Comments on: Dynamic concentration and file-sharing http://www.samefacts.com/2009/11/uncategorized/dynamic-concentration-and-file-sharing/ Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:54:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: paul http://www.samefacts.com/2009/11/uncategorized/dynamic-concentration-and-file-sharing/comment-page-1/#comment-34659 paul Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:36:41 +0000 http://www.samefacts.com/?p=9326#comment-34659 To make this work, the RIAA would have to clean up its act substantially, e.g. use investigators who are actually licensed in the states where they operate, implement bulletproof chain-of-evidence procedures, ensure that the evidence its investigators gather actually shows the tort in question being committed, and so forth. Because what we're talking about is a monetary offense, it's also not entirely clear that a lower settlement amount would be effective even then. $200 is a dozen albums, or a little more than a year of $15-a-month subscription to a music service.. So it's not at all implausible that some people would consider settlements of that size a cost of continuing to act as they do. (Of course, larger settlement demands shift the calculus toward fighting the cases.) Ivan's comment is important, because (at least as it's been written about here) dynamic concentration works by having something clearly observable that you can sanction. The many different avenues for transferring files over the internet make that difficult to achieve. It seems that dynamic concentration works best when you have a small fraction of the population (albeit larger than your enforcement resources) offending at a relatively high rate. If you have a large fraction offending at a relatively low rate, it seems that the squeezing-a-balloon effect might dominate. To make this work, the RIAA would have to clean up its act substantially, e.g. use investigators who are actually licensed in the states where they operate, implement bulletproof chain-of-evidence procedures, ensure that the evidence its investigators gather actually shows the tort in question being committed, and so forth.

Because what we’re talking about is a monetary offense, it’s also not entirely clear that a lower settlement amount would be effective even then. $200 is a dozen albums, or a little more than a year of $15-a-month subscription to a music service.. So it’s not at all implausible that some people would consider settlements of that size a cost of continuing to act as they do. (Of course, larger settlement demands shift the calculus toward fighting the cases.)

Ivan’s comment is important, because (at least as it’s been written about here) dynamic concentration works by having something clearly observable that you can sanction. The many different avenues for transferring files over the internet make that difficult to achieve.

It seems that dynamic concentration works best when you have a small fraction of the population (albeit larger than your enforcement resources) offending at a relatively high rate. If you have a large fraction offending at a relatively low rate, it seems that the squeezing-a-balloon effect might dominate.

]]> By: Ivan http://www.samefacts.com/2009/11/uncategorized/dynamic-concentration-and-file-sharing/comment-page-1/#comment-34641 Ivan Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:38:45 +0000 http://www.samefacts.com/?p=9326#comment-34641 I don't think the dynamic concentration analysis works on RIAA and file-sharing. The main assumptions are that the enforcer has reasonably good information, and that each player has only 2 choices - to cheat or not. In this case file-sharers have a third game option, which is to completely invalidate the information available to RIAA, be it through onion routing, dark pools or whatever else the clever kids will come up with, once there's enough pressure to do so. Yes, it decreases your gain, since you sacrifice speed for anonymity - but short of installing a rootkit on every PC in existence, RIAA will again have zero information on who shared what. I don’t think the dynamic concentration analysis works on RIAA and file-sharing. The main assumptions are that the enforcer has reasonably good information, and that each player has only 2 choices – to cheat or not. In this case file-sharers have a third game option, which is to completely invalidate the information available to RIAA, be it through onion routing, dark pools or whatever else the clever kids will come up with, once there’s enough pressure to do so. Yes, it decreases your gain, since you sacrifice speed for anonymity – but short of installing a rootkit on every PC in existence, RIAA will again have zero information on who shared what.

]]> By: yoyo http://www.samefacts.com/2009/11/uncategorized/dynamic-concentration-and-file-sharing/comment-page-1/#comment-34638 yoyo Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:04:38 +0000 http://www.samefacts.com/?p=9326#comment-34638 Yes, bullies have used the 'pick out individuals' approach for a long time. It woudl probably be easier to just buy a streamlined legal approach from their congresscritters, to making their extortion line of business more profitable. Yes, bullies have used the ‘pick out individuals’ approach for a long time.

It woudl probably be easier to just buy a streamlined legal approach from their congresscritters, to making their extortion line of business more profitable.

]]>