The Democratization Of Culture: PressPausePlay
from the talking-about-culture dept
Nearly two years ago, while at a conference in Norway, I sat down with some folks putting together a documentary called PressPausePlay, which is all about the democratization of culture, and the views many people have -- positive, negative, indifferent, weird, etc. -- on that changing landscape. It's taken a couple years, but the movie is finally out (I got to see a version earlier this year at SXSW), and with it, the filmmakers are releasing longer versions of all of the interviews they did on YouTube -- including mine, which you can see below:
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: culture, democratization, openness, presspauseplay
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One more for the shrine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One more for the shrine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One more for the shrine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One more for the shrine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: One more for the shrine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One more for the shrine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One more for the shrine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One more for the shrine
If they have a shrine that is their own weirdness, but please, oh please don't make the rest of us have to visualise what else they might do..
argghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh *cheesegrater for the brain required*
BTW Mike.. I was expecting you to look all pirate like with devil horns. You look, dare I say it.. NORMAL! Whodathunkit ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A question for you, Mike
Just interested in your take on the new developments of an industry lashing out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A question for you, Mike
Yup. My feelings on that haven't changed much. Once things settle down and new business models become clear and are profitable, just watch: people will assume they were obvious all along and forget the "wars" over copyright...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
I agree with Mike, but I don't like the outcome of that mentality. For instance, looking back over the past that was my grandparent's and parent's. I am ashamed they did not get up more and be more active in the thing's that are and will hassle me for year's to come now.
I am talking broadly, but not knowing how your country (out side of full on war) is handling the little things that combine into freedom will always be amazing to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
The "anonymous internet" as we know it today is going the way of the dinosaur. With the narrowing of the laws, with the arrival of IPv6, and the general discomfort of almost all governments about the current cesspool, it is doubtful that things could stay this way.
Piracy is pretty much predicated on the anonymous nature of the net. Take that away, make it so people really have to share who they are as they share a file or as they download it, and you will see more people give it up.
While it is true that information wants to be, so do people. Most of them don't intentionally do things that can get them in legal trouble, especially if they feel there is a good potential of getting caught. Clearly, what people will do as anonymous is different from what they would do if their name was easily obtainable (in court).
Most of the "new" business models are predicated on free distribution and building from there. Give the X away, and hope they buy Y. But when piracy of X is no longer a widespread issue, the actual market for X recovers to the point where it can be sold profitably again, and all the "new" business models just end up looking wasteful.
Assuming anything "settled down" is the kiss of death for a business model. That makes it ripe for the old disruptive forces, doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
Yes, governments do get uncomfortable when the people have power outside of their control and free speech is truly unfettered. It's a shame that you support destroying this just so a few corporations (not artists) can get more money.
"Piracy is pretty much predicated on the anonymous nature of the net."
Ah, another idiot who seems to think that "piracy" only happens on the internet...
"and all the "new" business models just end up looking wasteful."
Please explain how models that you've just admitted are built on free distribution can be "wasteful". Please explain how the "traditional" models are not wasteful.
"Assuming anything "settled down" is the kiss of death for a business model."
Indeed, which is the true reason why the corporations are in trouble. Even without piracy, the business realities of the 1990s no longer exist. It's about time they joined us in this century instead of trying to force back the clock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
Governments get uncomfortable when, as we enter into the era of IP rather than sweat labor, that the IP can be stolen and re-used without any actual economic gain for the country. The US is at incredible risk in this area, as the US is more and more about ideas, developments, and design, and much less about knocking out widgets in a sweat shop.
It isn't about "unfettered free speech", not in the slightest.
"another idiot who seems to think that "piracy" only happens on the internet..."
Who the fuck said that? Seriously, piracy doesn't just happen on the internet, but when it comes to IP, the internet is millions of times faster than any other method. Sneakernet just doesn't compete for a whole bunch of reasons previously discussed.
"Please explain how the "traditional" models are not wasteful."
Please explain what part of the traditional models you consider wasteful. I think we would disagree on this point.
"ndeed, which is the true reason why the corporations are in trouble. Even without piracy, the business realities of the 1990s no longer exist."
You almost got it, and then you slipped and fell on your ass and made a fool of yourself. What you don't get is that you may feel the business realities of the 1990s no longer exist, but you should understand that the business realities of 2009 are quickly fading away as well. The infinite distribution models are quickly breaking down, being replaced by the file locker "pay to play" mentality, as file sharing people become more risk adverse to direct sharing.
See, the sands on which Mike (and you it seems) have built the business models are already shifting and the house is already tilting, it won't be long before it is unlivable and you have to move on.
Oh, the movie and music people don't want 1990 again. They just want everything to operate within the law. If you don't like the law, change it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
Yes, it is. Most of my objections to the actions of the morons you support are to do with exactly that. One of the problems with truly free speech is that speech you don't like is allowed equally as much as the speech you do.
"Who the fuck said that?"
