Google's Fiber Makes MPAA Skittish. Why Does Hollywood See All Technology In Terms Of Piracy?
from the negativity dept
One of the points we're always trying to make about piracy is that it has less to do with people just wanting everything for free and more to do with people rushing to embrace the possibilities of new technology. The industry has been slow to offer products that take advantage of these possibilities, and when they do they usually cripple them and charge too much for them, because they refuse to acknowledge the impact of better distribution systems on the market. Instead of recognizing that technological capabilities dictate how they should distribute their content, they think they get to dictate how far people should utilize technology. So piracy moves in to fill the gap, offering people the sort of comprehensive, on-demand service which they know is possible but which can't be bought at any price.
An anonymous reader points us to a perfect example of the technophobic attitude that has become so ingrained in Hollywood. It starts with a story in Bloomberg Businessweek about Google's pilot project in Kansas City, where they are laying fiber to bring super-high-speed internet to the community. With 922 Mbps download speeds already available in nearly a thousand homes, the topic of piracy was inevitably raised:
[Google spokeswoman Jenna] Wandres stresses that Google Fiber isn’t meant to empower pirates: “We hope higher speeds will actually make it easier to deliver and download more authorized content,” she says. Nonetheless, Howard Gantman, spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America, notes that piracy is always a concern of the entertainment industry. Google Fiber “could be a great opportunity for consumers whose access to creative content is often hampered by slow speeds,” he says. But in South Korea, “the home entertainment marketplace was decimated by digital piracy” enabled by the widespread availability of high-speed Internet.
For one thing, the statement about South Korea is incredibly flimsy. The Korean music industry thrives on high-speed internet—it grew into an economic powerhouse while the country had some of the highest and earliest broadband penetration rates (and digital piracy rates) in the world. Smart Korean entrepreneurs have figured out how to succeed in the new market. Moreover, claiming that "home entertainment" as a whole was damaged by broadband is just hubris from an industry that thinks only its own products count as "entertainment".
It seems like every Hollywood statement about new technology follows the same format. "This new thing is great, but... piracy!" The problem is that they refuse to act on the first part until someone gives them a bulletproof solution to the second part—and since such a solution does not and never will exist, they ruin every attempt at a new service with ineffective restrictions and DRM schemes. Ars Technica picked up the story and spoke further to the MPAA spokesman, getting yet another "great, but..." response:
"We want to reinforce that higher speeds could be a great opportunity for consumers, and that's the bottom line," Howard Gantman, spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America, told Ars on Friday. "There are problems that can, in terms of [an] increase of digital piracy, come with that, but we are hopeful that efforts can be made... to address digital piracy."
Someone should tell Gantman that it's not "the bottom line" if you go on to add caveats and addendums. It's also interesting that he thinks blazing fast internet only "could be" good for consumers—maybe because he knows Hollywood "could" (but won't) offer them a service that fully leverages the technology. Really what's amazing about this is that the MPAA thinks anyone cares about its opinion of fiber broadband, as if the public is going to stop and think, "Gee, I guess I'll just have to wait for faster internet access while Hollywood develops better piracy controls".
The fact that the MPAA can't get through a single statement about something as clearly positive as faster internet without bringing up reservations about piracy doesn't bode well for Hollywood's future. The studios should be getting ahead of the new technology, and making sure that everyone who gets hooked up to a new fiber network is immediately greeted with a well-made, well-priced movie service that gives them a chance to test out their speedy new connection. Instead they're probably going to watch the technology develop with caution, wait for pirates to beat them to the punch, then arrive in the market with an inferior product and complaints about how they "can't compete".
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: fiber, kansas, piracy, south korea
Companies: google, mpaa
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 ]
Consumers?
This statement is quite condescending and really tells you what the MPAA thinks about the public. We are "consumers". Not people, not feeling, thinking human beings, but consumers with money that we owe the MPAA. With the internet, we are consumers, but we are also producers , curators and corroborators. Until organizations realize "consumers" are people, there will always be and us against them mentality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big Content's Big Dream
Then we'd all live in a content-utopia, awash with new Transformers movies, and the content industry fatcats could live the high life again on the backs of the artists, like they were meant to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Big Content's Big Dream
We could also go back to buying CDs in stores and never sharing anything, and Blu Rays wouldn't be a colossal failure since the far superior option of direct download wouldn't exist.
A MAFIAA's wet-dream, indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Big Content's Big Dream
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Big Content's Big Dream
Though on the other hand, if the government then goes all "bread and circuses" on us, they might just abolish copyright (or make cheap mandatory licenses available at the very least) just to try and keep things from going ape-shit. Clouds and silver linings and all that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sounds a lot like:
"We've always been at war with Eastasia"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We should not care that you can't make money
"an anteprenor is tasked with making money given the constrains of society and technology, they don't get to dismantle civil liberties even if and espesialy if they can not make money"
Rick Falkvinge: I am a pirate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I must say, the shills are slipping....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I must say, the shills are slipping....
Check some other recent threads, they're still going strong. They'll be along here soon enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
such true words. the biggest cause of 'piracy' are the very industries that fear it and condemn it the most. if only they would listen to consumers instead of keeping this attitude of 'what we say is right' or 'it's are content so we will do what we want with it, even though it causes us problems'. the main reason they wont listen to the people is they want to keep the option of blaming illegal downloads for the (supposedly) loss of money, rather than having to admit that the majority of what is put out is absolute crap and loses money all by itself!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coming from an industry that has radio, tv and print ads down to a fine art which shows they can be great at marketing when they choose to be it's amazing they can't figure out that selling direct to "consumers" at a reasonable price and DRM free (ok, on DRM I'm dreaming but it takes less than a day for a new DRM scheme to be broken so have at it.).
It might, one day, occur to the MPAA that doing that would reduce "piracy" as noting will eliminate it completely but it would reduce it to the point where the movie studios could make money again. As if they don't now, even with all the tripe they release.
I know it's hard to see the forest for the trees but, by now, you'd think, even the MPAA could figure it out.
And then they could get back to the business of NOT paying artists which is one of the things they do best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And then there are the control issues. If these agencies were individuals, I'd have to guess that they were horribly abused as children and now have an innate need and desire to maintain every aspect of every situation.
