Can Defenders Of SOPA Explain How You Define Taking Deliberate Action To Avoid Taking Action?

Believing Legacy Gatekeepers Will Fail To Adapt Is Not The Same As Wanting Them To Fail

from the important-distinctions dept

Fri, Nov 11th 2011 12:40pm — Mike Masnick

Years back, I wrote a blog post called "Why I Hope the RIAA Succeeds." I got a lot of flack for it, because many people here seem to think that groups like the RIAA and MPAA should fail. I feel quite the opposite. I don't want them to fail at all. I think that they are failing, and I'm hoping that they wake up, pay heed to what we (and the wider public) are telling them, and adapt to a changing world full of opportunities. What I dislike is not the RIAA or the MPAA itself. But the strategies those groups employ, which I believe, quite strongly, are self-defeating and harmful to the public and the creative folks they claim to represent.

Still, many people assume that I hate these groups and want them to fail.

Author Barry Eisler, who has been in the news lately for turning down a half-a-million dollar deal from a traditional publisher to instead self-publish (and more recently, for signing a deal directly with Amazon, allowing him a sort of hybrid model between publisher and self-publishing), has been taking some similar heat lately as well. He wrote a guest post for Joe Konrath's blog, in which he discussed the nature of the legacy publishing business (short hand: "New York," just as people refer to "Hollywood" when discussing the legacy movie business), which he doesn't think is handling the digital transition particularly well -- especially compared to Amazon.

In response, many people accused him of hating "New York" and wanting those publishers to fail. In a followup post, Eisler does a nice job clarifying his position and explaining why wanting an institution (or group of them) to change and believing their current path is destined to fail, is not the same thing as wanting them to fail:

Now, if you ask me to bet on the likelihood that New York will successfully adapt to the advent of digital and the emergence of Amazon as a publisher, I would have to regretfully decline to bet very much. As I noted in my previous post, companies coddled by a lack of competition get flabby, and New York, which hasn't faced real competition in living memory, is now squaring off against a formidable competitor indeed. I don't think it's likely legacy publishers will be able to adapt and survive. And though I hope I'm wrong about that, my hope doesn't lead me to want to protect New York from competition, either.

Maybe I'm clarifying here more than is really necessary, but I've learned from recent experience how willing and even eager people can be to mischaracterize arguments they find threatening. So again: the fact that I'm predicting an outcome doesn't mean I'm hoping for it. I predict that one day I will be dead, but that doesn't render me particularly enamored of or eager for that outcome. Similarly, though I don't think New York's chances are good, come on, guys, I'm cheering you on. I want you to step up, not give up.

Indeed. That is very much the way I feel about the legacy music and movie businesses. I'm a huge fan of movies, music and books. I would love for all those industries to continue to be as successful as possible, but that requires adapting, and, like Barry, I just don't see many of those legacy players doing a very good job adapting. But that doesn't mean I want them to fail, or even dislike them. I just wish they'd stop trying to muck up the rest of the world while they attempt to figure all of this out.

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: adapting, barry eisler, economics, innovation, predictions, self-publishing

93 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 12:50pm

This is so twisted.

You want them to accept piracy, except it is absolutely impossible to have real and true price discovery until there is some sort of standard piracy enforcement.

A free-for-all internet full of illegal activity was never going to go on forever; it's silly to believe such a thing was going to continue ad infinitum in a society; that's not how societies function.

It is impossible to take you seriously until you admit to that.

Labels need to be able to see what the true market holds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 12:55pm

Re:
I remember when musicians used to take risks because they loved the music. Risky music is hard! Let's make safe music! How could we fail?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 12:59pm

Re:
You want them to accept piracy, except it is absolutely impossible to have real and true price discovery until there is some sort of standard piracy enforcement.

The MPAA has been fighting piracy since they lost control of studios through the Supreme Court. They've fought against the VCR, the mp3 player, the DVD recorder, the DeCSSS standard, regionalization, and now, the internet. There is no need for a standard piracy enforcement. It's time for them to accept the reality that no one can turn back the clock to the 1980s.

A free-for-all internet full of illegal activity was never going to go on forever; it's silly to believe such a thing was going to continue ad infinitum in a society; that's not how societies function.

