Yet Another Study Shows That Students Inherently Know That File Sharing Is Not Theft
from the it-just-isn't dept
While folks like Vice President Biden continue to repeat the myth that infringement is no different than theft, and pretend that we're just one good education campaign away from having "the kids" all realize this, it's time to recognize this just isn't true. Infringement and theft are inherently different in many different ways, and no "education campaign" can make kids deny this reality. The massive SSRC study we've spoken about a few times made this point, and now Copycense points us to yet another study (and this is not the first one like this that we've seen) showing that students recognize that shoplifting a CD and downloading a song are simply not the same thing.Why? The very nature of music piracy is likely the largest obstacle to curbing it, the authors say. There is no risk of physical harm to a victim and no physical object as a target -- making it easier to deduce that digital music theft is harming no one at all. Also, there is widespread social support for the behavior within the internet community and on college campuses.As much as the industry wants to believe that if they keep repeating that it's the same as theft, people will believe it, kids are smart enough to recognize that making a copy of something is quite different than depriving someone of a physical object. In the initial case, no one is missing anything. That doesn't make it legal, but it certainly makes it clear that arguments around "educating" students that it's the same thing as "theft" aren't going to work. The kids know it's not true.
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: copying, copyright, file sharing, theft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Laws left unenforced are not laws at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's all agree that when such evidence exists we will then crowdsource a reasonable way to resolve the issue, until then could the industry execs kindly go do some actual work relating to the artists and connecting them to the fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.copyhype.com/2011/03/how-much-more-evidence/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How much more evidence do we need that cars significantly reduce purchases of horse buggies?
The point is not that file sharing may lead to a reduction in purchases of music, but what it means for the overall impact on the market. And that's the problem. All of the evidence shows MORE MONEY is being made by musicians today and MORE MUSIC is being produced today. It's just that less is coming from direct sales of music.
We've discussed this before. Why you repeat false statements... I really don't know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How much more evidence do we need that shoplifting food significantly reduces purchases of food?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you people were making your own music, then you'd be on target.
But of course you rip off other people's instead. Because you need music and can't make your own.
My analogy stands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Take a look at the Humble Indie Bundle. Then come back and admit that people pay all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If someone wants to go with PWYW, then that is just fine. That someone gave you choices among which you were free to select.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
People don't want to pay for what the music industry is providing.
The music industry can bang their head against the brick wall and demand consumers buy something they don't want to pay for. Or they can offer them something they do want to pay for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. I haven't missed your point. You claimed -- falsely -- that people would not pay when they can get it anonymously for free. That's false.
You're only trying to draw a separate (and unrelated) distinction now after you've been called on this. You made a statement which is factually untrue, that people would not pay for something in such circumstances. Unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence that many would and do pay in such circumstances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You should go out more. The fresh air can work wonders for clouded judgement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Food replicators
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I like how you sneak in physical objects into a digital copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I would think you are a bit off base on this one. With the exception of kleptomaniacs and kids stealing for kicks, I would think most who shoplift food are doing so because they cannot afford it. So, since they couldn't buy in the first place, it's not reducing purchases at all.
Disclaimer: I do not advocate shoplifting in any form. Shoplifting is stealing and is obviously much more severe than, say, using a Star Trek replicator to make copies of the food and leaving the originals in the store.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since you and those of your ilk keep repeating this mantra of yours, I'll continue to post my usual reply...
Let's take the legal definitions (courtesy of Law.com)of both because neither mentions the other so I will just add you to the group of those who really just talk out of their ass because that's where their head rests. Theft involves TAKING something and infringement involves USING something, there is quite a bit of difference which I doubt you can see from in there.
theft
n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully) and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.
See also: burglary embezzlement larceny robbery
infringement
n. 1) a trespassing or illegal entering. 2) in the law of patents (protected inventions) and copyrights (protected writings or graphics), the improper use of a patent, writing, graphic or trademark without permission, without notice, and especially without contracting for payment of a royalty. Even though the infringement may be accidental (an inventor thinks he is the first to develop the widget although someone else has a patent), the party infringing is responsible to pay the original patent or copyright owner substantial damages, which can be the normal royalty or as much as the infringers' accumulated gross profits.
See also: copyright patent plagiarism royalty trademark
Let's try this one more time:
T-H-E-F-T INVOLVES TAKING A PHYSICAL OBJECT FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER, OFTEN DEPRIVING THE ORIGINAL HOLDER OF ITS PRESENCE!
