Comments on: Copyright as a Moral Hazard

By: Police-officer-pages

Police-officer-pages — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 23:34:32 +0000

This is probably exactly what Viacom intended, knowing that videos on the web are excellent at creating attention and advertising upcoming movies and shows. If a video looks grainy and “raw”, it probably does even more to attract attention because it gives the user the belief that they are looking at something they’re not supposed to have access to.Turning around and threatening to sue creates even more attention and “buzz”. It’s Hollywood 101- everything is fake and created for the purpose of elevating awareness- just like the sex tapes that celebrities release with full knowlege and payment from the adult DVD companies, but state in the news that they are “horrified and will sue.”It’s all a sham designed to create attention.

By: Merchant payment Services

Merchant payment Services — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 03:17:05 +0000

Is this even legal. What right does viacom have to blackmail google?

By: Havvy

Havvy — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 06:40:41 +0000

Sounds to me like Fight Club. Specifically the scene in which the main character beats himself up in front of his boss and then acts like the boss did it.

By: Shay

Shay — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:57:34 +0000

We’re not talking about Apple giving out 100 free iPhones as promotion, then someone stealing 100 more from their warehouse. You are smarter than this Karem.

By: Kerem Tibuk

Kerem Tibuk — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:26:29 +0000

Let see if I get this.

If a company gives away stuff as a way of promoting, it has no right to complain or seek justice, if there is a robbery committed against it.

And as an individual if you ever given stuff away for charity you lost all your property rights over the things you haven’t.

You are smarter than this Jeff.

By: newson

newson — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 07:30:19 +0000

i was referring to your example of police entrapment.

By: Ohhh Henry

Ohhh Henry — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 23:34:39 +0000

“With real property rights, people do not usually go around actively violating their own rights in order to collect from innocent defendants.”

Remember that political activist a year or two ago who beat herself up and then claimed that partisans from the other side did it.

By: Juraj

Juraj — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:43:12 +0000

Oh, I shouldn’t have watched it, it’s fury inspiring.

By: Silas Barta

Silas Barta — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 21:59:59 +0000

How is it breaking the law if you own the Brand X widgets and authorized them to be used this way? How is it *following* the law to knowingly buy stolen Brand X widgets?

By: Nick

Nick — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 18:30:44 +0000

Don't worry Viacom, the White House has your back.

By: newson

newson — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:30:58 +0000

i have a problem of law-enforcers breaking the law to enforce it. perhaps you can help understand the logic of this.

By: Silas Barta

Silas Barta — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:21:57 +0000

Obviously, the justice system needs significant reform. But no, I wouldn’t see a problem with a private investigation agency finding distributors of (knowingly) stolen goods this way. Do you?

By: newson

newson — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 04:55:11 +0000

“Police use similar methods to find fences…”

so are you happy with this modus operandi?

By: Matthew Swaringen

Matthew Swaringen — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:24:13 +0000

So are you claiming that Viacom didn’t know that you could post copyrighted videos there until they tried it themselves, and that’s how it’s analogous?

I don’t think that’s the case at all, it’s pretty clear that they posted the videos because they wanted cheap promotion. Unfortunately the right hand didn’t know what the left was doing at Viacom so they ended up looking stupid when they made complaints about the videos they posted themselves.

By: Tigran

Tigran — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:56:33 +0000

So it seems like our choices are ignorance and/or dishonestly.

By: J Cortez

J Cortez — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:06:39 +0000

This is an interesting side effect of the current imaginary property fascism that exists today.

By: Matvei

Matvei — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:42:51 +0000

I agree, Mr Tucker. However, there are examples a-plenty of people who destroy their real property intentionally-such as in cases of insurance fraud. Thank you for your work.

By: konteu

konteu — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:01:49 +0000

“Why would Viacom have done that if the company really believed that these postings were hurting its business? Perhaps they believed they would help the business: promoting its product and creating an opportunity for legal blackmail.”

Or just that the company would get more money from the legal blackmail than would lost from the postings.

By: Silas Barta

Silas Barta — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:44:57 +0000

@Jeffrey_Tucker: What’s so confusing? The physical property analog would be if someone had agents go out with Brand X widgets and say, “Psst! Wanna buy some stolen Brand X widgets for 1% of their legal price?” Police use similar methods to find fences (i.e. people who buy and re-sell stolen goods).

And yes, that would be a reasonable thing to do for makers of Brand X widgets if they wanted to find out the driving force behind the theft of their products.

So I don’t see how this presents a convincing disanalogy to someone not already convinced in favor of physical property and against IP.

By: Magnus

Magnus — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:27:31 +0000

They had to become pirates to end piracy.

Next, Viacom will be fighting fire with fire, running up debt to reduce their debt, and destroying the village to save it.