Societies function if everyone can respect the laws followed. Copyright makes no sense and is not respected even within the US. Why should others take it seriously around the globe for two small trade industries?

It is impossible to take you seriously until you admit to that.

No, it's impossible to listen to an AC that writes this drivel when he doesn't understand the internet himself. If you can't figure out how to make money, stop competing and get a new job. Else, you look more and more like a Luddite.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 12:59pm

Re:
You want them to accept piracy
I think he wants them to learn from piracy.

That is, figure out why people pirate your content, and try to better serve that market.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:01pm

I think a lot of us don't really care whether they succeed or fail. The problem is that their wildly flailing around incompetently is hurting a lot of us. So given that fact, it would be better if they failed fast so we could move on with our lives.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SabreCat, 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:01pm

Re:
"Real and true price discovery" must not be terribly important for business success, then, given all the case studies we see here where non-DRM, non-litigious (sometimes even pay-what-you-want, how's that for price discovery?) strategies make tidy profits. So who cares about it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:03pm

Re:
"You want them to accept piracy, except it is absolutely impossible to have real and true price discovery until there is some sort of standard piracy enforcement."

There has been price discovery. The price has fallen around 0 for old music and a little bit higher for very recent tracks.

"Labels need to be able to see what the true market holds."

They see it. They just refuse to accept it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:07pm

Re: Re:
DRM isn't even an issue in music anymore, so I'm not sure what your point is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:08pm

Re:
*sigh*

You want them to accept piracy, except it is absolutely impossible to have real and true price discovery until there is some sort of standard piracy enforcement.

Did you know that Record Labels used to have to deal with the scourge of vinyl records breaking during shipment. I think, as I'm sure would you, that they should have dumped billions of dollars into fighting against physics. However, they took the coward's road and decided that breaking vinyl records was just a fact of life, and they actually planned on it happening. What a bunch of broadbrush wielding freetards, right?

A free-for-all internet full of illegal activity was never going to go on forever; it's silly to believe such a thing was going to continue ad infinitum in a society; that's not how societies function.

I know you're willfully ignorant, but I'm going to address you as if you aren't.

The problem isn't that the "internet [is] full of illegal activity". If that were true, governments would just shut it down and be done with it. The problem is that the internet is full of activity, and some of it is illegal. To complicate the matter, when dealing with copyright infringement, it is difficult to sort through the activity to find the illegal stuff without either breaking how the internet functions, or violating everyone's privacy. To make it even *more* difficult, even if you could see what everyone was doing on the internet, there is no difference between an infringing mp3 and a legal one.

Furthermore, the internet is filled with people who are much smarter than the people who would like to see the internet broken, when it comes to technology. Also, the people who want to break the internet are *far* outnumbered by the people who wish to see it remain as it is.

All this adds up to the simple fact that it is actually quite silly to believe that there will be any "taming" of the internet to support business models, outdated or otherwise.

It is impossible to take you seriously until you admit to that.

Yeah, I'm sure Mike is kept up at night because of the fact that some too-ashamed-of-her-own-opinion-to-put-any-identifier-on-it lady on the internet doesn't take him seriously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:09pm

Re: Re:
Exactly. Someone please tell me where I can purchase the entire Led Zeppelin catalog in FLAC. And don't tell me I can get them in ALAC from iTunes. Not the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:12pm

Re: Re:
The one being willfully blind here is you.

What percentage of Internet traffic is illegal?

In what other part of society has something with that amount of illegal behavior been allowed to continue forever?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:14pm

Re: Re: Re:
Legalize filesharing!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:18pm

Re: Re: Re:
Led Zeppelin catalog is available on Cd. When the cd is replaced perhaps they'll make it available in another format.

It's their music and it's their choice and right to release it the way they want to. Not yours. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:19pm

Re: Re: Re:
In what other part of society has something with that amount of illegal behavior been allowed to continue forever?

The telephone company. No, the highway. Wait, no, firearm salesmen.

