Content Creators Coming To Terms With The Fact That Their Works Will Be Shared

from the getting-over-that-hurdle dept

Fri, Jun 18th 2010 9:00am — Mike Masnick

I've been noticing a trend lately of content creators who discover unauthorized copies of their works are being shared actually responding somewhat reasonably to it. In almost every case, the story starts out with a claim of how they were upset and annoyed at first... but quickly got over that. In the past few days, I've come across two more such examples. The first, from the LA Times, involves the producer of the movie Unthinkable, starring Samuel Jackson. Apparently, due to the studio that financed the flick going under, the film suddenly was without domestic US distribution rights, and couldn't find any fast enough. So it went direct to DVD. But... before the DVD came out, the film leaked, and it's now one of the most talked about films on IMDB, even though it hasn't even been released!

The producer notes that he had very mixed feelings about the whole thing:

"I've been unbelievably torn over the whole thing," says [producer Cotty] Chubb, best known for having produced such films as "Eve's Bayou," "Dark Blue" and "To Sleep with Anger." "It's tremendous to go on IMDB and see that our user rating is 7.3, which is the highest rating of any movies in the current Top 10 there -- you have to go down to 'Iron Man 2' to find a higher rating. But on the other hand, while everyone is debating all these important moral questions, I want to ask them another important question -- hey, guys, what about the morality of watching this movie on the Internet for free?"

Of course, rather than freak out, or threaten to sue, Chubb just asked people exactly what he wanted to ask. He posted a comment himself, politely asking those who had seen the movie directly on IMDB about what their feelings on downloading the film were, and whether or not there was a price they would pay for it, while also noting that he was quite "grateful" for all of the attention the movie was getting due to the downloads.

After tons of people responded -- almost all of whom saying that there's nothing wrong with downloading a film -- Chubb didn't freak out, but recognized the onus is on himself and the industry to respond:

"We've got to come up with a new model, because the old one just isn't working anymore," says Chubb. "You just can't fight against a model where the movie is available for free. People clearly want to download movies online, so it's time we figured out how to get some money out of it."

Similarly, here's a totally different story, about author Peter Nowak discovering that his latest book was available for unauthorized download. Again, his feelings were mixed, but he eventually realized that getting angry and fighting this served no useful purpose:

My initial reaction was shock - how dare someone rip off something that I put so much work into? For a moment, I completely understood Lars Ulrich, the Metallica drummer who years ago became the poster boy for the anti-file-sharing establishment when he and his bandmates sued Napster.

Fear not, though - my anger was short-lived, and not just because I'd like to avoid becoming a self-important douche like Lars at all costs. I'm certainly not the first author to get pirated, and I won't be the last. It's an inevitable reality that everyone today must face. And no, I don't think any number of Draconian copyright laws are going to change this. Technology has let the cat out of the bag, permanently.

As someone who has partaken of the occasional Torrent, it would be hard (and thoroughly hypocritical) for me to be angry. I'm also not of the mind that file-sharing necessarily hurts the artist or creator. In my experience, most people who download something for free weren't going to buy it anyway, or they already have and just want a digital copy, so it's not exactly a lost sale. Moreover, if they like the product they've downloaded, they may recommend it to someone else, who in turn may actually choose to buy it. In a way, the so-called "pirate" can become a good sales advocate.

In fact, he then notes that there are plenty of examples of authors using such publicity to their advantage, while also realizing that some of the problem is that his book doesn't have an official ebook version yet, though he's now working hard to make that happen as soon as possible.

I think it's completely normal and natural for people to have that initial negative reaction -- especially if they don't follow some of the details of what's happening and how such file sharing has helped some do much better than they would have otherwise. But it's especially nice to see more and more content creators get over that initial shock, and then start to logically look at the situation, and realize that what consumers really want is something different than is being provided, and the responsibility is on the content creator to better provide consumers what they want.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: content, cotty chubb, peter nowak, reactions, sharing

88 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Simon, 18 Jun 2010 @ 9:20am

Bullshit
Everyone knows there is no such think as promotional value.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 18 Jun 2010 @ 9:21am

Facing reality
I fear that there will come a time when these stories seem too repetitive to post. I want to urge you premptively to keep 'em coming. People need to see these.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 18 Jun 2010 @ 9:24am

Two great points
"But everyone wanted the movies right away, not long after their theatrical release. And hardly anyone had any qualms about watching a pirated copy of the movie on the Web."

This is what destroyed the movie industry in spain

"It was certainly hard to find any enthusiastic supporters of the DVD model, since many consumers resent having to sit through the endless piracy warnings and trailer-ads that crowd the front of every new DVD."

This is why I use MPC to play DVDs skip, skip, skip. watch ... done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser (profile), 18 Jun 2010 @ 9:24am

TechDirt FAQ
what consumers really want is something different than is being provided, and the responsibility is on the content creator to better provide consumers what they want

Since this conscisely describes a recurring theme on TechDirt, I think that it should be part of a TechDirt Frequently Asked Questions list, maybe as part of a "What is RtB?" entry. Instead of responding to people in the comments section over and over with the same explanation about why infringement isn't the same thing as theft and how much of piracy is a business model problem, etc, it'd be nice to just point to a FAQ entry. "Why do people illegally download movies from the Internet? Well, much of it is because it's far more convenient that the legal alternatives. See 'What is RtB?' in the TD FAQ for more details."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2010 @ 9:28am

Sharing and copying have been around a lot longer than piracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2010 @ 9:34am

It's a good market test. If a leaked movie does good on the p2p scene, then they will know how many theaters to put it in. If it does poorly, then spend less money on distribution or maybe remake the movie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2010 @ 9:45am

Re:
But what if it's a remake of a remake? Can you really remake a remake of a remake? And they say Hollywood has run out of ideas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2010 @ 9:51am

I would like to see a movie released with lots of extra clips so a person can legally make and share their own version of the film using the clips. Imagine how viral that would be.

