UK Gov't Admits That Protecting Big Record Labels More Important Than Getting Poor Online
from the regrettable-indeed dept
Via Glyn Moody, we learn that the UK government has responded to a question about how the Digital Economy Act might increase the price of internet access. The government’s response? Yes, the Digital Economy Act might price poor people out of the internet, and that’s “regrettable,” but somehow necessary. Huh? So it’s more important to protect the profits of a few obsolete record labels, than to help get more people connected to the internet? Remember, this is the UK, where it’s already been determined — by the music industry’s own numbers — that the music industry has grown quite a bit over the past few years. So there’s no need for the Digital Economy Act to help the music industry. The only parties it really helps are a few record labels who refuse to adapt to the changing market. So, the only clear meaning of this statement from the government is an admission that protecting some obsolete businesses is more important than getting poor people online.
Filed Under: connectivity, digital economy act, lobbyists, poor, uk
Comments on “UK Gov't Admits That Protecting Big Record Labels More Important Than Getting Poor Online”
Free market capitalism, except for when it helps the poor.
Re: Re:
Poor folk don’t make real people any money so why should anyone, like the government, help them out?
Re: Re: Re:
Free market capitalism isn’t about the government helping them out, it’s about allowing them to help themselves out.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
(I didn’t say that the government should help poor people, I said that the government needs to stop actively harming them).
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
When Anon turns on Anon. Next, on Syfy.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You freetard capitalists are weird.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
The government doesn’t want to help poor people and it doesn’t want to allow them to help themselves.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Of course not… If they do (help the poor that is) Who’s going to join the military and fight their dirty wars.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“You freetard capitalists are weird.”
BUTCOPYRIGHTINFRINGEMENT
😛
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
This is very funny to me.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
The whole “freetard” comment put you from low quality post into “Might as well completely ignore, this user demonizes those he disagrees with”.
Probably worked for you in Junior high, but in the real world people ignore you when you talk like this.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
I make joke! Free market and freetard sound similar.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Free market capitalism is a fantasy that doesn’t exist.
Re: Re: Re:
Because they are the people who:
– Make your food.
– Make your cloth.
– Keep your garden.
– Keep your house.
So they are in a great position to screw people who make money, without the poor there would be no services or products the rich could use or buy.
Why is it important that poor people get online? Shouldn’t they worry more about putting food on the table and heating the house?
Re: Re:
Ever think that there are people who are able to afford food, but don’t have enough extra to afford internet access?
Re: Re:
There is a lot of useful information on the Internet that can help them shop and save money. By making the Internet more expensive they will be able to save less money either because they are paying more for an Internet access or because the Internet is too expensive to save them money and hence they don’t have the Internet to save the money that they would have without it.
The Internet can also make it easier and cheaper for them to find a job. Time is worth money and if they have to waste time (and need to pay for transportation) to locate, go to, and wait in line at a job center, that creates economic inefficiency for them and the economy as a whole (now, you may argue that paying for such transportation creates jobs, but the government paying for people to dig holes and cover them back up also creates jobs. Job creation is not an end in itself, aggregate output is).
The Internet can also make it easier and cheaper for them to find doctors when they get sick, find the right doctors, find information that they need to identify and treat their illnesses, and find all sorts of other useful information in less time creating all sorts of economic efficiencies.
Re: Re: Re:
they don’t have the Internet to save the money that they would save with it *
The Internet is also a great educational tool, with things like Wikipedia giving them all sorts of information with well documented references, free educational Youtube videos on all sorts of topics, and a better education can help them find better jobs.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.khanacademy.org
Re: Re:
The knowledge to do that is online.
How to plant vegetables, how to produce or manufacture things, that knowledge for poor people can and will enhance their lifes without the need of assistance from the government hence without the need for tax payer money to be spent on them.
So, the only clear meaning of this statement from the government is an admission that protecting some obsolete businesses
This confuses me. What exactly is obsolete about content investment? Increasingly, record labels sign artists to 360 deals in which they are involved in their artists’ touring, merchandising, endorsements, personal appearances, etc. Plus, the label promotes artists online, on TV, and on radio. They sell their artists’ music online at different locations, and in stores all over the country.
So what exactly is outdated about the labels’ businesses? Record labels sell limited edition merchandise, and have for years. They sell deluxe digital and physical albums. They arrange meet-and-greets at concerts that they sell to fans at a premium price.
