MPAA attacks Ars for "challenging efforts to curb content theft"(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
MPAA attacks Ars for "challenging efforts to curb content theft"
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/mpaa-attacks-ars-for-challenging-efforts-to-curb-content-theft.ars
8 comments
I disagree. This comes across as a fantastic editorial, with just the right amount of frankness ("The thing is, we're really on the MPAA's side; they just don't realize it.") to make me sit up and take them seriously.
My only quibble is that it's filed as a news piece, rather than the editorial it so clearly is. This isn't news; it's meta-news.
My only quibble is that it's filed as a news piece, rather than the editorial it so clearly is. This isn't news; it's meta-news.
But they might better have first ribbonized the complaining article:
MPAA: "Sanchez’s main argument is that theft has a negligible economic impact – only some inefficiency – because theft is beneficial"
Sanchez (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/how-copyright-industries-con-...):
"Does that mean online piracy is harmless? Of course not. But the harm is a dynamic loss in allocative efficiency, which is much harder to quantify. That is, in the cases where a consumer would have been willing to buy an illicitly downloaded movie, album, or software program, we want the market to be accurately signalling demand for the products people value, rather than whatever less-valued use that money gets spent on instead."
MPAA:
"Extending this argument, shoplifting has no economic impact since shoplifters can spend the money they “saved” on other products . . ."
Sanchez:
"In many cases—I’ve seen research suggesting it’s about 80 percent for music—a U.S. consumer would not have otherwise purchased an illicitly downloaded song or movie if piracy were not an option. Here, the result is actually pure consumer surplus: The downloader enjoys the benefit, and the producer loses nothing."
(The problem with the shoplifting analogy: those pinched Mach 3 razor blades are gone, and must be restocked at some cost. And whomever uses the pinched razors, needs razors of some kind, so the theft does diminish revenue. Theft of copyright doesn't force restocking to enable a legit sale, and Sanchez is suggesting that the thief wouldn't have been a legit sale in the first place.)
MPAA: "Sanchez argued against Congressional passage of the Stop Online Piracy Act, basing his reasoning on his own faulty logic that content theft and counterfeiting don’t cause widespread economic pain"
Sanchez:
"I’ve yet to encounter a technically clueful person who believes the Stop Online Piracy Act will actually do anything to meaningfully reduce—let alone “stop”—online piracy, and so I haven’t bothered writing much about the absurd numbers . . . . If the proposed solution just won’t work, after all, why bother quibbling about the magnitude of the problem? But . . . . I’m offended to see bad data invoked so routinely and brazenly, on general principle"
MPAA:
"Ars Technica, a tech blog with a long history of challenging efforts to curb content theft. . . . "
In light of the above, we're content to let the reader consider the source. We do thank the MPAA for correcting their spelling of our name (see screenshot w/ 'Arts Technica'), and suggest their analysis is every bit as good as their proof reading.
MPAA: "Sanchez’s main argument is that theft has a negligible economic impact – only some inefficiency – because theft is beneficial"
Sanchez (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/how-copyright-industries-con-...):
"Does that mean online piracy is harmless? Of course not. But the harm is a dynamic loss in allocative efficiency, which is much harder to quantify. That is, in the cases where a consumer would have been willing to buy an illicitly downloaded movie, album, or software program, we want the market to be accurately signalling demand for the products people value, rather than whatever less-valued use that money gets spent on instead."
MPAA:
"Extending this argument, shoplifting has no economic impact since shoplifters can spend the money they “saved” on other products . . ."
Sanchez:
"In many cases—I’ve seen research suggesting it’s about 80 percent for music—a U.S. consumer would not have otherwise purchased an illicitly downloaded song or movie if piracy were not an option. Here, the result is actually pure consumer surplus: The downloader enjoys the benefit, and the producer loses nothing."
(The problem with the shoplifting analogy: those pinched Mach 3 razor blades are gone, and must be restocked at some cost. And whomever uses the pinched razors, needs razors of some kind, so the theft does diminish revenue. Theft of copyright doesn't force restocking to enable a legit sale, and Sanchez is suggesting that the thief wouldn't have been a legit sale in the first place.)
