So Many Similarities Between Copyright Law And Prohibition

from the time-to-deal-with-reality dept

A few months ago, we pointed to a video by ReasonTV, which noted that the over-enforcement of copyright law today had become this generation’s Prohibition. While that might be slight (or significant) hyperbole, law professor Donald Harris has put together a fantastic paper that compares the two situations and finds an awful lot of similarities. Harris was recently on Jerry Brito’s Surprisingly Free podcast to discuss the paper, and it was a very interesting and thoughtful discussion. It won’t surprise many to recognize the obvious parallels between the situations:


Alcohol Prohibition during the 1920s and 1930s provide an historical
example of the dangers of attempting to enforce a public policy that is
inconsistent with society’s values and attitudes. Alcohol Prohibition failed
because the people effectively nullified the law through widespread civil
disobedience. There, as here, increased enforcement efforts failed. Prohibition
teaches that it is impossible to enforce broad social norms that are inconsistent
with widespread human behavior. This is consistent with compliance theory,
which posits that societal compliance with laws will occur only when society
believes the laws are just and legitimate.

In the end, Harris appears to come down in favor of a similar solution to the way that Prohibition ended: legalizing the activity in question (and regulating it). For example, he suggests that clearly-defined non-commercial file sharing could be legalized. I’m not sure that I agree completely with the argument, but it’s still quite an interesting paper to read and podcast to listen to, so check them out.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “So Many Similarities Between Copyright Law And Prohibition”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
156 Comments
Dark Helmetsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

I’ll have all of you know that I keep in tip top physical shape with a daily workout regimine featuring nightly athletic endeavors of football, baseball, and sometimes basketball (all on a Playstation 3), the lifting of decreasing weight, starting at 12 ounces and working down to cut up my arms, and frequent aerobic face-palming sessions.

As such, I am 165 lbs. of rippling, hardcore muscle. Now, I happen to weigh 190 lbs., but I’m still 165 lbs. of rippling muscle….

Mike Masnicksays:

Re: Re:

Complete lack of enforcement on the internet from 2000-2010 apparently means 2012 equals over-enforcement. LOL

Anyone who thinks there was a complete lack of enforcement from 2000 – 2010 was apparently in a coma from 2000 to 2010.

Thanks for playing and proving you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Anyone who thinks there was a complete lack of enforcement from 2000 – 2010 was apparently in a coma from 2000 to 2010.

Thanks for playing and proving you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

Don’t re-write history.

What enforcement did exist was very much low hanging fruit. The US legal system, slows as it is, is still trying to digest the Jammie Thomas fiasco. Enforcement has been spotty, and mostly left to the copyright holders to try to push things via lawsuits and not through criminal action.

What really has happened in the last little while is that enforcement has been stepped up. Laws of countries have been toughened or clarified. The various law enforcement agencies around the world are becoming better at dealing with an opponent who often lives in one country, runs their business in another, hosts in the third, and uses file lockers in a fourth. Getting their arms around it has been difficult to say the least.

Demonoid, Megaupload, and the whole file lockers losing processing have all been a result of improved enforcement and awareness – something that was almost non-existant in the previous decade.

Considering the millions of people pirating and the tens of thousands of website owners making their money through these illegal sites, it’s surprising how few have been taken down by legal actions.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

The only people dishonest is you people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Buccaneer

Raid locations
Countries

Australia
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Finland
France
New Zealand
Germany
Hungary
Israel
Netherlands
Norway
Singapore
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
United States of America

United States cities

Atlanta, Georgia
Austin, Texas
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Boston, Massachusetts
Charlotte, North Carolina
Chicago, Illinois
Cincinnati, Ohio
Eugene, Oregon
Dallas, Texas
Durham, North Carolina
Cocoa Beach, Florida
Houston, Texas
Miami, Florida
New Haven, Connecticut
New York, New York
Newark, New Jersey
Norfolk, Virginia
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Orlando, Florida
Oxnard, California
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Phoenix, Arizona
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Portland, Oregon
Rochester, New York
San Francisco, California
St. Louis, Missouri
Washington, D.C.
Wilmington, Delaware

The US has been raiding pirates like crazy in the last decade, is just people won’t stop doing it no matter what you do to them LoL

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

While I appreciate you trying to make it look bigger than it was by making a nice long list, the reality is that out of the millions of pirates out there, out of the tens of thousands of pirate sites operating today, only a very few have faced prosecution.

