The Stupidity Of The 'Just Go Without' Argument
from the do-you-even-listen-to-yourself-talk? dept
Every time a major player in the content industry does something obtuse or flat-out malevolent in an effort to preserve whatever "market share" or "positioning" it feels is more important than actually serving customers the way they prefer to be served, the discussion turns to the benefits of piracy. Pirated content is usually free of DRM, regional restrictions, limited installs, etc. Why is it free of this? Because piracy is efficient. Not needing to serve hundreds of masters with licensing/royalty fiefdoms, pirated goods are streamlined to deliver what potential customers actually want: content. The price is just icing on the cake.Whenever this pro-piracy argument is broached, usually in the form of "This is why I pirate," or "Pirated x doesn't have this problem," it is responded to with shocked gasps of "I can't believe you feel entitled to just take something if it's not available/at the right price point/otherwise nonexistent." The person pushing this take generally starts telling those talking up piracy that they could "just go without." To do otherwise means the commenter (or post author) is nothing more than a child with an outsized sense of entitlement.
Here's a stellar example, as provided by TD resident sideshow, bob:
Let me get this straight. I can write an open letter asking the food companies to do better on calories/taste/freshness/whatever and until they do, I'll feel free to just shoplift whatever I want. They need to earn my money.Well, of course they could "go without." Everyone has that option. Do without. That's the "honorable" way.
Maybe the editors of Maxim or Playboy could write an open letter asking the women to "do better" at satisfying them and until then, they'll act like rakes or cads.
Or maybe I can just write an open letter to cancer and ask cancer to do better or else I'll refuse to die. Yeah. That will work.
So I can just write my own open letter and ask Bobbi Smith to "do better" and cough up more cash for my work. After all, that's the mechanism that's supposed to work. It's like a magic wand, only with text.
What is fascinating is that there's little acknowledgement that there are living, breathing humans on the other side of the transaction. There's no acknowledgement that the creators need to eat, pay the rent, and purchase health insurance. Nope. It's all a focus on the consumer who is supposedly allowed to simply stamp his/her feet and if the hard working creators don't snap to it, the consumer will feel free to simply take it. Wow, that's a model of one spoiled brat.
But let's look at this in a more realistic way. What exactly does "doing without" do for the content creator? How does "not purchasing" (or not having the option to purchase) the disputed content do anything for the creators? Because the bottom line in both scenarios is that $0 has made its way from the potential customers to the people desiring the income.
If everyone just "does without," how does this improve the situation for either the content creator or the customers? Once you've taken the piracy out of it, all you've got left is a set of lousy options that do nothing for everyone involved. If rights holders are happier merely saddling up their high horse and riding to the nearest moral peak, so be it. Riding that horse won't make you any richer, though. All it does is further separate you from your potential income.
A bit of the old infringement, on the other hand, gets your work into the eyes, ears, brains, etc. of potential customers. Sure, not all of them would buy if they had the chance, but at least in this scenario, you're building a bit of a fanbase that may decide to reward you whenever the distributor finally pulls their head out of their legacy and starts meeting customers, at minimum, halfway.
Then there's the infringement itself. It takes many forms. Some of it is just watching uploads on YouTube. I've caught some BBC series I can't purchase here in the US via the 'Tube. Or there are shadier streaming sites that serve a ton of ads along with even rarer uploaded video or stuff YouTube has content-matched right off its servers.
Streaming video is infringement? (Or was, pre-Posner.) Or somehow morally wrong? That's a position I can't even fathom. I realize that ad revenue or DVD sales are "lost" when this happens but I have a hard time believing a temporary video stream represents a true loss to the creators. It's not as though it's residing on my hard drive and being transported to and fro by portable devices. It's not a replacement for an actual product I can use in a more versatile fashion.
To me, streaming video is about as "infringing" as going over to a friend's house to watch their TV. True, the internet gives me a bigger selection of "friends" and a bottomless DVD selection. Other than that, when I'm done with the stream I "leave my friend's house" and the "DVD" stays with "him." If I want to watch it again, I can't do it from my TV. I have to visit him again.
Even if it does somehow do "irreparable damage" to the rights holders, what's stopping them from just erecting a streaming site of their own? Or at least something much better than what exists now in various crippled forms? The attempts to shut these sites down seem to indicate that massive amounts of potential earnings are being siphoned away. If so, why put up with it? Build your own and collect the ad revenue, just like the operators of these sites do.
Oh, now you say ad revenue is minimal and unsustainable? If the content industries do it, it has to be gated and pre-paid because no one can make a living on ad revenue. If the helpful pirates do it, they need to be shut down because they're profiting off the backs of the creative industry. Which is it? No money or plenty of money? My guess is: not enough money. Ad-supported streaming sites can't match the licensing fees these companies can extract from other services. So we're right back where we started: money being left on the table.