When are the movie makers going to dust the cobwebs out of their brains and start innovating?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2010 @ 9:58am

Re:
or they could just patent that concept and not have to worry about the revolution it would bring. Thats what idea patents are for anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2010 @ 10:23am

Re: TechDirt FAQ
Clearly, the proposed FAQ should be very visible. As a market trial, it makes sense to place it on the foreheads of visible television personalities such as Jay Leno. Depending on the trial market success, in phase 2, it is then tattooed upon the forehead of other people like Jeff Katzenberg.

If you think of it like the equivalent of a SCRAM bracelet for people that use the legal and political system to fix their marketing problem, it's possible that a lot of good will come of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 18 Jun 2010 @ 10:24am

Top 20 most downloaded
"""
In fact, he then notes that there are plenty of examples of authors using such publicity to their advantage...
"""

How long before we see the line "Most downloaded book on the Internet!" on a dead-tree book's cover?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris, 18 Jun 2010 @ 10:31am

Re: Re: Remakes
Just for fun - look at how many times "The Most Dangerous Game" has been remade. (from http://ask.yahoo.com/20050707.html)
"Run for the Sun,"
"Bloodlust,"
"Woman Hunt,"
"Slave Girls from Beyond Infinity,"
"Deadly Prey,"
"Deadly Game,"
"Final Rounds,"
"Hard Target,"
"Surviving the Game,"
"Escape 2000,"
"Star Hunter," and
"Predator."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Berenerd (profile), 18 Jun 2010 @ 10:31am

Re: Bullshit
"Everyone knows there is no such think as promotional value."

First i think you mean "thing" and I am just pickig out this typo because, well, I hardly ever catch my own.

Second, I hope you are being sarcastic because man, thats some funny stuff...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FarSide (profile), 18 Jun 2010 @ 10:45am

Re: Re: Bullshit
See:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100614/1410259812.shtml

Fran Nevrkla, the CEO of PPL, the collection society for performance rights in the UK:

"To the industry I would say, we would be well advised to delete two or three words from our vocabulary entirely and they are 'promotion' and 'promotional value'. There is no such thing in the 21st Century. "
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2010 @ 10:47am

ive a question
if i just sat and clicked report all day on everything
what would this accomplish....
grins
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 18 Jun 2010 @ 10:52am

Re:
"When are the movie makers going to dust the cobwebs out of their brains and start innovating?"

And the deer stood watching with fascination as the two lights rushed towards it ... wondering "will they be my friend?"

The problem is they are so afriad to make mistakes that they cant innovate. Any attempt to innovate is ultimately blocked by this quarters profits, contractual obligations, a monopolists attitude (we shouldn't have to change), an unwillingness to conform to their customers wants, and fear that anything they do will make things worse.

They rally around the battle cry "Piracy is theft" not seeing that more of their problems come from competition creeping in from both inside and outside of their little world. Over time country after country will fall by "Felony Interference with a business model" (Competition). All in all they are supremely and totally fraked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 18 Jun 2010 @ 10:54am

Re: ive a question
I dont know lets try it on your post ... ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2010 @ 10:58am

Re: Re: Re: Bullshit
I think that needs a song?

I got the perfect one :)

ONE OK ROCK-Liar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osr0JxHm9nY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2010 @ 11:02am

I can't see those buttons, people keep saying there are buttons but I don't see them.

CSS people, please you could have done better.
http://www.jankoatwarpspeed.com/post/2010/04/06/windows-7-start-menu-css3.aspx
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2010 @ 11:07am

Re: Re: Re: Remakes
and Star Trek: Voyager had several episodes with a "predator" type species.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Moo^2, 18 Jun 2010 @ 11:19am

This is a good sign, with the right promotion and the right mindset you can still make a buck from entertainment, provided you keep it a fun thing to spend money on.

fun and access are more important than locks,bolts, barriers and flamethrowers to keep the pirates away. Make it fun to spend money on entertainment, do not make the legal way akin to a visit to the dentist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Ruen, 18 Jun 2010 @ 11:37am

1/2 right
"But it's especially nice to see more and more content creators get over that initial shock, and then start to logically look at the situation, and realize that what consumers really want is something different than is being provided, and the responsibility is on the content creator to better provide consumers what they want."

Mike, you're correct in pointing out the futility of overreaction in this arena. But you also miss something critical to squaring the tumult we're all negotiating. Consumers are already being provided "what they want" - the content - and the production company needs investment capital to continue doing so.

As much as content creators are responsible for making a good faith effort to evolve and respond to consumers' desires, consumers are also responsible for finding ways to compensate the producers of content. To claim that consumers are justified in freeloading content while they passively wait around for others to "better provide" them with "what they want" misses the point. If we can acknowledge that responsibility here goes both ways, we might actually get somewhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some other Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2010 @ 11:37am

Re:
I see them if I unblock techdirt.com in noScript.