I-N-F-R-I-N-G-E-M-E-N-T INVOLVES U-S-I-N-G SOMETHING AND NO ONE IS ABSENT ANY PROPERTY WHATSOEVER!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even the example given clearly states that..."Even though the infringement may be accidental (an inventor thinks he is the first to develop the widget although someone else has a patent), the party infringing is responsible to pay the original patent or copyright owner substantial damages, which can be the normal royalty or as much as the infringers' accumulated gross profits."
Now, technially, downloading content may be a form of copywright infringment, but that is not the point. What we are talking about here is not so much about someone intentionally copying someones code and using it in their own work or even kids accidentally downloading a song to remix.
What we are discussing is the intentional and willful download of someone's work that is for sale through various mediums. The work is being downloaded in an effort to avoid rightfully paying for that content. Therefore, this is equivalent to theft just as if you shoplifted a CD to avoid rightfully paying for the content on the CD. It is not the piece of plastic that has value, it is the content on the CD that has value. That content is what is being stolen without compensation.
Look at it this way, do you think the kids would be upset if they shoplifted what they thought was a CD of their favorite band only to find that it was blank? Sure they would. Why? Because IT'S THE CONTENT THEY INTENDED TO STEAL, NOT THE PLASTIC CD. Just because the content is in a different form than a CD, it is still being stolen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The law, and the supreme court in more than one case disagrees with you. It might make you feel better to believe this is the case, but it has been soundly rejected as being equivalent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please explain why James Watt spent his entire life "protecting" the steam engine, and yet the technology advanced after he died
"What we are discussing is the intentional and willful download of someone's work that is for sale through various mediums. The work is being downloaded in an effort to avoid rightfully paying for that content. Therefore, this is equivalent to theft just as if you shoplifted a CD to avoid rightfully paying for the content on the CD. It is not the piece of plastic that has value, it is the content on the CD that has value. That content is what is being stolen without compensation. "
Money is a rivalrous and scarce commodity. People only have so much of it, and they will part with it for what they value most. This is only natural. It's NOT theft to take advantage of a filesharing network to download a file in any way, shape or form. Quite frankly, all the people looking at copyright for penalties look at the wrong thing.
Does the music industry have a rival? Yes
Does the movie industry have a rival? Yes
Does the game industry have a rival? Yes.
But that rival is not piracy
The music industry is now battling the artists for relevance. Their tactics of lowballing artists and having them sign away their copyrights is at an end.
The movie industry is facing the same problems of relevancy. The MPAA might not be needed to rate movies and the newer movies are being done for far cheaper than the MPAA would do for a summer blockbuster.
The games industry is facing competition from free social games on Facebook. Think about that... There's other ways that people are spending their time. Why should you be concerned about piracy when people's eyeballs are already on free games to play?
You should look to engage the people, not criminalize them. So far, the whole "copy is theft" mantra holds no water when the explanation is so full of holes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've yet to produce a population and inflation adjusted citation for this.
We've discussed this before. Should we just assume you're making false statements?
MORE MUSIC is being produced today.
So what?
McDonald's makes more burgers than ever before. The world's population is larger than ever before.
Quality is what matters, not quantity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, it is completely subjective.
If this the AC I think it is, his opinion of the quality of art is the only one that matters in his tiny little world and he thinks it applies to the rest of us.
Personally I would rather have the market determine the "quality" of art, not some middleman.
Seriously, when was the last time you based your appreciation of a song based on the A&R man's opinion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What exactly would not fit into the market? Please explain.
If you make something and 10,000 appreciate it, you have made "quality art" for 10,000 people.
If you make something and 1 person appreciates it, you have made "quality art" for only one person.
If you make something and only you appreciate it, you have made "quality art" only for yourself and no one else thinks it's "quality art" at all.
See how that works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The evidence of the last census suggests that the Jedi are the fastest growing religion in the world, but you know something, it isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where's your evidence that it isn't? How do you know that there isn't a growing number of people that fervently believe in the power of the Force? As a belief system it's no more irrational than many others. (I could also point out the idea of the Force has some similarities to some pagan beliefs)
The thing about evidence is we need more evidence to refute it, not just your opinion that something is "obviously" not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He probably is lying through his teeth, since the original report from the RIAA cites 16 markets growing and only 3 are from countries with increased enforcement, all the others are from countries that have lax or no meaningful protections at all.
So that guy is not a source that people to pay attention too LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Illegally downloading Family Guy episodes is what got it enough of a fanbase to get it back on the air...twice. The show is 10 times more successfull now than it was in 2002 when people were scrambling to find the cancelled episodes online.