I trust you understand my point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:25pm

JUST AS I'VE SAID THEN: you're a corporatist!
How many times have I said that Mike is NOT against the corporations, just thinks they're doing it all wrong. How many times has he mentioned that his focus is /all/ on tapping revenue streams? -- WELL, here he /admits/ it! Can I get a high five for being RIGHT? -- Or are you guys going to swallow yet another "limited hangout" revealing of his true purposes?

Remember, Mike is from the Ivy League, where technicians are trained how to /manage/ the economy to best interests of the ruling class. -- He's pretty near being in the 1%, and is definitely not with working people, from all evidence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then they shouldn't be surprised when the customers they fail to serve find alternate channels of procurement. Providers can either adapt to the market and serve those customers [a win-win], or they can throw a hissyfit, convolute the law, and stamp out civil liberties as collateral damage, all for no concomitant economic gain as the pirates adapt to the changes far more quickly than the obstinate legacy players. And the braindead thing is that they seem to choose the latter every time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Atkray (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:30pm

NASCAR
No one really wants to see Jeff Gordon crash, but when it happens no one cries either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then it is my choice to *not* purchase it... ever...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:36pm

Re: JUST AS I'VE SAID THEN: you're a corporatist!
*high fives*

Feel better, sport?

I've been here for some time, and I never thought Mike was against the labels, per se, but against their shitty decisions.

So, this was not a big revelation for me. What did you think we thought Mike was for?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:37pm

Re: NASCAR
His loved ones probably do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the point - they're making the choice to NOT release it in a format the customer wants, so the customer becomes a pirate.

All we've been asking for is to get content in a form that's convenient for us. CDs are not convenient and haven't been for years. It's like saying the only way we'll correspond is through snail mail.

They resisted mp3s for years because they thought it would encourage widespread piracy, even though it was the lack of legal mp3s that lead to widespread piracy. Apple finally forced them to change their ways, and now Apple sells millions of legal mp3s. People are paying.

I pay for Netflix every month. Why would I pirate anything that's streaming on Netflix? The only thing I would consider pirating is stuff I can't get any other way, because the copyright holders decide plastic discs is the only way to go.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's their music and it's their choice and right to release it the way they want to. Not yours. Sorry.

While I don't really disagree with you on this, they should also remember that it was their own stupid decisions not to provide their customers what they wanted, not piracy, that led to their demise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's their music and it's their choice and right to release it the way they want to. Not yours. Sorry.

Exhibit A for my post. Thanks!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:43pm

Re: Re: Re:
In what other part of society has something with that amount of illegal behavior been allowed to continue forever?

Alcohol consumption. It was made illegal and large swaths of the public simply ignored the laws. So much so that the laws were repealed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:44pm

Re:
From where I stand a free for all internet is exactly what is going to go on forever, you may not like it, but it doesn't change things a bit.

I can rip HULU and VEVO or radio, TV, cable, DVD's, Blurays or whatever what makes you possibly believe I will stop if I don't want to? Because you are telling me to? LoL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:47pm

Re: JUST AS I'VE SAID THEN: you're a corporatist!
Why should you get a high five for Mike revealing what he believes in?
Besides, you never did say it yourself. Ever. Hundreds of your comments contain the words "Pirate Mike" or "Freetard". That does not sound anything like "Mike is just against what the corporations do".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:48pm

Re: Re:
Societies function if everyone can respect the laws followed. Copyright makes no sense and is not respected even within the US.

I'm not sure how you managed to so epically contradict yourself there, but indeed you did.

Your opinion on copyright is generally viewed as that of a zealot.

Copyright is most certainly respected by the vast amount of people in the US.

That you choose to break the law does not make you correct on the issue or the majority.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Last I checked, Led Zeppelin cds are available everywhere.

Your statement is ridiculous and I think you know it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:51pm

Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure you can point us to a credible study showing how much illegal activity goes on right?

Otherwise you are talking out of your ass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:51pm

I personally want them to fail after proposing some rather draconian power grabs that sacrifice freedom AND security in favor of their profits. ACTA was more than enough to kill what little redemption they had left. Why should they get any more chances when they can't even get the Constitution or "supply and demand" right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cds aren't convenient? Do you own a computer with a cd/dvd drive?

Your statement reeks of the entitlement mentality that you people are so regularly scorned for.

