![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
airiefairie.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsFrench ‘Three Strikes’ Law Slashes Piracy, But Fails to Boost Sales
http://torrentfreak.com/french-three-strikes-law-slashes-piracy-but-fails-to-boost-sales-120330/
So... apparently France is now claiming the title of standard-bearer of anti-piracy legislation. A recent law has resulted in a 66% reduction of piracy in the country, BUT! Maybe surprisingly (to some), the sales haven't improved any.
Perhaps it is time to reassess the correlation between tougher anti-piracy legislation and the effects on the industry? To get real and "face the music", so to speak? As it turns out, people download pirated stuff that they would not otherwise buy. Or am I getting this wrong and there is some other factor that I am missing?
Of course the failure of this legislation to bring the desired effect still does not erase the other question: Just because piracy doesn't necessarily directly correlate to lost sales, still does that make it OK? From an ethical POV? In other words, does there have to be a victim for there to be a crime?
Personally I do not think the solution to this problem is so much to punish people, as much as it is to develop technology that would protect the product in an adequate way. There must be ways to encrypt online media so that it can only be processed through an authorised device or software. If the process of counterfeiting (like with money) is made extremely difficult, it would become unbeneficial for the counterfeiters at some point, and they wouldn't even bother trying (that much). I also think some combination between difficult encryption and fair pricing (quite a vague term to define, I know), would eventually change people's approach to said difficult encryption, or any encryption to that matter, and it will be rendered unnecessary.
Aside from that, the broader question remains if piracy is a good thing, whether it contributes to mass culture in a positive way or not, or should culture be accessible only for those who can afford to consume it in an authorised way. I am open to any opinions.
http://torrentfreak.com/french-three-strikes-law-slashes-piracy-but-fails-to-boost-sales-120330/
So... apparently France is now claiming the title of standard-bearer of anti-piracy legislation. A recent law has resulted in a 66% reduction of piracy in the country, BUT! Maybe surprisingly (to some), the sales haven't improved any.
Perhaps it is time to reassess the correlation between tougher anti-piracy legislation and the effects on the industry? To get real and "face the music", so to speak? As it turns out, people download pirated stuff that they would not otherwise buy. Or am I getting this wrong and there is some other factor that I am missing?
Of course the failure of this legislation to bring the desired effect still does not erase the other question: Just because piracy doesn't necessarily directly correlate to lost sales, still does that make it OK? From an ethical POV? In other words, does there have to be a victim for there to be a crime?
Personally I do not think the solution to this problem is so much to punish people, as much as it is to develop technology that would protect the product in an adequate way. There must be ways to encrypt online media so that it can only be processed through an authorised device or software. If the process of counterfeiting (like with money) is made extremely difficult, it would become unbeneficial for the counterfeiters at some point, and they wouldn't even bother trying (that much). I also think some combination between difficult encryption and fair pricing (quite a vague term to define, I know), would eventually change people's approach to said difficult encryption, or any encryption to that matter, and it will be rendered unnecessary.
Aside from that, the broader question remains if piracy is a good thing, whether it contributes to mass culture in a positive way or not, or should culture be accessible only for those who can afford to consume it in an authorised way. I am open to any opinions.