You did: "Piracy is pretty much predicated on the anonymous nature of the net."
"the internet is millions of times faster than any other method"
That means it's currently the easiest and quickest platform. Removing the platform will not remove piracy, nor will it convince people suddenly start paying.
"Please explain what part of the traditional models you consider wasteful."
Answering a question by asking the same question back to me is hardly a good debating technique. Why should I answer, when you can't even be bothered to defend your own position?
"The infinite distribution models are quickly breaking down, being replaced by the file locker "pay to play" mentality, as file sharing people become more risk adverse to direct sharing."
I have no idea what this obsession is that you seem to have surrounding file lockers, but it's extremely misguided.
Anyway, citation needed for your initial assertion.
"the sands on which Mike (and you it seems) have built the business models are already shifting and the house is already tilting"
Again, my original point. You're happy to destroy the internet and all its advantages because the morons in charge of a few corporations can't deal with the realities faced today. This is not a good thing.
"Oh, the movie and music people don't want 1990 again. They just want everything to operate within the law."
I do. Yet, they fail constantly to offer me the legal product I demand. The pirates offer me everything. I don't use them due to their illegality, but the law wouldn't matter if only they'd service their own market. Their failure is the failure to adapt to modern times, not the actions of their customers.
Perhaps if you'd stop your obsession with propping up their failing businesses, you'd see sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
"That means it's currently the easiest and quickest platform. Removing the platform will not remove piracy, nor will it convince people suddenly start paying."
I am always amazed by comments like this, because you seem to think that the only reason copyright is enforced is to "make people pay". You cannot make anyone pay anything for something they don't want. The only thing anyone wants is to get paid for their work when someone consumes it. You wouldn't dine and dash, you wouldn't sleep and run at a hotel, and you wouldn't sneak onto a bus without paying, so why should you enjoy a movie for free?
"Again, my original point. You're happy to destroy the internet and all its advantages because the morons in charge of a few corporations can't deal with the realities faced today. This is not a good thing."
There is no destroying the internet here, maybe only destroying your utopian Freetardian file sharing haven (you know, on that island you are moving to). Just like any other tool, there are limits to it's use within the parameters of society's rules. Remember, cars can go faster than the speed limit, but societal norms say it is against the law. The internet can do a lot of things, but some of them are illegal.
Are you suggesting, example, that because the internet is used to distribute Child porn that making and distributing child porn should be legal because it can be done?
"they fail constantly to offer me the legal product I demand"
The car companies constantly fail to offer me what I want too, a zippy high horsepower, mega effecient, comfortable car with a nice leather interior, superior looks, and all that, and I want it for $1. Since they fail to provide it, I guess by your logic I should be allowed to just keep stealing cars until they do it.
That is the Freetard mentality in a nutshell.
You cannot force anyone to do business with you. If the movie companies don't want to do business with you at the time you choose, then you need to choose different entertainment choices. Their "failure" to meet you expectations doesn't give you permission to take their content anyway. That just makes you look like a jackass thief, nothing more and nothing less.
If they don't meet your expectations, then use someone else's product who does. That doesn't mean go pirate it. That means go watch Sita Sings The Blues (again) and enjoy it. That is a product that is available to your exacting standards.
"Perhaps if you'd stop your obsession with propping up their failing businesses, you'd see sense."
Perhaps if you'd stop with your self-justified feeling of entitlement, the world would be a better place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
Boom. Head shot.
Nicely played.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
I. DO. NOT. PIRATE.
Got that? If not, stop reading, your intellect is clearly not equipped for adult conversation. If so, great. Maybe you can now accept that there are major concerns with the actions of your corporate gods that have nothing to do with what you accuse me of, completely without evidence.
"You need to get use to it"
I know I'm not American, but I presume you are (correct me if I'm wrong). So, what you're saying is that the first amendment is completely optional and it can be revoked at any time?
"You seem to think that the only reason copyright is enforced is to "make people pay". "
"The only thing anyone wants is to get paid for their work when someone consumes it."
You do realise you completely contradicted yourself here, right?
"Remember, cars can go faster than the speed limit, but societal norms say it is against the law. The internet can do a lot of things, but some of them are illegal."
You do always seem to have a handicap when it comes to making analogies to physical goods.
To accurately reflect my situation, your analogy would have to have a clause where cars are only licensed to be used on certain roads. I have to import foreign cars or hack the car's computer to be able to use it on my daily commute. Instead, I choose to use the bus. But then, the car companies start suing the bus companies because they're losing money with so many people choosing that route.
"Child porn"
Generally speaking, this is the new Godwin. It's only brought up when someone either realises they're lost the argument, or have no facts to fall back on so rely on a call to emotion.
To answer your question, I would expect that law enforcement would work with the sites involved to stop the production of child porn (which, unlike the copying of a movie, causes actual and measurable harm) and stop it at its source. I would not expect them to go after ISPs because their lines happened to carry the infringing material, nor would I expect innocent bystanders to be targeted.