Sure, artists can become successful without labels, but does that automatically render labels outdated? That’s just competition. When labels are driven out of business by non-signed artists who make it on their own I will agree that record labels are outdated. Until then, suggesting that labels are outdated seems like a poor characterization of the current situation.
Re: Re:
They are outdated outside the regulatory capture that they benefit from (ie: cableco and broadcasting monopolies that help lock independents out of the market and the fact that the legal system is used to make it more difficult for independents to play at restaurants and other venues because collection societies demand money from those venues under the pretext that someone might infringe or else they threat to initiate an expensive lawsuit).
Re: Re:
They will be supplanted by new labels like Jamendo.
Re: Re:
The original business model required the record companies to have control over supply. When only the record company knew how to make records, it worked. Now it doesn’t. That is why the business model is obsolete. One of the basic cornerstones, the ability to absolutely regulate the supply, is gone.
Re: Re:
I’m a musician, though admittedly unsigned. I don’t believe I should or would ever get paid for sitting down and creating a glorified business card. I should get paid for the touring; the actual money I bring in while entertaining crowds.
Re: Re:
You’re right on the money.
I had to read the story twice to even imagine that Mike had written it. I actually checked thinking it was one of the students he sometimes let post here (but not very often anymore).
I was trying to figure out why this was considered an either / or choice. Internet access isn’t a necessity. It’s a service, like cable TV or a cell phone. If you can afford it, you have it. If you can’t afford it, you don’t have it.
The content industry in the UK is big business, and represents a good number of jobs in a country that has it’s fair share of unemployment and difficulties over the last 25 years or so. The government is interested in keeping those jobs in the UK, keeping those people employed, and making sure there is a reasonable environment for content producers to work in.
There is no choice between the poor and the content producers. They aren’t running in and stealing the bangers and mash of the poor people’s tables and shipping it off to starving record execs.
The increased protection for content producers is a direct result of rampant piracy. If you want to find out who is adding cost to the internet connections, ask the pirates. Without piracy, there would be no need for this extra government action.
Cause and effect.
Re: Re:
“Internet access isn’t a necessity.”
Government imposed monopolies aren’t a necessity.
Try finding a job these days without the Internet. Good luck.
“It’s a service, like cable TV or a cell phone.”
Government imposed monopolies are a privilege and shouldn’t be allowed to interfere with an ISP’s right to provide a service without having to spend tons of money on enforcing some monopoly privileges.
“The content industry in the UK is big business”
Yeah, so?
“and represents a good number of jobs in a country that has it’s fair share of unemployment and difficulties over the last 25 years or so.”
The purpose of IP shouldn’t be to ensure jobs, that’s the purpose of things like communism. The free market is perfectly capable of creating content without IP. If content can be created without IP (which it can) then the purpose of having jobs to begin with (to create goods and services) has been served. If it puts some content creators out of business then that will drive them towards more relevant jobs, jobs that are marginally (though not necessarily absolutely) more important than the job of creating content. It’s not the governments job to direct what the free market needs. For example, there is only so much food that can be produced in a market at any given time and that amount of food is influenced by the amount of labor that goes into creating food. If the government directs more people to produce content through various free market distortions that means less people will work to produce food (since people only have so much time in a day to do work and there are fewer people producing food) and less food will be produced. The free market is best at determining the marginal value of everything and how much of each thing should be produced, not the government.
“The government is interested in keeping those jobs in the UK, keeping those people employed,”
It’s not the governments job to protect your job for you. This isn’t communism and communism doesn’t work.
“and making sure there is a reasonable environment for content producers to work in.”
A reasonable environment doesn’t require government imposed monopolies. In fact, such is an unreasonable environment. A reasonable environment requires things like labor laws that ensure the safety of its citizens.
Re: Re: Re:
I mean, creating jobs could be something as simple as having the government pay people to dig a hole and fill it back up. Sure, it creates jobs, but the point is that it’s not the governments job to simply create jobs. The free market is best at determining which jobs are most marginally important and need creating at any given time, not the government.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It’s the value of what’s being created that matters. Notice how I didn’t use the word price, but value. The free market is best at determining the value of things that are created and it will find ways to fund things that the market values.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
(or rather, the free market is best at determining how much of a product should be created based on its value and how much more or less of a product should be created based on its marginal value).
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Then trying to stop the unstoppable is just crazy talk and waste of resources also the internet creates way more wealth then the entertainment industry ever will.
The internet is a trillion dollar market worldwide and it enables more people to make a living an in turn creates more wealth, which cannot be met by one single industry like the entertainment industry.