Of course the punchline is that a person like that also seems to end up strapped down to a bench while someone dressed in a leather body suit paddles their rear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course they were. Let's look at history.
Player pianos destroyed musicians.
Silent movies destroyed musicians.
Phonographs destroyed musicians.
Tapes destroyed musicians.
Home taping really destroyed musicians.
CDs destroyed musicians.
Computers and digital audio destroyed musicians.
The internet destroyed musicians.
Every generation of musicians have been horribly abused by technology.
Oh, wait. Everything above is false. Unless you replace "musicians" with "the current money making paradigm of those who were benefitting from the products of musicians and forced them to find new ways to prey on struggling artists." Then it's all true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
Incapacity to maintain meaningful relationships.
Reckless disregard for the safety of others.
Deceitfulness: Repeated lying and conning others for profit.
Incapacity to experience guilt.
Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors.
Since the MPAA exhibits all of these behaviors, I'm inclined to think they are sociopaths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You never know if the baby on the operating room table could one day become an evil terrorist who will blow themselves up on a plane and kill 200 others! Why take the chance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
your point remains valid though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It will be a great opportunity for "consumers" and the rub is a lot of the creative content they will be "consuming" will not be created by the legacy industries.
*I'm not exactly certain how one goes about consuming anything over the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Two words: Data. Cap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unlimited Data Plan...
Because there are some of us that don't change cell phone providers at the slightest change in the wind...We are grandfathered in with true "Unlimited Data". For my ISP, there currently is no cap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Progress is slow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Making Piracy Awesome Again
And just once, I'd love to hear a PR contact go off on these clowns, on the record.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Higher speed internet could mean
When I want it. I could pause it when the doorbell rings. Resume it tomorrow.
I could also get a universe of content, not just the particular channels my local cable system wants to carry.
But Nooooo. It must be designed so that I schedule my life around it. The show comes on at 7 PM. Period. Only a pirate freetard would record it because it is not the center of their life. (Clue: hey if friends come over, I can watch the show tomorrow.) We must stick with the obsolete model of "channels" whereby a limited menu of material is available instead of the Internet model where I only use up bandwidth for *one* channel -- that is the one I am currently watching -- from whatever server it comes from.
No need to allocate bandwidth for 300 channels on that cable. Just one thank you -- it's called high speed internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazon I believe just started a program to finance and produce things didn't they?
Lets see, Google, Microsoft, Netflix and others are all financing the arts now.
The MPAA better hope they all fail because if they succeed those studios are screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Small point of disagreement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It doesn't matter what Hollywood does you will just find something else to bitch about. I'm done with this site. There is no debating people who are willfully ignorant and recalcitrant. TechDirt is useless as a IP policy soapbox, and even more useless as a "technology" blog.
Good luck with your endeavors, but you need to fundamentally change the writing style, the rigidity of your positions, and the obviously biased choice of articles. You will NEVER convince anyone in "the industry" to make any change as long as you continually portray the industry as you have been. Furthermore, this site continually portrays a negative view point towards all IP (copyrights, patents, etc...) It is as if this site is run by anarchists who choose to belittle all authority (including decisions by the Supreme Court, the President of the United States, law enforcement officials, congress, etc...)
The "writers" here all act like children who refuse to grow up and instead want to spend all their energy bitching about authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please be a true statement!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps if you put your energy into addressing the points being made rather than attacking people and tirelessly defending even the most idiotic actions of the industry, you'd fin discussion here more enlightening and less boring. Otherwise, well, nobody's forcing you to come here, are they?
"There is no debating people who are willfully ignorant and recalcitrant."
Well, I have noticed that. But, you're still here for some reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At least they allow you to comment. Can't have any of that with the blogs run by the Copyright Maximalists and your bosses. With them it's "you'll like what we say or you'll go away." Good luck with debating with them since they don't even offer you a chance to speak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No worries, I was afraid of that effect. But at least you know which AC I meant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hard to look at a track record like that and join their side. Especially when they make the simplest of things difficult.
For example, I wanted to watch X-Men First Class this weekend. Did you know I couldn't legally purchase or rent it from ANY online service? You know who had it? Torrents.
There is a fundamental failure in the MPAA to understand that you can't live in the past, things change, and you Adapt or Die. People aren't gonna turn off their internet connection just cause Warner or Paramount might not make quite as many millions this year.
These studios are perfectly capable of providing awesome services we'd gladly pay for, but first they have to actually offer them. We've shown them how many many times, but they keep sticking their heads in the sand. You can only try and help someone so many times before you have to acknowledge that they must be willfully choosing to destroy themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This...Until Hollywood gets rid of their distribution windows and realizes if we can't get what we want NOW, we'll find ways of getting it NOW.
DRM and other encryption methods are just like speed bumps for us...the only difference is instead of all of us slowing down to go over these speed bumps, one person is going over them and pounding them into rubble so the rest of us don't need to slow down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just because it's not online for your convenience, you justify downloading it? Yeah, it would have been nice if you could have streamed it for a buck or two, but really, would it have killed you to have not seen the movie exactly When, and How you wanted to see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh I get it, you were telling a joke. Ha ha ha good sir!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> Just because it's not online for your convenience, you
> justify downloading it? Yeah, it would have been nice if
> you could have streamed it for a buck or two, but really,
> would it have killed you to have not seen the movie
> exactly When, and How you wanted to see it.
Just because you are frightened of the dreaded evil scary piracy, you justify not putting it online? Yeah, it would have been nice if you could have sold it for a buck of two, but really, would it have killed you to have not complained once the potential customer found a way to see what he wanted, exactly When and How he wanted to see it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just because it's not online for your convenience, you justify downloading it? Yeah, it would have been nice if you could have streamed it for a buck or two, but really, would it have killed you to have not seen the movie exactly When, and How you wanted to see it."
Um, yes. That's exactly the point. If I want a burger and the first place I try says, "sorry, we're not going to have burgers for another 10 hours," I'm not going to say, "oh, OK, I'll wait," I'm going to get a burger elsewhere.
But stupidly for you guys, the only alternative you've left people is an illegal one. If you were smart enough as in industry to realize that people are telling the truth when they say they want what they want, when they want it, and how they want it and act accordingly, you'd sell a lot more burgers...or something like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because if you are, well... we'll see you tomorrow. Right?