You will never have a real voice with that attitude.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Last I checked, we were talking about people who didn't want it on CD.

Your statement is irrelevant and I think you know it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:53pm

Mike sez: "I don't want the [RIAA and MPAA] to fail at all."
>>> "... many people here seem to think that groups like the RIAA and MPAA should fail. I feel quite the opposite. I don't want them to fail at all."

HUH? After almost daily attacks on RIAA and MPAA, Mike now says THAT? He's accused them at the least of conspiring with gov't to get six strikes from ISPs, and now the horrors of SOPA. -- And his purpose all along was to /prolong/ those organizations and /increase/ their income?

Are you fanboys going to wake up at last? I think Mike does as Rush Limbaugh said of the Clinton administration: wakes up in the morning and asks how can I fool 'em today?

At the very least, it must now be clear to even the dullest that Mike doesn't share your goals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 1:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually I don't.

Why don't you try explaining it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:01pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're talking about something that was legal for centuries and then was made illegal.

Not the case here. The analogy doesn't work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:01pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right on, brother. It's the same entitlement mentality that those damn dirty VCR owners had back in the '80s; who the hell did they think they were, choosing to watch programs when it was convenient to them? It's the entertainment industry's choice to air programming at certain hours, and viewers should have to live with it. All contrary viewpoints reek of entitlement mentality, like those spoiled brats on the Supreme Court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:02pm

Re: JUST AS I'VE SAID THEN: you're a corporatist!
OOTB, I've been trying to figure you out for awhile now.

As far as I can tell, you don't like it when a business is too large (Big Search!) or too small (you're not innovating, you grifters!).

You obviously think a lot of education is bad (College Boy!) and I have seen you criticize others for having uninformed opinions or incorrect grammar. (But seem to ignore everyone telling you that your /brackets/ look really, really stupid.)

So I have come to the conclusion that you are really Goldilocks in disguise and prefer that your chair, bed and porridge be "just right" also.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:02pm

Re: Re: Re:
"What percentage of Internet traffic is illegal?"

Well, since no one (not even you) can actually give those numbers, we have to do our best with a process of elimination.

Netflix alone uses 32.7% of all internet traffic in the world. That's grown from the 20% I read not all that long ago.

I'm looking for more percentages, but it's hard to find. I found something about iTunes using 14%, but I think that may have just been how many internet users have it (though that number seems a little low).

So, to answer your question, not as much as you seem to think.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
um.. okay.

Telephones are used to commit crimes, but they exist.

At least where I've lived, more people speed than not, yet highways are still around.

Guns are often used in crimes, yet guns exist.

Just because people use something to commit a crime does not mean that the something is to blame. Go after the people committing the crime, not the tool.

Do you need more explanation?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're just being willfully blind. And your talking out your ass fools absolutely no one.

http://www.innovationpolicy.org/online-piracy-remains-intractable-without-gov

http://news .softpedia.com/news/95-Percent-of-Online-Music-Downloads-Are-Illegal-102185.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, in the bigger picture, it was legal to copy someone else's stories for *far* longer than it has been illegal to copy. (Think: Dawn of man)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:09pm

Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure how you managed to so epically contradict yourself there, but indeed you did.

Hey Bucko, that's your sentence that you choose to say "everyone is respecting the law" then incorrectly state copyright is doing just that. Copyright is not doing anything to help society in its current iteration except limiting access to legal materials. But I'd love to see how you claim "it's only about rogue sites" or "it's only about foreign liability" when that's been show to be a lie over and over. But go ahead, you keep bringing it up, I'll calmly show the examples that you're lying.

Copyright is most certainly respected by the vast amount of people in the US.

Don't make me laugh. Obviously, you don't realize how many people don't buy games filled with DRM or how vilified Securom is in the game realm. How about how successful Ultralight is over Bluray or the DVD as people move to internet streaming? Better yet, let's make it simpler for you. The NFL tries to have regions set up that people can watch games for only certain teams. It's harder to watch the Atlanta Falcons in Los Angelos UNLESS they're playing the Raiders. The internet erases this barrier. Of all of the claims that maximalists make, to think that copyright is respected is pretty laughable when evidence suggests fair use exceptions do much better than copyright central industries.