I'm using Firefox 3.6.3.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2010 @ 11:44am

"Sharing" is a nice sounding word, and in some instances does apply. However, as should be manifestly evident from even a cursory review of the finding of facts in the recent lawsuits against which you and others continually rail, the overwhelming majority of "sharing" is more accurately "unlawful copying and distribution".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2010 @ 11:53am

Re: 1/2 right
"consumers are also responsible for finding ways to compensate the producers of content"

Sorry, wrong. Consumers don't have to "do" anything. If content creators fail to provide the content in the ways the consumers want, the consumers will turn to more convenient alternatives (usually piracy). Otherwise that would be like saying that if you buy a car, you must (you are morally obligated to) return to the stand next month to buy a new car (just because they are nice people).

Content creators must adapt their business to the reality: they need to figure out ways of making their consumers happy (by providing what, where, when and how they want it), while at the same time making money with their content. Consumers will pay top money to get satisfaction. Unhappy costumers will leave (usually with a vengeance) and search for better alternatives.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 18 Jun 2010 @ 11:56am

Re: 1/2 right
> Consumers are already being provided "what they want" - the content

No they aren't. Or rather, it isn't the Media Moguls that are providing the content. The Media Moguls are infact doing everything in their power to prevent new and interesting content products. They are fighting portable media devices and streaming with every dollar and lobbyist they can.

Media Moguls are not paid because of these attempts to ignore and resist where the market is going.

...and of course there is always the "zero cost market" versus the real market to consider. People get big heads when they realize something has been downloaded. That's a Far Cry from someone being willing to even pay $1 for it.

If downloading were legalized, there would be some things I would not bother with simply because I would consider them waste of bandwidth and disc space and I have a 10TB array.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Jun 2010 @ 12:03pm

Re: TechDirt FAQ
Since this conscisely describes a recurring theme on TechDirt, I think that it should be part of a TechDirt Frequently Asked Questions list, maybe as part of a "What is RtB?" entry.

Funny you mention that... working on something exactly like that. Stay tuned. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Jun 2010 @ 12:08pm

Re: Re: 1/2 right
Please be aware Chris is writing a book that tries to blame consumers for not shoveling money to content creators -- despite the fact that the actual spend has gone up. He insists that content creators cannot come up with good business models, and he needs to perpetrate that myth to make sure he has a book to sell.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Jun 2010 @ 12:10pm

Re:
"Sharing" is a nice sounding word, and in some instances does apply. However, as should be manifestly evident from even a cursory review of the finding of facts in the recent lawsuits against which you and others continually rail, the overwhelming majority of "sharing" is more accurately "unlawful copying and distribution".

Criminalizing positive activity won't stop people from doing it. It just makes those who support the ridiculous laws look incredibly out of touch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Ruen, 18 Jun 2010 @ 12:16pm

Re: Re: 1/2 right
"Consumers don't have to "do" anything."

As I noted, this is a very passive attitude and smells of entitlement. A pretty dark take on "consumer consciousness." It takes two to tango, that's all I'm saying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Ruen, 18 Jun 2010 @ 12:19pm

Re: Re: Re: 1/2 right
Mike, I love the character assassination. Way to follow your own advice by not overreacting.

Glad you're reading, though...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2010 @ 12:22pm

Re: Re: Re: 1/2 right
Welcome to the marketplace, enjoy your stay.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Ruen, 18 Jun 2010 @ 12:26pm

Re: Re: 1/2 right
"No they aren't. Or rather, it isn't the Media Moguls that are providing the content."

In the context of Mike's post, they are, in fact, investing and producing the content. All I'm asking you to consider is that, if you're enjoying the content, these "Media Moguls" are very much responsible for it. Not saying you should love them for it, just acknowledge that it's a reality. Maybe streaming will reach profitability some day, but it looks pretty unlikely in the context of "piracy" - what I label freeloading.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2010 @ 12:27pm

Re: Re:
But even bad laws need to be followed, otherwise you should just magically change them with pixie dust votes, I mean the whole point of laws are to blindly follow them because it's illegal not too and that's bad, really bad, even if hundreds of millions of people break the law every day, you still need to follow the laws, otherwise there will be complete anarchy and people will riot on their facebooks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nevtelen gyava, 18 Jun 2010 @ 12:30pm

Re: Re: Re: 1/2 right
I have looked at Chris Ruen's blog, and I've been shocked by the amount of feedback there. I do not know the reason though, lack of permission or interest ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Ruen, 18 Jun 2010 @ 12:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: 1/2 right
Absolutely, passive consumption in the political and economic marketplace has been the rule. We've built an empire on the principle.

But I'm operating on the (potentially misguided) assumption that the internet is here to offer our culture progress, rather than an exponential more-of-the-same, if not devolution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Ruen, 18 Jun 2010 @ 12:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: 1/2 right
Both, actually.

To be honest, I'm not very good at blogging. But do check out the articles posted on the left if you're curious. There's a recent one published last week on slate/big money that you'd probably find interesting.

Thanks for the platform, Mike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2010 @ 12:55pm

Re: Re: Re: 1/2 right
It's not entitlement.

Just because you provide crap doesn't mean I need to eat crap. Also if I DO decide I want to eat crap, I don't need to eat it on YOUR crappy plates. I have my own crappy plates, thank you very much. Unless you can provide some better ones, you know, something that makes the experience of eating crap something worth paying for...

