> Meanwhile, you seem to be advocating for fighting draconian or ridiculous intellectual property laws or actions by...letting the market decide? That's not going to work out.
I'm against government spending lots of money to help enforce copyright. I was against SOPA because it forces third parties to help protect content providers' property rights. Which is unreasonable. After all, the law doesn't force my neighbors to help protect my property rights. People are responsible for policing their own property rights for the most part.
But that's not what is at issue here. Charging per viewer for content is like BMW charging ridiculous amounts for parts and labor for their cars. Who cares? If you buy a BMW you know that being gouged for maintenance is part and parcel of the experience. It's between you and the company you are buying from.
I'm not a free market true believer by any means. I think there are lots of problems not solved by the market and we need affirmative measures in those cases. But I suppose with the copyright debate, I just don't agree that there is really a problem. If Disney figures out a way to charge you every time you watch their shitty movies, then great, more power to them. It's a great business model to sell something that is physically totally fungible, but which consumers perceive as non-fungible (LV bags, BMW cars, etc). The fact that consumers eat it up anyway doesn't strike me as a problem worth solving.
Although to be fair I think SOPA is pretty benign now. I am actually sort of in favor of it as log as it doesn't harm american websites and as long as it doesn't require anyone to make special exceptions in the DNS.
Preventing American based advertisers and banks from paying foreign-based sites which would be prosecuted in the united states seems like something we should be able to do, so that Americans' unlimited ability to download hollywood movies from foreign based sites and songs from kontakte is limited.
America isn't overstepping its juridiction if it is only legislating what American companies can do.
That said, I disagree with the lack of due process in SOPA. I much prefer Issa's bill called OPEN. Issa rightly pointed out that there are better agencies for this than the attorney general's office, such as the ITC.
> as a repercussion of Google.
I think you meant SOPA.
> It's very unlikely that any widespread, powerful websites (like Google or Facebook) would be taken down, because removing them from the ecosystem would prompt an enormous user reaction.
Probably not. I haven't read SOPA in detail, so I don't know what the procedure is - who gets to decide whether to shut the site down or not? What if the clerk working that particular desk is an 80 year old luddite and has no idea what a google is, but knows for sure it shouldn't be stealing all those movies or whatever?
And what happens to Facebook if I suddenly start uploading video clips from unreleased movies? The obvious answer is that Facebook shuts down my account, but what if some RIAA goon sees it before that happens and pulls the SOPA lever, or some congressman? If they can't use SOPA to shut down an infringing website, how could they have justified using all that cash to lobby for it?
- You said "you know" reflexively while she asked questions.
- You look young. The cool hair (which I like, personally) makes you look even younger.
- You bob your head.
- You mentioned PIPA without defining it. Most people you need to convince won't know what you're talking about.
- Emphasizing "One Million Dollars!" doesn't sound too huge compared with how often we hear "Billion" and "Trillion" thrown around in the news. LouisCK was great, and it's a good point, but I think it doesn't make the point you want to the people who don't already understand.
Some suggestions on content:
Play up "government intervention is bad" even more. The conservative electorate might be tough on crime, but they're also pro-business. Paint SOPA as a government-subsidized bailout intervention evil that is anti-business and taking away our constitutional rights.
People respect Google, and at least go "those people are smart!" even if they don't get the internet. A lot of conservatives got traction against Obamacare by saying "Doctors hate it, and we trust doctors." Play that up: Smart, innovative businesses like Google oppose this government intervention in the free market. We trust Google, etc. etc.
If I had one sentence to suggest it would be:
"SOPA lets the government intervene to take away the right to free speech from trusted businesses like Google that are the future of our economy, just to bail out the movie industry."
That's one hell of an oversimplification, but I think it's enough to perk up ears. This isn't defense spending - conservatives don't necessarily have any love for "Hollywood liberal PETA supporters" (as my mother puts it). In Hollywood versus Google, Google at least has "pro-business" points. The thing to remember is that if they don't get the internet, the won't get your explanation of any nuances.