I can’t help but think it’s funny that the prosecution of 62 people is worthy of a wiki entry. It sort of sums out how truly rare the event is.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Lets be clear here, the US has been conducting almost yearly raids on “pirates” everywhere, every single year there is at least one big operation against supposed “pirates” every year hundreds of people go to jail and every year pirates increase in numbers apparently.

Face it, enforcement failed miserably, people don’t care about IP law, they don’t care if it is illegal or not, they will just do it and there is nothing you or any government can do about it, is that simple.

So your claims that there was no enforcement is just not true born from ignorance or dishonesty which apparently is the case here, because you now know that there was a lot of anti-piracy operations in the US alone but you still try to claim that it meant nothing, it is something small, so the only thing someone can conclude is that you are a dishonest bastard that is what you are.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Lets be clear here, the US has been conducting almost yearly raids on “pirates” everywhere,”

Yes, and new pirates come on a daily basis. So yearly raids address, what, less than a third of a percent of the issue?

Can you imagine if police only investigated murders on the first monday of each month for an hour?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Can you imagine how murder rates would climb if all the effort of law enforcement where direct to address copyright infringement?

IP law is dead, nobody respect it, nobody cares.

It is not enforceable, you can’t stop people from copying something and you can’t stop people from sharing it.

Crazy laws eventually get what they deserve and that is the public scorn.

Nobody aside from the few likes monopolies or censorship. No one is going to rally in favor of those things, you can try all you want at the end of the day billions will just ignore you and your kind no matter what you do and if push comes to shove you better be prepared because at some point a wall of angry people will knock on your door, don’t say you haven’t been warned.

Anonymous Cowardsays:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“And you will be paying whether you like it or not.”

Ah I see, so you’re a bit like a dictator/tyrant and want to impose your will on other’s. Good to know that’s the type on your side of the debate. Why let reason and compromise lead to more effective solutions? “IT’S MY FUCKING WAY AND THAT’S IT! RAWR!” (That’s how you come off by the way.)

Also, notice how threatening what you just said sounded? My, my. So not only are you one of those types who gets mad if others don’t want to play with him, but you’re also the type who might blow up the playground too. Sheesh. And I thought “fuck off and die” guy was bad. Or is that you? Wouldn’t surprise me if it was.

Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Stylesays:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well, it appears I spoke too soon. It is you. As is evidenced by this little beauty, “Now go die in a fire.”

Way to come off as a rational person and not some sociopath. /s

Just realized the “With A Unique Writing Style” part of my Name didn’t get input automatically by Chrome last time. Odd.

Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Stylesays:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“No threat at all. Perhaps you’re scared and took it as such.”

Scared? Of you? Hardly. You’re about as scary as the random people on the street/some religious nuts saying my eternal soul is damned for this or that.

But you did very much make it sound like a threat.

“I was simply informing you that there will never be a world where all movies and music are free.”

Really? Because you stated no such thing. Want me to quote what you said originally? That way you can show me the part where you specifically mentioned that there will never be a world where all movies and music is free.

“You can accept that or not; I seriously couldn’t care less.”

Well, if that were true you wouldn’t be insulting people or telling them to go die, now would you? Me thinks the lady doth care a great deal, thus the insults and the responses telling people to go die.

Definitely not the words of someone who could not care less. /s

FYI sweetie, you care a great deal. But you’ve yet to present any evidence/facts to back up your wild allegations/assertions. And you saying so DOES NOT make what you say even remotely true/a fact.

JMTsays:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“I was simply informing you that there will never be a world where all movies and music are free.”

You informing us of something everybody here already knows? How nice of you…

I will always be happy to pay to see quality movies in a quality cinema. I will always be happy to pay to see a band I like, or buy their physical merchandise.

But paying for infinitely copyable digital files? Probably never again.

me65says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Eventually, the media would be free anyway. It will eventually show on broadcast television, entirely supported by advertising, not a penny spent by the “consumer”

Seems like the difference between seeing a movie in theatre and downloading it, is like buying tickets to see a professional sporting event, or watching it free on tv. One is free, one isn’t.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Also one has to wonder, if the laws are wrong when millions are just ignoring it, just like millions ignored the prohibition law.