I'd go ahead and turn the rest of your post around on you, but meh. [shrugs] Too easy to do. I'd get no joy out of it. A laugh sure, and sometimes that's enough, but I'm just not feeling it today.
I wish you no luck wherever you go and I feel nothing but sympathy for those who you will now plague and annoy incessantly. May some kind of omnipotent being, if any exist, have mercy on their souls and eyes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
but i think this counts as irony.
maybe.
at minimum it's Something in that general ballpark...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Again?
Were you upset that no one missed you when you went away last time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When modems were 300 baud, nobody considered sending a picture (and it was a bitch to digitize it anyway, and nobody had a simple way to show it.
After a couple of false starts with the Apple II, we finally got formats like jpeg, gif, and bmp - and modem speeds of 1200, 2400, and even the wildly zippy fast 9600 baud, which made it possible to share images, one at a time, slowly. (AOL for the longest time was 2400 baud).
What happened? Hello porn BBSes!
See, back in the day (late 80s, early 90s) porn was the taboo topic. Previously hard to get, this new fangled technology made it possible to share porn without the middleman (pimple faced clerk at the video rental store). But because of speed limitations, basically it was all still images, one or two a day - not very useful.
Then the internet started to really show up, and connection speeds when up to 56k - now you could download a few images at a time. Shifting slowly....
The arrival of Napster was perfectly timed with the arrival of higher speed internet connections. One could even suggest that Napster was created because there was this higher speed connection available. Now you could upload and download music files at a reasonable speed (a couple of songs an hour), which was more than enough to create a tipping point.
Only in the last couple of years have enough people obtained high enough speed connections to make movie trading a real issue. There was movie piracy before, but it might take you days to get a single movie downloaded.
Basically, every increase in speed of connectivity has lead to an increase in all activities, INCLUDING illegal ones. To deny it is to deny the very history of the internet web thingie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So far, I see very little of that happening. Most online offerings in my country depend on me sitting behind my tiny screen of my laptop instead of enabling me to watch the movie/tv series on my big HDtv screen with superior sound. And because it's all encased in DRM, I can't even watch that on my laptop, as my OS (Linux) is excluded, Mac and Windows only, and Mac even very limited support.
Meanwhile on the pirate site, you have HD quality versions that I can watch on my HDtv, in formats that are supported in Linux systems.
So, when looking at that balance, guess where the scale lands for me, IF I were to still download/buy movies/tv series/music.
But I really have stopped consuming that kind of media since January of this year (both the legal as well as the less than legal kind), with my only concession being the movies that I already own on DVD/CD.
And I'll keep this up until the MPAA, the IFPI, the RIAA and their Dutch equivalents Buma/Stemra, SENA, BREIN, etc fall.
Let's see who's got the longest breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As a BBS operator during the time, I assure you that 300k was fine for uploading pictures, because that is all there was. Sure, it took 5 minutes, but that was plenty of time to run off an use the bathroom or grab a cup of coffee. Most pictures weren't that big; nobody uploaded a picture that was 1920x1080, much less 5 or 10 megapixel. I ran a programming BBS, and there was no porn on the BBS that I know of, but there was "copyright infringement" occurring even though it wasn't done by me. People would copy other's copyrighted code and upload it on a regular basis. For the most part, it was legal because the code was GPL/BSD licensed, but sometimes people would upload stuff that wasn't legal.
I agree that speed leads to an increase, but I don't agree that people didn't do it back then. I don't know of too many people who spend all day uploading/downloading...most people that I know who do this either stream or the go grab what they want and move on. And in many cases, the folks who stream or grab what they want can't find it through legitimate methods. A friend downloaded all the new Dr. Who episodes because they are available in England long before they are available in the US. If Dr. Who was available in both places at the same time, he wouldn't do it. He has purchased copies of Dr. Who whenever they become legally available. I just wait until they become legally available, but in my case, I try my hardest not to be around him until they become legally available because he tends to spoil them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your cognitive dissonance amuses me. I love how you complain about all the illegal things happening (also, porn isn't illegal), then at the very end you prove it was all pointless and show that even you know there has not been a huge increase in the rate of those activities.
And your timeline is off by about a decade. High speed internet became mainstream in the early 2000s. I got my first cable internet connection (~1.5 Mb down) in early 2001, and I wasn't that far ahead of the curve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFA:
Do you see where he noted that Korea has some of the highest broadband penetration rates as well as some of the highest digital piracy rates? Do you have some specialized form of dyslexia that prevents you from reading text in parentheses? (Reading is fundamental!)
What Leigh (and most of the rest of us) ARE denying is that piracy is destroying entertainment. Destroying middlemen, yes! Destroying sellers of plastic discs, yes! Too freaking bad, figure out a new way to make money, oh and you might not be getting the buckets and buckets of it you used to when you ruled the entertainment industry, that's life!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It doesn't matter what General Public does you will just find something else to bitch about. I'm done with shrills. There is no debating people who are willfully ignorant and recalcitrant. Shrills and lobbiests are useless as a IP policy soapbox, and even more useless as a "technology" advocates.
Good luck with your endeavors, but you need to fundamentally change the writing style, the rigidity of your positions, and the obviously biased choice of views. You will NEVER convince anyone in the "general public" to make any change as long as you continually portray the general public as you have been. Furthermore, this site continually portrays a negative view point towards all the general public as thieves. It is as if the industry is run by morons who choose to belittle all the general public (including decisions by the Supreme Courts, the President of the United States, political persons, congress, businesses, technology companies, artist etc...)
The "commentors" here all act like children who refuse to grow up and instead want to spend all their energy bitching about change.
Remixed comment from previous comment. Thankyou :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See, that's the disturbing part. Even if no productive members of society care about its opinion, the government does (or at least its campaign contributions). Expect to see a bill authored by the MPAA, limiting the fiber optics system, sometime in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you make a gun, you have a moral obligation to take some reasonable steps that they aren't getting into the wrong hands.
What reasonable steps does Google take to make sure their bandwidth doesn't get into the wrong hands? None.
Now, I don't want to be one of the common taters [sic] that voices an analogy but doesn't come up with a proposal. So, here goes.
Every internet user has to register their internet usage. That way if they are convicted, or accused, of doing something the MPAA doesn't support (or TechDirt does support) they can be perma-banned from the net. Just like criminals can't legally get guns.