"You cannot force anyone to do business with you"
Indeed, which is why I generally don't. You idiots keep assuming it's piracy that's the problem, though.
"If the movie companies don't want to do business with you at the time you choose, then you need to choose different entertainment choices."
I do. Which is why my expenditure on certain type of entertainment has dropped significantly, and why virtually all of my entertainment needs to be imported from abroad. Sadly, the idiots who apparently pay you don't understand that this has nothing to do with piracy, but rather their failure to even allow me to pay for a service I want (e.g. amazon.es has recently launched, but with none of the MP3 & movie options open to Americans. No sale.).
"That means go watch Sita Sings The Blues (again) and enjoy it."
I have and I did. I also imported a crapload of DVDs recently, including those by Arrow Video, my current favourite label who mostly specialise in Italian exploitation from the 70s and 80s. Sorry, I didn't buy into the latest crapfest from whoever pays you.
"Perhaps if you'd stop with your self-justified feeling of entitlement, the world would be a better place."
Perhaps if you and your masters listened to what customers were saying instead of making up a convenient fiction, you wouldn't be in this mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
Thank you for admitting that you want to use this for your own advantage in order to make a very serious problem worse:
Censorship hides the problem and causes more children to be abused, they say. Don’t close your eyes, but see reality and act on it. As hard as it is to force oneself to be confronted emotionally with this statement, it is rationally understandable that a problem can’t be addressed by hiding it. One of their slogans is “Crimes should be punished and not hidden”.
This puts the copyright industry’s efforts in perspective. In this context they don’t care in the slightest about children, only about their control over distribution channels. If you ever thought you knew cynical, this takes it to a whole new level.
The conclusion is as unpleasant as it is inevitable. The copyright industry lobby is actively trying to hide egregious crimes against children, obviously not because they care about the children, but because the resulting censorship mechanism can be a benefit to their business if they manage to broaden the censorship in the next stage. All this in defense of their lucrative monopoly that starves the public of culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
Oh don't you worry. Masnick is all over this. Why just recently he put together an anti-Protect IP Act letter from a handful of so-called "leading tech entrepreneurs" (many of whom have had their own legal problems related to infringing on the content of others). Then he shrewdly managed to get Rep. Polis to send it around as a "Dear Colleague" letter. Apparently neither see the inherent stupidity of talking down a Senate bill to the House of Representatives. Why wouldn't you keep your powder dry until the House bill drops? Or why wouldn't you try to get Wyden to shop the letter? My guess is that he's too smart for that and already is feeling enough heat from his hold, which tells me his balls are starting to wither.
All this ham-handed move did was to confirm that Polis is a nitwit (for taking part) and that a group of infringers wants the House to know they oppose a Senate bill that attacks infringing. Brilliant!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
Your idiocy never ceases to amaze.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
So Mike, what's not true? That you weren't behind the letter? You were your own website was the point of contact. Or that you and your merry band of infringers and/or apologists didn't have Polis circulate the letter under a "Dear Colleague" cover. Don't bother lying here, I've seen it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
Pretty much everything you wrote.
That you weren't behind the letter? You were your own website was the point of contact.
As I stated in the original thread, I was one of a group of people who participated. I offered to set up the email address and did so.
Or that you and your merry band of infringers and/or apologists didn't have Polis circulate the letter under a "Dear Colleague" cover. Don't bother lying here, I've seen it.
I heard that Polis sent a Dear Colleague letter a few days after he sent it. But I do not know how he got the letter. I certainly have had no communications with his office whatsoever and did not, as you suggest, ask him to send the letter. The letter he sent was actually an earlier version with fewer signatures than the letter that was actually sent (and which was sent to the full Senate, but not the full House, contrary to your assertions).
You could apologize for being totally wrong, but I don't think you have it in you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
OK, so you were behind it and had company. Are you such a slippery liar that you can't just say, "Yeah, it was me. So what?"
"Or that you and your merry band of infringers and/or apologists didn't have Polis circulate the letter under a "Dear Colleague" cover. Don't bother lying here, I've seen it."
I heard that Polis sent a Dear Colleague letter a few days after he sent it. But I do not know how he got the letter. I certainly have had no communications with his office whatsoever and did not, as you suggest, ask him to send the letter. The letter he sent was actually an earlier version with fewer signatures than the letter that was actually sent (and which was sent to the full Senate, but not the full House, contrary to your assertions).
Polis sent your letter to his House colleagues. You might have sent it to the Senate as well. For the record, I never said anything about your letter going or not going to the Senate. You still look like a boob with Polis pimping it all over the House.
You could apologize for being so slimy and evasive, but I don't think you have it in you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
I actually have to admit that I find it amusing that you are so desperate to pin everything on me, because it shows that you have no idea what's actually going on on an issue you're supposed to be an expert on. It must be driving you mad.
You could apologize for being so slimy and evasive, but I don't think you have it in you.
