dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
32
share rss forum feed
« The morality cops
This is a sub-selection from Oh well.


anon anon

@charter.com
reply to elefante72

Re: Oh well.

said by elefante72:

It doesn't effect you until it does. Even if you don't get a copyright notice, that extra $3 a month they will tag onto your bill for compliance will. You ISP will be sued or legislated into compliance. Do you think the cost of all this regulation and compliance are free? Do you think they will stop at just passive monitoring?

How much of your local taxes goes towards paying the local police? If there wasn't any crime you wouldn't need police so your higher taxes are the fault of the criminals that necessitate a local police force and jail not the cops themselves. So the fault of this $3 fee is that of the people that pirate not the ISP. That is who you indignation should be focused on.


mtnarea

@mycingular.net
said by anon anon :

said by elefante72:

It doesn't effect you until it does. Even if you don't get a copyright notice, that extra $3 a month they will tag onto your bill for compliance will. You ISP will be sued or legislated into compliance. Do you think the cost of all this regulation and compliance are free? Do you think they will stop at just passive monitoring?

How much of your local taxes goes towards paying the local police? If there wasn't any crime you wouldn't need police so your higher taxes are the fault of the criminals that necessitate a local police force and jail not the cops themselves. So the fault of this $3 fee is that of the people that pirate not the ISP. That is who you indignation should be focused on.

BF69 you're fooling no one.

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

2 recommendations

reply to anon anon
The fault of the $3 is the government calling it "illegal" and the transfer of cost from the copyright holders to the masses. Also these should be civil, not criminal manners however that genie has been let out of the bottle.

In a perfect market economy the cost of compliance "loss factor" should be built into the price of the good, not forcefully transferred to the end user if they are a user of that good or not. That is exactly what they are asking the ISP's to do. Grandma doesn't download itunes, but now gets an ISP compliance tax. Great...Problem not solved.

This functions reasonably well in a vast majority of instances. Take the mall (aka the ISP in this example)

You go to JCPenney. They have security, loss prevention, etc. They build into the price of the product a margin for "loss factor". When they catch the person, they make an economic decision as to whether to bring it to the authorities. They know what typical loss is, and they price that into the good.

You walk across to the Pretzel factory. Since the rate of loss at the Pretzel factory is much smaller than at JCP, the cost of the pretzel is lower than if say they were stolen at a much higher rate.

What I am suggesting, is that the ISP (aka mall) will now charge you $3 to step inside the mall, even if you don't buy anything, and this $3 goes to the mall, not even the stores inside because now they have to have some centralized, layered security that is arbitrarily administered. So JCP still has to maintain it's fraud department, and nothing has changed except now you have to pay $3 to step foot in the mall and the extra $2 to buy a shirt for the loss factor.

Remarkably with IP (music) there is NO DIRECT ECONOMIC LOSS, as the good is virtual and the actual cost may be millicents or less (the cost to transfer the data). There is a mythical opportunity cost as it is known in economic standards. That is why JCP can MEASURE the loss of goods (they were physically stolen/damaged,etc), whereas the music industry says, I'm loosing (theoretically) $6 billion, when is fact they are talking about opportunity cost, not direct loss. One can download a song and never listen to it. No actual loss there. One would have never downloaded the song in the first place if the tools weren't there. One actually buys the song after they hear it, like it, and determine its worth buying, whereas before they don't take the risk. This is actually a GAIN, but even that can't be measured.
Why can I return my TV to the store if I don't like it? I certainly can't do that for a s**tty song.

Music industry:

1. You get a sample of the song, in low quality 30 second clip.
2. You take a risk a buy it.
3. You don't like it, too bad you paid me.
4. You like it. Great, actual value. But now my kid can't listen to it, or if I have 5 friends over an put it on, I have to send a check to ASCAP.

I have lots of family in the music bus, and I hear it every day. Most got out and got day jobs because it is so messed up.

There are lots of artists out there that want to share their work and people appreciate it, and yes get paid for it. Does that means the usher at the door (the music company) HAS to be there taking $6 to put you in the seat to see the show.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply to anon anon
said by anon anon :

How much of your local taxes goes towards paying the local police? If there wasn't any crime you wouldn't need police so your higher taxes are the fault of the criminals that necessitate a local police force and jail not the cops themselves. So the fault of this $3 fee is that of the people that pirate not the ISP. That is who you indignation should be focused on.

Except that there is a very big difference between police investigating/prosecuting crime and a corporate entity not wanting to pay for its own security measures. What you are saying is: since people keep walking on your lawn, the whole community should pay for your fence. Sorry but if you want a fence... go buy one. If the music/movie industries want ISPs to engage in policing, they should be footing the bill. If they want to pass that expense off to their customers through the price of their product then so be it. The indignation should be focused squarely on the RIAA/MPAA and should be amplified to disgust, IMO.

TechnoGeek

join:2013-01-07
reply to elefante72
Bravo! Well-written and very easy to understand.

Agree with you nearly 100%. One nitpick is that a mall is free and internet service is not. However, this is easily rectified by saying that the mall charges for parking. The parking is now $3 more for additional mall security services.

Have you ever considered writing a piece like this for the average joe (dunno what venue)? You could really make even non-tech savvy people understand the issues that most people are overlooking today.

I know this sounds cheesy, but I am bookmarking this post for later reference any time I need to educate someone on this matter.


anon anon

@charter.com
reply to elefante72
said by elefante72:

Remarkably with IP (music) there is NO DIRECT ECONOMIC LOSS, as the good is virtual and the actual cost may be millicents or less (the cost to transfer the data). There is a mythical opportunity cost as it is known in economic standards.

Actually the potential of a lost sale if of little consequence to me. Only the copyright holders and the pirates seem to push this issue though they are on different sides of it.

My issue is that if I am required to pay ( and I do so beause I know it's what you are supposed to do to) then YOU pay. PERIOD. The whole "I wasn't going to pay anyway" excuse is bull. Since when has the desire to NOT pay ever entitled anyone to something free? Once again it does not matter if the copyright holder is not losing a dime. As I said not my concern. MY point is I'm not cool with paying and then see you get away with not paying just because you feel like not paying. No way that flies with me. I pay, YOU pay. PERIOD

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
quote:
My issue is that if I am required to pay ( and I do so beause I know it's what you are supposed to do to) then YOU pay. PERIOD.

Childish foot stomping.

You are not required to pay... you choose to pay, by your own admission, because you think it is what you are suppose to do. This may be breaking news to you, but the world does not abide by what YOU think we are suppose to do. In other words, I have no problem pirating so YOU have no problem with me pirating. PERIOD.


cork1958
Cork
Premium
join:2000-02-26
reply to mtnarea
said by mtnarea :

said by anon anon :

said by elefante72:

It doesn't effect you until it does. Even if you don't get a copyright notice, that extra $3 a month they will tag onto your bill for compliance will. You ISP will be sued or legislated into compliance. Do you think the cost of all this regulation and compliance are free? Do you think they will stop at just passive monitoring?

How much of your local taxes goes towards paying the local police? If there wasn't any crime you wouldn't need police so your higher taxes are the fault of the criminals that necessitate a local police force and jail not the cops themselves. So the fault of this $3 fee is that of the people that pirate not the ISP. That is who you indignation should be focused on.

BF69 you're fooling no one.

No, he sure doesn't, does he?!

Sure am glad I don't live any where near his ridiculousness. It might could be contagious!!

The RIAA is just dumb. They've have now had years to get with the times and realize what century this is, yet they still use neanderthal tactics and intelligence!
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/