How about all these file lockers that are such a threat to the American Way of Life™ that we need to send the combined forces of the local SWAT team and FBI in order to show that We Are Indeed Serious About Pirates? Aren't they making a killing? Christ, look at Dotcom. Virtually swimming in opulence and personal tanks. He's a multi-millionaire. Do what he does. Throw all your stuff onto some servers, get the links passed around the internet, sell faster access for monthly rates and start re-living the life you always thought you'd be living.
Can't figure out how to do any of the above without dealing with a nightmarish tangle of royalties, licensing and release windows? Don't look at me. I never thought any of those things were good ideas. Here's a suggestion: create a blanket licensing group for this new venture a la ASCAP. Dump it all into a big pool and trickle the monies down on the usual suspects. Or, you know, go one better and use all this precise info you'll be gathering to actually pay the creators appropriately.
I don't know what's more annoying: the moral ground cowboys who would rather the creators made no money than fix their broken delivery systems or the industry "titans" who are constantly being outdone by any techie who can set up a decent file locker.
Bottom line: the real entitlement belongs to industries that feel the public should be grateful for whatever half-assed digital "services" they throw our way. Honestly, if you'd rather get piracy shut down completely (will never happen) just so the only other option is "do without," you'll have accomplished nothing more than swapping out your high horseshoes for platform boots. $0 is still $0, no matter how "honestly" this big pile of nothing is "acquired."
P.S. This argument also bugs me: "X is an asshole so I'm going to pirate the shit out him." Really? I don't know how someone can argue "piracy's effect is overstated" or "piracy is a convenient scapegoat for the content industries" and then make a grand statement that you're going to punish someone by doing something ineffectual, only ANGRIER. Vindictive piracy makes absolutely no sense.
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: business models, content, go without, restrictions
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ 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:
BTW, this idea is not subject to patent protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You don't say pirate, you say "infringe".
You don't say upload, you say "share".
You don't say rights holder, you say "gatekeeper".
You don't say copyright proponent, you say "industry shill".
You don't say thief, you say "pirate". Oh wait, they don't want to be known as pirates, what is the new word?
I purposely used an inflammatory term in the last one to show you exactly how moronic the vocabulary arguments are here.
Is Techdirt using psychological warfare, or is it cognitive dissonance? It's hard for people in the middle to take this site seriously with all the adolescent name calling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I know what you'd like; you want them to refer to it as rape, right? Or perhaps murder?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But even if they are being "guided" by the nose they are still supporters of that system.
The ones that are not make it public using clear open licenses.
Most big names creators are also gatekeepers today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watch or be Taxed
I can see HollyFuck now, "How do we put a tax on non-participation of shitty movie viewing."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Watch or be Taxed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Watch or be Taxed
There is not a goal to have national entertainment. Everyone does NOT need it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Watch or be Taxed
You've already changed the rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Watch or be Taxed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Watch or be Taxed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Watch or be Taxed
They can tax you if you don't buy a product they pass a law requiring you to buy:
alternative energy products,
govt mandated food,
they could even require you to purchase vitamins or drugs,
so why not requiring you to buy 4 movie tickets a month. It will "help the economy" the future leaders will state.
Show proof you purchased or expect an IRS audit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Watch or be Taxed
They already do that with 'tax incentives' and the like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Watch or be Taxed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Watch or be Taxed
Weirdly enough, all of Europe has 'forced' health insurance, and our governments aren't generally needing to be stopped by armed hordes of concerned citizens from 'forcing' other stuff through in a non-democratic manner. Except maybe when they kow-tow to US interests...
Honestly, you guys see everything as a hostile Injun or Federal Tax Collector.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In fact there are already many taxes on some of the normal things we do in our daily lives for the sole benefit of the legacy content industry.
In essence you've already unwillingly paid for everything that you might choose to pirate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've actively tried to give money
I'm fine with paying for content if someone would actually accept the payment...
But geographic segmentation, which worked OK when all media was delivered physically (DVD or wire), now just blocks cross-geography revenue for everyone, including those that believe they benefit from it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've actively tried to give money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a lesson learned
maybe i'm a defeatist, but it seems clear that the lesson comes across loud and clear. you screw with the customers and they will go away. right now with all the pirating there is always that to blame. if people just ignore/boycott products that are priced wrong or come with unacceptable strings attache, the resulting lack of sales will send the message. right now they all can say, "but, but pirating!" the illusion of getting the pirates to pay up goes away and the legacy players might either learn or go away when they can't adapt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a lesson learned
I see only a couple likely futures for that scenario:
1) a new scapegoat will be found. (e.g. "Global warming to blame for falling DVD sales!" or perhaps "Fluoride in coffee found to lower interest in buying DVDs!")
or
2) They'll take the CIA/DEA approach and prop up the piracy thing so they can continue to 'fight piracy' with new laws/Gestapo tactics/federal hirelings...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: a lesson learned
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's entirely based on the unfounded belief that it would mean that people with funds to purchase would not be able to do without and therefore would buy.