Disrespect for IP law is massive, is not a few people doing it, because they want to stick it to the man, is the entire population of the planet and you think you can win this?

LoL

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Specially when everybody is doing it, everyone not just a few people but people everywhere no matter what religion, sex, age, sexual preferences, color, ethnicity, social status they are in or are part of everybody including you do it all the time.

This should give yo a hint of what you are going against here.

You want to change human nature because of economic interests.

I hate to tell ya, but unless you have the power to watch everyone and make everybody comply you are screwed.

The fact that you keep bitching about how enforcement is lacking just shows that there is no way to stop sharing, because if there was you would have used already.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

How did Raids work out for the police during prohabition….

Sure the ‘took’ a lot of liquor from the population, and causes a big hull-a-baloo and how did that end up working out again?

Something about laws that go against what people believe in are not enforcable without a Hitler type figure in power (Yes I goodwin’d it….)

So ALL HEIL OBAMA….. I guess, who knew ?

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Don’t re-write history.”

“here, allow me to do it by stating my own opinion as though it were fact and pretending that the enforcement that’s been utterly ineffective wasn’t what was talked about, with a pile of bullshit to top it off”

Meanwhile, the same factors that inspired people to pirate in 2000 – and which can very easily be rectified without legal action – are still in place in 2012… If only they’d bothered to look at those first.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Stop re-writing history man!

Napster was what?
Grokster?
Limewire?
Jamie Thomas
The rise of copyright trolls.
Thousands harassed and sued all over the world.
Hadopi
DMCA
Bag searches in movie theaters
Deployment of snooping equipment in theaters.
Operation Buccaneer (2000-today)
Operation D-Elite (2005-???)
Operation Fastlink (2004-2007)
Operation Safehaven (2003-2005)
Operation Site Down (2005)

You don’t know what you are talking about do you?

Keroberossays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

What enforcement did exist was very much low hanging fruit. The US legal system, slows as it is, is still trying to digest the Jammie Thomas fiasco. Enforcement has been spotty, and mostly left to the copyright holders to try to push things via lawsuits and not through criminal action.

This is not low hanging fruit. It has been the copyright holders job to find relief through lawsuits because non-commercial copyright infringement is a civil infraction, not a criminal one. Only through the twisting of existing copyright laws and the usurping of the criminal justice system by the media companies have we now started to see prosecution (persecution?) of what would have been civil claims as criminal ones.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“there was a complete lack of enforcement”

What enforcement did exist was very much low hanging fruit.

complete: adjective. perfect – entire – whole – total – absolute – full

Sorry, who is it that’s trying to rewrite history?

Or were you using some other definition of “complete” that nobody in the world has ever used?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Anyone who thinks there was a complete lack of enforcement from 2000 – 2010 was apparently in a coma from 2000 to 2010.”

Bizarre logic.

Here’s the situation Mike.

a) It is an absolute face that enforcement will stop online copyright infringement.

If you disagree with a) then skip straight to b)

Was online copyright infringement stopped between 2000-2010?
No, it wasn’t.
So, logically, there was no enforcement because if there had been then copyright infringment would have been stopped.
So what we need, is what we called for: enforcement.

b) If you don’t believe that copyright infringement will be stopped by more laws or enforcement of those laws, then you are a pirate and your view is irrelevant. When you change your mind, go back to a).

Rikuosays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Was online copyright infringement stopped between 2000-2010?
No, it wasn’t.
So, logically, there was no enforcement because if there had been then copyright infringment would have been stopped.”

No, logically, it means there were ATTEMPTS at enforcement, and so far, they have been completely ineffective.

What you’re arguing is circular logic: there is enforcement but it is ineffective…therefore there was no enforcement?

Milton Freewatersays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“a) It is an absolute face that enforcement will stop online copyright infringement.

If you disagree with a) then skip straight to b)

b) If you don’t believe that copyright infringement will be stopped by more laws or enforcement of those laws, then you are a pirate and your view is irrelevant. When you change your mind, go back to a).”