Your comment isn't evidence. It's rhetoric.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, it’s called competition, and it’s what has been the driving force of progress for the past 3.7 or so billion years. You know what it’s called when you artificially limit competition? Monopoly. And that’s what copyright is—an artificial, counter-productive, unnatural, immoral, monopoly on universals. It deprives me from using my own property in any way I like. Now, that’s theft!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The note aboves states that in shoplifting a CD, they are actually stealling property, while downloading, nobody is missing anything. While that may be a physically acurate description, if fails to take under consideration what is actually being stolen.
In the first case, it is not the physical media that holds the value, it is the content on the media that the person wants. The media is just the method of distribution. In the 2nd case, once again, it is the actual content that has the value and therefore, downloading it without compensating the parties that created and made available the content is stealing the value of that content, just as if you stole that same content in physical form.
Therefore, yes, downloading or copying content is a form of theft.
No matter how ones tries to justify their actions, it is hard to say that we don't know right from wrong.
With that said, I do think that record companies, artists, etc. need to adapt their business models to this new generation of digital distribution. There are always going to be people that don't want to pay for the content and will continue to steal it. However, there is no reason that record companies need to continue doing business as usual at the cost of the consumer and artists. The new digital distribution world is much more cost effective as well as market effective and can reach much larger audiences than ever before. These savings should be passed on to the consumer and the power of the internet leveraged for the good of consumer and artist alike.
However, this is still no reason or justification for stealing content in any form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can't educate people on what isn't true. That's the problem. They know it's not true and any education campaign that is based around claiming it's true will fail because of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lies!
Yeah, you CAN educate people in things that are blatantly false. For example, most North Koreans are raised to believe they live in the best, most technologically advanced, free-est country in the world. A great number of them never comes to the realization these beliefs are false--and those that DO realize the truth generally do not do so until their late 20's at the earliest.
Additionally, most people on the planet are indoctrinated into one of several religions which mandates a belief in an invisible man who loves them, needs their money, and will send them to hell. And some of these people maintain this belief their entire lives!
Just sayin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lies!
And, they will maintain this belief until they are before him at which point it will be too late.
However, they will not maintain this belief for all eternity. They will eventually be educated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lies!
True story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lies!
Wow, this is deep. Heh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lies!
Wait a minute here.
Please show me this "significant evidence" that your God exists.
I will then take your "evidence" and apply it to my "religion" and I will show you that my "God", The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lies!
What exactly is your definition of "evidence"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lies!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
Pastafarianism are everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lies!
This, surely, was sarcasm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lies!
As such, countries like China and North Korea are leading the way in government theory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lies!
But that's just a popcorn movie, Uncle George couldn't possibly have been commenting on anything that's happening in the real world. Could he?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These kids would feel differently if I copied their stuff in a digital format and then copied it some more, dammit!
These kids would feel differently if I stole them!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
True story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If your employer doesn't make money, you don't make money, pretty simple math.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Software development is really about selling the service of problem solving with computers. A company has a task they want to complete regularly. They'd like it automated to reduce errors due to manual processing, and to free up staff for other more productive activities. They pay software developers (directly or indirectly) to solve their specific problem.
Or perhaps they want to sell a physical product that does something, so they pay the software developers to make the product do what they want.
That's the real beauty of the open source approach. As we resolve different problems, the solutions can be published and shared, meaning that we can move on to solving new problems instead of endlessly reinventing solutions to problems that others have already dealt with effectively.
There are a ton of ways to make money in the software industry, and most of them don't involve getting paid multiple times for writing a single piece of software. Instead, most of us get paid for writing new software, or selecting and tailoring existing software for a specific situation. Even in the companies that do sell shrink-wrapped software, the developers aren't getting paid royalties. Instead, we're paid (and usually well) for the time we spend making the company's products better. It doesn't matter whether that product goes on to sell 10 units or 10 million, we've already been paid our share.
In cases where people do sell the same thing multiple times, then the idea is to make it a better experience to do the right thing. Most smartphone developers understand this, offering their apps at reasonable prices, but selling to a lot of people. Those are cases where the developer pretty much is the company, though. There are plenty of examples of big companies not getting it, though, and it provides opportunities for competitors to come in and offer a superior experience at a lower price point.
From my point of view, royalty deals mostly seem like a scam to get out of paying people adequate salaries up front by holding out the lure of possible future earnings (and hoping that authors aren't financially savvy enough to figure out what a raw deal they're actually getting due to the time-value of money and the disproportionate division of risk).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Probably. What's your point?