Consumers pay for satisfaction. If YOU don't provide what they want, somebody else will and you run out of business.

It's not entitlement, It's how the marketplace works. Is that so hard to understand?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2010 @ 1:18pm

Re: Re:
"Criminalizing":

Are you aware of something I am not? I have never seen the criminal laws applied to users of P2P and other online file transfer methods.

"Positive Activity":

What positive activity? You sound almost as if you view illegal downloading and distribution as an activity that is to be praised.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Suzanne Lainson (profile), 18 Jun 2010 @ 2:24pm

Re:
I would like to see a movie released with lots of extra clips so a person can legally make and share their own version of the film using the clips. Imagine how viral that would be.

The tools are already out there and this is being done to one degree or another. (I've been working on a related project.)

Creativity on a personal level is expanding daily. I think we will eventually get to a point where we are much more interested in what we create ourselves for our small circle of friends and family than what others create for a bigger market.

The economics of having millions of people making their own art will change the salability of creativity, but as a culture we will likely be better for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FUTURE ACTA ENFORCER, 18 Jun 2010 @ 2:30pm

Re: Re: Re:
Just wait.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2010 @ 2:31pm

Re: Re: Re:
"What positive activity? You sound almost as if you view illegal downloading and distribution as an activity that is to be praised."

I think it is positive in the sense that you gain something from it. When you create a copy of a song, nobody is really losing anything. You actually gained a new copy of that song.

The fact that artists can't turn that into profit is entirely their fault.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Modplan (profile), 18 Jun 2010 @ 2:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1/2 right
Pay up freeloader.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
m3mnoch (profile), 18 Jun 2010 @ 3:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
no, no. i think you meant:

"The fact that modern-day artists can't turn that into profit is entirely their fault."

artists prior to the 20th century found all kinds of ways to be profitable. the main one? being really, really good at their craft. if no one is willing to pay you to perform or sing or write for them? guess what? time for a new career.

you know... that reminds me. when did "starving artist" turn into "party like a rockstar?"

m3mnoch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Jun 2010 @ 4:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1/2 right
Thanks for the platform, Mike.

Hmm. But you're not paying for it. By your definition, you are a freeloader.

So I am unilaterally declaring you owe us $10,000 for the use of our platform to promote yourself.

Please send us a check within the next 30 days.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2010 @ 5:22pm

Re: Re: Re: 1/2 right
I pay for my cable/internet connection, as it's all the same pipe and not just basic cable but a connection with hundreds of channels. I also pirate television shows because I am too lazy to set up my own DVR, so I use the internet as one massive DVR.

I am a pirate. A freeloader. But I pay for it. That doesn't really make much sense but then again, neither does copyright in the 21st century.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2010 @ 5:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm a Rock & Roll star! Doing illegal drugs and paying for prostitutes! Singing about breaking the law! Rock & Roll! Smashing up private property! Yeah! Sticking it to the man!

Stop infringing on my copyrights. That's illegal and that's wrong.

Rock & Roll!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2010 @ 11:51pm

chubb has the basic issue that most of your 'suddenly seeing the benefits of free' people have: a product with no meaningful way to distribute it. his movie went straight to dvd (usually straight to ignorance) with no promotional budget. but the movie was apparently already paid out (up front costs). so at this point, he has nothing to lose.

when you have nothing to lose, there is no downside.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Ruen, 19 Jun 2010 @ 8:08am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1/2 right
"30 days!?" "Unilateral" action!?

Zing!

Mike, that's a good idea. You should start charging people for the privilege of commenting to your posts. There's your "new model." Of course, you need contrarian voices on here now and again to create controversy, inspire comments and draw eyeballs for your verizon/AmEx sugar daddies. So, you're welcome for that. I usually fight my urge to comment here because I know all of these discussions serve the ultimate purpose to make techdirt (and you, I presume) more money, rather than actually advancing a productive discussion.

For the sake of clarity, I'd be freeloading if you charged people to comment (or view your content) and I acted upon an unlicensed means around doing so, knowing full well that you were asking for compensation but telling myself that I had no responsibility to uphold your implicit request.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Modplan (profile), 19 Jun 2010 @ 12:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1/2 right
Kinda like how instead of advancing a productive discussion, you set up the freeloader straw man for you to knock down, side stepping real discussion of business and economic ideas and implications of file sharing to move straight to moral arguments, including your use of the term freeloader as a means to describe people who take part in file sharing, bunched with other classic stereotypes such as teenagers and moral lacking thieves.

All of which to peddle a book via a free blogging service, posting on commenting for free on others websites and other freeloader means. But don't let that stop you from advancing a productive discussion based around strawmen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob, 19 Jun 2010 @ 1:16pm

CC
How many Content creators have you spoke to? "In almost every case, the story starts out with a claim of how they were upset and annoyed at first... but quickly got over that."Who the hell are these people? I call bullshit. Who wants their Content stolen by another person and then they claim it's theirs and you lose your claim on it. The content and the person behind it should be one and the same. Even big media corps like viacom do this as well and we should sit back and let it happen. Stand up and Do something about it, reclaim your stuff!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2010 @ 2:46pm

Re:
Why bother with risk, right? It should all be reward?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2010 @ 8:01pm

Re: CC
Except that...nothing in your fantasy situation applies in any way to the situation being discussed.