"Even if it does somehow do "irreparable damage" to the rights holders, what's stopping them from just erecting a streaming site of their own? Or at least something much better than what exists now in various crippled forms? The attempts to shut these sites down seem to indicate that massive amounts of potential earnings are being siphoned away."
The argument here, is another digital to analogue comparison that actually doesn't work but you can see how people get there. People who steal actual physical goods, often sell them on for vastly less than they are worth, or at least a lot less than they normally cost. For the person who has had a $1000 laptop stolen from them for example, the loss requires another $1000 to replace, but the criminal is relatively happy with the $50 or $100 he gets for same laptop. He's happy because it cost him nothing at all, the actual owner would never be happy with that return as it represents a massive loss to him.
An owner would never sell his $1000 computer for $100 and replace it for another $1000. It would be a cost to him of nearly double the original price.
Obviously this does not translate to the digital world, but for those who don't understand that; it seems a reasonable argument that pirate sites can be making money while getting far too little revenue for the actual creators to be making money and in doing so are costing the creators much more money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good points. But it isn't entirely unfounded. Before the internet these content creeps got away with doing anything they wanted. People are both ignorant and tolerant. They shelled out for whatever was offered. When I was young I paid for cable tv and liked it. What happened was, now there are options. People have been shown that there are other possibilities than the ones offered by the content creeps. And these creeps can't seem to realize that the cat is out of the bag and there is no way to legislate it back in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the pirate asshats wouldn't have started stealing the content we wouldn't have DRM! You can blame the pirates for making your life harder.
See I can play your biased game as well, how about we stop trying to find points of division and find some middle ground?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It seems DRM is more a irrational reaction of fear of what might happen rather than what actually was or is happening. ie., "If we don't put DRM, somebody might copy it." Since DRM is clearly not able to stop copying, its continued use cannot be a reaction to infringement.
As I said, the cat is out of the bag. The days of DRM, release windows, region locking, unskippable ads, ... is over. The middle ground is for the content middlemen to realize this and adapt. Give the customer the best product you can and the customer will pay instead of seeking the better product for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bubble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bubble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bubble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's talk "entitlements"
Wrong. Dead wrong. Stupidly wrong.
Copyright is a half-ass idea created by middlemen for the sake of enriching middlemen. It's a completely synthetic government-granted monopoly on a particular expression of an idea. Even at its worst, it was never meant to be as broad or as enduring as it is now.
But over the years, corporate players and their pitiful quisling artists have come to feel entitled to this legal scam, as though it were some sort of natural law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's talk "entitlements"
As this site frequently points out, given the changes in technology, the digital world can let you 'ignore' copyright entirely and still make money.
That again doesn't say copyright is bad or wrong, just that there are now other ways to 'monetize' your content...which is the point of copyright. To allow the creator to monetize their content so they'll be inclined to create said content in the first place.
In the digital world it isn't nearly as clear cut anymore but copyright is still a valid and useful concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's talk "entitlements"
What's more, copyright's origins began as a law to censor seditious books that spoke against the monarchy of England. When the privileged few sanctioned by the crown got accustomed to the perks of their position, they argued to keep the law in place, not for sedition, but to "protect" authors. The very core of copyright was never to help authors, but to block undesirables from printing texts that go against the desires of the ruling class.
Conversely, in Germany around the early industrial revolution, Germany had no enforced copyright laws and people were able to print any books they liked. This allowed German people to get cheap access to books on engineering and other sciences. It was this unfettered access to knowledge that gave Germany the lead in the engineering field. Just to drive the point further, Germany had about 10 times as many books being authored annually compared to England, which had a copyright law in effect.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-law-the-real-reason-for-germany-s-ind ustrial-expansion-a-710976.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's talk "entitlements"
Ironically, if you want to actually look at Hoffner's study, you'll have to pony up €68. I won't be doing that, of course. Does that prove his point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's talk "entitlements"
If England had a head start and copyright didn't apply to scientific/engineering texts, why did Germany flourish in that field while England lagged behind? What was stopping people in England from doing the same as Germany?
How is it that Germany had such a large number of new works appearing compared to England if copyright didn't apply? Regardless of where they got the new works, the people of Germany had access to ten times the number of new works annually. You can't tell me that didn't help.
What's more, according to the copyright so-and-so's, it is impossible for new works to proliferate without copyright. This proves that notion wrong. When more people have access to a greater number of useful works, it increases their knowledge, which they can then apply that to study and expansion of that knowledge later on, which obviously would snowball into what we see today: Germans are the most revered engineers in the world. Free access to knowledge creates a positive feedback to the supply of knowledge.
Nothing in that comment offers anything that can factually refute the study. It's not even logical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's talk "entitlements"
It is the same mentality you have with things like the 2012 London Olympics brand police. Other parties are paying "good money" to to advertise their brands so they need to stop others from "free riding." Or with licencing of music, films, TV. Licencees are paying money to monetize content so they and/or the licencor want to stop others from doing the same for free: YouTube takedowns, ICE domain seizures, etc.