Hilarious. I'm the one who's upfront here. My name is on everything I do here. You? You're anonymous -- you come here and attack me with baseless attacks all the time, claim that you're spreading bad (and false) claims about me in "policy circles" (whatever that means) and so desperate to make a legitimate effort by a bunch of big time entrepreneurs look bad that you have to lie about it.
Who is "slimy and evasive" here? I'll make it simple: put your name and affiliation on a comment, and then maybe you'll have moved up a notch and still be more slimy than me. You're a lobbyist. I'm not. You're paid to spew the crap and lies you spew. I'm not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
Ah, another idiot who seems to think that "piracy" only happens on the internet...
Not exactly sure what you're implying but the I have to believe that the internet facilitates nearly 100% of piracy. Even in third world countries where dvd's are retailed in open air markets, I'll bet the master came over the net. Sure the sneaker net would grow but never to an order of magnitude that we have over the internet today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
Ah, your famous "I don't have any proof but I think it's right so I'll assume it's the truth".
Piracy existed for decades before the internet. It will continue to exist after the internet is destroyed by people who think like you. The advantages allowed by the internet outweigh the profits of a handful of corporations. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
Ah, your famous "I don't have any proof but I think it's right so I'll assume it's the truth".
Piracy existed for decades before the internet. It will continue to exist after the internet is destroyed by people who think like you. The advantages allowed by the internet outweigh the profits of a handful of corporations. Deal with it.
You seem to have not read the last two sentences of my response. Sorry if they are an inconvenience for your weak point. So in case you missed it, here it is again:
"Even in third world countries where dvd's are retailed in open air markets, I'll bet the master came over the net. Sure the sneaker net would grow but never to an order of magnitude that we have over the internet today."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
However, there is a huge difference here.
The internet is a wide distribution model, that allows people who don't know each other, don't live near each other, and in fact have no other interaction with each other to "share" (aka pirate) stuff. These people are not going to sneakernet together, one isn't going to visit the other's roadside stall in Africa to get a copy of the movie, etc.
It's just like the VCR, cassette tapes, and even "sneakernets" of digital files: The movement is too slow, it is too dependant on personal contact, and it just doesn't work out, certainly not fast enough to satisfy your immediate needs for entertainment.
That level of piracy, even though annoying and still costly to the industry people, it way more tolerable compared to the current internet blight. Sneakernet a new song? It could take months (or years) for it to make the streets of Africa. Internet it? Ding. It's there.
"The advantages allowed by the internet outweigh the profits of a handful of corporations"
Finally, I have to say that this is another perfect Tardian catch phrase, but it is pretty meaningless. Why? Because all you tards want and trade in Hollywood movies, mainstream label music, and commercial TV shows. You aren't just biting the hand that feeds you, you are shredding it without a lick of concern as to where you next content meal is coming from. Whatever advantages the internet brings you are entirely lost if there isn't anything to trade, is there?
How many times have you watched Sita Sings the Blues? Never? Why not? It's free! Go on, watch it, over and over again. Guess what? That's all the entertainment that is going to be left, people like Nina Paley turning out movies that few people really want to watch.
Advantages almost always come with disavantages. Your inability to see them past your Tardian rose colored glasses makes you a true leader in the march off the cliff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
When you use any reference to "freetard", you actually retard your argument. You act as if it's mainly the US doing the downloading and automatically assume that the download has a correlation to lost income.
It is in fact other countries that are very interested in US entertainment. We have Hollywood helping to stop the spread of terrorism and an increased focus on foreign film markets.
You have more legal options for movies here in the US than in other countries where piracy comes from underdeveloped distribution channels.
Finally, you have people that use free distribution to take advantage of other scarcities. Sadly, you don't seem to understand that.
"How many times have you watched Sita Sings the Blues? Never? Why not? It's free! Go on, watch it, over and over again. Guess what? That's all the entertainment that is going to be left, people like Nina Paley turning out movies that few people really want to watch."
Is that a bad thing? Here's a list of various artists that use "free". I guess they're "freetards" as well...
Rich Burlew - Uses his website to promote his books and make a living with a free comic
Madeon - Uses the free music to make his own sound and style
Freddie Wong - Uses the free of Youtube to make movies. BTW, he just made a new post for a project. It started yesterday. As of this writing, he's raised nearly all of his funds through crowdsourcing. Also, he works full time in releasing videos on Youtube.
Comics, movies, music... Oh, I'm forgetting games, aren't I?
I keep plugging away at the Extra Credits Indie Fund which amassed over $100,000 in 30 days. The one linked is the second fund. Extra Credits is known for their commentary in games, but when their artist might have lost her shoulder, the community of gamers paid a LOT more for her surgery and recouping. The artist now has a job at Relic Entertainment.
Quite frankly, if you can't see the forest for the trees, it's not my responsibility. But when all you can do is accuse people of merely "wanting stuff for free" when that's most certainly not the case, it exposes your own ignorance in the matter. Maybe next time, you can show those disadvantages you speak of. As I see it, the artists are finding their niches, communicating with their fans and finding out how to make individual successes for themselves.
