-
Website
http://techliberation.com/ -
Original page
http://techliberation.com/2007/05/30/thoughts-on-black-markets/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
MikeRT
184 comments · 6 points
-
eee_eff
800 comments · 8 points
-
mwendy
73 comments · 2 points
-
Ryan Radia
176 comments · 5 points
-
Richard Bennett
612 comments · 1 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
The Ugliness of Privacy Notices
3 days ago · 4 comments
-
Google’s Privacy Dashboard: Another Major Step Forward in User Empowerment & Transparency
2 days ago · 2 comments
-
Open Source is Not the Enemy
3 days ago · 3 comments
-
Broadband as a Human Right (and a short list of other things I am entitled to on your dime)
3 weeks ago · 18 comments
-
“Internet Freedom”: How Statists Corrupt Our Language
1 week ago · 7 comments
-
The Ugliness of Privacy Notices
Moreover, these failed attempts at enforcement do impose a cost on blameless third parties - consumers and technologists.
We have a "tax on drug use" for alcohol and tobacco.
First, the post neglects to mention that the rights of a copyright owner are limited. This leaves the reader with the false impression that the copyright owner has "unlimited" authority to define how copyrighted material may be used.
Second, the post neglects to mention that, by law, the consumer is entitled to certain privileges when using copyrighted material.
Third, the post neglects to mention that the content providers are attempting to aggrandize (seizing) rights that they do not currently own at the expense of the consumer.
Fourth, the post fails to discuss that content owners believe that they have a right to trespass onto a consumers property to "protect" protect their so-called intellectual property. For a lawyer concerned about "property rights" the omission of the content owners complying with due process seems particularly glaring and disingenuous. Is Singleton implying that that certain segments of society have an intrinsic superior property right than other segments and can seize, at will, the property of the less fortunate?
Based on the post, it would appear that consumers have no rights. When a segment of society is trampled on things such as civil disobedience and black markets emerge. Singleton is correct in one sense, a copyright black market currently exists because there is "substantive legal regime" creating it.
Also, keep in mind that many digital goods are licensed, not bought in the sense that you *own* the goods. Many misconceptions of "consumer rights" arise from this distinction.
Remember the Sony rootkit debacle were Sony effectively disabled a users CD drive so that it would not work in certain situations. This is a clear concrete example of the content industry believing that it has an imaginary unilateral right to seize control of property.
Who gets to decide what rights are imaginary?
Any argument that starts out "regardless of what consumers feel" is not an argument that is going to survive long in today's marketplace. The consumer is king.
Also, what do you mean by "you can't just go around downplaying piracy..."? Do you believe in free speech or not?
Mike concludes: "And, the most ridiculous part is that Slingbox is a great tool for baseball fans helping them to get more enjoyment and more value of the game. Yet, MLB is upset because how dare anyone give fans more value without first paying MLB their share."
It may not always be. However it is very important to note that there are other dimensions to this problem, namely, every regulatory scheme normally entails some loss of freedom and also imposes some costs on society.
The costs, in terms of lost innovation, are a matter of some debate. I believe the lost innovation costs to be too high, and Solveig and many others of the IPCentral tribe, do not.
However, the lost innovation is not the only leg that the argument against DRM and DMCA stand on. In fact, in my accounting, that argument is not needed, because the affront to human freedom is so great that no argument in terms of efficiency and business plans can overcome the hurdle which any argument which proposes to eliminate substantial human freedom, that is the First Amendment, must reach.