Not going to lie, I laughed out loud at this. I think we might be getting our legs pulled.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

Reading comments here is sometimes like reading The Onion then reading some of the actual news (e.g. the “legitimate rape” comment that’s been reported on today). Sometimes, you just hope that someone has accidentally copied an Onion link or otherwise engages in satire, but you always fear that somebody is actually this stupid and – god forbid – might have more power than you.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“b) If you don’t believe that copyright infringement will be stopped by more laws or enforcement of those laws, then you are a pirate and your view is irrelevant. When you change your mind, go back to a).”

Complete broken logic. How would “If you don’t believe that copyright infringement will be stopped by more laws or enforcement of those laws” simple opinion actually relate to “then you are a pirate”. ANSWER THE QUESTION AC; RHHHHHAAAAAA !!!

By the way why do you post as AC at all ? GOT SUMFING TO HIDE ? ANSWER THE QUESTIN, YES OR NO !! RHHHAAAAAA !!!

silverscarcatsays:

Re: Re:

“Complete lack of enforcement on the internet from 2000-2010 apparently means 2012 equals over-enforcement. LOL”

Yes, because the DMCA didn’t come into being until 2012, when it was signed by ex President Bill Clinton.

And Napster didn’t get hit with lawsuits in 1998 because it didn’t exist until 2010, amirite?

Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Stylesays:

Re: Re:

“Complete lack of enforcement on the internet from 2000-2010 apparently means 2012 equals over-enforcement. LOL”

Let’s play a game called “Educate the Troll”. I’m not going to put too much effort into said game, but I’d like to open things up. If anyone wants to help me out, feel free to do so.

Now, to refute your complete lack of enforcement on the internet from 200-2010 claim, I present the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Notable_court_cases

(I’ll save you time by listing some of the more relevant and notable cases.)

IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Netowrks, Inc. – 2006
Viacom Inc. v. Youtube, Google Inc. – 2007
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. – 2007
ReadlNetworks, Inc. v DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. – 2009

Again, that’s just DMCA related. Moving on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_group_efforts_against_file_sharing#Actions_against_Internet_service_providers

Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA) sues Eircom – 2007
AFACT takes iiNet to court – 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_group_efforts_against_file_sharing#Actions_against_file_sharing_services

RIAA labels sue Napster – 1999
RIAA sues Aimster – 2002
MPAA sues Grokster (and other file sharing services) – 2003
RIAA sues developers of LimeWire – 2006

And that’s just listing the suits, not the raids conducted on servers and server locations done at the behest of the RIAA/MPAA (one of which targeted TPB and took place in 2006). Nor too mention the other attempts to grant “amnesty” to file sharers or allow for “settlements” with said people as well (actions/programs which took place in 2003, 2004, and 2007).

So, would you like to retract your statement about the complete lack of enforcement from the years 2000 – 2010? Or can I just go ahead and chalk this point up to myself?

Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Stylesays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You are aware some of those things listed were people suing groups (like Universal) for taking down content they had no right to take down, right?

And I wasn’t listing any of that to cry or anything. I was listing it to point out examples of enforcement. Which was done to prove the OP’s point as being wrong.

Way to contribute nothing to the conversation or refute what I said though.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Netowrks, Inc. – 2006
Viacom Inc. v. Youtube, Google Inc. – 2007
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. – 2007
ReadlNetworks, Inc. v DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. – 2009

You realize of course that you didn’t list a single crimnal case, right?

prosecutions in that list? ZERO!

Thanks for making the point and proving Mike wrong yet again.

Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Stylesays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“You realize of course that you didn’t list a single crimnal case, right?

prosecutions in that list? ZERO!

Thanks for making the point and proving Mike wrong yet again.”

You realize I wasn’t trying to list criminal cases/prosecutions, right?

I was merely listing various methods of enforcement of IP rights.

So I did very much make my point and prove you wrong. You said no enforcement between years X to X. I gave examples of exactly that. Of course, when you move the goal posts to “criminal cases” and “prosecutions”, well then of course I didn’t make the point that you didn’t actually make clear as far as your definition of “enforcement” goes.

Mike has been proved right and so have I. And the point, made quite clear, is that you said something that was proven wrong and rather than fess up and admit you were wrong, you change the argument.