Re: Re: Re:
Heck, music isn’t even a necessity. I’d argue that the Internet (especially since it’s hard to find a job without it these days, since most job apps are online) is a far greater necessity than music and such. Not that the free market can’t produce music without a government imposed monopoly. Jobs will continue without music (there will be more jobs elsewhere since the supply of music will be directed elsewhere, and that will create more product elsewhere) and music and music related jobs will continue without IP. and having a more widely used Internet will create more widespread distribution of (CC licensed or non – copyright) music which will make it easier for artists to make money from those who like their music (ie: via donations or otherwise).
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the same manner that you can get music for free over the air (they call it radio), you can also get free internet services at most job centers in the UK. The job application thing isn’t really an issue, is it?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Never said otherwise.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“The job application thing isn’t really an issue, is it?”
You still need Internet for it. Sure, there are free Internet venues around, but that doesn’t mean you don’t need an Internet. and making the Internet more expensive could mean fewer free Internet venues as well, which could make it more difficult for poor people to get a job as well, especially in low income areas that could have a more difficult time paying for bandwidth.
Re: Re: Re:3 You guys are way too focused on the "getting a job" part
There is more to the Internet than using it to get a job.
For instance, you can use it to learn new skills. A lot of what I know I learned online.
You can use it to communicate with like-minded people. Amongst a thousand other things, it can be used to create jobs (for instance, a few like-minded people get together and create a new business).
You can use it to reduce your costs, by finding information on cheaper bargains.
And this is only a small fraction of what the Internet enables.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“In the same manner that you can get music for free over the air (they call it radio), you can also get free internet services at most job centers in the UK.”
I also think there is a difference between getting free music over the air and having to find a job center to get free Internet services at. They aren’t done in the same manner.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
What you stop people from doing is to have access to solutions to their own little problems.
That decreases wealth production.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“In the same manner that you can get music for free over the air (they call it radio), you can also get free internet services at most job centers in the UK. The job application thing isn’t really an issue, is it?”
Our job centre certainly doesn’t have public internet access. The library does, but I don’t think all the people on jobseekers would fit in there and get anything useful done in the allotted hour. Plus, there is a difference between being able to email an application and being able to spend the day searching for jobs online. Also, some applications are done through websites, especially ones with timed tests.
Re: Re: Re:
wow what drivel.
People are full of bullshit about ‘comntent production doesn’t need IP’. These are NEVER people who make a living from running a busienss that creates content. Just leechers and thieves trying to justify their own tight-assness.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or lying bastards that exploit workers to say it is harming them all the while outsourcing their jobs.
Los Angeles Times: California visual effects firms facing a bleak landscape
The true face of unemployment in that industry is that the CEO is outsourcing everything he call while trying to keep control of imaginary goods that he alone profits from.
I wish piracy hurt sales I really do those people don’t deserve a dime, they are the true thieves not people sharing, they are the ones that put people on the street on the cold not sharing loving people.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shakespeare, Beethoven, Mozart, among many others have created content and art without IP laws. There is plenty of CC licensed music on the Internet, music released under a license exactly designed to circumvent IP laws. The founding fathers were very skeptical of IP for good reason, recognizing that it wasn’t needed for things to be created and that countries without it were just as creative.
Those who say that content production needs IP aren’t the ones producing content, they’re the ones with control over content that others have made. You simply have no evidence to support the claim that IP helps content creation, the only reason it’s so hard not to create IP controlled content outside the Internet is that big corporations wrongfully control all the information distribution venues outside the Internet and they lock independents outside the market.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Nobody is claiming that content “needs” IP to be created. It is just that the situations today are very different from those in the 15th century (amazing how we actually have progress). Most of IP isn’t about protection, but in creating the very structures under which is can be sold, distributed, and enjoyed.
the only reason it’s so hard not to create IP controlled content outside the Internet is that big corporations wrongfully control all the information distribution venues outside the Internet and they lock independents outside the market
Would you care to explain this one?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“It is just that the situations today are very different from those in the 15th century (amazing how we actually have progress).”
They’re not different in a way that requires IP.
“Would you care to explain this one?”
Most artists have made most of their money through things like concerts. Traditionally, artists would pay radio station broadcasters to play their songs in exchange for the publicity they get from having those songs well known and they would make their money through other things. Having your song played on the air was considered a privilege, the popularity alone was worth it because having fans means you can make money. To allow a hand full of corporations to control such information gateways and decide what gets played and what doesn’t (and to decide that only content that they ‘own’ gets played) is wrong. It deprives the public out of the music that could otherwise have been created and distributed under permissible licenses which deprives us out of aggregate output in favor of having to pay monopoly prices for content and monopolies are bad for the economy and only good for monopolists.
It is much easier for an artist to make money (ie: have people buy stuff that they sell, give them donations, attend concerts, pay them to perform, get autographed items, etc..) if they are well known and it’s easier for an artist to be well known if their music is more widely distributed. But those who wrongfully control the information distribution channels (outside the Internet) almost ensure that most content that is distributed along those channels is controlled or ‘owned’ by a hand full of big corporations (ie: those that represent the RIAA and MPAA). That makes it harder for independents to get their music content known and to make money. A few corporations wrongfully control an overwhelming majority of media distribution channels like television stations and cableco providers.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
and when I say wrongfully control, I mean that control is handed to them by the government. The government has no business keeping competitors from providing service using cableco infrastructure (or building their own) and they have no right to ‘sell’ my rights, on my behalf, to broadcast whatever I want on any radio frequency that I choose. It’s little different from my neighbor selling my car to the person across the street without my permission. Something that’s rightfully mine is being deprived of me and if the government is to allocate exclusive broadcasting use they should do so in the public interest.
Now, you may say that we elect our officials, but when we elect them we elect them to act in our best interest, not in the best interests of big corporations. If they are going to sell our rights to broadcasting spectra, which denies us the free market capitalism necessary to individually freely use that spectra however we feel, then they should do so in our best interest. There should be rules to ensure that the public interest is served and granting a monopoly on both broadcasting spectra and content is unacceptable. Monopolized content on monopolized spectra displaces permissibly licensed content making the distribution, and hence the creation, of such content more difficult. At the very least they should deny monopoly privileges to content on monopolized spectra by ensuring that all content on such spectra is permissibly licensed or in the public domain to freely record, copy, and redistribute.
As far as government imposed cableco monopolies, these are simply unacceptable. They make it harder for independent television stations to get their stations on cable without going through monopolist cableco providing gatekeepers and that makes it more difficult for them to exist. Granting a monopoly on both content and cableco infrastructure serves to ensure that most content on cable television is controlled or ‘owned’ by a hand full of corporations, again, artificially making content more expensive and reducing the size of the public domain (or the availability of permissibly licensed content).
Though, thanks to the Internet, there is now a lot of content released under CC licenses, but that doesn’t negate the fact that it is wrong for the government to grant monopolies on broadcasting spectra and the use of cableco infrastructure.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shakespeare, one of the defining playwright in English literature, was a fraud, charlatan and thief, at least under current laws. Yet he has contributed to most of the modern English language through his inventive use of recycled plots and characterisation.
Re: Re: Re:
I actually agree with a lot of what you have to say… but I’d drop the communism references since they are nonsensical and unrelated.
Your point would be stronger without misusing that term
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They are related. He wants IP for job security. That’s practically communism.
Re: Re:
… except piracy doesn’t actually cost anything.
You can talk about displaced or lost sales, diverted revenue and all that, but when it comes down to it, online infringement of copyright doesn’t cost anyone anything.
It is anti-piracy measures that cost. And the argument usually is that the cost of anti-piracy measures will be more than balanced by the increased revenue caused by the decrease in piracy (if any). But this decision is up to the individual copyright owner (or in some cases, their trade body that has just hired a fancy new “content protection officer” who needs to justify his salary). Any copyright owner can spend as much on anti-piracy measures as they want to. There are very few places where there isn’t *some* kind of measure that can be taken; (in the UK, for example, there is already a law that makes copyright infringement actionable… but for some reason, no one uses it. Why? Because copyright infringement isn’t causing enough of a problem for it to be worth the effort).
In this case, what we have is precisely content owners (or their trade organisations) running in and stealing the bangers and mash off the poor people’s and shipping it off to (hardly starving) record execs. The DEA (or IOC measures at least) are anti-piracy measures. There is nothing in them that copyright owners can’t do already. What the DEA does is make ISPs pay for some of this, to make it cheaper for copyright owners (or their agents). The ISPs then have to pass the costs on to their subscribers.
This legislation is designed to make it cheaper for the large copyright owners (and their agents; i.e. the BPI, FACT, MPA, NLA et al.) to implement anti-piracy measures by passing the cost onto normal people (including the poor) because they don’t want to pay for them themselves. Of course, the aim of the measures is to get “the people” to may more for content – so “the people” (poor or rich, although I imagine the rich don’t care so much about filesharing) are being forced to pay so that they can pay the record execs more…
How is that remotely logical or fair?
Re: Re: Re:
How is that remotely logical or fair?
Hah, well when you frame the issue like that…
You lost me when you said “piracy doesn’t actually cost anything.” It’s awesome that you don’t have to include any evidence to back up such an extreme claim. Score! So here’s my rebuttal: piracy costs trillions every year in lost revenues, and leaves millions of artists homeless every year!
How is that remotely logical or fair?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Piracy doesn’t cost anything owed. If I opened up an ice cream shop next to yours, that may end up costing you your job if it causes you to go out of business. But there is nothing wrong with that. Sure, piracy may make it more difficult for you to make money, but so does competition. There is nothing wrong with it. It doesn’t cost you anything owed, it doesn’t cost you anything in the sense that you pay money out for it. If I stole something from you, that costs you, you have to pay for it. If I opened up a shop next to yours, sure it may cost you sales, but it doesn’t cost you money in the same sense as if you bought something from the store.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I think you need to make one or two more posts in this thread.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
What would you like me to post about or respond to?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
wow what hilarious drivel.
The thing is, your ice cream shop is paying zero for production, becaus you are just copying someone elses work. Thus you have an unfair advantage and have disincentivised the product of the very product you are now selling.
You freetards really should read some under-fives books on basic economics before you spout this stuff.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Obviously you never produced anything or manufacture anything for that matter, because if you did you would know that to even copy something you need to expend resources, and that drivel about loss of incentive to produce something because of a competing product is just nonsense if it where that way competition would be a bad thing and would have a reputation like monopolies have, but it does not.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“The thing is, your ice cream shop is paying zero for production, becaus you are just copying someone elses work.”
Even if I had an automatic ice cream replicator that cost me nothing to produce Ice cream and it drove you out of business, there is nothing wrong with that either. Copying other peoples work isn’t wrong regardless of the cost of doing it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
The point is that you’re not rightfully entitled to the money that you could have made had I not made copies, just like you’re not rightfully entitled to the money you lose when someone competes with you. There is nothing wrong with people doing things that result in your loss of sales, that’s free market capitalism and you just have to adapt.
As the founding fathers note, government imposed monopolies are an artificial privilege, one that requires an institute (like the government) to implement, my ability to copy is a right, one not requiring an institute to implement.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you’d read the paragraph below, you’d have noticed that I mentioned “lost revenues”. “Lost revenues” hinge on the claim that “If person A had done action-x, person B would have more money”. That’s not a cost. By the same argument, I could say that you cost me millions of pounds this year because you didn’t pay me millions of pounds. If you had, I would have made more money. That is lost revenue… But that sort of argument is ridiculous.
I can state that online infringement of copyright doesn’t cost anything because there is no logical way it can. How can person A, by copying a file from one location to another (i.e. a “file-sharing website” to their hard drive) cost some person or company B (who doesn’t pay the bandwidth for that website) money?
It can’t. There is no logical way that can happen. Now, if you can give any argument to suggest that there is even the tiniest cost of online copyright infringement itself to copyright owners, (as little as 1p a decade), then yes, evidence is needed and so on, but while there can be no cost at all due to basic logic, no evidence is needed.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like the industry provides “evidence” that infringement actually costs something?
Citation needed. Preferably from a non-invested industry spin merchant.
Re: Re: Re:
… except piracy doesn’t actually cost anything.
That fantasy would only have a prayer of working if you could apply it to any item that is for sale.
Which you can’t.
So, needless to say, epic fail.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fail is to see the free movement gaining momentum worldwide exactly because you want to charge obscenities from everyone.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You want to see real world products that you could get for free but people pay for it?
Search for:
– Jamendo
– Arduino
– Makerbot
– Red Hat
– Blender
– Nina Paley
Also see the list of Open Source Hardware supporters who are mostly business people.
So you were saying…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Show me what piracy costs. Evidence, not just because you say so.
Re: Re:
When internet access was something uncommon it was not a necessity. It gave people with money or skill an advantage over their peers. Now the internet is more like a utility than a perk. Nobody disputes that poor people should have heat, shelter and electricity. A poor person without a phone cannot call for help, look for a job or even call a government agency to get on food stamps. Now, so many required transactions including bill paying, banking, taxes and employment applications are being moved to the internet, a poor person doesn’t stand much of a chance without at least minimal access. The internet is right about where telephones were in 1950 with regards in being a necessity so denying a poor person internet access is more like denying them a driving license than denying them cable tv.
Re: Re:
Internet access isn’t a necessity.
I have to disagree with you there.
It wasn’t 10 years ago – it very nearly is now – in 5 years time it will be. The fact is that as more and more activities move online so the extra cost of accessing these things without the internet becomes an intolerable burden if you are poor.
150 years ago electricity wasn’t a necessity. It is now.
Re: Re:
Short version: you also believe protecting big record labels is more important than getting poor people online.
Rich vs poor
I think many of us have begun to take the Internet for granted, because it is always there for us. The Internet is so integrated into the modern world, that those on the outside of it find themselves at a great disadvantage. If you are down and out, it can be that much more difficult to find a decent job, reasonably priced essentials or assistance if you cannot get online.
This is the reason Internet access for the poor is considered so important. The poor already have plenty of barriers in their way, without making it more difficult for them to get online, as well.
The entertainment industry already has plenty of laws they can effectively use to battle piracy…they just don’t want to have to do all the work themselves.
For those of you who seem to be of the opinion that Internet access is an unnecessary luxury, I invite you to stay offline for a week and see what it’s like. Any takers?
Re: Rich vs poor
Better yet, invite them not to use the Internet at all and to cancel their subscription and provide proof of cancellation. No Internet access period.
Re: Rich vs poor
I do that at least twice a year, every year.
No internet. No email. Cell phone for phone calls only (I could also do this with only a landline). I sometimes do it when I travel overseas and choose not to carry a laptop and don’t use my cell phone, or when I am in town on vacation, getting away from work.
Everyone should do it.
Re: Rich vs poor
I agree completely, and would like to elaborate further. The following is an excerpt from a letter I wrote to the CRTC here in Canada, regarding their decision to let Bell Canada force Usage Based Billing on third-party ISP’s:
“Libraries, telephone service, roads, hospitals, schools, etcetera, comprise societal infrastructure; that is, they are necessary for the country as a whole to conduct business, pursue creative endeavours, participate in culture, acquire education, and generally be full members of Canadian society. As a society, we agree that all of these things are for the common good. The benefits flowing therefrom accrue to all citizens, regardless of whether a specific citizen makes direct use of a given resource. For example, someone who doesn’t drive nevertheless benefits from roads, because without them there would be no food on the local supermarket’s shelves.
Internet service also falls into the category of societal infrastructure. Whether for work or for recreation, in today’s world it is nearly impossible to be a full, participating citizen without access to the Web.”
LOL @ elitists
To those who say, “Poor people don’t need/deserve internet”. I say to you, “People like you will cause the destruction of the human race through selfish actions”.
The internet, after all, is a giant public library. Anyone who says that knowledge shouldn’t be shared with everyone is dragging the world down, not lifting it up.
P.S. Selfish people (I’m talking to you Dick Chaney) go to hell. 🙂
Some facts:
The UK music industry is worth ?3.9 Billion
http://www.itproportal.com/2010/08/04/uk-music-industry-worth-39-billion/
The UK internet industry is worth ?100 billion.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/28/net-worth-100bn-uk
Crippling a ?100 billion industry to save a ?3.9 billion industry makes no sense whatsoever.
Oh, and for those willing to argue that music is just a tiny part of the creative industries, well, even if you combined all the UK creative industries, that still only accounts for ?60 billion a year.
http://www.creativecoalitioncampaign.org.uk/
(This fact is buried on this page in the “1. What is the DEA?” section.)
Unless I’m bad at maths, that’s still ?40 billion less than what the Internet brings in.
Re: Re:
how does enforcing existing IP law ‘cripple’ an industry?
how does allowing the free regurgitation of old media, and the disincentivising of enw media production create jobs and boost the economy?
go on brainiac, tell us.
Re: Re: Re:
Oh that is easy brain damaged person.
IP laws can stop innovation by excluding others from doing something, without other to advance the only player in the field is not likely to evolve he has no incentives to produce something new or let others do the same thing in fact you can see companies buying other companies just to get access to technologies that threaten their bottom line and shelve those things.
Free flowing of ideas promote progress through evolution of techniques but it also give everyone a chance to compete inside the market and make money not just a few people.
You think ambulants don’t contribute to creation of wealth? you think those people who copy don’t finance where they got they copied their products from?
That is how open source works, people give things for free but everyone can make money as an example I saw many tech support people from open source solutions paying to access to people with more knowledge in another words it is a cascade effect, people copy the product do their offerings and go back to the source to stay relevant, the same thing happens with music, bars, stores and even people selling bootlegs are not only promoting but creating a market and thus creating wealth where none existed, IP law instead limit that creation and expansion and thus reduce wealth.
How hard is to understand that muppet?
Re: Re: Re:
“how does enforcing existing IP law ‘cripple’ an industry?”
It cripples aggregate output. The whole purpose of having industry to begin with is to create aggregate output. The whole purpose of IP was not to help industry, but to put more things into the public domain.
“how does allowing the free regurgitation of old media, and the disincentivising of enw media production create jobs and boost the economy?”
Allowing the regurgitation of old media is the whole purpose of having IP to begin with, to increase aggregate output by putting more things into the public domain. and this doesn’t create disincentive to create new media production, it creates more incentive to create new media because it encourages businesses to keep making new media to make money instead of perpetually making money off of old media that was created a long time ago. It also encourages people to make media with less unnecessarily repetitive content that old media has already created, which encourages the expansion of knowledge instead of the recreation of old knowledge that is simply inaccessible. It allows people to build on each others work as well.
“create jobs and boost the economy?”
Job creation isn’t an end of itself. Simply digging a hole and filling it back up is a job but the purpose of jobs is to create aggregate output, not simply to have jobs for the sake of having jobs. You really should consider taking an Econ 101 course.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You didn’t answer the question.
How does protecting IP cripple the Internet business?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You want a mechanism here is one.
Tragedy of the anticommons
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Protecting IP fragments the market and creates an enviroment where it gets to expensive to do business.
Like when people try to build a new railroad, in the U.S. that is impossible without eminent domain procedures, in the same way if every bit of information is owned and must be paid for it becomes to expensive to consume anything and thus contracts the creation of wealth an example of that is the early internet where metered internet was the rule and people didn’t develop anything, it exploded and expanded geometrically creating multi billion dollar companies after flat plans won the day.
To much fragmentation in ownership is as bad.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Different from real property IP benefits only one person or entity at the expense of everyone else, there can’t be multiple owners to one concept, while real property you can own the same object as the other guy, if IP was applied to land every land owner would have to pay one guy that owned the property for the concept of land, that is absurd.
It shrink the creation of wealth, it odes not creates incentives to produce it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Thankfully there is a solution to the problem and that is public pools of knowledge, that can and possibly will eclipse this infatuation with IP.
Necessity will drive people to shift their focus to free alternatives because they are more useful and create wealth for a lot more people then just a few.
Re: Re:
Yes, yet that 100 billion industry is often in the business of selling IP related materials, from books to movies, from cell phones to videos games, and so on.
There is no proof that protecting one would “cripple” the other. What proof do you have?
Re: Re: Re:
Of course there is just see what MPEG LA is trying to do to VP8.
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
Basically they want anyone who has a patent that could be used to block VP8 and are asking others to come forward, is that free market? is that capitalism? nope that is anti-competitive behavior fueled by anti-competitive legislation that interferes with progress.
What patent thicket means?(rhetorical)
See also the tragedy of the anti-commons(Wikipedia: Tragedy Of The Anti-Commons)
Yes there is ample proof that protecting that imaginary property would harm not only the internet but it is harming the tech industry as a whole already.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
All that does is encourage people to find alternate ways to accomplish the same goals.
When the people who owned the GIF format decides to get snippy, JPEG and PNG filled the hole.
There is, again, little indication that patents do anything other than encourage people to find alternate (and often better) solutions. I guess for those people who are stupid enough to bang on the locked door forever and feel trapped, it would be bad. The rest of us just go out the large open patio doors next to it and keep moving onwards.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Really?
How many ways are there to make a drop down menu?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
they find better solutions because the future naturally finds better solutions to past problems, not because patents contributed to those better solutions. Better solutions would have been found regardless so long as there is a need for them.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually if MPEG LA succeed then the only possible result is to kill VP8 completely – since Google’s license on the IP it controls in VP8 reads as follows:
Google hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
(except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and
otherwise implementations of this specification where such license applies only to those patent claims, both
currently owned by Google and acquired in the future, licensable by Google that are necessarily infringed by
implementation of this specification. If You or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to
the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit)
alleging that any implementation of this specification constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or
inducement of patent infringement, then any rights granted to You under the License for this specification
shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
Re: Re: Re:
Another case is Guitar Hero death, where one of the reasons was the absurd fees the industry asked to license the music in it.
You can also go to chillingeffects.org and see the data showing that most of the DMCA’s are from companies trying to stop other companies from doing something, also as collateral many people have their pages removed and that infringes on people’s right to free speech and due process.
Re: Re: Re:
There is no proof that protecting one would “cripple” the other. What proof do you have?
Proof is not required – it is obvious.
Re: Re: Re:
It costs money to protect IP privileges and that will cripple whoever has to pay for it. Even the UK politicians above admit that it will raise Internet prices, what more do you want?
It's not the poor
If the UK government were saying “all pay a bit extra for access so that the poorest can be subsidised” I’d support that.
But they are actually mostly saying “pay a bit extra so rural residents can be subsidised”.
That pisses me off. I mean, I’d love to go and live in a idyllic lakeside setting but there’s a price to pay for that. Getting internet/electricity/water/buses/garbage collection to a place in the middle of nowhere costs money.
I put up with urban living to get access to those things in an easier/cheaper fashion.
Having said that, it has reached the point where internet is a necessity though, because there are things that cost way more if not bought on the net, services that without the net can only be accessed withj a lot of time consuming cross town travel, etc.
If a poor person has to pay significantly more for a rail ticket because they have no net access, that is going to just widen the gap.
At a 50% or greater tax rate. The record companies and Music Stars that had the stupidity to stay in the UK became a virtual gravy train to their government. You notice they knighted Paul McCartney and Elton John but not Mick Jagger.
Re: Re:
Actually Mick Jagger was knighted in 2003. It was criticized because he was living as a tax exile.
Can someone point to an example where a non-capitalist Ie: socialist or communist system has done more for the poor than the free market system has? I have studied this extensively and have to relay how growing up homeless in the USA I got braces, immunizations, and even extended ICU care for a life threatening disease. Eventually this same system allowed me to become an engineer through my own hard work. Yes I worked my own way through college. I now travel globally to see Germans wait endlessly in waiting rooms while their Doctor’s strike, where in many countries dental care is pretty much nil unless medically necessary, where I see people tell me how on their news they hear we are letting our poor die in the streets from injuries as minor as broken limbs. Soon we will be every bit as good as England!
Re: Re:
Can someone point to an example where a non-capitalist Ie: socialist or communist system has done more for the poor than the free market system has?
Your system is not completely free market. Likewise other countries are rarely totally socialist. China for example – although officially communist for many years – has never had a proper public health service.
You got where you are not because of your capitalist system but rather in spite of it, relying heavily on aspects of your system that are not free market.
On the other hand I remember a Polish friend (brought up in the days when they were allegedly communist) saying how appalled he was to see the level of poverty that existed in the US.
Re: Re:
Dental care is pretty much nil in the US unless medically necessary…
Poor people..
Very very few governments care about poor people. Neither the U.S. nor the UK care that much about the poor; they don’t contribute money to the election funds/slush funds, so why worry about them?
screw the mafiaa
i do not support the mafiaaa
i only buy used physical media.
more BS from big content and now it will hurt the poor
No Free Market Capitalism but Oligarchy
Big Government passing laws purely for the benefit of big corporations is NOT free market capitalism but oligarchy. It is the way big corporations have subverted the capitalist system. It still uses the language of capitalism, and has a lot of people fooled, but it is no longer truly capitalism.
Re:
While you make many good points, and I agree with most of your argument, please reconsider throwing all your eggs in the “free market is best” basket.
Free market valuation led to the housing boom and bust, as just one example. The market is interested in one thing, maximizing profit for those at the top of the pyramid. Those at the top felt nothing, while millions (billions worldwide?) of people below the top were hurt financially.
You made good points, but I feel that you overstretched.
Re:
You might want to look up the difference between free market capitalism and corporatism.
So should David Cameron and Nick Clegg. Clegg is on the right side of this one, however, not understanding that a free market means NOT cosying up to big business hampers his classical liberal credentials. Just has the same misunderstanding hampers Cameron’s conservative credentials.
They would be absolutely aligned on this one but for a basic misunderstanding of economics.
No Free Market Capitalism but Oligarchy
Being a week late I think I can safely invoke Godwin’s Law.
The “natural” progression of this subversion of the capitalism is it’s rejection at the ballot box leading to National Socialism.
Help
Sir i am a student and have a lage fimaly i have no soure of incom plz help me financial