Also, you shouldn't have any "concealed" carry internet laws. No Tor's, anonymous posting or trolling.
Finally, after we ban guns and make America a more reasonable country, we can move on and tackle the next problem of banning the internet. This will lead to an increase of drive in movies which will lead to an increase of car sales which will recover the economy.
In closing, RIP Junior Seau. Guns don't kill people, uhh, something else does I forget where I was going with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You may have a moral obligation, but in many states, you don't have a legal obligation. Unfortunately, that isn't true in my state, which requires gun-locks and safes, but the funny thing is that even with following those requirements, the bad guys still get the guns (sometimes because the government is handing it to them.)
Every internet user has to register their internet usage. That way if they are convicted, or accused, of doing something the MPAA doesn't support (or TechDirt does support) they can be perma-banned from the net. Just like criminals can't legally get guns.
And yet the criminals still have them. And the only people who can't get them are the honest citizens interested in protecting themselves. Perma-bans are only going to effect the innocent because the guilty know how to bypass the locks or use other's access to get access to what they want.
Finally, after we ban guns and make America a more reasonable country, we can move on and tackle the next problem of banning the internet. This will lead to an increase of drive in movies which will lead to an increase of car sales which will recover the economy.
Keep hoping. If the movies have taught me anything, it is that if you hope long enough and hard enough, eventually you'll get what you want.
I don't believe it, but if it makes your world work better, go for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thank you fine sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yup. I got trolled. I figured it was fishy when he said that we should ban guns and then the internet...but I went for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There no is light ! The MPAA/RIAA and its supporters cant see light since they have their heads so far each other rear end!
"If you make a gun, you have a moral obligation to take some reasonable steps that they aren't getting into the wrong hands.
What reasonable steps does Google take to make sure their bandwidth doesn't get into the wrong hands? None."
Why do fools like yourself keep trying stupid analogy's of real world objects to virtual world things?
Here's one for you want reasonable steps do car rental shops take to make sure you don't drink and drive, or run lights, or even speed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cable is the target
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cable is the target
Google knows people want content. They want to make money delivering it, but they don't want to pay for it.
So they have bozos like Masnick rail against IP and the content creators that want to be paid for their work that is being consumed.
Dumb kids that don't want to lose their free lunch stupidly become Google's stooges and flock here and elsewhere to voice their support for such policies, thereby supporting one of the most greedy and privacy-invasive corporations in history.
There's no mystery to any of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cable is the target
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Competition
Their real fear is a competitive market place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
two cents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: two cents
What if they don't sell the disc where you live? Does that mean I have to travel to where they do and buy it, and then risk illegally importing it into my own country because they aren't selling it yet?
That doesn't give you the right to be unethical, and yes it is unethical to not recompense someone for something they spent money on.
There is absolutely nothing unethical about sharing. And just because you spent money on something doesn't mean that you should be paid back eventually. I purchase insurance. I spend a hell of a lot of money on insurance. Yet, thankfully, I haven't had to collect on that insurance. Am I somehow owed that insurance that I didn't collect?
Would you go to a furniture store and attempt to walk out with a $500 recliner without paying for it?
If I could copy that recliner using a 3D printer, would that make a difference? Since we are talking about digital, infinite goods, wouldn't it be better to use the same analogy?
Nobody owes you content and when there is content nobody owes you what you consider a reasonable price.
And nobody owes you a paycheck. Please go back to school and learn some economics, it will make things easier for you in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: two cents
Then you are SOL. You don't own the content. You don't have the right to something just because it exists. That's life.
And just because you spent money on something doesn't mean that you should be paid back eventually. I purchase insurance. I spend a hell of a lot of money on insurance. Yet, thankfully, I haven't had to collect on that insurance. Am I somehow owed that insurance that I didn't collect?
The thing is not all products are the same. Most people look at the movie they want to watch as the actual product when it is not. When you download or buy a movie you aren't paying for the movie. You cannot own the movie because the studio already does. You are paying for a limited license to VIEW it in that format. When you share, aka copy and distribute, you are breaking that agreement which is unethical. You aren't owed any uncollected insurance because the product description is not the same. You are correct in that if I spend money on something I am not guaranteed money in return. You don't have to buy my product but if you take it then you owe me. You can't get something for nothing. That's economics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: two cents
You know what, piracy was there when media first started.
In fact, Hollywood is based on piracy, don't believe me? Look up Edison and learn a bit of history.
So far every piece of advancement in technology has been opposed by the media companies. That list has been pasted here many times, and I'm not going to do it, you're going to have to look for it yourself. But EVERY bit of technology (VHS is like the Boston Strangler?) was going to be the death of the Industry. Well guess what, every single stinking time they were wrong.
Nowadays with the internet, people have access to any type of content. Sure, you may not sell XYZ movie to me, but Johnny NextDoor has a copy of XYZ and I can get it from him for a fiver.
Your loss, mr movie maker. If you had made it available to me, I'd have bought it from you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: two cents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: two cents
And that is why you fail. People get something for nothing all the time, you just can't let go of your incessant greed and need to control others. Once you grow up and realize that the world often works even when people are getting stuff for free, you'll fit in a lot better in civilization.
As I have said before, I don't download music or movies unless I am licensed to do so... But I understand why others are less inclined to do so, and until you understand why and work to fix it, you will continue to fail. And at some point, the rest of the world will move on while you hopelessly tilt at windmills. Didn't work so well for Don Quixote either...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: two cents
Honest question: at this point, WTF does it matter if he gets it or not? Accepting this analogy so far, you have blocked every single legal access he might have to the content. You have REFUSED his money, on multiple attempts for him to give it to you.
If he manages to get it anyway, you've literally lost nothing. There's no lost sales because you refused to sell, and no copy will take the original away from you. Apart from your own egotistical need to control who can and who can't get hold of the content, nothing has been lost by his actions.
Wouldn't it be better to allow him to pay the money he's been trying to give to you, rather than wailing into the wind about morality and entitlement? Simply accepting his money would make you both happy - why not do it?
"You are paying for a limited license to VIEW it in that format."
That never used to be the case. Perhaps, if we're agreeing to some bullshit licence, we might be given a look at it before buying the product? If most people were aware what "licence" they were agreeing to, I guarantee you that sales would go down.