But today creators can do it all just by hiring services (TuneCore, CDBaby, Amazon, fabrication in China, etc) that need to compete in the market for customers (it does not make sense financially for them to get exclusive deals, for example, they are just a service provider), so there is no middleman and his army of trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's talk "entitlements"
DING DING DING DING! We have a winner! Finally someone "get's it". If you sell the rights to your work, you are transferring ownership to someone else, that person/organization makes an investment in the hopes that he/she/it will make a profit.
"But today creators can do it all just by hiring services (TuneCore, CDBaby, Amazon, fabrication in China, etc) that need to compete in the market for customers (it does not make sense financially for them to get exclusive deals, for example, they are just a service provider), so there is no middleman and his army of trolls."
I think you overestimate the effectiveness of these services, but I can respect your enthusiasm. I would prefer that you do not use inflammatory phrases like "army of trolls", but at least it lets me know you have already picked your side and have a biased opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's talk "entitlements"
Everyone is biased to some degree. A valid argument stands or falls on its own merit, regardless of who said it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's talk "entitlements"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's talk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's talk
IPR is an exercise in pure mecantilism. Know your history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's talk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's talk
So put your money where your mouth is, or rethink your statement. I'd be very happy if you'd give me $10 for having read this post. After all, it's the ethical thing to do, and I need to be protected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's talk
If you answer these questions honestly, I think you will find you must withdraw your fatuous argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's talk
SCOTUS rejected sweat of the brow". It does not matter one whit how much time and effort I put into it. I have the copyright on the post.
--What steps have you taken to see you get paid?
I've asked you to. Let me know when you're going to do the ethical thing and we can arrange payment details.
--Have you checked the spelling and grammar?
I did (I'm no professional), though I fail to see what that has anything to do with copyrights. Are you proposing that bad spelling and grammar changes the ethics? Poor quality works can be pirated at will?
--Did you spend years refining it, seeking input, searching for a publication method?
No, why? What's your point? You know who also didn't spend years refining their work, seeking input or searching for a publication method? Dostoyevsky wrote The Gambler in 26 days. He found a publisher for Crime and Punishment in November 1865 and published the first portion in January 1866, without having written any of it before finding a publisher. And none of that has anything to do with copyright law, nor do I see how it relates to ethics. Are you suggesting it would have been fine to pirate The Gambler because he didn't spend years to refine it?
--Would anyone in the universe think $10 is a reasonable price?
Do you catch the irony here? On an article discussing just going without if you don't find the terms acceptable, you're willing to say my terms are unacceptable and just read my stuff without paying me, even though you said that the creator's wishes are the ethical thing.
--Have you risked anything by creating it?
I feel like a broken record, but since you like to keep asking questions that have nothing to do with the matter at hand, I'll answer again: No, but neither does anyone else. Did U2 risk anything in writing With or Without You? Should their wishes be ignored because they didn't?
--Do you have a reasonable expectation to be paid for your work?
Absolutely. I have the copyright on it, and you said my wishes to be paid means that paying me is the ethical thing to do. Where are your ethics now?
--Is it known by anybody that you are a producer of quality content?
Why is that important? Was it known that the Beatles were producers of quality content before they produced anything? Is everyone not worthy of payment until they become so? Are you arguing that Michael Bay is not worthy of ethical considerations? How many times have you downloaded Transformers without paying for it then?
Since you don't seem to follow your own professed ethics, I'll lower the price of reading my comments to only $5. That's two whole posts for half the price of one!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's talk
Then I filled it in.
Then I posted about it.
I'm exhausted.
Please send money for my hard work.
It's the ethical thing to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's talk
Even without bringing Queen Anne into it, just going by the US Constitution alone, this is provably untrue.
The Constitution specifically says what the purpose of copyright is, and "protecting the creator" is not it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's talk
The protection of the creator was the means not the intent and that has been utterly forgotten. The public interest that was the reason the public are asked to give up their rights for is now ignored. Copyright as it is is not ethical in the slightest and holds no resemblance to the intent in which these monopolies were first granted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The emotional argument is also what makes the "vindictive piracy" feel effective for those declaring it. It's a way of sticking out their virtual tongues and declaring they're getting stuff for free, with knowledge that their opposition hates that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or that someone is making money off of their content without cutting them in (despite them having recouped alreday). Can't have that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These aren't physical goods here. It doesn't benefit anyone to block access to content just because don't want them to have it for free. It doesn't deprive an author anything to grant a few people access to free copies of digital works if they can't pay. Greater accessibility to all kinds of content always results in uplifting society to greater progress. Knowledge is power, the power to explore the possibilities your knowledge grants you.
J A Konrath proves this point. He offers his entire library of ebooks to download for free, on his own website, they're available on many torrent sites, and he's still satisfied with what he makes from selling his books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While I agree that doing without is better way, I believe so because it is ethical. I don't agree with the "envy" argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't kid yourself.
