karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to Go_Offline
Re: Beginging of the end
"And has led to the common person becoming a common criminal. (Whether you AGREE with the law doesn't negate it.)"
And that is the crux of the matter. Copyright laws have made EVERYONE a criminal. And when everyone is a criminal, they don't care about the laws. It's exactly the same 'broken window' philosophy that works in the real world. You see joe blow downloading, so you download.
The solution, of course, is to change the law. Remember, the US doesn't control the WORLD. The us controls the US. The **AssAsses can't shut down the pirate bay, becuase the pirate bay ISN'T BREAKING THE LAW. |
|
Go_Offline
join:2001-10-12
Surprise, AZ
| reply to r81984
Though your's wasn't bad, any physical analogy falls short due to practical limitations that just don't exist in the electronic/digital realm.
The problem is rarely a question of simple legality, but, instead, scale.
In the case of your comparison, imagine if there WAS one road (or better: city) where the risk of being cited for racing was minimal and even if you were "caught", you were simply told to stop and go home.
What would happen? EVERY racer, ricer, rodder, and regular joe/jane from the ENTIRE WORLD would converge there. And who would be financially responsible for the spate in injuries/deaths? Not to mention the maintenance nightmare from the sudden influx of millions of people and vehicles? And, if no one, then how long would that city be attractive and viable as a destination for such a pursuit?
But the worldwide revolution of computers+internet has left media conglomerates caught completely with their drawers around their ankles. And has led to the common person becoming a common criminal. (Whether you AGREE with the law doesn't negate it.)
I've never heard/read any analogy that adequately and honestly addresses issues such as this (especially pirating.)
Any more takers?
--
I'm on a quest to overthrow ignorance. |
|
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to r81984
Huh?
The advertisers are making the money, unless the road builders owned the land they put the signs on. Then they would lease the land to the advertisers. But who funds the enforcers? We do. In taxes.
Next.
I see this as the old "Let the fans be our marketing". Everyone wins. The content, the artist, the industry, the web and the fans. Only ones not winning is the chump who said "buying YouTube...". |
|
r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
St John'S, NL
 ·magicjack.com
 ·Cox HSI
·Insight Communicat..
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | reply to Matt
Think about this,
If someone creates a normal public road, and people one night a week start street racing on that road. Advertisers notice this increase in people coming to watch the illegal activity and start putting billboards on the land next to the road owned by the road builders. The road builders are now making money off of the illegal activity taking place on the road they built.
Should the road builders be responsible for the illegal activity that takes place on their road which they are making money off of with billboards or should it be up to a third party to stop the illegal activity, like the police? |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA | reply to Matt
Ads? WTF are ads?
I don't see ads here... on either laptop.  |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to r81984
said by r81984  :You Tube is not selling any content so there are no royalties to sue over, and if you cannot prove YouTube cost your company money in lost sales, then stop your bitching and be glad people want to actually watch your copyrighted material. No, but they are making money by people watching the copyrighted material via advertising. |
|