"You can't get something for nothing. That's economics."
You're commenting for free on this website, on a story that you didn't pay to read, using a free browser and a free networking protocol, via a server running multiple free operating systems and server programs. All to complain how nothing gets made for free. Interesting, huh?
Maybe Mike should start charging, it might get rid of the trolls round here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: two cents
You're commenting for free on this website, on a story that you didn't pay to read, using a free browser and a free networking protocol, via a server running multiple free operating systems and server programs. All to complain how nothing gets made for free. Interesting, huh?
I'm just replying to repeat that specific part of your comment that was just BRILLIANT. Freeconomics at it's finest.
I think once he understand it some fuses are gonna blow in his mind and he's going nuts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: two cents
So that's the standard response, eh? If you can't get it, blame yourself for choosing to be born in a country that doesn't have the service, and heaven forbid that you try to look for an alternative that does provide it. Don't you think it's this sort of arrogance and disregard that pisses a lot of people off?
And if you're not going to sell it to him, really, what are you losing when he gets a copy? Are you claiming some moral superiority just because people aren't bending over backwards to fly to other countries where material is legally provided?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: two cents
sincerely - the rest of the world (if I may be so bold)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: two cents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: two cents
Besides, you are acting like the ethics are cut and dry, but they are not. Copyright is not property - and there is a valid and compelling ethical argument that says it's always wrong to attempt to limit something that can be infinitely shared.
Ethics are complicated. You don't get final say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: two cents
No, no they can not. This is a significant piece of the puzzle. The assertion that "they can do what they want with it" is no longer true. It is no longer "physically" true. Sure you have your historical precedent and theories of modern application based upon such but these are not present in current reality. If "their things" are digital they are, in fact, subject to infinite replication. This is the physical reality of digital media. If you can not understand and as such engage and re-tune control (as in accept a reality that certain heretofore provisions of control are no longer effective) than you must "force" control through government. And, here again, that will not be possible, will not be physically possible (e.g. impossible) as circumvention, digitally speaking, is already (e.g. presently, currently) underway of any and all current and future proposed law being chased down that is perceived to be able "re-grant" control of digital media. All presently known algorithms along these lines will return false.
Historical media monopolies must engage. As global populaces further their insight and knowledge and continue to elbow into the traditional realms of government (behind the scenes backdoor crony politics) the chances of a favorable outcome (to all vested parties) exponentially decreases. Yet another genie that will never again see the inside of a bottle.
From the venerable Benjamin Franklin a quote worth of our current predicament:
"When you're finished changing, you're finished."
and from me:
I can and I will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: two cents
How can you talk about someone's obligation ro recompense the studios when at the same time arguing that the studios are not obligated to provide a means for us to recompense them?
It is trivially easy to provide a reasonable and affordable method to download movies as they are released. If the studios choose not to do so, they are knowingly choosing not to receive my money. At the same time, they know there are ways to download those same movies that cause no harm to the studios (or anyone else).
How am I obligated to give my money to the studios when it is abundantly clear that they don't want it, nor am I harming anyone by acquiring something which they have chosen not to offer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: two cents
You are arguing that it is the studios right to not create something - therefore that thing does not exist.
You are then accusing me of stealing that thing which does not exist, because I am not using a method of paying for it that also does not exist.
You are then saying that I am unethical for not using the non-existant payment method, for an action which harms no one, about a product that the studios have made a conscious decision not to create.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: two cents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't teach an old dog industry ,,,
The mpaa such as it is and its ilk will soon die. And nobody will give a shit. In fact, we'll be glad.
I can't wait.
Once a supporter of them, I have grown very weary of them and their self-righteous grabs at my money and their impotent efforts to subvert the freedom I have to enjoy whatever the fuck I want, however I want it.
Fuck 'em. They're dead.
Next subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I would try and negotiate and better price and if they wont or treat me like some kind of thief I will take my business somewhere else!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Anonymous Coward
Also, a "they're" in my previous comment should be "their"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @Anonymous Coward
Filthy fucking coercion betwixt creators (copyright "managers") and historical delivery platforms. The proverbial grip is gone.
Adapt. Quicker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
I have been using the internet for my entertainment source for over 10 years now (no satellite, cable or other shit distribution), with FIOS even. usenet, ISP and VPN providers get my money now, bypassing your distribution bullshit. the internet has perfected distribution over the last 10 years, probably what your all bitchy about, competition.
and its not illegal its infringing you copytard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
Well obviously the customer is no longer happy with that agreement. So the provider can keep trying to force the world to uphold an agreement that came into place when it was a necessity and made sense (e.g. back when you needed a large company to distribute content globally, or even regionally). But it isn't necessary anymore and it doesn't make sense anymore. But the provider wants to maintain that control. However the customer doesn't care what the provider wants just as much as the provider apparently doesn't care what the customer wants or they would provide it as that noun implies they should.
So who loses first the provider with a vested commercial interest in selling content that is constantly pushing its customer away, offending them, fighting to revoke their rights, and generally being spoiled sports. Or the customer who is just looking for entertainment and can find it from a ridiculous amount of sources these days? There are more options as to who I can give money to in exchange for entertainment then ever why would I give a dollar to a company that abuses me?
Earlier in this thread you said boohoo X-men isnt online so go buy a disc. How about I just do something else? If they will not provide the movie how people want it they will either pirate it or get other content that is available in the format and manner they like. Either way they lose money. But they refuse to acknowledge that they are driving people to alternative sources of entertainment and blame everything on piracy.
Now as someone who is happy to look elsewhere for entertainment and forget about their shitty movies I would appreciate it if they stopped trying to shit all over my means of accessing those alternatives. Because that is really what this is all about, they want to control all means of entertainment so they make money without having to actually compete for my attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @Anonymous Coward
You have someone who wants to pay money for your content. You won't give it to him. So the guy goes and gets it any way and he is the bad guy? The guy wanted to give you money! Are you saying that if the content owners don't want you to give them money, we should honor their wishes? I guess that is fine. Still doesn't mean that consuming the content that you want and are willing to pay for but can't because the creators is an idiot is immoral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
the intertubez distribute your crap regardless of your opinion or desire. if you don't want your shit distributed, then keep it, nobody will miss it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
But we're not really here to discuss the ethics of piracy - go talk to the Kopimists or the Pirate Bay for that. This is about the reality of piracy and of technological change - and that reality is that new distribution tech will be used to its full capacity, legally or otherwise.