Or were insinuating that I should support a position that I know to be morally bankrupt merely because it would benefit me financially to do so?
Sorry, no dice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poser fantasies
> they try to get jobs in the software, gaming,
> recording, animation, or writing industries and
> find themselves getting ripped off themselves."
...no not really.
True story.
The "artistic talent" usually aren't possessive jerks. They also usually don't see any more benefit from the work they contributed to selling 50K units or 5 million.
True story.
The people that take advantage of the artists are a different matter though.
Obscurity is far worse than piracy. It just takes an enlightened person to get over the puritan fixation on crime an punishment and being jealous of other people's good fortune.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Abolish intellectual property laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How about, we take these kids and educate them on business models that don't rely on government imposed monopolies to earn a living from their work.
Teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life. Teach a man about copyright and he will catch one fish and expect to be paid for 100 years and expect everyone else protect his fish for him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
light a man on fire and he stays warm the rest of his life!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I just love watching an IP maximalist AC's delusions that creators hate piracy as much as they do get shattered by reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I come back to this because my seizing the opportunity to further mock the AC actually sidestepped one of the two points I was originally intending to make: there's a pretty good general correlation that the more knowledgeable a person is about technology (with the engineers that actually make the technology at the one extreme) the less concerned with piracy, and the ones least knowledgeable about technology (and digital piracy) are precisely those who most fear piracy. Coincidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Steve Jobs would have been nothing without Steve Wozniak, but Steve Wozniak would also have been nothing without Steve Jobs. In otherwords, it takes the entire team to make a product successful. Rarely does one individual able to drive a product to success.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, assuming that were true, perhaps s/w engineers don't care because they don't have to worry about making their creation successful. There is the rest of the company that holds that responsibility. And it is the success of the product that allows everyone, including the s/w engineer to get paid.
Take away the rest of the company and force the s/w engineer to make the application successful so that he gets paid. Then let him watch as the income drops because everyone starts copying it and passing it around so there is no longer a need to buy it...my guess is that he will become deeply concerned about it.
As an independent s/w developer myself, I am certainly concerned about my products being shared and no compensation coming in. If I can't get paid for my work, there is little point in my doing it. Fine if it is just a hobby, but when I have bills to pay, I can't afford to give my s/w away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And perhaps they don't care precisely because they know better than the (usually much older) business suits. Your entire argument hinges on the assumption that piracy is fundamentally harmful, and then uses that to justify one position over the other as more valid, ultimately concluding that piracy is bad. That's called begging the question. If most of the people most knowledgeable about the subject disagree with that assumption, your argument is far more tenuous than mine.
"As an independent s/w developer myself, I am certainly concerned about my products being shared and no compensation coming in. If I can't get paid for my work, there is little point in my doing it. Fine if it is just a hobby, but when I have bills to pay, I can't afford to give my s/w away."
Congratulations. If you weren't an anonymous coward, I would officially count you as the second professional developer I know that seriously cares about piracy (the vast majority of those I "know" are people I know in real life).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If nobody pays you to design things, because anyone can steal your work, you can't eat and you can't design things so the problems you want to solve to make more efficient will not be done.
More likely, you are just rationalizing your theft of music now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Agreed, if you can't figure out how to get paid for it. You shouldn't be doing it.
Same reason I'm not a professional bikini inspector.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What exactly was your point, again?
P.S. I've given you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't actually mean that the "employers" are the ones who earn the money, and out of charity employ the people who actually do the work that earned said money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When the entity succeeds and makes money, people stay on its payroll. When it does not, they do not.
Your "beef" seems to be directed more towards an entity's management, and particularly when those who decide the direction an entity will take in the market are not intimately familiar with the creation of products or the provisioning of services being offered to its customer base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Your "beef" seems to be directed more towards an entity's management, and particularly when those who decide the direction an entity will take in the market are not intimately familiar with the creation of products or the provisioning of services being offered to its customer base."
That is correct. My "beef" is with the people who know least about the decisions they're making and participate the least in actually making what the company profits from making the decisions that decide the fate of the entire company (and, in some cases, the entire world).
That said, the topic of discussion is the opinions of 1. society in general, and 2. creators (and, for good measure, 3. the people most knowledgeable about technology and digital piracy), not me in particular. Legal entities are primarily dictated by the business suits and shareholders, both of which are frequently further from actually creating anything than the company secretaries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Kids will get irritated that an entire class of people can dictate to them what they should or should not do with what they bought.