Unsurprising, though, given your inability to find previous stories on similar subjects.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 19 Jun 2010 @ 8:37pm

Re: TechDirt FAQ
One of the questions should be how ‘Techdirt’ is spelled.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2010 @ 4:37pm

what i find funny about this post is that the title is "Content Creators Coming To Terms", but this is about a single person, and one who appears to have failed to get his movie to a commercial release. there is nothing showing that a wide swath of content creators are getting comfortable, if anything, a few examples in a sea of content provides isnt much of a trend. rather, it shows some exceptional cases, mostly linked by a lack of financial or personal risk in not pursuing file sharers (at this moment).

just as importantly, the artist in movie maker might want to see his work shown, but the business man needs to make enough money to make the next picture. so the artist may not have much of a choice in the matter, because the next large stack of cash is often dependent on how you managed the last large stack of cash.

then again, if everyone is a film maker and all movies are made for $50, who cares, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Technopolitical (profile), 20 Jun 2010 @ 4:46pm

Re: Re:Criminalizing positive activity won't stop people from doing it. It just makes those who support the ridiculous laws look incredibly out of touch.
MIKE :
"Criminalizing positive activity won't stop people from doing it. It just makes those who support the ridiculous laws look incredibly out of touch."

ME : Truly the most bizarre thing you have ever written.
Sums up you Pirate logic in one brief sentence..

If a law is passed to make something ILLEGAL , clearly the majority of the "Body Politic" of our "Democratic Republic" , does not hold it is a "positive activity".

It is clearly an "activity" that should be illegal -- as cyber-Piracy is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Suzanne Lainson (profile), 20 Jun 2010 @ 5:02pm

Re:
then again, if everyone is a film maker and all movies are made for $50, who cares, right?

I think that's where we're headed.

At the low end we have this:

Xtranormal | Text-to-Movie:
"IF YOU CAN TYPE,
YOU CAN MAKE MOVIES"

A bit more sophisticated is this:
Moviestorm

I'm sure we'll see even apps coming on a regular basis. The tools will keep getting simultaneously more sophisticated and user friendly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Technopolitical (profile), 20 Jun 2010 @ 5:40pm

artists prior to the 20th century found all kinds of ways to be profitable
ANS : Nutty comment :

Vincent Van Gough , Edger Alan Poe , and Stephen Forster ,, all died basically broke and homeless
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Jun 2010 @ 8:56pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1/2 right

For the sake of clarity, I'd be freeloading if you charged people to comment (or view your content) and I acted upon an unlicensed means around doing so, knowing full well that you were asking for compensation but telling myself that I had no responsibility to uphold your implicit request.

I am charging. As stated, you must now pay to comment here.

But, ok, now we'll set it so that any future comments, you will owe us $500 per comment.

Make sure it's worth it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Jun 2010 @ 8:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1/2 right
Of course, you need contrarian voices on here now and again to create controversy, inspire comments and draw eyeballs for your verizon/AmEx sugar daddies.

Nice, but inaccurate dig. First of all, our business model is not eyeball based. Sure, we have some ads, but that represents a small part of the business model. Always nice to see you take the time to understand a subject before shooting your mouth off.

For the sake of clarity, I'd be freeloading if you charged people to comment (or view your content) and I acted upon an unlicensed means around doing so

I know I already responded to this point, but just to make sure I'm understanding you, does this mean that if a musician puts out a song for free -- even though they're charging for it, by your definition of "freeloading" if I then get it for free elsewhere, I'm in the clear?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Jun 2010 @ 9:00pm

Re:
what i find funny about this post is that the title is "Content Creators Coming To Terms", but this is about a single person

I know you don't tend to actually read posts before commenting, but nice job proving that for all of us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Jun 2010 @ 9:02pm

Re: CC
How many Content creators have you spoke to?

Thousands?

"In almost every case, the story starts out with a claim of how they were upset and annoyed at first... but quickly got over that."Who the hell are these people? I call bullshit.

Call away. You'd be wrong, but that's not my problem.

Who wants their Content stolen by another person and then they claim it's theirs and you lose your claim on it.

First of all, it's not stealing. Please understand the difference. But, second, no one said they *want* this. You seem to have not actually read the post beyond the title. Weird.

What we said is that they're coming to terms with the fact that it's happening, and then looking for ways to take advantage of it.

The content and the person behind it should be one and the same. Even big media corps like viacom do this as well and we should sit back and let it happen. Stand up and Do something about it, reclaim your stuff!

The point is you CAN'T. You can try, but it will fail. And once you realize that AND you realize how to look for ways to use this to your advantage, you might even realize that you can do BETTER by embracing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2010 @ 10:13pm

Re: artists prior to the 20th century found all kinds of ways to be profitable
it is me "TP",, not an AC here ,, for some reason Mozilla is having "cookie problems "-- settings,, eeerrrrh

Anyway Mike ,, why no COME BACK HERE !!!?!?!?!?

Because you can't answer reasonably !!!
Your point of law philosophy is so nutty , that I caught you on it , and now you are stuck for an answer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2010 @ 10:14pm

Re: Re: Re:Criminalizing positive activity won't stop people from doing it. It just makes those who support the ridiculous laws look incredibly out of touch.
( posted to wrong comment -- HERE is the right spot)

it is me "TP",, not an AC here ,, for some reason Mozilla is having "cookie problems "-- settings,, eeerrrrh

Anyway Mike ,, why no COME BACK HERE !!!?!?!?!?