Were all the early adopters of VCRs who started taping and copying movies unethical? I guess so - but that doesn't change the fact that home video became a huge part of the industry, pretty quickly.
With a long view of ethics, I'd say it's wrong to let outdated laws and protectionist businesses stymie the advancement of highly beneficial technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
The great amount of arrogance, apathy and unwillingness to change on the part of the studios has indeed lead to all of the studios problems. Realizing that they have no right to do business like its 1986 anymore would solve all their problems quickly. But they want to be arrogant and make their own rules and fight the tide so here we are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
The party of the first part, the studios, are all too willing to do completely away with any "middle ground" in a very concerted effort to continue to design access, means and control over, of and for the party of the second part, everyone else, with regard to "entertainment".
And they do this knowing full well that any materially competitive front on what is "their" traditional product turf is destroyed right along with it.
They are overtly polluting and corrupting governments of the world. This is not mere arrogance - these are the transgressions of a powerful and unified entity - behaviors well suited to meeting their ends on the ends of pitchforks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
I'm saying that the industry is using their power, control and influence to attempt to dictate a new reality. The industry is destructive in their devices. Destructive to much more than that which they'd like to simply hock (which is, as we've been made aware, simply just not the case as they wish full control over any possible means of any possible media entertainment delivery and distribution mechanisms which, quite simply, is just not. going. to happen.) You truly conceive arrogance as an alignment with destructive implications? If this is the case than you're delusional to the point of being funny. It's not arrogance. It is a concerted effort to manipulate.
Pirates do not equal all consumers yet all consumer are being affected. The industry is overreaching and inflating real impact vs perceived impact yet they would choose to attempt global impact at any imaginable price.
A pirates perception is reality. An industry perception is sandy with a healthy smattering of illusions of delusions of grandeur. Somewhere in the middle, as you would imply, there is a middle ground - a bitter pill if you will. The obligation is with the provider, not the consumer, to swallow it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
The studios are free to do what they want with their content, and distribute it how they choose. Consider this: people obtaining it through other means doesn't limit or affect their basic ability to do that at all. It neither deprives nor restricts them. Many people argue that, on that basis, the mere act of piracy is not unethical. Now, I think there's a bit more nuance to that, but it's a valid position - once again, the ethics are not as clear cut as you seem to think.
And, obviously, to a lot of people, piracy is not as unethical as you think - unless you are claiming that all casual pirates are scoundrels who are devoid of ethics. The average person, upon seeing a torrent for a movie, thinks something along the lines of "this is available to me, and using it has no direct impact on anyone, so there's nothing wrong with it". Despite hollywood's best efforts to convince the public that downloading a movie is the same as stealing a car or snatching a purse, it would seem that most people don't agree. Who gets to make that ethical determination? Hollywood doesn't seem to be the majority here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
Legally, that is true. Ethically I would say it is a much more open question, with a lot of arguments to be made on both sides and at many points in the middle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
Is that right/wrong? Doesn't matter. That's a very subjective question and for the most part irrelevant.
Everyone else seems to be thinking realistically. It can be obtained. One way or another. Like it or not. The ball is in the court of the IP holders. They can't stop technology/innovation indefinitely, contrary to their wishes/dreams. The people want what the people want. Give it to them or don't. But if you don't you lose the right to complain. Someone somehow will meet their needs. And that could've been you but alas....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
I use torrents to get all kinds of things... legally. I've downloaded linux distributions, open source software, legally distributed media content ect. Torrenting is an efficient means of distribution and probably won't be going anywhere until the next distributive technology comes along.
I don't think anyone said "give it to me now or you'll be sorry." If they did, they would certainly lose any respect here.
People seem to be saying "give it to me now, or I'll go get it elsewhere." At worst, the pirates come off as uncaring. At worst, the IP holders come off as malicious. In this equation, my ethics say the pirates are less wrong than (some of) the content holders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
Ok, lets use that as the premise and look at examples where piracy doesn't hurt the studios' ability to make money:
- Unavailability in my region.
As we all know the studios like to release stuff to other regions on different moments.
But I've heard of series X, want to be able to talk about it with my American friends, but if I wait for a year or longer for it to appear on my tv, I'll be way behind the curve, and any discussion I might see online will ruin the experience for me, because they will be rife with spoilers.
So what happens, people download the series instead of waiting for the dvd box to finally arrive, or when it is finally aired on tv.
Does it make it harder for studios to make money? Not necessarily, sure syndication is going to be tough, but that was going to be tough anyway even without piracy, because the internet has become important in discussions, and thus a larger effect of spoiling things for people who have not seen the show/movie.
And DVD boxes will still get sold, if they spec them with extra features not before seen, behind the scene looks, extra footage not seen on tv, etc. (reason to buy)
- DVDs sold out, and no online rental option.
In this case, the studios have a missed sale. I was at the store with my money in hand, only to see that they didn't have the movie I really wanted to see, and I can't watch it with on demand streaming (mostly because its not offered, or I have to watch it on my laptop instead of my HD tv).
But perhaps the Ninja Cove does have it for me ready for download.
Will this mean I'll never buy it, could be, depends on the quality.
If it's a great movie/show, sure I'll also get the dvd, if only for the extras. Depending that there are extras to be got.
If it turns out to be a shit film, then no.
On the flip side, there are arguments where past behaviour of the studios has caused damage to a brand, which causes them to lose their ability to make money:
- For instance customer unhappiness with the way they were treated previously.
In the past people have been hurt by DRM systems (Sony's rootkit comes to mind, which physically destroyed disk drives, caused other bought software to not function anymore and snooped on people's online behaviour) and people might be unwilling to hand over money to products with that brand in case they get burned again. Sure, the company is losing money here, but it's their own fault.
They hurt their paying customers in the past by not trusting them, and in return the customers have decided to give brand X a pass. But they might still like products that come out on that brand, and are interested in seeing it.
Sure, you could say that legally they don't have a right to get the content, but legally Sony had no right to destroy other people's property and trample their right to privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
Money lost means you must have had it at some point.