All kids eventually learn that you get paid first and then you work. Every kid learn early on that they can't go into a store and get things without paying first, so when they start selling things they will get the money first and give the product latter not give something and hope people pay you.
Meaning at some point artists should learn to do what everybody else does, they set a price on their work and get paid and then they deliver something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I work my @$$ off for two weeks at a time and I have to wait until payday before I see a cent.
Where do i sign up for this program you speak of?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
all these startup hackers and next-gen business folks.
you may have heard of a few of these poor, destitute companies getting ripped off... twitter, facebook, groupon, zynga, etc. all started by people who were probably still in college during the time of napster.
that'll learn them!
m3mnoch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
it could be that entertainment-based content creation -- music, storytelling, plays, performances, etc. -- have historically (aka previous to the 20th century) all been service-based.
perform, or you don't get paid. is that really so different?
to all intents and purposes, the boxing and selling of ideas is a relatively new concept. the boxing and selling of the distribution methods, however, is totally different. conceptually, there's no difference between pages in a book and bandwidth over the wire. they are vessels to deliver ideas.
you can sell access to the idea, not the idea itself, because there's no inherent scarcity in ideas. only in the delivery method.
m3mnoch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's true, too. For thousands of years, sale (or barter) of goods has been just that because physical items were more or less consumable, and if not they had a limited lifespan. The digital world (and to a limited extent the printed world before it) has brought about both the possibility of selling ideas, which aren't consumable and do not decay with use. Business suits are coming to realize this difference, and as a result are realizing that they can make more money by renting rather than selling digital goods, leading to the transition to a service model rather than retail.
My prediction is that a service model of software and other digital goods will predominate in the future, barring other concerns that would make it impractical or unprofitable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other words, if the market buys into the idea that having your documents available and editable from any device and location is a significant benefit that exceeds the limitations of needing an always accessible broadband connection and possibly an additional monthly subscription to the service, not to mention the privacy concerns - then it stands a chance.
Failing that there will always be companies willing to sell (or give) you software to run locally, even if the big names suddenly decide not to offer their wares this way.
The same thing applies to music, video etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yet another study showing that "new" thinkers get knowledge from kids
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And yet another study showing that "new" thinkers get knowledge from kids
Oh, wait, you mean a false "knowledgeable" with a false "theft", causing the opposite due to double negatives? Now I see what you did there, talking about those smart kids. Nudge nudge wink win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And yet another study showing that "new" thinkers get knowledge from kids
This has the potential to become an internet meme. Let's make it happen.
Nudge nudge wink win. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And yet another study showing that "new" thinkers get knowledge from kids
Plan accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theft? Back to the Basics!
Now, you may argue all you want that your product being downloaded, will cause you "loss of income"
It is exactly the same argument that i have stating that my 8 hour work day should be valued at $500.00 an hour, and not at the current rate.
Should i sue for loss of "Potential Income"??
Isn't the burden of Proof on the Prosecution demonstrating this loss, and not just dealing with "potentials"???
Why are we still having this conversation??
Ah yes, because the Recording Industry pays lobbyists and politicians to keep drafting non-enforceable laws, so they can sustain their monopolistic business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Evidence that Mike pirates anything? Thought not.
Just another shill. Report and move along, folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Curious. How does one steal labor?
Please explain.
Just because you don't see or understand the harm, doesn't mean it's not harming someone.
I'm just looking for any evidence that there is harm. Instead, we find that for content creators who embrace file sharing and combine it with smart business models, they tend to be better off than they were previously. So I don't see the harm as being from file sharing, but from failure to have a good business model.
Of course mike you don't care who you hurt as long as you get all your stuff for free pirating, while sitting on your high-horse claiming you aren't doing anything wrong. But you are wrong
Why do people always make this false claim. I do not "pirate" anything. All of the music I have I have paid for legally or obtained from free downloads *directly* from the musicians. I have not used any file sharing software to obtain unauthorized works.
So why would you lie and claim I do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- new major label marketing slogan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
erm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: erm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I purchased concert tickets for three events to bands I had never listened to before having rdio. Rdio isn't perfect but blows direct music purchases out of the water. I'm pretty sure the bands I purchased concert tickets from are getting a lot more money from me than they did before a streaming service became available. I don't think I would've discovered them in the old model.
The same could be said for people who infringe and torrent mp3's.. hear the music become a fan and find another way to spend their money on what they enjoy.
Find ways to make music/bands more accessible and I bet they magically have more fans. That may be willing to part with some cash for something they value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]