RSS - Posts
I guess you could say the title is a portmanteau/pun, meaning “revolutionary solutions”. Well, at least that’s the idea. I occasionally have these radical ideas which, at least at the moment, seem like it would dramatically improve the Quality of life if materialized nationwide by the government. Most of these ideas I forget soon after thinking of them, because even though they are good ideas, they aren’t that important to me in comparison with the more philosophically-oriented material that makes up the bulk of this site.
So I guess you could say this page is here just as much for “you” as it is for “me”
1. In modern times, there is the modern crisis of software/entertainment piracy, and to conquer this problem, we must first understand “why?” it exists. Of all the justifications for media pirates, perhaps the most valid is “it’s a waste of money to purchase it without knowing if I like it”, or “Even if I like it, if I purchase it I’ll likely regret it once I discover over time it’s not as good as it ‘used to be’ “.
When considering these issues, I first was thinking only of the pirating of movies, but this applies just as well to music, anime, pornography, magazines, games, computer software, etc. All of these things can be (and I have- will all of these) downloaded with no commercial expenses whatsoever, via peer-to-peer services such as bittorrent. Some experts believe (and this is satirized in several movies) that the vast majority of Americans own at least a few pirated songs and/or movies. As for Russia, and even China- the problem is so great that piracy in these nations are presumed as “common knowledge”
The Solution: The government permits individuals to download all these forms of media (preferably via peer-to-peer) without restraint (except they must have good credit), but each downloaded is put on record by the government (or other corporation if applicable). 10 years from the first purchase, each individual is required by law to select 10% of the items they downloaded (of course choosing the products they appreciate(d) most), and pay for these items, in credit installments if necessary.
Possible criticisms of these solutions, and my rebuttals:
a. No restraint means that a person can download well beyond what they can pay back 10% of:
to account for this risk, a person will be given a quota that is proportionate to their income and credit history. This is not necessarily a restraint though, as the one who decides the quota (ultimately) is the one to whom it applies.
b. What happens if the person dies before the end of their 10 year term?
At the end of the term, the debt will be passed on their surviving family.
2. I’ll get back to you on that :P
July 26, 2008 at 9:10 am
Interesting proposal but I have a few things to point out.
First, the government allowing this isnt likely without full consent of virtually every media distributor in the world; otherwise the government would be overstepping its limits into the free market.
Second, developing a system to track every download via P2P for everyone nationwide would be quite a daunting task. The list would have to be considered reliable evidence in case lawsuits should come up regarding the 10% downloading and whatnot. If such a list was feasible, knock on wood, why not just keep the list and use it to scare those that are pirating goods? If the list truly could be used as evidence, it would be quite easy to indict everyone “guilty” of “piracy.”
Furthermore, one can only expect there be methods to circumvent getting logged onto the list. To prevent such holes, the government would pretty much have to tap every single computer, which would be an Orweillian nightmare (but possible considering the recently amended FISA legislation….). Several individuals will see no incentive in paying the 10% and would rather download freely with no cap.
This new 10% rule might also cause a sharp decline in profit as well; the citizens that purchased their goods at full face value will now have no reason to pay as such. The only reason holding them back (legality) would be removed and therefore, they would all switch to P2P downloading.
I’m just playing devils advocate here. I like the concept behind this idea, that you pay what you think its worth (essentially) which, if done honestly, would create a perfect electronic economy. The idea that you pay for what you like would DRASTICALLY improve quality in an insanely darwinian economy where the top 10% gain all the profits and the rest would shrivel away.
Oh btw, im no supporter of the RIAA or MPAA despite what i said above. Personally, I think suing people over this is ridiculous. People download what they wouldn’t have paid for in the first place and both sides benefit; consumers with the goods, distributers with publicity.
October 22, 2008 at 7:51 am
of course, the percentage could be changed to whatever is optimum. With the coming of Web2.0 services such as facebook, twitter, digg, and (god forbid) myspace– not to mention [my personal favorite] last.fm– it’s getting to the point that people have run out of excuses for not paying for music- with all the review *and* peer-review resources at our disposal, the only reason we can give for buying bad music is that we acted impulsively (without doing the research). So it seems that Web2.0 provided an even better solution that mine- and at the same time fosters indie musicians *and* lets label-contract musicians get even more money! dammit out of excuses :P