You trolls, those of you who claim to know the law (and this is a blanket statement, not necessarily aimed at you), are pretty ridiculous. The facts DO NOT get in the way of your views of reality. Evidence and citations be damned, right?

Milton Freewatersays:

Re: Re:

“Non-commercial file sharing IS legal.”

One big difference between anti-file-sharing efforts and Prohibition is that Prohibition was established by the 18th Amendment, whose sole, explicit purpose was to ban alcohol. It didn’t work as hoped, but our democratic process established it fair and square.

No such explicit law has ever been passed regarding noncommercial file-sharing. There is MUCH LESS support for such a law then there was for Prohibition. And can you imagine a constitutional amendment that prohibits the sharing of someone else’s speech?

Gwizsays:

Re: Re: Wonder how long...

I wonder how long it will take before someone makes the connection “running a website with infringing material (or maybe linking to it or something maybe)” and “mobster”?

The entertainment industry has been trying to place that false connection into the public’s mind for years:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090629/0154525394.shtml

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091101/1818186751.shtml

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100129/0630057974.shtml

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111129/15095716926/white-houses-totally-clueless-response-to-copyright-infringement-call-mcgruff-crime-dog.shtml

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Wonder how long...

“I wonder how long it will take before someone makes the connection “running a website with infringing material (or maybe linking to it or something maybe)” and “mobster”?”

Well in Britain, with their Serious Organised Crime Agency, set up to deal with terrorism and narcotics kingpins and the like taking down music link websites, I think the connection has already been made.

With purported copyright infringers being accused and charged with conspiracy just like many people in organised crime were then it also suggests that connection has already been made.

MrWilsonsays:

“For example, he suggests that clearly-defined non-commercial file sharing could be legalized. I’m not sure that I agree completely with the argument,”

Omigod, Masnick. You didn’t accuse him of being a total pirate apologist for making such a suggestion, and even though you didn’t say anything close to “piracy is awesome!”, you’re clearly a pirate apologist!

/sarcasm

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

Google advertises human trafficking.

Seems violent and criminal to me…

But hey, I know those that rip off actors and musicians are willing to overlook that too if means not having to pay for content.

Google figured your sorry asses out a long time ago. It’s a major part of their crappy business model.

Gwizsays:

Re: Re:

The analogy with prohibition in not particularly apt because the main problem with prohibition was the growth of violent criminal organizations.

Not so sure the public at large viewed organized crime as a “problem” during Probation. I’m sure they didn’t really care for the violence and whatnot, but the crime organizations were providing what the people wanted the most – the booze.

And yes, speeding is perhaps a slightly better analogy, but it is flawed too. Speeding laws are not trying to make something the public desires completely unlawful like Prohibition, or the Drug War or file sharing. Speeding laws are more akin to current alcohol laws if you ask me. They are only restricting the privilege of driving somewhat.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Most people wanted to drink booze.

Most people don’t want to rip off actors, directors, producers, editors, engineers, musicians, etc.

The prohibition analogy is retarded and is just more of the completely stale recycled rationalizations freetards make.

These rationalizations don’t work. They convince no one. That’s why you now have the shift in the landscape against them.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

Most people don’t rip off actors, directors, producers, editors, engineers, musicians, etc.

But enough do that it has taken money away from actors, directors, producers, editors, engineers, musicians, etc.

So it is most certainly a problem and that’s why it’s finally being addressed.

Gwizsays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

But enough do that it has taken money away from actors, directors, producers, editors, engineers, musicians, etc.

Has it? I would really love to see your evidence of this. You stating it like it’s a fact isn’t any sort of proof, really.

Like I have stated before, I have been looking for hard, verifiable numbers from reputable sources with clearly defined methods that piracy actually hurts anyone, anywhere. Can you provide this?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Please don’t be an idiot.

Just the recorded music industry alone saw their revenue cut in half from 2000-2010. You realize that situation results in lost jobs and less money for musicians, producers, engineers, etc., right???

Masnick is a sociopath and a liar, so he isn’t going to inform you that the vast amount of people employed in the music industry suffered lost wages from the serial pirating of recorded music rather than purchasing of it. These people will tell you the same thing if you ever get a chance to talk to them.

Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Stylesays:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Please don’t be an idiot.”

You first.