That you choose to break the law does not make you correct on the issue or the majority.

Odds are, if the companies better served their customers instead of vilifying the entire internet, they'd do much better. Their strategy of trying to control everything is a lost cause. People have found great alternatives to what they're selling which includes, games, webisodes, music and art not MPAA or RIAA controlled. How long until the companies die? Dunno, but it's rapidly approaching time to embrace the internet instead of fighting the ghost that is piracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
..you give us "proof" paid for my NBC and IFPI?

Call me cynical, but I like my "proof" to come from people who don't stand to gain from said "proof".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not the IFPI again...

How many times do people have to debunk their BS?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can't tell if you missed what I wrote or what, but let's try this again.

25% of phone traffic is not for illegal purposes.

25% of highway traffic is not for illegal purposes.

25% of firearm purchases are not used for illegal purposes.

Yet all the above are still regulated more stringently than the internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless you can demonstrate why their conclusions were incorrect, there is no reason to believe you, who has far more bias, than the companies that do scientific studies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:20pm

Re: Mike sez: "I don't want the [RIAA and MPAA] to fail at all."
What the hell are you going on about, guy? It's becoming obvious that you don't even understand what we're hoping for. If, tomorrow, the MPAA and the RIAA pulled a Rick Perry and said "oops!" and decided to stop trying to prevent piracy at any cost, and instead worked to give customers what they want and help artists reach more fans and make money from their art, I would be very happy. I would once again give them my money for their products. (assuming they started making things worth my money!)

Do you think Techdirt is an anti-corporation blog? Holy shit. You're paid to come here by someone that thinks this is an anti-corporation blog, aren't you? Hahahahaha! Man, your employer is wasting a lot of money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're talking about something that was legal for centuries and then was made illegal.

Not the case here. The analogy doesn't work.

The analogy works just fine. As The Infamous Joe pointed out, copyright laws have only existed for 300 years or so and go against thousands of years of human nature. The only reason it's becoming more of an issue now than it was 200 years ago, is because the technology to actually copy at wholesale levels is now available and affordable to the ordinary person.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The heck do you get your stats from? And depending on which state you're in, firearms are regulated fiercely depending on if you've ever kept out of trouble or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if the average Joe doesn't understand what's going on with copyright yet, he will soon. Yesterday one of my customers asked me why they couldn't play a Blu Ray that they purchased. Turns out they needed a firmware update to their player. They asked why, I explained DRM. I was told that DRM was stupid, and they should be able to play what they bought without "jumping through a million hoops".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bengie, 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:25pm

Re:
You cannot get rid of piracy without getting rid of humans.

Piracy is like genetic mutations. A little bit helps us evolve, too much will kill us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tell me what my bias is. I have nothing to gain or lose, directly, from copyrights.

However, NBC and IFPI both have a lot to gain by inflating the effects of piracy, which is why I am skeptical of their studies.

If a tobacco company paid for a study that said smoking wasn't that bad for you, would you accept that study? I wouldn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bengie, 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"It's their music and it's their choice and right to release it the way they want to. Not yours."

ROFL!

It's my right to use English, now stop using MY language!

Culture is primarily owned by the public.

One can not make culture without consuming culture. It's a give-and-take.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll start off with [Citation needed]

Now that that's out of the way, you think less than 25% of highway drivers drive the legal speed limit? Have you ever driven on a highway, ever?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bengie, 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The same group that claimed Limewire caused $60+ trillion of damage in 5 years.

And someone who looked at me funny caused me $50billion in damage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:34pm

Re: NASCAR
WTF is NASCAR and who is Jeff Gordon?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CoJeff, 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem with those "studies" is that can create the outcome you want by limiting what data gets added to the study. There is no way that 95% of the music downloads are illegal. I download music all the time from 100% free and legal sites without all the pesky DRM crap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Envisional has stated this and it's my belief that more access to legal channels decreases the need for piracy.

IFPI - digital pirates are more likely to buy music than average music goers.

