Issues...

[sledger]

Ok, so I raised this on...a different cricketing site a while ago...but thought it would perhaps be more suitable for discussion here...

What does everyone make of regulatory techniques or practices which are non-normative and thus dictate compliance?

In this regard I am thinking particularly of examples of things such as the copyright protection software on the internet that prevents you viewing certain videos etc... if you are not residing in the appropriate location, or the devices they have in operation on the Metro in Paris which physically prevents you from boarding a train without a ticket. Thus in essence, they remove the autonomy of the individual and enforce compliance with the law (except for the technically savvy or whatever and so on...).

Personally I think the abovementioned examples are sensible and have no objection to either of them. But in general terms surely one of the key aspects of any liberal democracy is the right to be able to choose to comply (or not comply) with any legal boundaries. As these sorts of technologies develop, and we move deeper and deeper into the information society in which we live, there's a danger that these trends could be developed to the point where they could become nastily intrusive and dodgy. I can see the virtues of both sides of the argument here...but personally the idea of hard regulation of this form fills me with a sense of disquiet.

I think to take the assumption that the laws in question are fair does make things somewhat easier, but even such a position would be pretty controversial and unwelcome I would suggest. Surely the essence of a moral community is for individuals within said community to make the right choice, for the right reason. Surely nobody really likes the idea of a society in which people make the "right" choice purely because they are forced to do so.

This becomes an even more controversial issue when we take the assumption (not a particularly difficult one to make, I might add) that certain laws may be somewhat dubious or completely void in terms of their integrity.

Even if this issue can be overcome (a possibility that I'm incredibly sceptical of), the likelihood is that we are heading towards more and more regulation by technology than regulation by law or convention. Things like Oyster Cards and Smart Cards that make for convenient use of transport around London and wherever else are a very convenient invention, but they are just another cause of an information trail that every individual leaves behind. Apparently the Police and Governmental Services apply for more warrants for people's Oyster Card activity (so to track their movement etc...) than for warrants to search people's houses. The existence of store loyalty cards and the credit cards you can make payments with by just touching the card to a card reader creates a record of an individual's location/movement/purchase/finances and allows for criminal/commercial profiling which would never have been possible previously.

Problematic tstl, I would suggest.

[benchmark00]

Waffle, waffle, waffle.

[sledger]

Parma Parma Parma, AFL sucks, piss off.

[Spark]

Not a huge fan - very open to abuse.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by Spark

Not a huge fan - very open to abuse.

Roebuck thread is over there, pal.

[Uppercut]

I don't think companies should be compelled to reveal information they hold on someone to law enforcement. Especially since the law don't have to say what they need it for. It's just too open to abuse.

A friend of mine wrote a dissertation on how these practices develop. One element of the state bureaucracy requests a particular power on the grounds that it makes their job much easier and eliminates all kinds of inefficiencies. But once that power has been granted, it's used as a precedent for other departments to push for similar powers. The end result is a stranglehold much stronger than any single person in the system actually wanted.

[Redbacks]

Surely nobody really likes the idea of a society in which people make the "right" choice purely because they are forced to do so.

People wouldn't pay taxes if the state wouldn't put them in jail for a start.

[Agent Nationaux]

Hate it when a music video on YouTube has no sound because it has been censored.

Regarding streaming/downloading online for films etc should be allowed because I happen to go to the cinema every once in a while but also like watching films online because sometimes it's just more convenient.

[wellAlbidarned]

Find all that copyright protection stuff total bull****, all it succeeds in doing is losing potential fans and customers who get ****ed off at not being able to listen to something which costs nothing to distribute, not to mention to retarded prices for "legal" downloaded music an CDs aren't particularly tempting to anyone without much spare dough (AKA almost everyone).

[Redbacks]

Bit unfair on the Artist if they cannot make a living from their work.

It's probably a bias the physiocrats had in the 18th century and still exists today against service industries. Without the presentation of a physical good in front them (farm goods), they didn't believe it could have value.

[wellAlbidarned]

I'm an artist myself (albeit an inexperienced one), and if you want to make money from your work, you've got to get your arse off the couch and play some shows. Recorded music is just a promotional tool these days, seeing as it's getting cheaper and easier with advances in technology. You can't pirate a live performance.

It's not unfair IMO, an artist's first and foremost motivation for doing their thing, be it music, painting, or photography or whatever should be because they enjoy it, and want to share their talent with the world. If people want to pay for it then they will, you can't force them to like the current anti-piracy lobby is attempting.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Redbacks

Bit unfair on the Artist if they cannot make a living from their work.

I don't think it's unfair to stop people from declaring a monopoly over a sound that they make. Putting a price on music has efficiency losses because people can't listen to music they'd like to listen to, it results in laws that cost the state a ton to enforce and it doesn't disincentivise production because money isn't a significant motivator when it comes to making music.

Technology has advanced to the stage where anyone can make a seriously good-quality recording at minimal cost, and music can be distributed all over the world at almost no cost at all. Without state support there's no market in recordings anymore. If you don't like the fact that you can't get rich recording music anymore, no one's forcing you to. It's one of the unfortunate elements of capitalism that when technological advancements make the greatest part of human culture instantly and widely available for free, someone is pissed off because they can't use it to make money anymore.

[wellAlbidarned]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

I don't think it's unfair to stop people from declaring a monopoly over a sound that they make. Putting a price on music has efficiency losses because people can't listen to music they'd like to listen to, it results in laws that cost the state a ton to enforce and it doesn't disincentivise production because money isn't a significant motivator when it comes to making music.

Technology has advanced to the stage where anyone can make a seriously good-quality recording at minimal cost, and music can be distributed all over the world at almost no cost at all. Without state support there's no market in recordings anymore. If you don't like the fact that you can't get rich recording music anymore, no one's forcing you to. It's one of the unfortunate elements of capitalism that when technological advancements make the greatest part of human culture instantly and widely available for free, someone is pissed off because they can't use it to make money anymore.

Very nicely put.

[sledger]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

I don't think it's unfair to stop people from declaring a monopoly over a sound that they make. Putting a price on music has efficiency losses because people can't listen to music they'd like to listen to, it results in laws that cost the state a ton to enforce and it doesn't disincentivise production because money isn't a significant motivator when it comes to making music.

Technology has advanced to the stage where anyone can make a seriously good-quality recording at minimal cost, and music can be distributed all over the world at almost no cost at all. Without state support there's no market in recordings anymore. If you don't like the fact that you can't get rich recording music anymore, no one's forcing you to. It's one of the unfortunate elements of capitalism that when technological advancements make the greatest part of human culture instantly and widely available for free, someone is pissed off because they can't use it to make money anymore.

Largely I agree with what you've said here, but removing all intellectual property rights from anything musical could set a dangerous precedent. With regards to the bit in bold, what's to stop people from substituting the word "sound" for "writing" or "film" or even "invention"? Seeing as more and more value is being placed on services rather than goods, and more and more services are becoming web based...I'd be cautious with any de-regulation in this area.

[Flem274*]

Personally when it comes to books and movies, authors/film makers need all the protection they can get since they can't exactly do tours like musicians.