Commercial bootlegging on the other hand is an entirely different matter. A customer that's spending money is actually worth something. It's loss is a real quantifiable harm.
This is why classic copyright law treated the two differently.
Tort reform for the rich, crime and punishment for the poor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Going Without
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Just do without" proves the speaker does not take the discussion seriously
Basically, it communicates that the speaker is contemptuous of even engaging in a discussion. They're deliberatlely arguing for a position they hope you don't take. What business that wants profit angrily insists that you not consume - under ANY circumstances?
That's what bewilders me. Anti-piracy arguments have historically been hateful, and as a result they discourage people from buying. So why are we hearing them?
Unless, of course, the end game is not purchased movies, music and books, but something else, like privatized feudalism or a legally established right to profit.
Remember, in the past, studios and record labels were satisfied with getting percentages of blank cassette and CD sales, etc. A "tax" on Internet access would have been the end game for the players of the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s, and we'd all be comfortable with that.
The harsher, angry responses were not advanced until large conglomerates and equity groups acquired the gatekeepers. These arguments speak for them, not studio and record label owners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I prefer creators that do it for the love of doing it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Same here. Anyone who is in it for the money/success/fame alone should not be creating anything. The best artistic works are those created by people for whom money is far down their list of priorities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Every other measure just encourages people to find more clandestine ways to keep doing it. Start threatening people who torrent, they just use VPN's to encrypt their activities. They stupidly attack the symptom, but not the cause. People want cheap, portable, and convenient content. They don't want to be told they can only enjoy it on dictated terms (format locks, DRM, etc).
[ 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 ]
Bob?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice turn of a phrase
Your essay is fair to middling and basically reiterates points made many times before, but I just want to compliment you on the above phrase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice turn of a phrase
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nice turn of a phrase
The other one I particularly liked was "you'll have accomplished nothing more than swapping out your high horseshoes for platform boots" for its beautiful metaphor mixing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice turn of a phrase
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duality
Artists getting screwed out of royalties? Time to put on the business hat. "They should have gotten better contracts. It's not like its a moral issue if creators aren't compensated fairly. It's just business."
Someone watched Game of Thrones without paying for it? Time to remove the business hat and put on the moral hat. "Not compensating creators fairly is just wrong. This is a moral issue not a business issue."
Talking about the fact that someone not consuming the media or pirating it is exactly the same (or worse) from a business perspective is totally lost on them because if we're talking about piracy they want to have a a moral discussion, not a business discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Duality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Duality
You think Internet Piracy is responsible for the copying of existing success stories?
So Internet Piracy was rampant, like now, in 1980's?
Maybe you should watch the interview with Billy Corgan on The Hour (CBC show) where he explains how bands were given the option - sign and sound like we want you to sound or beat it.
How about the Cure, before being picked up by Fiction Records, they won a contract with Hansa records who wanted them (in 1978) to play covers of I Fought The Law? No repeat of success there.
And hair bands? How many 80's hair bands sounded like one another?
How about the 90's, once grunge hit, how many bands were pushed to sound like Pearl Jam?
This "copies of success" process has been around for a LONG time. Before the 80's, even back in the 50's and 60's, the only difference was that you had songwriters being pushed to write songs like the other hits and you had performers who were told "sing this like that" and they did it.
Yes, the Beatles inspired bands to write their own, but they still had to copy success in many cases.
That "copy success" process only increased from the 60's but instead of pushing songwriters and performers, they pushed bands who did the writing and performing.
Unless they liked your sound, and only if *your* sound sold were you allowed to keep it.
Fucking Def Leppard's Joe Elliot changed his singing style to scream like AC/DC and get more sales. I suppose that could not be related to having the same producer huh, Mutt Lange?
Nah, only due to Internet Piracy, since Napster, have studios started pushing bands to mimic success stores. Riiiight.
And they stopped investing in bands in the 80's, once grunge came out they didn't have to give them money for looks or singing lessons, if they couldn't already sing.
I think you're confusing the old movie studios where they trained the likes of Ginger Rogers or Bing Crosby. Those people, those old black and white movies, required actors to be able to sing and dance as well as act. They were trained.
That's not the case for music labels today and has not been the case for a very long time. If you can't already sing, you don't get a chance, unless you're super hot, now they just autoTune you, put you in provocative clothing, and market your ass to sell, sell, sell, then when you're no longer a cash cow, you're thrown out with the garbage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Duality
Clarification:
They stopped investing in the 80's, AND once grunge came out (in the 90's) they didn't bother investing....
I know grunge wasn't in the 80's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How's that dynamic work? And Radio is the driving force (free music) behind these 'content creators making any money at all - isn't it?
So I guess whenever I listen to the radio, I'm "stealing too" Bob?
Well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Like the content, willing to pay. Check.
Business model treats me like I'm a filthy pirate already. Check.