“Just the recorded music industry alone saw their revenue cut in half from 2000-2010.”

Wait. Hold on a minute. You mean to tell me that in the years when FINALLY people were able to purchase just that one song off the album they want, as opposed to being forced to buy the entire album for only that one song, the revenue for the recording music industry dropped?

Well I for one am shocked! Shocked I say! To hear such news.

“You realize that situation results in lost jobs and less money for musicians, producers, engineers, etc., right???”

Most of us are smart enough to realize that when industries change in monumental ways that some jobs will be lost. This is not quite as big news as you seem to think it is. Or did you get just as galvanized when a large amount of autoworkers lost their jobs?

But, now the tools have evolved to where literally anyone can become a musician, producer, engineer, etc. You realize that, right?

And in point of fact, there is now more of the pie to go around for everybody. You know this, correct? (I only ask because there are actual independent, non Google financed studies that show this.)

“Masnick is a sociopath and a liar, so he isn’t going to inform you that the vast amount of people employed in the music industry suffered lost wages from the serial pirating of recorded music rather than purchasing of it.”

Ad hom, followed up with a speculative opinion represented as fact. Ignored.

“These people will tell you the same thing if you ever get a chance to talk to them.”

Yes, well, I’m sure these people will quickly start with the “they took ‘ur jobs!”, but that doesn’t make it so. Nor is it actually proof of who or what took their jobs. Until such time as their is clear, empirical proof of such, the only one lying here is yourself.

Oh, and just to help you out, the definition of a sociopath is as follows:

“a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.”

Hmm. Seems like the one who best fits that description is most definitely not Mike, but you. Antisocial behavior? Check. Lacks a sense of moral responsibility? Check. (As he places the blame for the shortcomings of a few industries on others, without any actual proof to support his claims.) Lack of a social conscience? Check. (Ad homs in nearly every other comment. Threats others. Decides for others what they can or can’t do and what is or isn’t good for them. Etc.)

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You mean to tell me that in the years when FINALLY people were able to purchase just that one song off the album they want

Bzzt. Willful blindness. People didn’t all just switch to itunes… lol

Most of us are smart enough to realize that when industries change in monumental ways that some jobs will be lost. This is not quite as big news as you seem to think it is.

Yeah, it is. Especially when it’s a major industry and it’s the result of illegal behavior.

Or did you get just as galvanized when a large amount of autoworkers lost their jobs?

Moronic analogy. The auto industry had lower demand. Recorded music didn’t. The auto industry wasn’t being affected by illegal behavior. The record business was.

But, now the tools have evolved to where literally anyone can become a musician, producer, engineer, etc. You realize that, right?

hahaha, yeah, sure they can. lol

Oh, and I’m Batman.

Ad hom, followed up with a speculative opinion represented as fact. Ignored.

Nope. Proof below.

I’m sure these people will quickly start with the “they took ‘ur jobs!”, but that doesn’t make it so.

Yes it does. Because, see, these people actually work in the business and you don’t. You’re an idiot freetard on a Google-finaced piracy apologist blog.

Oh, and just to help you out, the definition of a sociopath is someone that exhibits at least 3 of the following tendencies:

1.Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.

2.Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.

3.Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.

4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.

5. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.

6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.

Masnick clearly demonstrates at least 4 of these, in public no less.

He is a sociopath.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

No people switched to Youtube(free), to Spotify(free), radio(free), tv(free), personal sharing(free).

They also stopped buying for a lot of reasons one very important one is the suing that started and was finally stopped because of the drastic drop in sales that it caused, that alone was responsible for half the loses in revenue for the music industry.

Also of note is that “piracy” is only illegal in your disturbed mind dude, nobody believe sharing anything is criminal.

RadialSkidsays:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

1.Callous unconcern for the feeling of others.

“We don’t care if she’s a single mother who just swapped 24 songs that she liked online, we’re going to destroy her life by forcing her to pay us millions of dollars! We have sympathy for her, she brought it on herself! How dare she like music! And if you disagree, then you’re a FREETARD!”

2.Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.

“We don’t care if 500 million people worldwide engage in such acts, we won’t allow it! Lock everything down! Everyone will just tolerate it if we cut off their internet connections, and they’ll love us again!”

3.Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.