In their annual Digital Music Report, IFPI states that file-sharers are half as likely to buy physical CDs than the average music buyer. Although the report is about digital music, they carefully avoid saying anything about file-sharers and digital sales. That would actually show a completely different picture as we will explain below.

The music group made this statement based on an IFPI-commissioned study that was executed by Jupiter research. Although IFPI refused to share the entire research report with TorrentFreak, we can conclude the following from the two pages that were published online.

Compared to music buyers, music sharers (pirates) are�

* 31% more likely to buy single tracks online.
* 33% more likely to buy music albums online.
* 100% more likely to pay for music subscription services.
* 60% more likely to pay for music on mobile phone.

These figures (as reported by the music industry) clearly show that file-sharers buy more digital music than the average music buyer. In fact, the group that makes up the music buyers category actually includes the buying file-sharers, so the difference between music sharers and non-sharing music buyers would be even more pronounced.

How can this be true and why was there no mention of this in the Digital Music Report? They must be spending less on digital music then, right? But again, this is not the case at all. On average, file-sharers actually spend more than non-sharing music buyers. At least that�s what Mark Mulligan, Vice President and Research Director at Forrester Research who conducted the study for IFPI told us.

And because you need more proof that pirates pay for music, let's look at Hadopi.

If piracy is a sampling and discovery tool for high spenders, then suppressing piracy could depress legal sales. If�as I�ll argue at more length in a subsequent post�we�re in a mostly zero-sum market in which consumers are maxed out on discretionary media expenditures, then enforcement won�t significantly expand but at best just cannibalize one media sector for another.

So, if people argue that piracy is a zero sum game, they've got it wrong. There's two articles that disagree and more research suggesting that piracy leads to more sales, not less.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hostility towards the idea of selling a product or service that people actually want is ridiculous, and you should know it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:39pm

Why they should fail
-They cannot adapt.
-They cheat the people that create their content.
-They cheat their customers and think of them as criminals.
-They corrupt our political system.
-The collateral damage to the rest of society they are causing.

In short, they are unethical to the core in nearly every way you can think of.

While I'm sure there are reasons I missed, that's a few.

Mike, I'm not accusing you of it, but I do think there's just a hint of moral relativism in your view. If you really honestly believe, and have some good reason for believing, that these organizations can become good and upstanding members of society, then that's great. But I don't see it. I cannot think of any circumstances in which that can happen. So for the betterment of society, I think these organizations should fail, and need to fail. I would prefer they fail quickly, so that they stop causing damage to others in their death throes.

It is entirely possible to run a successful company ethically, and to make money doing it. No one is perfect, but that must be a core value built into the business. These groups seem to have dishonesty built into them. The most useful thing I can see coming from these guys, is as a case study for the next generation of corporate leaders, a bit like like Enron.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, CDs are not convenient. If you pay any attention at all to the evolution of consumer electronics, you know that CD and DVD drives are on their way out. Smartphones - no optical drives. Netbooks - no optical drives. iPad - no optical drive. MacBook air - no optical drive, and its days are clearly numbered in the laptop market as they get thinner and lighter. Devices with CD/DVD drives' days are numbered.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh, I actually don't own a computer with a working CD drive.

Wait, no, I might have an old tower in the basement that probably still works.

I'm sorry, what was your point again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sage (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:44pm

Re: Why they should fail
Amen!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember, that there is such a thing as "corporate bias" which occurs when a company funds a particular study (see, for example, old tobacco studies where it was given a clean bill of health effects, so to speak, or cocaine, which was originally used in Cola Cola).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> Do you own a computer with a cd/dvd drive?

Fewer and fewer come that way, especially laptops. And I also own a VHS player. It's in a crate in the crawl space, and I haven't bought a VHS tape in 15 years. Something about the convenience, I guess.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:49pm

This is where we disagree Mike. I WANT them to fail. If they fail now, they won't be around to freak out at the next big tech that threatens their current business model. It gets old listening to them whine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 2:55pm

Re:
it's impossible to take ANY argument seriously, that doesn't accept one basic fact: Piracy is not going to go away. right, wrong, irrelevant. accept that one basic fact...and maybe there's room for discussion. In the meantime, content industry's are dragging us into an orwellian nightmare in an attempt to deny reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 3:03pm

Re:
Well, there is something to be said about that. Good point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prisoner 201, 11 Nov 2011 @ 3:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"It's their music and it's their choice and right to release it the way they want to. Not yours. Sorry."