What are you doing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
All you have to to do is wander over to the "usual suspects" torrent sites, and see what is popular. It isn't anyting from "indie" anything, except perhaps indie porn. Otherwise, it's pure high end commercial product. That huge mass, that general pile, that collection of people are the Freetardian masses. They aren't looking at the extra credit indie fund, they want to download the latest Hollywood blockbuster.
I can see the forest, I can see the trees, and I can see which "indie" sapling you have your nose and eyes pressed against. Don't guess what the forest looks like, go out and see. Your little shrub ain't nothing compared to the big forest that is out there, where most people go for their entertainment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
$100,000 for the Indie Fund is people not looking at it?
$75,000 made in the course of a day or two is something to sneeze at?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
And that's a misleading statement. Fwong makes little snippets and his full time job is Youtube. Same with Rich or any other artist mentioned. I have yet to discuss Felicia Day, but her content has been based on a free platform along with the Red vs Blue episodes, shown every Monday on their site.
"Think scale"
Which is my post above. I find it odd that you can seriously consider the amount of money being made by the indies as paltry when they're making money on other scarcities. And they're dedicated to their fanbase that supports them far more than the labels (be it recording or movie) would do.
"All you have to to do is wander over to the "usual suspects" torrent sites, and see what is popular. It isn't anyting from "indie" anything, except perhaps indie porn. Otherwise, it's pure high end commercial product. That huge mass, that general pile, that collection of people are the Freetardian masses. They aren't looking at the extra credit indie fund, they want to download the latest Hollywood blockbuster."
I believe you summarily missed the arguments about where those downloads are coming from or who wants them. So, without the links, I'm going to bold that part.
"It is in fact other countries that are very interested in US entertainment. We have Hollywood helping to stop the spread of terrorism and an increased focus on foreign film markets."
In other words, legal availability of product is underdeveloped in other countries. Piracy, for the main part, has been about underserved customers. If the industry doesn't provide alternatives, people will find their own. Not a hard concept unless you ignore that "minor" piece of information.
Oh, and one more caveat...
Why is it that when Fox took away their free option of shows to Hulu, more people learned bittorrent to watch their show instead of waiting 8 days to watch it? I guess all those freetards/customers/culturalists/people can't wait to remain relevant with shows they want to watch, when it's convenient for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
Damn HTML...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
"The internet is a wide distribution model, that allows people who don't know each other, don't live near each other, and in fact have no other interaction with each other to "share" (aka pirate) stuff."
It also allows legitimate transactions.
"Sneakernet a new song? It could take months (or years) for it to make the streets of Africa"
How are the corporations servicing Africa online? If it's anything like Spain, the general answer is "they're not". Complaining about zero legitimate purchases is kind of stupid when they don't offer legitimate services to begin with.
"How many times have you watched Sita Sings the Blues? "
Once. I enjoyed it, then watched a combination of legitimately obtained content and public domain material. Why do you idiots always I assume I have to have a need for Hollywood shit?
"Advantages almost always come with disavantages. "
So, what are the advantages? Retailers in countries I can easily buy things from in physical formats (waiting 3 weeks for them to arrive) are not allowed to sell me their streaming services. There is no local equivalent for me to choose. I am not permitted to access services I find useful. Even after I buy legitimately purchased content such as Blu-rays, I am not permitted to play them back on my legitimately purchased equipment. My very freedom of speech and access to the internet is being threatened on a mere accusation with no due process.
I'm not seeing the advantages here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
Paul, one of the biggest mistakes you can make is assuming that your experience and actions will be replicated in the society as a whole. Based on sales, based on media coverage, based on pirate downloads, etc, it is clear that the public (all over the world I might add) wants "Hollywood shit".
When you start to grasp that your personal view of the universe doesn't line up with the majority of people out there (not the majority of Techdirt readers, but the majority of the population as a whole) you will start to understand why your assumptions are just not working out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
There really isn't any point discussing with the likes of you. You're the piano roll maker who wailed and moaned against the 45 because *everybody* used pianos for a singalong, why would anyone want to listen to pre-recorded songs? You're the Jack Valenti who declared the VCR to be the Boston Strangler before people more intelligent than him created a more profitable industry directly from it.
I can only hope that people with more intelligence and foresight are in charge of the cruise liner you're currently trying to direct into icebergs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
False.
Please look into South Africa, which has very limited internet capabilities. Broadband penetration is below 10% of the consensus
The huge thing there was textbook piracy. But because of the end of apartheid and economic sanctions in the mid-1990s, a rapid flow of cultural goods came into the South African marketplace. That's books, movies, AV cassettes and CDs. However, the retail market was quite underdeveloped so a lot of grey and black market practices came into being for acquiring entertainment goods.
