StingingVelvet wrote on Apr 12, 2012, 11:32:
It's not a straw man when the entire point I was making is that these people losing money means more regulation. Why do you think SOPA wasn't the end of it?
It was a silly straw man linked to vague personal anecdotes. Waving your hands and shouting "Companies are losing money to piracy!" doesn't make it true and even if it were, the degree of is far more important than the fact itself.
SOPA isn't the end of it because corporations are always trying to influence policy, it's not restricted to media industries either. That's par for the course. There is no correlation of legislation introduction to piracy statistics, domestically or internationally.
Why are they slowly but surely moving all consumers to closed systems?
In general, to have more control over the revenue stream, it has nothing to do with piracy. This is a goal that pretty much every corporation has in almost every industry. Cut out middle suppliers whenever possible, go direct to the consumer, tighter pricing control, choke alternatives out and so on. "Its just business" as you would likely say. It often has nothing to do with piracy, it could cease to exist tomorrow and they would find a new justification for the same behavior.
You also have to keep in mind that a lot of these industries aren't managed by the most technically minded folk to put it lightly. They idea of how to respond to piracy is usually going to be incredibly drastic and likely have little input behind it. These are not people I want having any level of access to underlying systems of the internet without a shitload of oversight and public opinion.
There is a consistent idea on this forum that these companies have to just suck it up and deal with it, you even post that same kind of thing below.
No, I did not say that. I said it's always a factor. I also said that companies are better served by fighting piracy through more legitimate means as it is more upsides to their bottom line than draconian laws that aren't even enforceable.
For someone who supposedly has centrist views you have failed to consider any consumer perspective here. We should have reasonable copyright laws passed through intelligent debate with as many viewpoints as possible considered. That would be fair to corporations and consumers. We shouldn't allow corporations to start hacking away at pieces of the internet just because they feel threatened. That's not reasonable at all and could serve to harm legitimate industries a lot more than it ever will hurt "dudes i know downloading movies". There is too much at stake here for knee jerk reactions and one sided views.
It is incredibly easy to steal music but the legitimate digital alternatives continue to grow and be profitable. Does the fact that some people pirate music make it ok for the RIAA to do whatever it wants through any avenue it pleases, including illegal activities like political bribery? Of course not. We don't need to break the internet because "abuse" exists. Your argument that "its all inevitable because people are abusing it" is just silly dismissive fluff because you don't like the counter-opinions you're hearing. As technology evolves we'll continue to need changes to existing law, that doesn't mean corporations will get a big win button to do whatever they want. If that was the case they would ended ventures like Youtube long ago and in fact already did their best to try.
tl;dr - of course "regulation" will progress as technology does, that doesn't mean corporations will get to do whatever they want nor are justified in doing so because "abuse" exists. Degrees are what is important here. The degree of abuse and the degree of regulation.This comment was edited on Apr 12, 2012, 12:47.
Playing: Elden Ring, HZD: FW, Kingdom Rush series
Watching: Severance, The IT Crowd, The Batman