Hollywood Groups Advocate for More Internet Regulation
techdirt.com
techdirt.com
I think this is interesting because while they sound like they are attacking Facebook, they are likely looking to go after their old enemies: YouTube and any video on the public internet.
There are some snippets of popular shows that go beyond "fair use". But those are usually of low quality because they are trying to evade the filters.
Everything of actual value seems to be rather well protected.
And hasn't the music industry made their peace with the internet these days? Seriously: it seemed in the early 2000s, there was far more action by the MPAA and RIAA to shut down the internet as it is (was). Reading slashdot in that era, those two organisations showed up in headlines as often as Facebook has on HN in the last month, or Uber in 2017.
File sharing these days is but a fraction of its peak, what with Spotify and Netflix. Maybe they are still angling for better terms and other marginal concessions, but they are no longer the Dark Army fighting for life.
Long has this "IP" group sought to violate the social contract. When their control exceeds the social contract, then they no longer promote progress in the science and the arts. At which case I no longer respect their not-so-limited-time exclusive right to their writings and discoveries. May bittorrent, youtube, and the like continue to be the eye for an eye for their flagrant disregard of it.
This was fine, while they were on our side and influential. But counting on a small collection of correlated elites is not a robust strategy. We need to turn privacy into a grassroots cause.
The underlying reason is that most of the time, most are only motivated to put out significant effort for their own personal gain. Which means that in public goods, only if they believe that they will make the difference. Therefore public goods tend to fall into one of the following buckets:
1. A single individual or group supplies it out of self-interest and everyone else is a free rider. (This is the exploitation of the large by the small.) A good example is how most of the world lets the USA play global policeman and, despite complaints, contributes little to the effort.
2. A small group provides the good with complex negotiations where each tries to do as little as possible. A fun example is the infighting within OPEC as it tries to keep oil prices high.
3. A large group that is formed for some other purpose and is coercive in nature provides the good. Most government action falls into this category.
4. The public good fails to be provided. Examples are too numerous to bother listing.
What does Dr. Olson recommend in terms of broadening coalitions?
The weakness that you identify above is that individual citizens aren't jumping into it. We are willing to sit back and let large companies to deal with it.
Anyways if you want to create results, find a reason for people to be part of the your organization that is not tied to the goal, and then use the organization for the goal.
As a concrete example he used AAA, which people belong to because they want various services that AAA offers, and then can use their money and position to advocate for things like better roads.
In the context of privacy, how would 1, 2 or 3 explain the FSF, the EFF, or Wikipedia?
Does the selection explain things better than people wanting them to exist because they inherently believe that public goods are good, and they want to make a better world for everyone? (Even if such a belief is 'irrational' and thus game-theoretically impossible.)
So they will "Kick Facebook While Down"? Any company in the world would enjoy being "down" like Facebook is.
People don’t let media companies tell them what to believe anymore, they do as they want and they want tech. The media is no longer the gatekeeper of public opinion and you can see their fear in every anti-tech push they make.
i feel like its a new media now... but still a media driven by advertising bux
This is a case of them wanting their "rights" with no intention of ever carrying out their responsibilities.
I actively teach the young people that I have relationship with (including my children, grandchildren, nephews, nieces, etc) that you have one right only, the rest is privilege and responsibility. That one right is to choose your course of action and there are consequences (good and bad) with every choice you make, but that is your right. Everything else that is called a right is a privilege and it comes with attendant responsibilities.
These kinds of groups make choices but have no desire to face the consequences of their action, they want to place on others those consequences.
- 1 movie remake per year, max
- Sequels stop once you need more than 1 (human) hand to count them
- Cease and desist production on any more 'super hero' movies
We've reached "peak special effects" - raytracing has been used in movies for decades, and we're very close to having realtime raytracing in videogames.
Why? I want to be entertained and who the hell are you to say I can't get what I want (and millions of others want it too).
I don't have any problem you getting to watch some art film I have zero interest in.
Hell, I'll pirate a show to avoid waiting until the next day to watch it on Amazon. I still buy it, but why the hell should I have to wait.
I'm not even super anti-DRM. It's dumb, but if I can watch the show I just don't care. Just let me pay you money to watch content.
Easiest thing in the world and they fuck it up constantly.
That's one of our biggest problems: no one cares about DRM until it directly hinders them.
Most people don't care about watching Netflix in Linux, but the rest of us have to deal with being arbitrarily constrained to 720p.
Most people don't mind their favorite video game needing to ask the internet for permission to load, or frequent large forced updates, but that leaves people with slow or limited internet in a frustrating situation.
Our society's problem is apathy: so long as copyright holders provide the bare minimum, they can avoid any serious action, because there simply aren't enough people willing to act against copyright abuse.
The copyright holder does not lose anything to piracy.
We need to lose the propaganda-based rhetoric, and go back to the real descriptive term for copyright: Monopoly.
Facebook created a consolidation of control, so that they could use their newfound power to exercise their will over other people. They put a target on their own back, and on the backs of every last person running online systems in general.
That's the cost of creating control levers. You alone don't get to set them because nobody is ever - or has ever been - at the top of every power hierarchy simultaneously.
The problem was never that Hollywood wanted to use the government to tell me what I could and couldn't do. The problem was that they wanted to tell me what I could and coudn't do.