If you want to read more, it is here
Download South Africa or the full report. But PaulT's argument has much more weight than yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
Please look into South Africa, which has very limited internet capabilities. Broadband penetration is below 10% of the consensus
As I said, I figured that the master copies probably are delivered via the internet. From there, discs are burned and sold as the primary means of distribution.
Remember seeing this:
"Even in third world countries where dvd's are retailed in open air markets, I'll bet the master came over the net. Sure the sneaker net would grow but never to an order of magnitude that we have over the internet today."
Are you so desperate to score a single point that you overlook what's written in plain English?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
"Are you so desperate to score a single point that you overlook what's written in plain English?"
The M.O. of the average AC around here, I believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
" That the 3rd world countries your industry refuses to adequately service would not suddenly start buying full priced DVDs if the internet was somehow prevented from facilitating piracy?"
Don't forget, it's American pricing. It's far different from South Africa's Competitive Pricing Point which is actually lower. If I began talking about how those DVDs of shows are sold as low as R5 ($.65) the AC might have an aneurysm.
Let's not forget that Bollywood films are also a great cheap commodity in the same flea markets. He has a small point that a master is downloaded, but he ignores the rest of the point that the industry still can't serve all of the diverse parts of South Africa with market segmentation and cheap discs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
Maybe this is where we have an indentifiable difference of opinion. You seem to suggest that the industry has an obligation to make its product "affordable". So Ford should sell a $20,000 truck for $5000 because its South Africa? Otherwise, any stealing is somehow justifiable? I could see some merit in that argument if we were talking about food, medicine, clean water, etc. But its entertainment for Christ's sake. And not even entertainment from their own culture. You act like there is some inalienable human right to be entertained. There are lots of non-necessities that I like but are priced higher than I want to pay. So I simply do without. Or it's something I treat myself to one in awhile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
One example: Rosetta Stone. It costs $800 in the US. One option for software is to use cheaper (MUCH CHEAPER) alternatives for it. Another option is piracy. Even if software developers have an ongoing relationship with consumers in various fields, there's much more than price that can be built by adequate relationships with customers that are underserved.
So Ford should sell a $20,000 truck for $5000 because its South Africa? Otherwise, any stealing is somehow justifiable?
If they want to sell the car for much cheaper, they would. And again, the car is a tangible product. The digital file? Not the same thing. Tell me, based on what I said before, how does the industry (here, we're talking about BACSA, RiSA, along with USAID) gain market penetration with their very unique factors described above?
Did you know that vendors in certain street markets don't necessarily copy their own movies but instead copy foreign films as copying their own would be "unpatriotic?"
I think you should read the report linked above.
" I could see some merit in that argument if we were talking about food, medicine, clean water, etc. "
Well, that's more a patent issue that Europe is dealing with right now. The fact that India is going through this right now, based on how hard it is to import medicines from Europe should give us pause in what exactly these IP issues are about.
" You act like there is some inalienable human right to be entertained."
Actually, no I don't. I'm just telling you the economics of a situation. First rule of economics: People respond to incentives. Charge too much? People find what they want elsewhere. Interfere with their routines? Well, let's ask Fox about their 8 day delay and the consequences of it.
"There are lots of non-necessities that I like but are priced higher than I want to pay. So I simply do without. Or it's something I treat myself to one in awhile."
Good for you. But... What you do doesn't affect the other billions of people in the world today and how they want to consume media. If you and the industry want to make money, there's alternatives. Why not learn to compete with these channels instead of spending all the money to enforce what just can't be enforced?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
Or a third option is to simply do without. Why is that not a consideration?
"So Ford should sell a $20,000 truck for $5000 because its South Africa? Otherwise, any stealing is somehow justifiable? "
If they want to sell the car for much cheaper, they would. And again, the car is a tangible product. The digital file? Not the same thing.
I think it is. If a merchant overprices his good, the result should be that people either do without or substitute. Not steal it.
Did you know that vendors in certain street markets don't necessarily copy their own movies but instead copy foreign films as copying their own would be "unpatriotic?"
Didn't know that. But that's a troubling indication of state of mind. That tells me that there recognition that this is stealing but it's OK because it's stealing from a foreigner, not a countryman.
" I could see some merit in that argument if we were talking about food, medicine, clean water, etc. "
Well, that's more a patent issue that Europe is dealing with right now. The fact that India is going through this right now, based on how hard it is to import medicines from Europe should give us pause in what exactly these IP issues are about.
Here we agree
"There are lots of non-necessities that I like but are priced higher than I want to pay. So I simply do without. Or it's something I treat myself to one in awhile."
Good for you. But... What you do doesn't affect the other billions of people in the world today and how they want to consume media. If you and the industry want to make money, there's alternatives. Why not learn to compete with these channels instead of spending all the money to enforce what just can't be enforced?
