[sigfubar]

I pay for Spotify. I pay for concert tickets. As far as I'm concerned, this fulfills my obligation to support my favorite artists. Digitally downloaded music is thus already inherently "paid for" and can be downloaded from any source, even if some random entity considers this source "against the rules". No moral hazard, no hassle. Just music.

[josteink]

My point was not the moral aspects of pirating.

It was about the impossible complexity of doing anything IP by the books, even as a end-customer, as a single instance transaction.

And here the EU expects all companies out there, as intermediaries, to solve this generically and automatically.

It’s a joke surely?

[ahje]

It's not a joke. I think most of the people behind this are simply so naive that they can't believe the free market won't fix this.

[nonbel]

>"the free market won't fix this."

I've been seeing a large increase in comments like this across the internet. Can you share where you learned the definition of "free market"?

[ahje]

> definition of "free market"?

Basic supply/demand. Many people believe that a demand for something will result in someone deciding to make money by providing the sought-after good/service.

[nonbel]

Where did you learn about the concept of "free markets" though? Is it the school system of a certain country? A website?

I don't mean to try to hide why I am asking, it is because trying to tie a situation like this to "free markets" is ridiculous if you know it means "free of government meddling".

[ahje]

No worries. I learnt the concept at school, I guess? Mid or late 90's? :D

My definition is the same: Free from government meddling, although most markets obviously have some regulations on certain products and services and that they obviously aren't completely free.

Anyway, "free market" is being used by a lot of neo-liberal politicians here in the EU at least. The idea is that if you create a demand for some good or some service, then the private sector will automagically start providing the good and/or service simply because there's money in doing so.

What I meant was that I do believe that the politicians behind Article 13 think that the private sector will simply provide the 100% foolproof upload filters they're mandating, simply because they pass a law that mandates such filters.

I hope that made it a bit more clear. Some of it might have been lost in translation. English isn't my first language.

[krageon]

This is almost exclusively (average) americans and shielded rich right-wingers in my experience.

[_khau]

Why would a rich right-winger criticise free markets? Surely they benefit most from it?

[nonbel]

Which is easier for a rich person?

1) To pay off a few politicians

2) To sell a product/service to millions of people

I'd say it is usually the first. If you are already rich and powerful it is in your interest for the government to have more control. Eg, more red tape means higher barriers to entry to your (new and smaller) competition.

[rolph]

I think the problem is not so much with the downloading right now but with the uploading, so kill the horse and the cart stays put. if noone can upload infringeing media then its not available to download from unauthorized services.