CDs and DVDs are inconvenient, unattractive formats.

That means that as long as that is all they offer they will not get my money.

Whether I buy some other songs that are available in high quality DRM free mp3s, or if I pirate the songs I want or spend the money on something else like books or games instead does not impact their bottom line one cent.

They "lost" my sale when they did not offer an attractive product.

There are so many other things to spend money on today. Why would I buy a DVD when I can get half a dozen books for the same money? Or a quality game that provides dozens of hours of entertainment?

In service management they teach you that a service is worth only as much as the customer percieves it is worth. Your costs and work have nothing to do with how much you can charge for it.

So yeah, its their choice to get my money or not. And currently they choose "not". And then they get pissed over it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
meeta (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 3:07pm

RIAA succeeding
But the biggest piracy on the internet is that of content in the form of comments everywhere
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IronM@sk, 11 Nov 2011 @ 3:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's their music and it's their choice and right to release it the way they want to. Not yours. Sorry.

Fine. Point conceded. Just stop complaining when people DO get it the way they want it then, okay?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 4:29pm

Re: Re: Re:
DRM is not the character of those corporations is, copyright and its ridiculous long term (life + 95 years) is, the scope of copyright is.

I can respect a guy who plays a gig in a nightclub or stadium, he earned what he makes there, but someone trying to stop music or videos from flowing because he believes he has a right to no, those people can go pound sand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 4:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can see you pulled those numbers from your ass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 4:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As others pointed out his analogy works just fine, even more when one realizes that "piracy" has been going for hundreds of years and that only after the 80's it became "problematic" to some people, more even if you count that the original copyright statuted didn't include music or movies those where later put on, even more so if you realize that music hasn't been protected for hundreds of years maybe a hundred years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 4:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not even 25%? in what world would you close anything that has a 80% rate of legal uses? only in your disturbed world of course.

About music and the 95%, even if it is true I read that like, 95% of water consumption is free, the other 5% is left for companies to try and make a buck, the public space is for the public not for you people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 6:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank-you!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 6:57pm

Re: Why they should fail
Why (Some) Psychopaths Make Great CEOs
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2011/06/14/why-some-psychopaths-make-great-ceos/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2011 @ 7:39pm

Re: Mike sez: "I don't want the [RIAA and MPAA] to fail at all."
So now Mike writes something that's sympathetic to the organisations and laws you want to be pushed down our throats, and your primary instinct is to mock us?

Chalk up another reason why everyone's given up on taking you seriously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 11:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I was told that DRM was stupid, and they should be able to play what they bought without "jumping through a million hoops"."

...and of course, the pirate who merely downloaded a rip of that same Blu Ray would have faced no problems whatsoever...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 11:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"It's their music and it's their choice and right to release it the way they want to."

It's also my choice not to buy it. I wouldn't mind listening to a Led Zep album, but I've never done so. I might do so when they're released digitally, maybe check them out via Spotify. I might even like them enough to buy the albums later. But, there's no way in hell I'm blind-buying their albums, and I'm not a pirate, so I might never listen to them and choose to listen to other bands who do release digitally.

My choice. Not yours. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 11 Nov 2011 @ 11:57pm

Re: Re: Re:
True, that's one concession they made to the free market - after fragmenting and nearly destroying the market for digital contrent with DRM of course. But, robbing from the public domain, regional and format restrictions and refusing to service niche markets (e.g. the FLAC crowd) are very much still alive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 12 Nov 2011 @ 12:04am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The heck do you get your stats from? "

The voices in his head, I presume. His figures tend to bear as much relation to reality as those Flintstones episodes where they started talking to an alien.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 12 Nov 2011 @ 12:47am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why don't you prove that they're accurate?

The first is just a blog reporting on a press release, no methodology presented, no sources, just an assertion of a "fact" that's clearly presented by a biased party. Isn't that what you normally criticise Mike for?