What I think you fail to see is that piracy itself impedes development of new distribution models. Ninjavideo was charging a subscription fee of $25/month for access to content. If I want to enter that market how do I compete if I want to do it lawfully and pay the license fee while Ninjavideo does not. It's pretty likely that I'd have to charge a lot more than $25 to offer the same service. So why would anyone use my service?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
Or a third option is to simply do without. Why is that not a consideration?"
I never said that wasn't an option. But look at this. If a legal option isn't available in an area, people find alternatives. Whether they're legal or pirated goods, that's still potential income. If you put up barriers to how your product is consumed people will go to piracy. I'm saying it again and again, but you aren't understanding. Yes, people could do without. No question. But guess what, the pirate is offering a better product than the authorized version. Which do you think people will go to?
"I think it is. If a merchant overprices his good, the result should be that people either do without or substitute. Not steal it."
And yet again, copying a DVD is not stealing it from a retail store. Dowling v United States displays the exact reasoning for why it is not. There is no enriched benefit of a CD/DVD being taken at time of possible purchase. So there's copyright infringement, a civil trial to prove it and damages, then there's stealing. Stealing := copyright infringement.
"Didn't know that. But that's a troubling indication of state of mind. That tells me that there recognition that this is stealing but it's OK because it's stealing from a foreigner, not a countryman. "
As I said, it happens. I'm not here to condone their actions, but the report goes into exactly what we're discussing. If anything else, the first 70 pages is the best to read in regards to the high prices of goods, the ineffectiveness of copyright enforcement, and finding better ways to deal with a global market without laws such as PIPA or treaties like the ACTA.
"What I think you fail to see is that piracy itself impedes development of new distribution models. Ninjavideo was charging a subscription fee of $25/month for access to content. "
First, NV didn't. There's nothing in the indictment that indicates they paid a subscription fee for higher access to movies. They had donators and they had different name tags, but people came to NV for the videos.
Just as they did ICEfilms, TVShack, or any other place that streamed movies and TV shows no longer accessible at convenient times for consumers.
"If I want to enter that market how do I compete if I want to do it lawfully and pay the license fee while Ninjavideo does not. It's pretty likely that I'd have to charge a lot more than $25 to offer the same service. So why would anyone use my service?"
Go in. But understand the market you're in. Hulu could have been a great service. But it's controlled by people that don't want it to succeed because in their thinking, it means the end of them. Hulu plays by all the rules and customers leave out of frustration. I personally HATE how they have the shorter ads. I'd prefer two ads near the beginning and end, watch my show with no hassle and move on.
But then, when they started to take away old episodes, I found somewhere else to watch my programming. Bear in mind, I'm a child of the 80s. I have a high nostalgia factor for things like MacGuyver, Pac-Man, and Fat Albert along with a few more recent shows like Burn Notice and can't watch it when I want to on USA. It's convenient for me when I have a place to go for older shows along with newer ones. This has nothing to do with what Hulu offers nor USA, who can make money on the ads from others.
But there are other things I can actually buy only from the main website. The DVDs for one. The T-Shirts and style of Michael Weston (There's no way in hell I'm doing a mullet like McG...) can be bought only on USA's channels.
Basically, if you want to compete, do so. Do one better than the pirates can and offer more services than they do. Make it easier and more convenient for people to come to your site and you shouldn't worry about what a pirate does.
Valve has learned this lesson.
Netflix is faltering on it.
Hulu lost it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
I've wanted to check out Burn Notice for a while (as a horror fan, I have a soft spot for Bruce), but I have no legal way to do so AFAIK. I'd happily pay for access to TV shows online, but Hulu and Netflix aren't allowed to offer me that service, and there's no equivalent local service. I'm sure as hell not going to import a box set without seeing a single episode.
But, hey, apparently I'm a pirate if I don't donate my annual income to the major studios according to that idiot, so what do I know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USA has all of the episodes on their site.
The bad news is: Going to somewhere like TVShack is a crime since you aren't supposed to look at it from third party sites. Go figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
2. Every business model is predicated on giving something away free and with that goodwill as a start, convincing the other party to buy something. Sometimes the free things are related to your product/service/whatever, sometimes they are your product/service/whatever, sometimes they're totally unrelated.
3. The plastic disc industry is a zombie, just waiting for the last shovel-blow to end its existence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
2. Most business do use samples and so on to get consumer attention. They do not, however, give away all of their products and hope you will buy a t-shirt with their brand on it to support them. Trial size isn't full size for a reason.
3. If you only focus on the shiny plastic discs, then you have fallen for Mike's bullshit outright. It's why there is Netflix, that is where there are PPV movies, that is why there are movie channels, etc. The shiny plastic discs were not all of the business at any time, and they won't be in the future. Paid delivery methods will change (and have in the past as well), but the business concepts remain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
Today's youth are not buying what you are selling.
Kids with terabyte hard drives sharing at school, what are you going to do arrest them all?
It has been pointed out here countless times adapt or die, they have adapted you have not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
that's an awfully big assumption.