Because you can't answer reasonably !!!
Your point of law philosophy is so nutty , that I caught you on it , and now you are stuck for an answer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Jun 2010 @ 11:04pm

Re: Re: artists prior to the 20th century found all kinds of ways to be profitable
Anyway Mike ,, why no COME BACK HERE !!!?!?!?!?

Because you can't answer reasonably !!!
Your point of law philosophy is so nutty , that I caught you on it , and now you are stuck for an answer.

TP, I don't need to answer every one of your ridiculous asinine questions.

As for 3 examples of artists who died broke, how's about you learn the difference between correlation and causation before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

And, for future reference, TP, if I don't respond to you, it's because you're posting ridiculous things and my time is better spent actually talking to people who have half a clue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Technopolitical (profile), 21 Jun 2010 @ 12:04am

TP, I don't need to answer every one of your ridiculous asinine questions.
Mike : "TP, I don't need to answer every one of your ridiculous asinine questions."

ME ::The "Bruce question " is pretty much the core of what we are debating here on copyright.

I answer ALL your questions to me , Mike ,, in good faith ,, and in full , in an effort to keep our debate healthy and honest for all your readers.

You failure to ans. the "Bruce Question" to me simply shows how much you will duck a fair fight.

Dismissive comments , do not answer questions NOR further good positive debate on public policy.
---------------
I would die ,, sacrifice my life , to protect my civil rights and my right to produce art with free political expression.

Can you Mike , say the same for your "right" to "download illegally" , "infringe copyrights" and "circumvent" tech locks ??
Would you put your life on the line to defend or further your "just" cause?

----------------------------
Mike :"As for 3 examples of artists who died broke, how's about you learn the difference between correlation and causation before you make an even bigger fool of yourself."

ME :If by that you mean that the 3 artists ( Vinny , Poe , Forster) , also had mental & drug problems -- so what ?

They died BROKE-- that is the point.
-------------------------------
You Mike are grasping at straws.

Instead of meeting a fair challenge : Bruce vs. McCain ---- you simply go off on tangents attacking ME directly -- my education , legal background , my support of SL's words.

But you won't step into the "ring" and debate me fair,, square,, and moderated on copyright.

Any time Mike , any place , any forum.

I challenge you for a moderated and witnessed debate on "copyrights --- Re: Artist's rights."

------==========

P.S. --Oh yeah ,, now that I have warned you that "jokes" about my dyslexia are not only "out of line" , BUT in my opinion "criminal harassment",,

SO if it happens again w/o you "moderating the comment", or "disavowing it" with a post ,,,, I will contact attorneys.

I would LOVE to meet you in court on that issue. I would even do it without a lawyer :)

I have been slaying , "Whale Killers" , "Oil Spiller-s ", "Rotten Landlords" and "Pirates" ,,for breakfast ----for a long time now -- (see my resume) --- you would be just another day at the office.
-------------------

Have a nice day. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Jun 2010 @ 12:09am

Re: TP, I don't need to answer every one of your ridiculous asinine questions.
I answer ALL your questions to me , Mike ,, in good faith ,, and in full , in an effort to keep our debate healthy and honest for all your readers.

Sure, because you don't seem to actually have a job or work to do, or 10,000 other people asking comments -- many of whom are not ignorant like you are.

Again, use a search engine. I answered your question.

I did not duck. I am not afraid to answer, I just don't see the point repeating myself for the likes of you, a confessed ignorant hypocrite.

Responding to you is pointless. I made a mistake thinking I could actually make a point to you. Clearly you have no interest in learning. I will not respond to you further.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Jun 2010 @ 12:10am

Re: TP, I don't need to answer every one of your ridiculous asinine questions.
Oh, fine. One more, because this is just so idiotic:

I would die ,, sacrifice my life , to protect my civil rights and my right to produce art with free political expression.

Can you Mike , say the same for your "right" to "download illegally" , "infringe copyrights" and "circumvent" tech locks ??
Would you put your life on the line to defend or further your "just" cause?

I do not defend the right to download illegally. I do not do it. I never have.

Do not make false accusations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Jun 2010 @ 12:12am

Re: TP, I don't need to answer every one of your ridiculous asinine questions.
SO if it happens again w/o you "moderating the comment", or "disavowing it" with a post ,,,, I will contact attorneys.

I responded to your initial threat earlier, and suggested you NOT mention it again.

You have chosen to do so. If you do so again, I will speak to my own attorneys about filing preemptive summary judgment against you, AND we WILL ask for legal fees.

Do not make bogus legal threats you cannot carry out. You do not want to meet me in court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Technopolitical (profile), 21 Jun 2010 @ 12:19am

Re: Re: TP, I don't need to answer every one of your ridiculous asinine questions.
MIKE :"Sure, because you don't seem to actually have a job or work to do, or 10,000 other people asking comments -- many of whom are not ignorant like you are."

Me : 1] you only know about me , what i post online. I work form home ,, keep strange artist's hours -- it is 3:15 am EST , now ,

2] I am nearing the semi-retirement mode of live , to give myself more free time do my Art (music ) AND my Soul ( rabbi stuff)

3] Again dismissive shallow comments from you Mike. Rants of a Madman , not a reasoned debater with a good cause
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Technopolitical (profile), 21 Jun 2010 @ 12:25am

Clearly you have no interest in learning. I will not respond to you further.
MIKE :Clearly you have no interest in learning. I will not respond to you further.

