Posted on 07/09/2021 5:17:36 AM PDT by devane617
Remember Napster? The peer-to-peer file sharing company, popular in the late 1990s and early 2000s, depended on users sharing their music files. To promote cooperation, such software "could mislead its users," says Bryce Morsky, a postdoc in Penn's School of Arts & Sciences.
Some file-sharing companies falsely asserted that all of their users were sharing. Or, they displayed the mean number of files shared per user, hiding the fact that some users were sharing a great deal and many others were not. Related online forums promoted the idea that sharing was both ethical and the norm. These tactics were effective in getting users to share because they tapped into innate human social norms of fairness.
That got Morsky thinking. "Commonly in the literature on cooperation, you need reciprocity to get cooperation, and you need to know the reputations of those you're interacting with," he says. "But Napster users were anonymous, and so there should have been widespread 'cheating'—people taking files without sharing—and yet cooperation still occurred. Evidently, obscuring the degree of cheating worked for Napster, but is this true more generally and is it sustainable?"
In a new paper in the journal Evolutionary Human Sciences, Morsky and Erol Akçay, an associate professor in the School of Arts & Sciences' Department of Biology, looked at this scenario: Could a cooperative community form and stabilize if the community's behaviors were masked? And would things change if the community members' true behaviors were eventually revealed?
The BiXiden Crime Family needs to spread their wealth around to actual net taxpayers.
"Typically when we and others have considered how to maintain cooperation, it's been thought that it's important to punish cheaters and to make that public to encourage others to cooperate," Morsky says. "But our study suggests that a side effect of public punishment is that it reveals how much or how little people are cooperating, so conditional cooperators may stop cooperating. You might be better off hiding the cheaters."
Ok, you get it. Was this study really necessary? Don’t we already know the outcome?
Not every response to capitalisms is socialism. Street gangs are not socialists when they wave shop lift, or recycle man hole covers, they are criminal. File Sharing is about the same but for most the crime was not considered a crime as mix tape was never really thought of as a crime. Sometimes people give the middle finger to the state, whatever the economic theory is of the regulatory state.
If by “mix tape” you mean downloading and making a copy of music, then, yes, it was most certainly thought a crime. Since it was and is. If we are talking about commercially created music it is copyrighted when created, by the musician. He, in order to make money, gives his right to some outfit. That music is still copyrighted and owned only by that outfit. Yes, the usual defense was: “This is not theft since the owner still has his copy.” Slimy defense since making extra copies dilutes the market — stealing profit from the organization. In previous career doing deals with any Chinese company was always a problem since the CCP does not recognize copyright since communism does not recognize private property. Same mechanism operating here.
Once it hit the airwaves it is was also free to record in the FM Stero Reel to Reel era. The airplay was encourged and paid for by the rights holder. What is legal and what is common practice are two different things.
The transition to electronic distrobution of music two decades post has not hurt the industry despite the cries.
As for China, take that up with China.
Once it hit the airwaves it is was also free to record in the FM Stero Reel to Reel era. The airplay was encourged and paid for by the rights holder. What is legal and what is common practice are two different things.
The transition to electronic distrobution of music two decades post has not hurt the industry despite the cries.
As for China, take that up with China. If a bit of Garth Brooks make some rice farmers or some transistor placers day a bit better, Amerika, never really paid its musicians well in anything other than 200 gigs a year.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.