MPAA: "Sanchez argued against Congressional passage of the Stop Online Piracy Act, basing his reasoning on his own faulty logic that content theft and counterfeiting don’t cause widespread economic pain"
Sanchez:
"I’ve yet to encounter a technically clueful person who believes the Stop Online Piracy Act will actually do anything to meaningfully reduce—let alone “stop”—online piracy, and so I haven’t bothered writing much about the absurd numbers . . . . If the proposed solution just won’t work, after all, why bother quibbling about the magnitude of the problem? But . . . . I’m offended to see bad data invoked so routinely and brazenly, on general principle"
MPAA:
"Ars Technica, a tech blog with a long history of challenging efforts to curb content theft. . . . "
In light of the above, we're content to let the reader consider the source. We do thank the MPAA for correcting their spelling of our name (see screenshot w/ 'Arts Technica'), and suggest their analysis is every bit as good as their proof reading.
ArsTechnica tends to classify itself as a professional blog. While it certainly reports the news, they have for a long time freely intermixed opinion, reviews, and political commentary with the news, though they generally go out of their way to make certain that it is easily distinguished from the facts.
This was an excellent news piece with some editorializing both presenting facts that occurred along with the opinion of one of Ars' editors. I found it a highly interesting piece from an outstandin organization.
This was an excellent news piece with some editorializing both presenting facts that occurred along with the opinion of one of Ars' editors. I found it a highly interesting piece from an outstandin organization.
It's like McCarthyism only it's not about Communism it's about piracy and copyright.
MPAA forgot the other half of the gun argument. Guns can kill people but we don't prevent law enforcement from having guns? OK, but U.S. citizens have the right to own guns also, kind of a balance of power so to speak.
So where is my balance of power with respect to SOPA/PIPA? When someone improperly targets my website (intentionally or not) and it's offline due to a simple accusation, what's my recourse?
So where is my balance of power with respect to SOPA/PIPA? When someone improperly targets my website (intentionally or not) and it's offline due to a simple accusation, what's my recourse?
If a company abuses DMCA, they are liable for perjury. The police prosecutor is meant to charge them. However, that hasn't happened.
Alternatively, if a person suffered monetary damages (current and future), they can sue the abuser for damages. This is what protects big companies from potential DMCA abusers because they have a lot to lose.
Since free content creators can't sue for damages but only counternotice and accept liability if they're not scared from the notice; but people sharing the content will be more afraid of the legalese in counternotices. The bill's intent was to stop freely infringing copyright content, it also consequently kills free content sharing due to the unchecked abuse. It's brilliant bill for the anti-Internet activists.
MPAA are anti-Internet activists by the way.
Alternatively, if a person suffered monetary damages (current and future), they can sue the abuser for damages. This is what protects big companies from potential DMCA abusers because they have a lot to lose.
Since free content creators can't sue for damages but only counternotice and accept liability if they're not scared from the notice; but people sharing the content will be more afraid of the legalese in counternotices. The bill's intent was to stop freely infringing copyright content, it also consequently kills free content sharing due to the unchecked abuse. It's brilliant bill for the anti-Internet activists.
MPAA are anti-Internet activists by the way.
Now that's how you write policy pieces - short, cutting, funny, and informative.
When some random person on the Internet trolls, they are ignored. So why don't we ignore the copyright trolls? "A piece of literature is arguing against our policies." Well... yeah, welcome to society!
> So why don't we ignore the copyright trolls?
Because they're modifying our copyright laws.
Because they're modifying our copyright laws.
theft ≠ infringement
MPAA wants censorship rights without due process on bytes traveling between any device. If you resist then you are labeled as petty thieves who want paid content for free.
MPAA wants to preserve a 18th century business model against a modern infrastructure where thought, matter, data, energy, directives and commerse exist as one and can be freely transmitted between minds (the future devices they want to censor... You and I, our sensors and transmission devices)
our minds will eventually join this symphony of communication called the internet. We better cook freedom right into it or you'll find penalties for thinking and communicating unauthorized information.
MPAA wants to preserve a 18th century business model against a modern infrastructure where thought, matter, data, energy, directives and commerse exist as one and can be freely transmitted between minds (the future devices they want to censor... You and I, our sensors and transmission devices)
our minds will eventually join this symphony of communication called the internet. We better cook freedom right into it or you'll find penalties for thinking and communicating unauthorized information.
That being said, I don't like this piece. It's emotional, and even as they admit, hyperbolic. Unless "crazy freetards" is a word the MPAA used in their posting, I don't see a legitimate reason for Ars to use it. The bill might be absolutely freaking insane, but I don't read Ars to be told that, I read Ars to be informed about the issue.
I understand their passion, their disgust, and their defensiveness. I share their sentiments exactly. I just don't understand why that should undermine their professionalism.