ME : Strange , I have every interest in learning , that is why , I have sincerely asked you for 2 weeks to explain your position on "Bruce vs. McCain 2008" -- so I can better understand you viewpoint. How can you tell me ,I have no interest in learning .

MIKE : I will not respond to you further.

Me : 10 X , you have said that , to me , and to SL , and to Daryl,,,,, but you ALWAYS still ans. Just shows your pissy , flighty character.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Technopolitical (profile), 21 Jun 2010 @ 12:28am

Re: Re: TP, I don't need to answer every one of your ridiculous asinine questions.
" MIKE :I do not defend the right to download illegally. I do not do it. I never have."

Me : you do like circumventing though--- and while you have never written the words directly -- A world w/o copyright is a world that would make you happy . Willing to fight and die for it?

MIKE :I do not defend the right to download illegally. I do not do it. I never have.

Me : then what exactly are we debating here??? , if not your lack of respect for copyrights , and belief that they make the world a worse place for you Mike economically??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Technopolitical (profile), 21 Jun 2010 @ 12:32am

Re: Re: TP, I don't need to answer every one of your ridiculous asinine questions.
MIKE :"Do not make bogus legal threats you cannot carry out. You do not want to meet me in court."

Me : as Mr. Spock would/did "Vulcans NEVER bluff" **-- neither do I --ever.

=======================================
**The Doomsday Machine (Star Trek: The Original Series) - Wikipedia ...
to Spock's "Vulcans never bluff" scene, much of the fighting between Commodore Decker and the security guard in the corridor, as well as truncating the ...
Plot - Music - 40th Anniversary remastering - Reception
en.wikipedia.org/.../The_Doomsday_Machine_(TOS_episode) -
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Technopolitical (profile), 21 Jun 2010 @ 12:38am

You do not want to meet me in court.
ans : actually at this stage , I do . I despise insolence -- and you are one of the worst I have ever encountered.. I jave made every effort to keep our debate , good nature , fun, and open.-- and never personalized. I attack your views --but NEVER YOU ,, but you Mike are also the one to go ballistic first and attack me personally.

MIKE :You do not want to meet me in court.

ME : Again , actually at this stage , I do . Your move.

( If you need my home physical mailing address , I can email to you ,, or just use the "submit a story" link here to send to you .
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paul, 21 Jun 2010 @ 5:23am

Overpaid & Greedy is what got them there
The entertainment industry has been up in arms because of so much pirating, but they need to eventually realize they are the ones you did it to themselves. There will always be some form of pirating but what made it worse and to the point it is today is because the entertainment industry got to the point of pure careless with money. It is absolutely absurd that anyone gets paid a million dollars little lone 20 million or so that some have gotten just to play in a movie. This kind of greed is what has so many people refusing to pay for movies and music. Agree with it or not, but pirating is the way for consumers to even come close to levelling things out...and even still, the entertainment industry is trying to screw people over
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Technopolitical (profile), 21 Jun 2010 @ 9:37am

"I would die ,, sacrifice my life , to protect my civil rights and my right to produce art with free political expression.": Re: TP, I don't need to answer every one of your ridiculous asinine questions.
MIKE to ME : Oh, fine. One more, because this is just so idiotic:
"I would die ,, sacrifice my life , to protect my civil rights and my right to produce art with free political expression."
-------------------------

ME : I do stand by my words that :: " I would die ,, sacrifice my life , to protect my civil rights,, AND ALSO "my Right" to "produce art" with "free political expression."

I think:
*Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn [1973 "The Gulag Archipelago"],

*Dr King , ["Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." in "Letter from Birmingham Jail"],

, and many more ,,

---Would agree with me 100% on :: " I would die ,, sacrifice my life , to protect my civil rights,, AND ALSO "my Right" to "produce art" with "free political expression."

---------------------------------
--
MY POINT to you MIKE : you have no Core Principles., which is what MLK meant when he said :

"A man who won't die for something is not fit to live." --

-- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
-------------------------------

ME to MIKE ::

If you MIKE,,, cannot understand why,,

I would DIE to protect my right,,

to express myself freely through my ART ,,

and ALSO to protect

that beautiful "Copyright Clause" of the USA Constitution"
that protects my" ARTISTIC CONTROL" of my Art,,

Well mike if you cannot understand it ,, Why , these RIGHTS mean so much , that I will "Die for to protect my RIGHTS" ,, for you to say to me :

"this is just so idiotic:" to say that ,,,,

Well Mike --- you really are a very small man ,

with a very small mind ,

and with a very empty heart.

A Pirate by all definition of the term , past & present.
=====================================================
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jun 2010 @ 11:17am

Q: Who wants their Content stolen by another person and then they claim it's theirs and you lose your claim on it./// A: First of all, it's not stealing.
Poster: "Who wants their Content stolen by another person and then they claim it's theirs and you lose your claim on it."

Mike: First of all, it's not stealing.

ME : Call it what you want --it is however VERY illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Technopolitical (profile), 21 Jun 2010 @ 11:19am

Re: Q: Who wants their Content stolen by another person and then they claim it's theirs and you lose your claim on it./// A: First of all, it's not stealing.
me
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Technopolitical (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 5:57am

Knowing what you don’t know? Is this supposedly the hallmark of an intelligent person? //// Re: Re: TP, I don't need to answer every one of your ridiculous asinine questions.
ERROL MORRIS: Knowing what you don’t know? Is this supposedly the hallmark of an intelligent person?

