Aside from attributing all this to the RIAA and the MPAA, I can see a line of thought that might move policy makers in this direction. As time goes on, an increasingly large slice of the U.S. (and world) economy is coming from non-physical goods like software, movies, writing, speaking, etc. Politicians who acknowledge this would want to promote an economic environment that will let these growing industries thrive. I would imagine this is the thinking behind ACTA - we want the world to respect copyright since we expect to rely heavily on it. While people like to (rightly) point out that a downloaded song or movie is not equal to a lost sale, the potential for easy, private transfer of data WILL eat into sales significantly over time if not "controlled."<p>What the politicians don't seem to acknowledge is that the products of this process are not scarce (although the inputs to the process are). Enforcing the illusion of scarcity (particularly with all the great privacy/crypto we have) must be extremely heavy-handed. We'll have to choose between severe restrictions in our communication (which should bother everyone) and less production of the software and movies that we desire (which would be unfortunate).
Very uncool, Obama. Very uncool.<p>He obviously never read this quote from the world's richest man (talking about piracy in China):<p><i>"Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though," Gates told an audience at the University of Washington. "And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."</i><p>Source: <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09/business/fi-micropiracy9/2" rel="nofollow">http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09/business/fi-micropir...</a><p>If the Obama started listening to smart people in the tech and music industry, not to mention the <i>young people</i> who voted him into power, then he would make far more informed decisions.
> which allows the government to charge people who they think might be about to infringe with a civil offense (for example if you searched "torrent daft punk").<p>I find this difficult to believe.
How is music piracy different than the following scenario:<p>(1) I quit my day job and decide to launch a web-based startup.<p>(2) I base my business plan on a monthly subscription model.<p>(3) I achieve product/market fit and revenue starts coming in.<p>(4) A technology emerges that magically makes it easy to copy my SaaS app and use it in its entirety without paying the monthly subscription.<p>(5) My revenue plummets and I have to completely revamp my business model or go out of business.<p>This is not a rhetorical question. I honestly want to know what is the difference. Thanks!
I find it hard to argue that piracy is beneficial. I am of the mind that intellectual property rights are currently inadequate from my own experiences in patent law.<p>My main beef is that the RIAA and MPAA have a defunct business model and they are wielding the U.S. legal system as a tool to punish non-violent criminals severely.
I really don't understand how anyone expects to stop people from downloading things for free. It's even possible to get songs directly off youtube and tv shows directly off hulu, just as it is possible to record songs directly off the radio. Nobody seems to notice though.
Good to hear. Anyone on HN that makes something - whether it's been ripped off before or not - needs to be able to know they can do something about it should it happen.
Just another symptom of living in an idiocracy. This situation will work well for the for-profit prisons in the United States, who, like the for-profit health insurance companies, make a profit off of people's misery, and will ensure that America remains #1 in persons incarcerated:<p><a href="http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/the-high-budgetary-cost-of-incarceration/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/the-high-...</a><p>Thankfully, the article does point out the discrepancies in Biden's claims:<p><pre><code> Interestingly, the statements seem to fly in the face of a
recent Government Accountability Office study released to
U.S. Congress earlier this year, which concluded that there
is virtually no evidence for the claimed million dollar
losses by the entertainment industry. That study suggested
that piracy could even benefit the economy.
</code></pre>
Nevermind facts, we don't care if the evidence suggests that piracy helps the economy, or whether Biden's metaphor is a metaphor and not a substitute for reality, or whether that drug you're taking is not only safe, but healthy, we're still going to toss your ass in jail, or give you a fine you'll spend the rest of your life dealing with.<p>Ars Technica did a great job thoroughly debunking the claims of the RIAA and MPAA:<p><a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/10/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy.ars" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/10/dodgy-digits...</a><p>And here's their take on the referenced government study:<p><a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-government-finally-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-governmen...</a><p>But in this country, facts don't really have much weight when it comes to policy making.<p>The irony of all of this is that like the War on Drugs, instead of keeping people safe and happy, this coming War on Piracy will only serve as a drain on America's economy and morale, and yes, could even result in the creation of a dangerous black market. Tax dollars flushed down the toilet for the purpose of spreading misery and soothing the irrational fears of an aging and nervous minority of rich people.