1) i don't think IPv6 does what you think it does. ipv6 is an increase in the address space, nothing more. the networking world isn't going to suddenly move to all static IPs all the time and toss NAT and DHCP forever more. IPv6 is something like 13 years old, and we've supposedly run out of ipv4 addresses, yet IPV4, NAT, and DHCP still persist.
2) even if the world switched to government controlled IPV6 static IP's, a static IP isn't a fingerprint or DNA evidence. there is plenty of anonymity to be had via tunnels, be they VPN, SSH, TOR, etc. that stuff isn't integrated into P2P tool set and enabled by default because it isn't necessary yet. pirates don't run into a problem and quit. this is why napster begat gnutella, and gnutella begat bit torrent. if the need arises, bit torrent will beget always on encrypted tunneling and the next round of the P2P arms race will begin anew.
Most of the "new" business models are predicated on free distribution and building from there... when piracy of X is no longer a widespread issue, the actual market for X recovers to the point where it can be sold profitably again..
the player piano was illegal until the legal system caught up. same with the radio, the phonograph, the cassette recorder, the VCR, and on and on. every time the establishment railed against a new technology, and ultimately cut a licensing deal and moved on.
i'm not saying your theory is impossible --anything is possible and these are times of corporate welfare of epic proportions-- but history isn't on your side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
IPv4 continues today only because of the legacy installs. Most good hosting companies have already implemented parallel IPv6, and all new network equipment supports it. Many of the major connectivity and peering companies also work in IPv6, a huge step from where this project was last year.
The lack of IPv4 addresses is forcing more and more NAT and DHCP usage, and more IP splitting, which is not desirable in the long run (and is generally less secure).
As for "licensing deals", there really is no licensing with "free". This isn't some system you pay for that they can charge a fee or collect a commission on. Piracy is zero cost, no tracking, no money. It doesn't license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
DHCP is not discouraged in IPv6. DHCPv6 is very much a part of a solid IPv6 network architecture (though other systems can also be used.) Just because something has a static (non-changing) IPv6 address doesn't mean that DHCP is no longer necessary. In fact, all of my systems use DHCP even though their IP addresses never change, so that any network changes can quickly be propagated. If you change a DNS server or some other element on the network, DHCPv6 allows for quick propagation of that change to the network.
Sure, your cable modem and devices behind the cable modem don't need DHCP, but for large network architectures (more than 200 hosts,) DHCP is still a very important tool for administrators. Don't take our tools away just because you can't use them effectively or securely in your mad dash to make the world better for yourself at the expense of everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
again, that's a great theory, but the last 13 years disagree with you. the internet isn't flat. it's a network of interconnected networks, each with their own rules and configurations.
also MAC addresses aren't as immutable as you make them out to be. even if mac addresses and ip addresses couldn't be proxied or faked, they're still not fingerprints or DNA.
also, fixed IP addressing is a two-way street. if there is less churn in the assignment of IP's, that greatly improves the accuracy and maintenance of real time block lists like moblock and peer guardian. this is why encrypted tunnels aren't necessary, block list keep out prying eyes just fine.
As for "licensing deals", there really is no licensing with "free".
sure there is. a voluntary (not compulsory) blanket license would solve hollywood's problems without changing much of anything, other than the amount of money coming in. people pay for a license to do what they are doing right now, and hollywood leaves the people with valid licenses alone.
people who don't want to pay for a license don't have to. they can keep doing what they are doing now. companies like media sentry can continue to spy on people and send nastygrams to ISP's.
in fact, they might even be able to collect nielsen style ratings info, especially if more people can file share in the clear. this way, the drop in illegal piracy doesn't affect their bottom lines that much since they can collect and sell this 'market research data' to the people who buy that stuff.
corrupt royalties groups like ASCAP can collect money from the voluntary licences and keep not paying artists, just like they're doing right now. the only difference is that there will probably be more money for them to take.
the only thing that changes is that folks with licenses can register said license with their ISP and the ISP can disregard all cease and desist letters so long as the subscriber's license is paid up.
i for one would be glad to pay a couple hundred a year to be able to run torrents in the clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FAKE MIKE!!!!
Everyone knows the Real Mike Masnick wears a spiffy brown sportcoat....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FAKE MIKE!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FAKE MIKE!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do have to say that while I had a little respect for Moby, after hearing him on StarTalk last Sunday, and then hearing him here, I do have to say I have far more respect for him...just because he has sat down and thought through the problems and has come up with an argument of his own, unlike many other musicians who just spout what their recording company/manager says. I wish more people would sit down and logically look at the problem and come up with their own arguments. I also find it interesting that he has noted the negativity online too...I think it is interesting that some of our most vitriolic and negative people here are "Anonymous Cowards." But at the same time, what I see is often people who are either not-genuine shills or people who are anarchists trying to disrupt healthy discussion of topics, and they tend to be exposed and ignored during discussions instead of getting what they want. Too bad Moby won't ever see my comment since he has chosen to ignore the medium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pakistani forum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]