe in the virtues of copyrights and patents if you want, and I agree that very limited-time copyrights and patents have their benefits in the utilitarian sense...but they're ultimately unnecessary IMO, and unlimited "intellectual property" is absolutely destructive to freedom, market size and profitability (ironically), and even art and science (by hampering derivative works and risking destruction of culture...do you know how many thousands of old films cannot be legally archived in a secure/multiple-copy manner before the media decays, because the copyright holders are nowhere to be found?). I'm not really here to make the argument against limited-time copyrights/patents (there is one, and it's been the subject of more than one libertarian book), but at least don't swallow and peddle the copyright lobby's bullshit rhetoric.

Trademarks are a little more interesting in the property sense, because others using them can constitute fraud or plagiarism...but in the general case, no, "intellectual property" doesn't exist as anything other than a government construct.
 
Back
Top