The second at least links to the primary source, but it's lacking. The title of the paper is "An Estimate of Infringing Use of the Internet". ESTIMATE, not facts. Yet, even their methodology seems flawed without full data. For example, they say that of BT traffic they found "4.2% was software � all of which was copyrighted and shared illegitimately" - separate from games, as that's a different category in their study. Yet, if I look at today's top applications on TPB, I see numerous freeware applications such as VLC and packs of drivers. I find it extremely unlikely that 100% of the traffic they monitored was pirated as they claim, but they provide no way to confirm this. Very poor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 12 Nov 2011 @ 1:08am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Netflix alone uses 32.7% of all internet traffic in the world."

Shit... I thought that was hyperbole but apparently not...

For perspective, consider that Netflix until very recently was only available in North America. Yet it uses 32.7% of traffic *in the world*!

Imagine if the other 80% of the world's population were actually allowed to use it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 12 Nov 2011 @ 1:27am

Re: Re: NASCAR
NASCAR is like Formula 1, but with shittier cars and the track only turns in one direction. I assume Jeff Gordon is some kind of Ricky Bobby character, only probably less funny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 12 Nov 2011 @ 1:34am

Re: Mike sez: "I don't want the [RIAA and MPAA] to fail at all."
"After almost daily attacks on RIAA and MPAA, Mike now says THAT?"

Yes, I can see how you're confused. This is what intelligent people call a reasoned position.

Mike thinks that the **AAs have every right to exist and deserve to succeed in business if they make the right decisions. However, they have been making horrible decisions that threaten not only their own industries, but threaten to take out others as collateral damage as well. It's these decisions he's been attacking, not the right of the organisations themselves to exist.

But, I can see how you're confused in that black and white, slashy filled world of yours. Join us over here in reality, it's much more interesting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gene Cavanaugh (profile), 12 Nov 2011 @ 9:51am

RIAA and entertainment business models
If we put even the same amount of effort into doing useful things that we put into entertaining ourselves, we would not be losing our leadership position in the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hans, 12 Nov 2011 @ 7:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Unless you can demonstrate why their conclusions were incorrect, there is no reason to believe you, who has far more bias, than the companies that do scientific studies."

Sorry, the burden of proof is on the party trying to change the law.

It's strikingly obvious that you go silent as soon as someone points out how bogus your foolish arguments are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brendan (profile), 13 Nov 2011 @ 12:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then the unauthorized sources are more than happy to fill in the gaps in market-availability for the product. They are nice enough to charge $0, too.

Funny, since people want that format, it might be interesting to, I don't know, try offering that format for a price...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
frosty840, 13 Nov 2011 @ 1:00am

Re: Re: Re:
Copyright is most certainly respected by the vast amount of people in the US.

What do you need massively draconian, first-amendment-bulldozing international treaties to protect it for if the vast majority of people respect it?

except it is absolutely impossible to have real and true price discovery until there is some sort of standard piracy enforcement.

If this "vast majority" of people are supporting IP and copyright, what's this big fuss about the minority who don't?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 13 Nov 2011 @ 9:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But, there's no way in hell I'm blind-buying their albums, and I'm not a pirate, so I might never listen to them and choose to listen to other bands who do release digitally.

It seems like piracy would actually help them make more money by getting more exposure, and the lost sales are due to not serving customers, not because of piracy. But that can't be right can it? Nah, must be the dirty freetards' fault.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 13 Nov 2011 @ 9:29pm

Re: Re: Re:
What percentage of Internet traffic is illegal?

In what other part of society has something with that amount of illegal behavior been allowed to continue forever?

Wait, earlier you said copyright is accepted by almost everyone in the US, and now you say a huge percentage of internet traffic is illegal? So that means that's all happening outside the US right - non-US servers serving non-US users (because almost everyone in the US respects copyright). So what do you hope to accomplish by enacting laws about it in the US?

Or are you completely making stuff up?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 13 Nov 2011 @ 9:31pm

Re: JUST AS I'VE SAID THEN: you're a corporatist!
Can I get a high five for being RIGHT?

Congratulations, you've noticed that Mike says repeatedly that his goal is help artists make money. In other words, you know how to read English.
[ link to this | view in thread ]