Creator gets paid? Nope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I'm starting to see is people moving away from mainstream content (the content produced by the legacy players) into new stuff. Sometimes part of that content come from legacy artists that actually grasp what's happening and left the "legacy" to join the vanguard.
As for 'vengeance piracy' if I know the artist gets furious with piracy and he/she is an arsehole towards their fans in piracy I admit I get pretty tempted to download just for the heck of it. And I've done that more than once just to delete afterwards. Childish? Maybe. But provides some 'forever alone' laughs ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Infringement worth a few cents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Infringement worth a few cents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Infringement worth a few cents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Infringement worth a few cents
Since when has the 1st sale doctrine required I know who I lend to? Does a library "know" everyone they lend to?
> defending bit torrent
I'm not saying they aren't illegal, but I'm saying is the losses are minimal, and certainly don't deserve the penalties meted out.
> some of those people actually WOULD buy
... but many more could be convinced NOT to buy if everyone lent out their movies. Right now, the content creators earn from our laziness. If I stood at a RedBox with a bag of movies to share, I don't think Hollywood would be happy, but they couldn't do a thing about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rather than getting angry about DRM and pirating a video game, why not put your time and money into supporting a content creator that isn't hostile to consumers?
IP companies see a pirated copy as a lost sale (as erroneous as that is, it is what they think) so pirating something just encourages this mentality.
If you really care, and want to effect REAL change, you have to be willing to make sacrifices.
It is easy to have principles when they don't matter. The real measure of a person is what they are willing to give up in support of those principles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How long before the new TV's with built in Cameras start 'charging' for public performances when 'non family' members are present?
The tech may seem 'cool' now, but when the TV stops watching your moves in video games, and starts reporting that you are showing movies to 10 people at a time and charging you for a public performance, it won't be so 'cool' anymore ;(
So much amazing technology, and we continue to insist on living in the past (probably with good reason)...
Just because I might be a paranoid conspiracy theorist, doesn't mean someone isn't out to get me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
boB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not the same
"I can write an open letter asking the food companies to do better on calories/taste/freshness/whatever and until they do, I'll feel free to just shoplift whatever I want..."
That's not a fair comparison. When you shoplift, you've taken physical goods from a manufacturer who can no longer profit from those goods. If the MPAA only allowed 1000 copies of a movie to be disseminated, and pirates subtracted from that amount when they copied it, then it might be a fair analogy. But no one is downloading physical DVDs with packaging from a store, nor preventing the manufacturer from profiting from the sale of that object.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the same
Our work place provides free coffee from vending machines - it's not very nice but it's hot and caffienated and that's what important.
But they also have vending machines that sell cold drinks and you can pay for coffee in the shop downstairs (but you can't compete with free! sorry, I'll move on).
The analogy comes into play on this story because the vending machines don't accept Ł2 coins. These have been in use for about 15 years. The other day I wanted a coke and the only cash I had with me was a Ł2 coin.
But because the vending machine company hadn't updated the machine to take Ł2 coins they didn't get their money and I went and got a free coffee instead.
I wanted to pay for something but their decision not to update their transaction system meant that I went and got a free alternative. I wasn't happy, they weren't happy.
Doesn't that sound familiar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll tel you what doesn't make sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That way, people would pay, or do without. Yes. Really. That would force the "do without" option.
Content creators would adapt. In the process, gatekeepers would probably disappear. Much like independent authors can go straight to Amazon and their eBook could be much cheaper than if it came from a "publisher" (gatekeeper, middleman).
But mostly, I wish piracy could disappear because it would put an end to the excuses why the gatekeepers want to completely and utterly destroy our freedoms and have arbitrary and absolute power to put down anything they happen to not like, just to be malevolent. There would be no excuse for travesties like DMCA, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, TPP, etc.
People might also just choose to "do without" just because they are sick of reruns upon reruns, lack of creativity, endless ads, bugs in the corner of the tv, animated distractions during the show, or for DVDs, endless unskippable previews, moronic warnings, etc.
Of course, the gatekeepers will deny that anyone is taking the "do without" option. Eg, nobody is really cutting the cable cord. They'll also denounce or simply ignore the fact that cord cutters might have a growing number of actual alternatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Think logically, please. Imagine if tomorrow, piracy became impossible. Now, how would that have occurred?
Through a massive change in society, where all materials and equipment capable of copying are locked down (from pencils and paper to computers) and people are satisfied with having their every move monitored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go with the flow.
Every time you 'just go without,' a content creator has a nightmare about becoming one of a gatekeeper's personal full-time live-in manicurists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I want to buy the content, but the restrictions violate my rights, the next thing I do is try to find it on the pirate sites. If it's there, I'll continue with my purchase because I know I can fall back on the pirate version when I need to. It's usually the independent content that I have to check on since all the big name stuff is nearly always available through piracy.
If it's not available on the pirate sites, I go without.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If a store with the same products opened right next door to you and sold it at a higher quality for a lower price, would you still go to the first store out of a moral obligation to pay more money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i WONDER
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/16141120116/how-random-lawsuit-about-telco- policy-probably-resulted-broad-secret-law-enabling-nsa-to-spy-you.shtml
LETS USE THE NSA logic..
