Jonathan Coulton on MegaUpload and piracy

So let's see - your legal stuff stored on an online service... or even broader, you contract some service you need out to a company. That company gets it's doors slammed because they landed in legal trouble - who cares who's fault that was, that's not your problem - your immediate problem is you no longer have access to that service.

I've seen a bank go bankrupt and people lose quite a bit of money. (no, not in the US, no FDIC, etc etc, private bank, other country). Imagine hitting the ATM on the way to work and finding out that the bank is simply gone. Okay, the US has good protections against that, as do most 1st world nations..... but the lesson coming out of that was "Hmm, maybe we should look at only using government sanctioned banks with, you know, insurance, and if it's going to be a private bank, I want to know more about their financial situation before committing to them. Lesson learned.

Security company for the condo complex got shut down because they broke immigration laws. Left the condo with no security, even though most of the staff were legal, it didn't matter. Those guys are out jobs, and the condo has to have an emergency meeting to figure out how to get back good, trustworthy guards again. Suppliers go bankrupt. Heck, people get sick, family emergencies, they die unexpectedly and unfortunately, leaving you with a problem.

So let's not blow it up into more than it is. If the lawmakers were way out of line here, let's make sure it comes out and they are sanctioned appropriately.... but regardless, it's a 3rd party service. If you're using any critical service that is devastating to be without, you need to properly assess and address that risk.... whether it's data or services, staff or insurance, etc.

For a reasonable but not specifically informed consumer, I think it's likely they expect to be able to re-download movies from iTunes, particularly since music, apps, etc. can be re-downloaded.

In the US, tends to err on the side of consumer protection, even in the face of a click-through license to the contrary. While Apple will let you re-download if you call (apparently), if I'd lost >$100 in iTunes movies and they wouldn't, I'd call AmEx and charge back the purchase. Or go to small claims, just for the novelty of winning against Apple.

However, I just pirate music, tv, and movies shamelessly (and buy Blu-Ray physical media, since I like 1080p, and rip). MPAA and RIAA declared war on everyone else about 15 years ago, so fuck them. The only reason I pay is for convenience.

Is it just that? It doesn't look like it. Does it serve as an advertisement for his work? Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that.

For as long as I've been following his blog, he's used it to talk about things he wants to talk about. If he's touring, he'll likely post about touring. Lately he's been organizing a cruise, and he's been talking about that. He also just released an album -- I don't think it's unfair that he post about that on his blog.

I have seen examples of people attempting to "cash-in" on the SOPA outcry, but I do not believe Jonathan Coulton is one of those people.

I do not think everything needs to be automated. Rather, we just need to reach a certain level of efficiency: as soon as one person can produce enough of something for, say, several thousand--something completely reasonable with today's technology--you start reaching the point where you do not need everybody working.

Just because your power plant employs some people--and it probably really is just a handful--does not mean everybody has to work. The same is true for agriculture; one farmer is already extremely effective, and with the advent of cheap robotics[1] they are poised to become more efficient yet.

[1]: Something like: http://www.harvestai.com/

"Whom to pay" is a loaded question--we have already reached, or are rapidly reaching, a point where society can exist happily without everybody pitching in. Why should anybody's saying their creation powers things actually matter?

Of course, my argument isn't really about getting rid of payment or even the capitalistic system. Rather, it is about extending a recent trend: the increasing minimum standard of living. In a perfect world, you would be able to subsist comfortably without working. Of course, there are plenty of other ways to motivate people: status, luxury items...etc.

So, given increases in efficiency and different sources of motivation, I do not see why a capitalist society with plenty of people not working is impossible. Now, I doubt transitioning there would be easy: too many people are emotionally set against freeloaders. If we actually needed everybody to work, this would be great; however, as technology progresses and this is needed less and less, it stops being great.

Of course, there is one glaring whole in my argument (or, at least, one I'm pointing out): we may not be at the requisite level of efficiency yet. However, if recent trends continue, I thin we will reach it some time soon even if we are not there yet. And when we do--and well after--the cultural aversion to "freeloading" will persist even though it is less and less needed. Which is unfortunate.