Have you asked those people why they didn't pay for it? Could it be that they deemed the price too steep or something? I don't know what you're asking for the disks. Have you tried selling the disks at your gigs?
Have you tried other means of selling your music?
I pride myself into looking at things from ALL directions. And I can understand that struggling artists are annoyed when they hear about people getting their art for free somewhere else, but all that means is that you missed an opportunity. Instead, try putting a paypal button on your site, that says: "if you liked our music, and want to support us, why not send some money our way to offset your karma." or words of those effect.
A download doesn't mean a lost sale. Yes there are people out there that will never pay for the content they grab online. But that's not the full spectrum.
Yes, downloading material without permission is against the law in most countries. I agree with you on that. But the market apparently isn't served in some way.
Do you offer your music on online stores? Do you offer your music on bandcamp? Are you promoting your band on The Pirate Bay: "here's our amazon music page, our itunes page. If you like what you hear, please buy it, we're not the rich folks you may think we are."?
You have the keys to turn the piracy thing into a promotional vehicle and make money. You only have to use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
Would the Pirate Bay have been as big and well known, had it not for Hollywood's attempts to squash them with laws that didn't apply to the Pirate Bay (DMCA is only valid in the US)?
But I'll give your songs a listen, and see if I can spare a couple of bucks. (having a spot of financial bother, as most people seem to lately)
I love discussion with open minded people. It's a great way to learn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
So once you figure this out, you have a few options.
1) Waste your time on something you can never change.
2) Stop wasting their time, but more importantly yours, on trying to stop them from copying your stuff. Then spend that time working with and for other people who will give you their money.
Only the second option seems rational to me.
Once you get into the mindset of "I'll download it for free" it's extremely hard to snap out of it.
I disagree. I think the problem is that most solutions are not easy or convienient enough to break the habit. Look how much Spotify and Netflix have impacted piracy and you'll see the evidence is on my side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
Most other artists that have embraced the internet are doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
You link a bandcamp page. Do you have a band blog? How do you connect with fans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
Not sure why, but the Bandcamp player isn't working for me right now (though it usually does -- so could just be a temporary glitch). Spotify has some of your older albums so I'm listening now.
I see you have a set price. I'm curious if you've thought about experimenting with a pay what you want with a recommended price? Jason Parker has done exactly that on Bandcamp and found that he made more money doing so: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100903/15433510899/one-working-musician-explains-how-pay-what-you -want-works-for-him.shtml
Separately, one thing we've talked a lot about is the importance of really connecting with your fans. In looking around, I can't find a website, a twitter account, a facebook account or any other such thing that lots of bands use these days to connect with their fan base. Just curious if there's a particular reason for not doing any of those things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
In short, even searching specifically for your band, I find very little connection to fans. Were I not searching for you, I wonder how I would find you, and also very much question why I should part with my money without hearing your music first - especially as indie rock is not a genre I particularly care for most of the time.
Having said that, I will listen to your music and I will buy if I like it. Since you've not taken the moronic route of boycotting legal services like Spotify, I will at least be passing small amount of money your way even if I don't buy, and I won't need to pirate anything (unless I really want to hear the latest album). On the face of it though, there's a LOT you can be doing to increase your fanbase with relatively little cost and effort. My suggestion would be the same one I always give - stop obsessing over the people who won't give you money and connect with those who will. You've never been paid by everyone who ever listened to your music or obtained a copy, no band ever has, so don't let that stop you from using online sources from getting you some increase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
Your entire premise is false, because you believe absolutely that we who torrent NEVER pay for the content.
Fact - I have paid, both before and after the download. Two examples come to mind, and I've said these examples before. I torrented both the game "Dragon Age Origins" and the revamped TV series "Battlestar Galactica". Both times, I then went out and purchased them. Neither sale would have occurred without the initial download.
It is certainly true that for some people, they download and never pay. It is also true that others are like me, and do both.
What is ridiculous is your wrongheaded belief that ALL people who download also NEVER pay. That is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
anecdote time: I bought 3 movies based on 1 torrented version.
I'm a huge Discworld fan, and SkyTV had made 3 tv-film adaptations of books in the Discworld series. But I don't live in the UK, and I hadn't heard about any of that.
At some point I found the latest one "Going Postal" on a torrent site, and I got intrigued, downloaded it, watched it, and loved it. At the end of the film the SkyTV announcer came on and talked about the dvds being available for (pre)ordering. So I went online found the dvd of Going Postal, and looked further and found two more from the same company (The Hogfather, and Colour of Magic/The Light Fantastic), I bought all three in one go, the other two sight unseen. And now watching The Hogfather will become my Christmas tradition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
Yes you did assume. What you wrote was "EVERY time you or someone else torrents something instead of paying for it you are depriving them of the money you should have spent to obtain it legally. " (my emphasis on EVERY)
You stated it as an absolute. Just because someone torrents, doesn't mean that there is a 100% measurable lost sale, or that there is money somehow being taken out of the copyright holder's bank account. Not only that, but you also have the wrong headed belief that Torrent = Copyright Infringement. Not all torrents are infringing. For an example, look back a few articles, on the UK musician Dan Bull, who purposefully releases his works in torrent form on the Piratebay (which was coincedentelly ordered blocked
in the UK upon spurious claims that it harms musicians).
Yes, some torrents I download are infringing. Some I do download are not. Some I then go on to purchase. But, if someone were to sue me, I would then alter my purchasing habits accordingly and never buy from them again.
Here's a case in point involving me. I was a regular customer of Steam. I mainly bought for two reasons
1) Gabe Newell's views on piracy, having gone on record as saying that piracy is a result of companies failing to meet customer demand.
2) They offered something the pirates can't, in this case unlimited downloads/reinstalls of all my games (not counting those games sold through Steam that also stupidly contain draconian third party DRM)
Basically, Steam got my support (and more importantly, my money) not because they had licences or copyrights. The average customer doesn't care and will never care about any of that. Instead, they got my custom because they were awesome.
However, I recently voiced on their forums an explanation of my spending habits and for this was banned. I admit, I didn't look at the forum rules stating that any discussion of piracy results in automatic bans, but the result was, they STOPPED being awesome. Instead of allowing a legit discussion from their customers on how, when and why they buy, they blocked my speech. As a result, I made a decision not to buy from them in the future.