“Okay, we’re going to pay your band $500,000 in advance, payable out of your royalties if you recoup at a normal 8% rate. You’re really going places! Those other bands that have one hit and are never heard from again? That won’t be you! You have a unique voice, just like every act we signed before you!”

4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.

“Why won’t Mike debate me, that stupid piracy apologist freetard Google Big Search Cookies shill?”

5. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.

“Why are hundreds of thousands of people DDOSing our official website right now? We never did anything wrong!”

6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.

“It’s sad that the millions of people worldwide protesting us care more about THIEVES that the UNDENIABLE RIGHTS of our roster of ARTISTS and CREATORS.”

Any of that sound familiar?

Gwizsays:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Just the recorded music industry alone saw their revenue cut in half from 2000-2010. You realize that situation results in lost jobs and less money for musicians, producers, engineers, etc., right???

Something must be wrong with my browser because the links you provided to back up this assertion aren’t showing up.

And you are an idiot if you only look at losses in one small sector (recorded music) and come to your conclusion. Do you really think all those jobs just evaporate into thin air and aren’t displaced into other sectors? Disruption by technology in a particular industry isn’t anything new. I used to be a Draftsman, drawing with pencils and straight edges before the PC and AutoCAD. Now I am a sign maker because professional draftsman are pretty much extinct.

Milton Freewatersays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Wrong. If there wasn’t a large swath of the population file sharing, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion, would we?”

They are, actually.

Needless to say, file-sharing doesn’t rip off anyone, which is why there is no conflict between supporting artists and file-sharing.

The great recent change is that more and more people are becoming more entrenched in streaming and subscription services, which are usually just as free and also don’t rip anyone off.

I love TechDirt trolls but this one is partying like it’s 2005.

Ninjasays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Most people don’t want to rip off actors, directors, producers, editors, engineers, musicians, etc.

Almost nobody wants to rip off any artist. That’s why most people contribute someway (shows, kickstarter, donations, merchandise etc). The new generations completely disagree with you sonny, they value the artists, not the music.

That’s why you now have the shift in the landscape against them.

I’ll give you a unicorn so you can ride along with your friend Santa, Easter Bunny and your pet leprechauns. The landscape is not shifting, it’s precisely that. The new generations couldn’t care less about copyright.

Ninjasays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

One example of a completely messed up case (that the US is in real risk of losing) and another that doesn’t have clear details about it.

Kim Dotcom and Demonoid have nothing to do with it. You go tell an entire generation that couldn’t care less about copyright. I’ll laugh while you try.

And amusingly, as 1 service go down, several more come up. And they are more and more decentralized. I really wanna see you take down DHT and the search system within. GOOD LUCK ;)))

Gwizsays:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Everyone saw the teeth-gnashing that occurred just a few weeks ago with the demise of Demonoid.

You realize that torrent technology has moved past central trackers and torrent indexes don’t you?

With BTDigg one can search for whatever is floating around in the swarm and connect with magnetic links. And if happens that BTDigg.org gets taken down (I try to never underestimate the legacy players ability to stretch the law to suit their whims) some other geek will create a decentralized DHT version of BTDigg.

As always, such enforcement actions will be viewed as minor inconveniences to be routed around.

Gwizsays:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Just forwarded it to ICE and Ms. Espinel.

Good for you! Tell Mort I said Hi!

Not sure what good it will do though. They are not doing anything wrong. You might have to buy a few more Congressmen to make this illegal.

From BTDigg:

BTDigg is not a tracker and doesn’t store any content and only collects
torrent metadata (such as file names and file sizes) and a magnet link (torrent identifier).
This means BTDigg is the entirely legal system.

Gwizsays:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If you think facilitating infringement is going to be considered legal by the SC then you’re crazy.

Please explain how it is “facilitating infringement” in any way, shape or form.

I guess you must think Google Maps is “facilitating criminal activity” because it has the address of every crack house in the world.

You make me wish common sense was a bit more common.

Gwizsays:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Might not want to use Google when discussing “legal”. lol

They just got nailed for another 22 million dollar fine.

Wow. First you spout crap off the top of your head like it’s the Gospel truth and refuse to give any citations or links to back it up. And now you take a week old headline and contort it painfully to score some kind of point against some imaginary adversary you’ve built in your own head.