Hacker Cinema
4 comments on Hacker News
> Meanwhile, you seem to be advocating for fighting draconian or ridiculous intellectual property laws or actions by...letting the market decide? That's not going to work out.
I'm against government spending lots of money to help enforce copyright. I was against SOPA because it forces third parties to help protect content providers' property rights. Which is unreasonable. After all, the law doesn't force my neighbors to help protect my property rights. People are responsible for policing their own property rights for the most part.
But that's not what is at issue here. Charging per viewer for content is like BMW charging ridiculous amounts for parts and labor for their cars. Who cares? If you buy a BMW you know that being gouged for maintenance is part and parcel of the experience. It's between you and the company you are buying from.
I'm not a free market true believer by any means. I think there are lots of problems not solved by the market and we need affirmative measures in those cases. But I suppose with the copyright debate, I just don't agree that there is really a problem. If Disney figures out a way to charge you every time you watch their shitty movies, then great, more power to them. It's a great business model to sell something that is physically totally fungible, but which consumers perceive as non-fungible (LV bags, BMW cars, etc). The fact that consumers eat it up anyway doesn't strike me as a problem worth solving.
Although to be fair I think SOPA is pretty benign now. I am actually sort of in favor of it as log as it doesn't harm american websites and as long as it doesn't require anyone to make special exceptions in the DNS.
Preventing American based advertisers and banks from paying foreign-based sites which would be prosecuted in the united states seems like something we should be able to do, so that Americans' unlimited ability to download hollywood movies from foreign based sites and songs from kontakte is limited.
America isn't overstepping its juridiction if it is only legislating what American companies can do.
That said, I disagree with the lack of due process in SOPA. I much prefer Issa's bill called OPEN. Issa rightly pointed out that there are better agencies for this than the attorney general's office, such as the ITC.
> as a repercussion of Google. I think you meant SOPA.
> It's very unlikely that any widespread, powerful websites (like Google or Facebook) would be taken down, because removing them from the ecosystem would prompt an enormous user reaction.
Probably not. I haven't read SOPA in detail, so I don't know what the procedure is - who gets to decide whether to shut the site down or not? What if the clerk working that particular desk is an 80 year old luddite and has no idea what a google is, but knows for sure it shouldn't be stealing all those movies or whatever?
And what happens to Facebook if I suddenly start uploading video clips from unreleased movies? The obvious answer is that Facebook shuts down my account, but what if some RIAA goon sees it before that happens and pulls the SOPA lever, or some congressman? If they can't use SOPA to shut down an infringing website, how could they have justified using all that cash to lobby for it?
Some criticisms on style:
- You said "you know" reflexively while she asked questions.
- You look young. The cool hair (which I like, personally) makes you look even younger.
- You bob your head.
- You mentioned PIPA without defining it. Most people you need to convince won't know what you're talking about.
- Emphasizing "One Million Dollars!" doesn't sound too huge compared with how often we hear "Billion" and "Trillion" thrown around in the news. LouisCK was great, and it's a good point, but I think it doesn't make the point you want to the people who don't already understand.
Some suggestions on content:
Play up "government intervention is bad" even more. The conservative electorate might be tough on crime, but they're also pro-business. Paint SOPA as a government-subsidized bailout intervention evil that is anti-business and taking away our constitutional rights.
People respect Google, and at least go "those people are smart!" even if they don't get the internet. A lot of conservatives got traction against Obamacare by saying "Doctors hate it, and we trust doctors." Play that up: Smart, innovative businesses like Google oppose this government intervention in the free market. We trust Google, etc. etc.
If I had one sentence to suggest it would be:
"SOPA lets the government intervene to take away the right to free speech from trusted businesses like Google that are the future of our economy, just to bail out the movie industry."
That's one hell of an oversimplification, but I think it's enough to perk up ears. This isn't defense spending - conservatives don't necessarily have any love for "Hollywood liberal PETA supporters" (as my mother puts it). In Hollywood versus Google, Google at least has "pro-business" points. The thing to remember is that if they don't get the internet, the won't get your explanation of any nuances.