See what happened there? Note how the law/legal system didn't get involved. Someone offered me products/service at a price I deemed reasonable and I paid.
There is no harm being done to Steam if I torrent a game or not. There was more than one game I torrented that I later purchased on Steam (truth be told, what I told myself I was buying was the unlimited easy reinstalls; it is possible for a torrent or cyberlocker link to go dead, or for a hard drive to die).
What is harmful is the attitude you take, where Torrenting = Ethically Wrong. Because that attitude leads to actions that harm society as a whole, what with the copyright cartel's actions to curtail technological progress, by more or less insisting that any future communications technologies must be vetted by them first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
"Neither side is willing to even search for any kind of middle ground."
Spotify, netflix and itunes say that the consumer is willing to come to the middle ground. However hollywood fights these platforms tooth and nail, they refuse to come to the middle because dvds have a higher price point.
" pirates feel that if they don't want to pay for something then it's okay to steal it."
Most people pirate because of availability. You have countries getting content a year or more behind. Companies not wanting to translate or port their content. Windows, region locking. Or just refusing to licence content at a reasonable rate or let digital copies exist on any service. Yes some people are dirty thieves and pirate everything if its available or not, these people are not customers if they couldn't pirate they wouldn't buy legal copies anyway. Why focus on them when you have a greater % of customers who would spend money if you let them.
Because they will not compromise. They want 30$ dvds to sell even though that is not the primary way people want to watch movies anymore. That is how you buy something to keep and have forever, but most people just want to watch a movie once before deciding to make that purchase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @Anonymous Coward
And nobody is claiming otherwise.
What's being claimed is that if the goal is to reduce piracy, the easiest, most effective, and least damaging way to do it is to meet the needs of your customers. Not because they have a "right" to have their needs met, but because it's just good business and will maximize their return.
The big media companies steadfastly refuse to do this. Until they do, their piracy problem will not abate. It's basic market economics.
Personally, I don't care that the big media companies put so much effort into hamstringing themselves. What I do care about is that in refusing to come to terms with reality they are taking measures against piracy that directly harm everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
this is the kind of thinking that has millions disrespecting your government provided monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
Instead they whine, bitch and moan about piracy, come up with draconian unconstitutional laws and hurt their paying customers (through DRM and that ilk). Customers, who, sadly, seem to have an abused wife syndrome, they keep going back for more. "This time they won't hurt me."
Meanwhile, with the pirates you don't get the DRM or any other type of limitation, you get a better product as a result, for close to free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
Instead they whine, bitch and moan about piracy, come up with draconian unconstitutional laws and hurt their paying customers (through DRM and that ilk). Customers, who, sadly, seem to have an abused wife syndrome, they keep going back for more. "This time they won't hurt me."
Meanwhile, with the pirates you don't get the DRM or any other type of limitation, you get a better product as a result, for close to free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
Instead they whine, bitch and moan about piracy, come up with draconian unconstitutional laws and hurt their paying customers (through DRM and that ilk). Customers, who, sadly, seem to have an abused wife syndrome, they keep going back for more. "This time they won't hurt me."
Meanwhile, with the pirates you don't get the DRM or any other type of limitation, you get a better product as a result, for close to free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
the copy of Avengers I have has no bearing on the 35mm print in some studio's vault.
you just got lost in your own circular thinking, funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
Boo-hoo to you too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
your trying to empty the Pacific Ocean with a coffee cup, you have no clue how deep file sharing goes. consider this; your outlandish 'made-up' numbers in any given purchased 'report' that you seem to laud, is not even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what is shared on a daily basis. even your outlandish numbers are only about .1% of reality, how do you like them apples? does that make your copywrong brain squirm at night, all the evil infringing going on, non-stop, petabytes of unlicensed, unapproved distribution going on, right in front of you, with no end in sight, unrelenting distribution using limited resources that completely eclipses all other content delivery mechanisms combined! unbelievable how much infringement technology facilitates, blank DVDs, thumb drives, 2Tb HDDs, *gasp* high speed internet! blasphemy, i tell you!.
the sad part is that it sounds like you actually believe the bullshit opinion you tout.
you realize there are larger industries than your own, based on content creation, that are not covered by copyright monopoly, and they are thriving because of it? or is that something you won't touch?
and just so you don't whip out yet another straw-man and broad-brush me as a freetard. i make content, and lots of it, it's how I get paid, to create. I write high end software for fortune 500 companies, i'm over 40 and have multiple degrees in engineering and make over 150k/yr, making content.
little ole me figured it out, what's your excuse?
disclaimer: tonight, this blog posting is coming to you from Sussex, UK. future blog postings could originate from any of the 5 known existing continents, and the IP assigned to said blog postings are random, and should never be considered a reliable means of identifying the source it came from. should you feel frustrated in identifying a blog posting from an undisclosed, encrypted source, feel free to leave the planet at your convenience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward
That's not the harm. The harm is in the legal and extra-legal efforts being taken as antipiracy measures.
I do not pirate, period. However, the efforts that have been made so far (in spades starting with the DMCA) have directly stripped me and others of legitimate property rights, have resulted in the legal harassment and monetary punishment of innocent people, have damaged legitimate businesses, have resulted in the suppression of legitimate free speech, and so on and so forth.
This is all real, actual harm to all of us, you included.
If media companies could wave a magic wand to make piracy disappear without causing collateral damage, I would have exactly no problem with that whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Final Paragraph
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Upon death there will be a 50% MPAA death tax to pay any possible un-caught infringement during your life time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People tend to see others as being like themselves.
Hollywood sees everybody as a thief. Care to guess what Hollywood's like inside? For objective evidence, BTW, look up "Hollywood Accounting" on Wikipedia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ban
It certainly wouldn't be out of character for them to suggest artificially limiting all of society to dial-up just to preserve their gatekeeper status.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
most online gaming is done in internet cafes, because of high speed, most Koreans stay on napier, a social network
you want to watch movies, you go to the theater or you hit the local vendor, which is a store, and buy all the movies you want, normally 5 bucks for like 3 films, and that has nothing to do with high speed internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Five gazillion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Five gazillion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow
But there are comin better times... (I hope :D)
*note: wow, 922 Mbps, my internet is crap... 125 Kbps...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Offer a Better Product
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pirateing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]