A product with DRM isnt the SAME product as one WITHOUT DRM.(is strawberry ice cream WITHOUT strawberry still strawberry ice cream)
A product in a Different format then the ORIGINAL, so that it will play on Many devices, is not the same as the original..(linen paper, wood paper, Starch paper, rice paper is it ALL JUST PAPER?)
The one in that the corp has in Storage is the original, and everything ELSE is a copy. So making a COPY of a COPY shouldnt be against the law.(you can build your OWN Cobra Shelby car, and NOT be taken to court)
If I augment something to Change it, even in a SMALL way to fit/adjust/adapt it to my needs..Isnt this a NEW item? Wouldnt it be nice if the Originators of the product HAD MADE this distinction so that I could have it WORK in a way that would FIT my needs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Firstly, Pirated content is USUALLY free of DRM? Are you telling me that some pirates actually put their own DRM in place of the rights holder’s DRM? I find that highly unlikely. Then you go on to proclaim that this is because piracy is efficient. So adding their own “pirate” DRM makes them efficient? Yes, I am being snarky, your writing style is filled with snark so let’s snark it up. I am glad that you understand that what people actually want is CONTENT. It doesn’t matter what your distribution method is (even if you could magically compress an entire season’s worth of 1080p content into a file the size of a 16px X 16px GIF file) without content (whether that is USER generated or produced by a professional crew) no service will flourish. I think that the point you are trying to make is that people pirate “becuz of the DRMz”, which is oversimplifying to the point that it is absurd. The content industry could argue that people pirate because they don’t want to spend any money. Everyone knows that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Some people will NEVER pay for content. Some people WOULD pay for content if they couldn’t find it on a pirate site. Some people WOULD pay for content if they could get it. Some people are frustrated with DRM and use that as an excuse to pirate. Some people will NEVER pirate even if it means they cannot access content.
“Whenever this pro-piracy argument is broached, usually in the form of "This is why I pirate," or "Pirated x doesn't have this problem," it is responded to with shocked gasps of "I can't believe you feel entitled to just take something if it's not available/at the right price point/otherwise nonexistent." The person pushing this take generally starts telling those talking up piracy that they could "just go without." To do otherwise means the commenter (or post author) is nothing more than a child with an outsized sense of entitlement.”
It IS childish to expect the entire world to supply you with entertainment without compensation. The rights holders are people just like you and I, they have the right to market their creative works as they see fit. The free market (free as in free of controls, not as in free as in free of cost) will dictate their level of success. Piracy circumvents the free market, it introduces artificial competition because you aren’t competing against another creative work or another form of entertainment, you are competing against your own content (I am using the word “you” ambiguously to mean any and all rights holders). You will notice that I used the words “rights holder” in lieu of content creator, this is because the content creator in many cases sells the rights to someone else. In many cases the content creator is paid by the distributor, which might be the big bad wolf (BIG HOLLYWOOD).
“But let's look at this in a more realistic way. What exactly does "doing without" do for the content creator? How does "not purchasing" (or not having the option to purchase) the disputed content do anything for the creators? Because the bottom line in both scenarios is that $0 has made its way from the potential customers to the people desiring the income.”
Why is YOUR way more realistic than simply doing without? The reality distortion field is strong with this one! In opposition to your “reality” I present the following: If the content creator doesn’t create something, the consumer will be doing without, right? You know how to make sure a content creator doesn’t create something new, simply pirate their work and ensure that they don’t make any money. You seem to think that FANS = SUCCESS but I can show you countless cases where that simply isn’t true. So arguments that “piracy HELPS” are anecdotal at best and almost always cognitive dissonance (people are rationalizing their unethical behavior because it makes them feel better about themselves).
“A bit of the old infringement” Ahhh, the use to casual colloquialisms to endear readers to your side. Not that anyone reading this fluff piece on the virtues of piracy would have any problem discerning pro-piracy stance, but still, it is somewhat tired.
“Then there's the infringement itself. It takes many forms. Some of it is just watching uploads on YouTube. I've caught some BBC series I can't purchase here in the US via the 'Tube. Or there are shadier streaming sites that serve a ton of ads along with even rarer uploaded video or stuff YouTube has content-matched right off its servers.”
“..just watching uploads on YouTube”, as if watching pirated content that someone else uploaded is any better than BT downloads. The end result is the same, the person doing this is accessing content to which they are NOT entitled.
“Streaming video is infringement? (Or was, pre-Posner.) Or somehow morally wrong? That's a position I can't even fathom.”
Stealing cars is illegal? But I want Chevy to lease me a 2013 Camaro for $1/day. I refuse to pay more. I’m willing to pay but they won’t meet my demands. Plus I want one that gets 100MPG, so until they can provide that should I be allowed to infringe on their rights and just borrow one, RIGHT?
