Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Apr 2010 11:50 UTC
Legal A major setback for those that claim piracy is having an adverse affect on the US economy: the US Government Accountability Office, who was tasked with reviewing the efforts to find out what, if any, impact piracy has on the US economy, has concluded that all of these studies - all of them - are bogus. Better yet - the GAO even goes as far as to say that piracy may have a positive effect on the economy.
Thread beginning with comment 419184
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Piracy
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 15th Apr 2010 17:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Piracy"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

So if the people decide that slavery is not morally wrong then it IS not morally wrong? Is that what you are saying here? That crowds determine morality?


Yes. You get it perfectly.

In large parts of the world, slavery used to be perfectly morally acceptable and normal. It wasn't frowned upon at all - in fact, in your country, it wasn't until very recently that large parts of it had no moral qualms with slavery. The Netherlands, too, were one of the last countries to abolish slavery, primarily because it made us very rich.

But yes, it is that simple. Morality is not defined by law; in a working democracy, morality defines law. If the majority of people in The Netherlands would someday vote in favour of slavery, then even though my personal moral would still oppose it - the nationwide moral (which is what defines law) is still that slavery is acceptable.

That's simply how morality works. Morality is defined by the people - not the other way around. This is fairly basic stuff, and you not being able to grasp this simple concept boggles my mind. This isn't my opinion - this is accepted fact.

If you legalized piracy then you would put millions out of work.


"Piracy" as you call it, is legalised in The Netherlands, yet our content industries (music, literature, film, and other forms of art) are more productive today than they have ever before. Care to explain?

On top of that - you're contradicting yourself. You state that "legalised piracy" will destroy the industry, while also claiming that piracy is already rampant - yet content industries are still alive and kicking. You are contradicting yourself, which is not uncommon for people with untenable positions.

Copyright law will be changed to reflect the will of the people, and the people have already spoken quite clearly: they do not see piracy as morally (or in some European counties' cases, legally) wrong. Yes, this might hurt big content - but why the hell should I care?

Should the government have protected companies that made carriages when cars became popular? Should they have supported typewriter makers when word processing software became capable enough? Should they spend tax dollars supporting oil companies once an alternative becomes available? If the Microsoft Windows ecosystem were to ever suffer some sort of devastating blow leading to a mass exodus of users, should the government enact laws to force people to use Windows and buy Windows software anyway, because else so many jobs would be lost?

Or... Should companies just adapt or die? What is it?

Content providers and artists are companies selling a product. If their products and services are no longer worth what they used to be worth, then they'll have to be inventive and come up with other ways to make money - that's how capitalism works. Capitalism should not be about buying the government and have them enact laws to protect your business. Maybe it's that way in America, and apparently, that's a world you prefer - but most people do not.

Edited 2010-04-15 17:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Piracy
by Karitku on Thu 15th Apr 2010 18:58 in reply to "RE[3]: Piracy"
Karitku Member since:
2006-01-12

Don't be so naive. Keep mind that copyright laws aren't just based on air, they base on common law of stealing. You have naive view that all laws are just pieces without connections but they are connected. Saying that music stealing is okey is pretty much same as saying it's okey to steal because shop is owned by jew. Many seems to think china model is good but reason why they don't respect copyright laws are same as why they don't respect many other individual laws. Think if downloading music was free, that would mean downloading software would be free, same research, information databases, everything that can be immaterial even GPL wouldn't mean nothing. Scary since I would be out of job.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Piracy
by nt_jerkface on Fri 16th Apr 2010 02:26 in reply to "RE[3]: Piracy"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26



In large parts of the world, slavery used to be perfectly morally acceptable and normal. It wasn't frowned upon at all - in fact, in your country, it wasn't until very recently that large parts of it had no moral qualms with slavery.


So no such thing as universal ethics? Child rape can be made moral?


"Piracy" as you call it,

It's not my own word:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/piracy


is legalised in The Netherlands, yet our content industries (music, literature, film, and other forms of art) are more productive today than they have ever before. Care to explain?


I already pointed out that you wouldn't destroy 'big content' by legalizing piracy because they would just clamp down on distribution channels, ie profit from theater sales. They would also lock VOD services closer to hardware.

And anyways it doesn't look like piracy is completely legal there:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/09/dutch-police-shut-d...

Your content industries also sell outside the Netherlands where laws are stricter but more importantly not all industries are equally vulnerable to piracy.

If legalized piracy was widespread you would kill of large sections of the software industry. You would put millions out of work and send the world economy into a spiral from the shockwave. Software production would grind to a halt as investors would take their capital out of software markets and invest it elsewhere. What would be the reason for this again? Because you hate the MPAA? What a genius move that would be. Throw the world into a economic depression because you have emotional issues with an organization.


On top of that - you're contradicting yourself. You state that "legalised piracy" will destroy the industry, while also claiming that piracy is already rampant - yet content industries are still alive and kicking.


PC gaming has rampant piracy as in a very high piracy rate. However there are still some paying customers that keep it alive. Legalizing piracy would take away that obligation for those remaining paying customers and destroy the industry. Gaming would be moved to consoles and server side processing. It's already gone in that direction and legalized piracy would push it there overnight. Most games are funded with capital that is granted with the expectation of a return.

The industries that are most vulnerable to piracy are those that depend entirely on a licensed sale of a covered product. But even for movie and music industries you would still put millions out of work, including small artists that make their living by selling music on iTunes.



Yes, this might hurt big content - but why the hell should I care?

It will hurt small content more and you don't care about them either.


If the Microsoft Windows ecosystem were to ever suffer some sort of devastating blow leading to a mass exodus of users


Under which situation would that happen? Do you have some fantasy of legalized piracy destroying the Windows ecosystem? Microsoft is in the best position to insulate themselves from piracy. They would just tie their OS to hardware like how Apple does. They would just jack up the price of the OS and give Office away for free. Only a cataclysmic event could kill off Microsoft. They are sitting on billions that they could throw at reinventing themselves to adjust to legalized piracy.


Capitalism should not be about buying the government and have them enact laws to protect your business. Maybe it's that way in America, and apparently, that's a world you prefer - but most people do not.


The government should not protect business? Should I be allowed to steal from a local store then?

It's a good thing you went into journalism and not economics. Economists support intellectual property laws because they encourage production of goods that otherwise wouldn't be developed due to the ease at which they can be cloned. You still haven't stated why you think the system should be destroyed other than for letting the people do as they please. If the masses legalize piracy and slavery then that's fine with Thom as long as it is democratic, right?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Piracy
by rabid on Fri 16th Apr 2010 14:32 in reply to "RE[3]: Piracy"
rabid Member since:
2006-08-30

So, I like Thom's explanation of public morality and democracy so much I signed up for an account just to post. You go, Thom!

Piracy is not the problem. The best artists will tell you they get their best ideas from other artists. Really good art is simply a reinterpretation, and art is only relevant if the viewer/listener has experienced a lot of the same culture as the artist. Art cannot thrive without a loose handle on copyright. If media conglomerates continue on their path, art will eventually cease to exist.

Reply Parent Score: 1