| Don't let your hatred of the industry... cause you to ignore your own interests. It is in nearly everyone's interest to be able to freely exchange copyrighted material in exchange for a small monthly fee. Nearly everyone consumes copyrighted music in one way or another.
It is very inaccurate and unfair to characterize this licensing idea as extortion.
Extortion implies the threat of doing something illegal to a person if they don't hand over property. Negotiating to refrain from engaging in legal remedies against illegal behavior, if one is properly compensated, is not extortion.
The industry policy of suing is stupid but it isn't illegal. They have the legal right to sue to stop people from infringing copyright. If people license material properly then they won't be susceptible to being sued. This doesn't make the license extortion.
The argument about bureaucracy is largely bogus. This type of license is already in place and has been used before. It has a long history and there are already mechanisms in place to determine who gets what and how money is distributed. The system may not be fair to the artists but that is an issue to be worked out between the industry and the artists that choose to function within it. That isn't our issue and it isn't up to us to resolve it. It also isn't an argument against applying the collective license idea in this case. This doesn't have to lead to a new bloated bureaucracy.
The voluntary question is a valid one. I don't want to see anyone coerced into paying for what they don't want. At the same time we are coerced in such ways all the time in society. I don't see any practical way to allow each individual to opt in or not. If the isp has to start keeping track of who can share and who can't and has to monitor the individuals behavior this would create a much more extensive and privacy invading environment then simply doing it all or nothing at the isp level. Those who don't want to opt in may have to change isp. If it turns out that all isps end up opting in then that is a pretty good indication that the number of people who want to opt out is very small. If there are significant numbers who really want to opt out then the market will settle out and there will be isps that will draw customers based on their refusal to participate.
Finally we would do well to remember that if we sneer at every attempted solution what will ultimately happen is that the industry will convince the government to accept draconian and intrusive mechanisms to try to stamp out infringement. Many legislators are already sympathetic to the "let's crack lawbreakers heads" approach. We are liable to end up with far worse approaches if we don't seriously try to work with this approach to find a solution to large scale copyright infringement. |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Extortion implies the threat of doing something illegal to a person if they don't hand over property. Negotiating to refrain from engaging in legal remedies against illegal behavior, if one is properly compensated, is not extortion. Seriously. I love you people. There is no truth to you guys, is there? Just a nebulous concept of what's real based on how compelling your argument is...The argument about bureaucracy is largely bogus. Really? The creation of a massive, multi-billion dollar new, unregulated billing system with ISPs as the middle-men and the RIAA as the treasurer strikes you as a recipe for success?Those who don't want to opt in may have to change isp. That would be great could most Americans actually do so....Finally we would do well to remember that if we sneer at every attempted solution what will ultimately happen is that the industry will convince the government to accept draconian and intrusive mechanisms to try to stamp out infringement. So don't sneer or you'll get something worse than a shoddy plan cooked up by dying companies? Sounds like a stretch, Mr. talking points memo. |
|
|
|
| "Seriously. I love you people. There is no truth to you guys, is there?"
Of course there is truth to me and part of that truth is not trying to redefine words in ways that mislead people. I feel you are being misleading in trying to make it sound like there is something dark and criminal about this. There is a pretty clear definition to extortion and, while I don't like the music industry, they are not practicing extortion by using their legal right to sue or punish those who illegally infringe copyright, nor by trying to find a way to be paid by infringers.(BTW although I have called this behavior illegal, which it is, I have also argued in favor of people practicing this illegal behavior so long as things were so unbalanced toward industry interests). At the same time I don't think that perpetual large scale illegal behavior is a very socially constructive and, at some point, people have to be willing to give something to get this situation resolved.
"Really? The creation of a massive, multi-billion dollar new, unregulated billing system with ISPs as the middle-men and the RIAA as the treasurer strikes you as a recipe for success?"
Are we sure there will be a massive new system? My point was that there are already collective licensing systems in place that cover a lot of money and a lot of activity. I suspect, though we don't know the details, that much of this present system and approach would be covering this new arrangement as well.
"That would be great could most Americans actually do so"
I don't like the state of the telecommunications market any more than you do nor do I like the idea that it could have unpleasant side effects here. I don't know that this should be an argument against this licensing idea though and I'm not convinced that this will really be a problem for the vast majority of people, especially given that I think most people would willingly participate in this.
"... Mr. talking points memo."
That is unjust. I'm not a corporate lackey, I don't work for any of the interests involved in this and I don't feel that I should be assumed to be guilty unless I prove otherwise. |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
3 edits | There is a pretty clear definition to extortion and, while I don't like the music industry, they are not practicing extortion by using their legal right to sue or punish those who illegally infringe copyright, nor by trying to find a way to be paid by infringers. ex⋅tor⋅tion
/ɪkˈstɔrʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ik-stawr-shuhn] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. an act or instance of extorting.
2. Law. the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.
3. oppressive or illegal exaction, as of excessive price or interest: the extortions of usurers.
4. anything extorted.
I'm going to guess definition number 2 will apply here, when we're talking about efforts to create an entirely new piracy tax, that will likely be aimed at broadband users whether they pirate or not...in exchange for not getting sued under an already conflicted and unjust DMCA/legal system.
I get that some people are willing to give the industry the benefit of the doubt here, but perhaps they're just trusting souls. I see absolutely no evidence to support the idea that this will work out to the consumer's benefit.
Maybe we should bookmark these discussions and revisit them in a year or two? |
|
 SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:5
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| reply to asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf
said by asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf :
It is very inaccurate and unfair to characterize this licensing idea as extortion.
Extortion implies the threat of doing something illegal to a person if they don't hand over property.
Mahalo for pointing out early that you do not know what you are talking about. |
|
