And in other news it appears the judge was compromised;
http://www.thelocal.se/19028/20090423/
I disagree, there is a certain bar and level of proof that needs to be met for criminal copyright infringement, and TPB seems not to be at the level where they would be considered such. And the level of evidence required was definitely not in the trial.
Now they might be criminals in other ways, but unless you have some evidence that they are making moonshine or smuggling cocaine on the side I rather doubt it.
TPB is a political tool, and as such it has been performing quite well. Calling them criminal would be similar to calling the NRA or some other political group that is disliked criminal. Now in the USA the piratebay would be criminal since they ignored DMCA noties, but DMCA only applies in the USA and sweden is not a US state.
I'm fairly certain you are right about this.
I agree with your economic analysis, but I disagree with your summary. The problem with services like iTunes is that most of the cost is the pay barrier, credit cards ussualy charge 0.50$-2.00$ each time they are used or a percentage of the money, whichever is more. I'm sure iTunes has some kind of special deal, otherwise they couldn't charge 1$ per song, and from that 1$ they need to also pay for their own accounting system, their servers, and so forth before paying record labels and artists.* In short the pay barrier adds significantly in cost for everyone (cost of exclusion is high), and the cost of a additional user is low which makes it unlikely that it will continue indefinitly. In fact the classical solution to something which meets those two conditions is the goverment, other things which meet those conditions are roads and the military for example. Now I really don't want to step in and tax for music while making it free to share, it's just the solution to other similar problems.
The only solution I see that has a chance of being acceptable to all parties is to put a fee on copyright that doubles each year, and use that money to enforce copyright. It means that as soon as it becomes unprofitable to hold on to a copyright it will be dropped becoming public domain, while those that have very high value will remain copyrighted for longer, those will also pay far more in taxes to enforcement. This patch to IP systems would need to be global (hah, not happening) for enforcement reasons, and it probably would only work for a few more years until cheap 3d printers make everything more difficult again.
* Some breakdowns I found online claims that each song give apple 0.34$ to cover all those expenses, and 0.65$ go to the labels. Of those 0.65$ 0.10$ go to the artist and 0.025 to producers. So 0.525$, or more than half the price goes to the labels, after deducting the costs for the artists.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
http://www.thelocal.se/19028/20090423/
Quote:I think the Pirate Bays guys were criminals.
I disagree, there is a certain bar and level of proof that needs to be met for criminal copyright infringement, and TPB seems not to be at the level where they would be considered such. And the level of evidence required was definitely not in the trial.
Now they might be criminals in other ways, but unless you have some evidence that they are making moonshine or smuggling cocaine on the side I rather doubt it.
TPB is a political tool, and as such it has been performing quite well. Calling them criminal would be similar to calling the NRA or some other political group that is disliked criminal. Now in the USA the piratebay would be criminal since they ignored DMCA noties, but DMCA only applies in the USA and sweden is not a US state.
Quote:I also think the MPAA/RIAA will never stop filesharing.
I'm fairly certain you are right about this.
Quote:In summary: support the iTunes and any other legal pay-for-download music and/or movie sites. The more we the consumer point out that pay-for-download is the future, the harder and harder it will be for the industry to resist. And for the industry: accept that pirates exist and that you will only ever get $1-2 dollars a song now, refinance your operations accordingly.
I agree with your economic analysis, but I disagree with your summary. The problem with services like iTunes is that most of the cost is the pay barrier, credit cards ussualy charge 0.50$-2.00$ each time they are used or a percentage of the money, whichever is more. I'm sure iTunes has some kind of special deal, otherwise they couldn't charge 1$ per song, and from that 1$ they need to also pay for their own accounting system, their servers, and so forth before paying record labels and artists.* In short the pay barrier adds significantly in cost for everyone (cost of exclusion is high), and the cost of a additional user is low which makes it unlikely that it will continue indefinitly. In fact the classical solution to something which meets those two conditions is the goverment, other things which meet those conditions are roads and the military for example. Now I really don't want to step in and tax for music while making it free to share, it's just the solution to other similar problems.
The only solution I see that has a chance of being acceptable to all parties is to put a fee on copyright that doubles each year, and use that money to enforce copyright. It means that as soon as it becomes unprofitable to hold on to a copyright it will be dropped becoming public domain, while those that have very high value will remain copyrighted for longer, those will also pay far more in taxes to enforcement. This patch to IP systems would need to be global (hah, not happening) for enforcement reasons, and it probably would only work for a few more years until cheap 3d printers make everything more difficult again.
* Some breakdowns I found online claims that each song give apple 0.34$ to cover all those expenses, and 0.65$ go to the labels. Of those 0.65$ 0.10$ go to the artist and 0.025 to producers. So 0.525$, or more than half the price goes to the labels, after deducting the costs for the artists.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."