"I don't really see the connection you're trying to make between pro-piracy groups and massive advertising corporations."
It's simple cause and effect.
If pay-for-content business models like traditional record sales, movies, etc. are non-viable in the Internet age due to aggressive piracy, then the only viable business models are indirect monetization.
Indirect monetization means finding ways to monetize the consumer -- surveillance, manipulation, propaganda, etc.
Free (as in beer) leads directly to creepy business models. Instead of paying directly for music, movies, etc., you pay for them indirectly by allowing the distribution network to monitor everything you do and sell that information to advertisers and who knows who else.
There's a whole other level too when you get into the subject of jailed platforms and DRM -- piracy creates a powerful economic incentive to develop and aggressively deploy tools to restrict how you use your computer. Think the DMCA is draconian? Wait until your CPU will only execute code signed by a key embedded in the hardware. Abusing freedom to abuse others is one way to lose it, since after a while it leads to a perverse environment where good people who otherwise would support freedom start opposing it for legitimate reasons.
Edit:
Replying here since HN doesn't like deep discussions and limits them. "You're posting too frequently..."
I'm not making a boolean logic error because I am not engaging in boolean logic. I'm talking about the incentive structure of the market. It's analog logic-- not either-or but more-less. Does the market favor this business model more or less than that one? A market replete with piracy is one that is tilted far toward indirect business models almost to the exclusion of direct ones.
Your fallacy is very simple. You're saying that ¬A ⇒ B, and implying that it means that A ⇒ ¬B, with A=direct and B=indirect monetization.
The conclusion doesn't follow. There's no reason to believe that enforcing direct monetization will reduce indirect monetization, and history shows that creepy and manipulative is and was being used way before "home taping was killing music."
It's simple cause and effect.
If pay-for-content business models like traditional record sales, movies, etc. are non-viable in the Internet age due to aggressive piracy, then the only viable business models are indirect monetization.
Indirect monetization means finding ways to monetize the consumer -- surveillance, manipulation, propaganda, etc.
Free (as in beer) leads directly to creepy business models. Instead of paying directly for music, movies, etc., you pay for them indirectly by allowing the distribution network to monitor everything you do and sell that information to advertisers and who knows who else.
There's a whole other level too when you get into the subject of jailed platforms and DRM -- piracy creates a powerful economic incentive to develop and aggressively deploy tools to restrict how you use your computer. Think the DMCA is draconian? Wait until your CPU will only execute code signed by a key embedded in the hardware. Abusing freedom to abuse others is one way to lose it, since after a while it leads to a perverse environment where good people who otherwise would support freedom start opposing it for legitimate reasons.
Edit:
Replying here since HN doesn't like deep discussions and limits them. "You're posting too frequently..."
I'm not making a boolean logic error because I am not engaging in boolean logic. I'm talking about the incentive structure of the market. It's analog logic-- not either-or but more-less. Does the market favor this business model more or less than that one? A market replete with piracy is one that is tilted far toward indirect business models almost to the exclusion of direct ones.