DAVID DUNNING: That’s absolutely right. It’s knowing that there are things you don’t know that you don’t know. [4]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/?src=me&ref=gen eral
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 11:22am

Re: 1/2 right
You're wrong, Chris, it's that simple.

Consumers are not "responsible" to "creators" or publishers one iota.

Should the work be overpriced, simply awful or whatever I'm under no obligation to acquire it. Similarly if I find the distribution inconvenient or expensive (with gas at $4 a gallon that kicks in very quickly) I'm entitled to find a more satisfactory method of distribution and put my money there. If there is no acceptable method then I guess what's called "piracy" is the only option left.

The producer of a product does not have cart blanche to set a firm price and expect to get it. There are ways to offer a MSRP but that's about it. Just don't expect to get it all the time, which, it seems, you expect that we do. Of course if your book, car or computer is total crap then it belongs in whatever is the appropriate remainder bin that is appropriate to that industry.

In terms of social good it's curious that YOU want a fixed price based on the "value" of input to the product (book) that is largely imaginary while we don't give farmers the same right to sell thier milk, eggs and other products based on the costs of very real inputs. For what it's worth I think we need food a lot more than we need another whiny book.

Then again, perhaps you fancy yourself the next Shakespeare or ee cumings or whatever and deserve consumer "welfare" to keep you out of that awful writers garret in the slums.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Suzanne Lainson (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 11:38am

Re: Re: 1/2 right
In terms of social good it's curious that YOU want a fixed price based on the "value" of input to the product (book) that is largely imaginary while we don't give farmers the same right to sell thier milk, eggs and other products based on the costs of very real inputs.

Actually we did. Subsidies.

And in some cases that is how art is being funded.

Here's a recent example.

Arena Stage gives playwrights higher billing by putting them on payroll: "Essentially, Arena is hiring playwrights as employees, with salaries and health benefits -- and even access to office supplies."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Technopolitical (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 12:03pm

Re: Creativity on a personal level is expanding daily. // The economics of having millions of people making their own art will change the salability of creativity, but as a culture we will likely be better for it.
SL : "The economics of having millions of people making their own art will change the saleability [cor. sp] of creativity, but as a culture we will likely be better for it."

Me : exactly 100% plus

$$$ who cares.

Control of use .

who. when. where. how. why.

As long as i have full artistic control

i is cool.

Full Copyrights for Art.

It is not just a good idea.

It is the bedrock of our Constitutional Economic System for Artists.

---------------
--------
patents on drugs and cellphones ?

it is a different horse.

not my thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Technopolitical (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 12:22pm

Re: Re: Creativity on a personal level is expanding daily. // The economics of having millions of people making their own art will change the salability of creativity, but as a culture we will likely be better for it.
http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Features/beatles-cover-songs-0621/

FREE VIDEO : Beatles Doing Others: 10 Cover Songs that Shaped the Fab Four’s Music

Enjoy .

[ this is really cool stuff. hot tracks. best band ever.]

The Beatles want you too have some fun FOR FREE.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Technopolitical (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1/2 right
CR :"There's your "new model." Of course, you need contrarian voices on here now and again to create controversy, inspire comments and draw eyeballs for your verizon/AmEx sugar daddies."

Me : right on!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Technopolitical (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:18pm

Nice, but inaccurate dig. First of all, our business model is not eyeball based. Sure, we have some ads, but that represents a small part of the business model.
MIKE :"Nice, but inaccurate dig. First of all, our business model is not eyeball based. Sure, we have some ads, but that represents a small part of the business model. "

Me : Maybe is you upped the "level of discourse" here with respected "academic moderation" of comments-

-- then maybe ; "we have some ads, but that represents a small part of the business model. " ;

Will THEN change to big bucks from lexus , black label , and fine watches.
===============
Maybe goats will fly too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Technopolitical (profile), 22 Jun 2010 @ 1:22pm

Re: Re: 1/2 right
YOU :Consumers are not "responsible" to "creators" or publishers one iota.

ME : True. you do not want . don't buy it
------------
YOU :Should the work be overpriced, simply awful or whatever I'm under no obligation to acquire it.

Me : True.

But to "acquire it"
w/o paying ,
or beyond legal
"fair use"----
that is Piracy .

And that is illegal
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2010 @ 6:21pm

Sorry, wrong. Consumers don't have to "do" anything. If content creators fail to provide the content in the ways the consumers want, the consumers will turn to more convenient alternatives (usually piracy). That is the basic flawed argument all the thief's spew So they don't offer what you want, but you still downloaded it for free, you wanted the content, book, movie, music, game etc..., but you didn't want to pay for it Otherwise that would be like saying that if you buy a car, you must (you are morally obligated to) return to the stand next month to buy a new car (just because they are nice people). No, the correct one is you steal the car later, because they didn't give you a reason a buy it, but you still wanted it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2010 @ 6:23pm

Sorry, wrong. Consumers don't have to "do" anything. If content creators fail to provide the content in the ways the consumers want, the consumers will turn to more convenient alternatives (usually piracy).

That is the basic flawed argument all the thief's spew So they don't offer what you want, but you still downloaded it for free, you wanted the content, book, movie, music, game etc..., but you didn't want to pay for it

Otherwise that would be like saying that if you buy a car, you must (you are morally obligated to) return to the stand next month to buy a new car (just because they are nice people).

No, the correct one is you steal the car later, because they didn't give you a reason a buy it, but you still wanted it
[ link to this | view in thread ]