Google’s fine had nothing at all do do with anything illegal. It was about tracking cookies and the fact Google promised not to do that without disclosure. They forgot the disclosure part and got called out on it.

And this was a settlement anyways, which is nothing more than a statement of nolo contendere as far as I am concerned.

tekasays:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

marked funny, you are just hilarious.

Tell you what, lets check on that “no-risk days of piracy are over” claim.

Ok, now, since you know everything about everything (obviously) please check and tell me if I am infringing on someones monopoly reproduction privilege.

Go ahead. Right now, don’t dawdle.

Milton Freewatersays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“These rationalizations don’t work. They convince no one. That’s why you now have the shift in the landscape against them.”

What shift are you talking about? Offer one example.

“Most people don’t want to rip off actors, directors, producers, editors, engineers, musicians, etc.”

If this is what you mean, it’s not a shift … this has been a constant from day one.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I’ll remind you that you can’t have it both ways. Either the industry is in serious trouble because of the massive levels of piracy and lost sales they cause, thus requiring the draconian measures being pushed through, or it’s not. You can’t change your opinions depending on whether or not it fits the attack you’re currently making. If most people aren’t pirating, then most people are still paying for content and thus dropping sales have different causes. If they are pirating and it’s civil disobedience of the law, then it’s exactly like prohibition. Pick one.

Overcastsays:

Complete lack of enforcement on the internet from 2000-2010 apparently means 2012 equals over-enforcement. LOL

You know nobody actually believes any of your bs, right Masnick?

You’re whistling in an echo chamber.

Law, no law – hasn’t and won’t do a damn bit of good. The ‘law’ never stopped anyone from copying a cassette tape and it’s not going to stop the masses from copying digital music.

Sure, they’ll bust a couple here and there – and likely waste 10 times what they may get in profits if every pirate paid what they could for media – because I suspect 90% of ‘pirates’ – can’t afford what they are downloading – come hell or high water, they are likely just too poor.

Most of us that make enough to buy media – do so anyway, as we want the physical media.

I won’t buy ‘digital’ – because it’s too easy to get SCREWED by the companies – and I’ll call one out, Blockbuster.

Blockbuster sells a friend of mine a ‘digital movie’ = and yes, he PAID for it. With real money, you know?

So Blockbuster takes their DRM crap offline and now he can’t watch.. the movie… HE PAID FOR. Blockbuster ‘doesn’t offer it for streaming’ and they won’t ship him a copy – so basically, he’s screwed. Sure, they offered to refund the money, to a card he hasn’t had in two years… lot of good that does.

So – this is a case of a media company screwing a customer – we don’t hear about this now, in regards to DRM do we?

This is WHY I only buy Physical media. If it’s digital – and ‘free’ – I’ll use it. Otherwise, I buy physical and rip to digital.

See – even when people pay – they get the shaft. So explain again why people should pay for digital media – please try to make a sensible argument, if there is one. Especially when the ‘seller’ can screw you at will because they decide to just take their DRM servers offline….

So sure, I buy the media I use – but that is very little. Most all I get now is Pandora, Satellite Radio and On-Demand. Hell, almost no reason to even ‘buy’ now anyway.

And yes, the blockbuster story is 100% true. Sadly.

Anonymoussays:

like drugs, it’s the only way to successfully monitor and profit from it. restricting it like it is now makes no sense what so ever. the industries concerned are losing so much money in court costs, plus their own highly dubious and questionable practices have been more publicized than ever. be sensible over something and succeed. be greedy, then more likely to fail

SujaOfJauhnralsays:

Re: Re:

A Dog, to whom the butcher had thrown a bone, was hurrying home with his prize as fast as he could go. As he crossed a narrow footbridge, he happened to look down and saw himself reflected in the quiet water as if in a mirror. But the greedy Dog thought he saw a real Dog carrying a bone much bigger than his own.

If he had stopped to think he would have known better. But instead of thinking, he dropped his bone and sprang at the Dog in the river, only to find himself swimming for dear life to reach the shore. At last he managed to scramble out, and as he stood sadly thinking about the good bone he had lost, he realized what a stupid Dog he had been.

Dog must be head of the MAFIAA.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow