Hatrack River Forum: A Compromise to Internet Piracy

This is topic A Compromise to Internet Piracy in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=052409

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :

The way I look at it is this, I can agree that theft say in the form of stealing a painting from a richman and bringing it to a museam (which a large portion of downloading seems like at first glance) is "wrong" but potentially "justifiable" but agreeably it is prosecutable.

However I differ when it comes to who to procescute, if the painting if brought to the Museam current US laws seems like arresting the VIEWERS of the piece visting the Museum and not the theif or the Museum owners and if the authorities can't locate the viewers after they left they demand the Museum hand over security tapes, signatures, any form of log of the visitors to the museom.

Placing charges on people who download illegal stuff to me is why takng a shotgun going into a thick crowd and firing it trying to go after the "seeder" taking down several "downloaders" in the wake of the shotgun pellets.

The only fair way of dealing with this and people's rights to privacy to me should be stop trying to make downloading illegal, stop trying to persecute people who download, and focus ones energies on people who deal the drugs not take the drugs.

A part of this, and I think a cornerstone to my comrpomise is simply charge ISP's and have them pass on the cost to the consumer, I thing statistically anyone with Hi Speed internet and above obviously are most likely downloading large amounts of crud especially ones who go over their limits, so simply add a "internet usage" tax and divide the revenue gained from this to reimbuse people who can be proven to have been hurt through illegal downloading.

Like a bed of nails, sure an individual nail hurts but a bed of nails is tolerable although not comfortable.

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :

I download and upload lots of legal stuff, and all the illegal downloaders can kiss my backside if they think I'm going to subsidize their illegal behavior.

How about people start paying for the stuff they use, or convince the media outlets to come up with a different sales method, rather than trying to get other people to foot the cost so they can steal media guilt and cost free?

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :

because its easier to place a flat or scaleable tax then to convince Hollywood to come up with a different way of marketing.

You subsidize lots of things you don't like, but you still pay taxes anyways.

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :

There are also ways to telling which internet protocols are being used for illegal downloading/uploading so my plan still has merit except it can also be made more specific to those who use bittorrent.

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

Bittorrent != illegal downloading

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
... focus ones energies on people who deal the drugs not take the drugs.

Who would that be exactly in your scheme?

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :

?

Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :

I think he's asking you who they should "focus their energies on". As in "who are the drug dealers in your analogy".

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

quote:
A part of this, and I think a cornerstone to my comrpomise is simply charge ISP's and have them pass on the cost to the consumer, I thing statistically anyone with Hi Speed internet and above obviously are most likely downloading large amounts of crud especially ones who go over their limits, so simply add a "internet usage" tax and divide the revenue gained from this to reimbuse people who can be proven to have been hurt through illegal downloading.

Horrible idea. I don't want to pay higher ISP fees because you (generic) violate copyright. Moreover, I don't think there's a way to distribute the proceeds fairly. It's a money grab.

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
I think he's asking you who they should "focus their energies on". As in "who are the drug dealers in your analogy".

People who take the content ala stealing theatre streams encoding it and providing it online and the like.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

So the people who do you the favor of providing the content you steal are the real bad guys? [Wink]

Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :

I was going to explain the economic reasons why the proposed tax is a Gigli-grade failure, but somehow I don't think they'll resonate.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

Well, they'd resonate with me, so please explain anyway. [Smile]

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
So the people who do you the favor of providing the content you steal are the real bad guys?

I wouldnt hypothetically download it if it wasnt there in the first place, some people, really eager and needy people go above and beyond the call of dutyto get these things, most people like me, hypothetically are too lazy too.

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

While you're at it, could you also pass a law keeping the grocery store from selling me Twinkies? I'm worried about my weight.

Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :

when innocent people become at risk from legal enforcement from eating twinkies Ill suggest it.

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

Legal enforcement? I'm talking about my life here!

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Horrible idea. I don't want to pay higher ISP fees because you (generic) violate copyright.

Amen!

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Horrible idea. I don't want to pay higher ISP fees because you (generic) violate copyright. Moreover, I don't think there's a way to distribute the proceeds fairly. It's a money grab.

It seems to me, though, that you'd be able to make up the cost by never having to buy any music again, since you could in good conscience download anything you wanted.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

quote:
A part of this, and I think a cornerstone to my comrpomise is simply charge ISP's and have them pass on the cost to the consumer, I thing statistically anyone with Hi Speed internet and above obviously are most likely downloading large amounts of crud especially ones who go over their limits, so simply add a "internet usage" tax and divide the revenue gained from this to reimbuse people who can be proven to have been hurt through illegal downloading.

So I have to get charged massive amount of You're Probably Downloading Illegal Things tax despite shunning illegal downloads entirely. Thaaaanks.

Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:

Placing charges on people who download illegal stuff to me is (like) taking a shotgun going into a thick crowd and firing it trying to go after the "seeder" taking down several "downloaders" in the wake of the shotgun pellets.

It's more like shooting a shotgun at a zombie velociraptor (your 'seeder') amidst a bunch of regular zombies ('downloaders').

quote:

The only fair way of dealing with this and people's rights to privacy to me should be stop trying to make downloading illegal, stop trying to persecute* people who download, and focus ones energies on people who deal the drugs not take the drugs.

The user and the dealer are both to blame. If a download junkie exists, someone will offer him his fix. Your suggestion, then, is to target the supplier, ignoring the demand. I think this is a tenuous position, but let's look at your proposed policy from this perspective just the same.

quote:

A part of this, and I think a cornerstone to my compromise is simply charge ISPs and have them pass on the cost to the consumer, I think statistically anyone with Hi Speed internet and above obviously are most likely downloading large amounts of crud especially ones who go over their limits, so simply add a "internet usage" tax and divide the revenue gained from this to reimburse people who can be proven to have been hurt through illegal downloading.

So, we're going to tax ISPs, who are not the suppliers. The libertarians among us would make the case that taxation is downright unjust and coercive, but I'm willing to play ball. Your stated goal is to disincentivize "seeding". Repricing internet usage will certainly affect the number of "seeders". It will also limit the number of legitimate users. By taxing the ISP, you're affecting all of their clients. Including the innocent, who you are so eager to protect. You can tax to account for externalities (ie - carbon taxes, cigarette taxes), but you need to make sure the right people are paying. As it stands, your tax will have many unintended consequences. The dead-weight loss needs to be justified. A more nuanced (although still flawed) proposal might have ISPs levy a tax on upstream usage. This would be more consistent with your anti-provider position. It would still catch some legitimate users in the crossfire.

quote:

Like a bed of nails, sure an individual nail hurts but a bed of nails is tolerable although not comfortable.

This doesn't make much sense. Please elaborate.

Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :

I have to admit that when outside of the US where I cant get most TV shows I have in the past used BitTorrent or the like to watch TV shows. Now that I am back in the states I just watch them online from legitimate sources like Hulu.com or the network itself.

What I really want is a a la carte cable or satelite plan where I can select only those channels I want.

Sergeant

Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :

quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:

quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Horrible idea. I don't want to pay higher ISP fees because you (generic) violate copyright. Moreover, I don't think there's a way to distribute the proceeds fairly. It's a money grab.
It seems to me, though, that you'd be able to make up the cost by never having to buy any music again, since you could in good conscience download anything you wanted.

If unlimited DRM free music was available for a reasonable monthly fee, I would likely choose to take advantage of it. However, it seems as though many of the people advocating this sort of plan are talking about a mandatory fee that would be levied on top of normal ISP fees, which is something I am completely opposed to.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergeant:
What I really want is a a la carte cable or satelite plan where I can select only those channels I want.

Sergeant

This explains why that's impossible. [Smile]

Edit: Ack, wait, that's not the article I wanted. The explanation I read was much better, but now I can't find it. Of course I should have checked that I had the one I wanted, not just a blog post dealing with the same subject. Ah well; maybe tomorrow.

In any case, TV rots your brain. Stick to Hatrack. [Big Grin]

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
People who take the content ala stealing theatre streams encoding it and providing it online and the like.

How about people that rip CDs using Windows Media Player or Winamp? How about people that rip DVDs? How about people that don't actually rip anything but download many things and then upload them repeatedly?

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :

Wow. This is like the reasoning my kids use when they say "We wouldn't misbehave if you let us do whatever we want. "Astounding.

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :

Exactly, romany.

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :

quote:
"We wouldn't misbehave if you let us do whatever we want."

This misses the really splendid part where other people have to pay when your kids get into trouble.