“I realize that ad revenue or DVD sales are "lost" when this happens but I have a hard time believing a temporary video stream represents a true loss to the creators. It's not as though it's residing on my hard drive and being transported to and fro by portable devices. It's not a replacement for an actual product I can use in a more versatile fashion.”
If I just borrow the car, I don’t retain permanent ownership so it isn’t theft, RIGHT? People who stream illegally distributed content instead of purchasing a legitimate stream are taking something. They are taking the experience of watching the content and doing so without providing compensation to the rights holder.
To me, streaming video is about as "infringing" as going over to a friend's house to watch their TV. True, the internet gives me a bigger selection of "friends" and a bottomless DVD selection. Other than that, when I'm done with the stream I "leave my friend's house" and the "DVD" stays with "him." If I want to watch it again, I can't do it from my TV. I have to visit him again.
Let me be clear on this, the 700 people on your Facebook account are not really your “friends”. The thousands of people using BT to get the latest Batman installment are not even acquainted. Your comparison of going to your friends’ house with downloading movies from BT shows how strong your reality distortion field really is. Watching a movie at a friend’s house actually is providing a service to the rights holders, you are exposing that person to something he or she might purchase. Providing an always available, easily accessible, free, pirated copy of a movie to millions of people simply abets infringers. (I firmly believe that Judge Posner’s opinions will be overturned or simply ignored when considerations of precedent occur)
“Even if it does somehow do "irreparable damage" to the rights holders, what's stopping them from just erecting a streaming site of their own? Or at least something much better than what exists now in various crippled forms? The attempts to shut these sites down seem to indicate that massive amounts of potential earnings are being siphoned away. If so, why put up with it? Build your own and collect the ad revenue, just like the operators of these sites do.”
I agree in principle that part of the responsibility for some of the infringement lies with rights holders’ neglecting the digital marketplace. I would much rather purchase content directly from the rights holder, that way I know I am reimbursing the appropriate person or organization. Ideally I could see a wholesale marketplace so that competitors can choose to lower their prices. Unfortunately, I can’t see that ever happening, there are too many power players pushing for exclusive distribution rights. You can actually blame part of the problem on Apple, Amazon, Vudu, etc…
My guess is: not enough money. Ad-supported streaming sites can't match the licensing fees these companies can extract from other services. So we're right back where we started: money being left on the table.
Absolutely, RIGHT! The first thing you have said that I have no argument against.
How about all these file lockers that are such a threat to the American Way of Life™ that we need to send the combined forces of the local SWAT team and FBI in order to show that We Are Indeed Serious About Pirates? Aren't they making a killing? Christ, look at Dotcom. Virtually swimming in opulence and personal tanks. He's a multi-millionaire. Do what he does. Throw all your stuff onto some servers, get the links passed around the internet, sell faster access for monthly rates and start re-living the life you always thought you'd be living.
I don’t think shoehorning everyone into an ad sponsored business model is the thing to do, and I know I am not alone in this. Many people are tired of seeing ads on almost everything around us. It’s advertising overload, I would rather pay a reasonable fee to free myself from advertising than pay nothing and be forced to watch ads. Yes I know about ad blockers, I chose not to use them because I do try to provide the content creators, Techdirt included, with a revenue stream.
“Can't figure out how to do any of the above without dealing with a nightmarish tangle of royalties, licensing and release windows? Don't look at me. I never thought any of those things were good ideas. Here's a suggestion: create a blanket licensing group for this new venture a la ASCAP. Dump it all into a big pool and trickle the monies down on the usual suspects. Or, you know, go one better and use all this precise info you'll be gathering to actually pay the creators appropriately.”
As I said earlier, it’s the YouTube’s, the Netflix’s, the Vudu’s that are causing part of the problem. You seem to want to put all the blame on the content industry, but it’s the distributors that have caused this mess. Everyone wants exclusive content to draw people to their business.
I don't know what's more annoying: the moral ground cowboys who would rather the creators made no money than fix their broken delivery systems or the industry "titans" who are constantly being outdone by any techie who can set up a decent file locker.
I am not a “moral ground cowboy”, nor am I a pro-piracy shill sent by the Pirate Party, I am a pragmatist. Ultimately what needs to happen is that content needs to made available digitally, in diverse formats, at reasonable prices and consumers should be forced to go through legitimate channels to obtain that content. If you take away all of the DRM arguments: ease of use, availability, file size, time-shifting, place-shifting, etc. There would still be people who would choose to pirate. Nothing will ever prevent piracy but more can be done to limit piracy. Just like more can be done by the industry to provide access to the content.
P.S. This argument also bugs me: "X is an asshole so I'm going to pirate the shit out him." Really? I don't know how someone can argue "piracy's effect is overstated" or "piracy is a convenient scapegoat for the content industries" and then make a grand statement that you're going to punish someone by doing something ineffectual, only ANGRIER. Vindictive piracy makes absolutely no sense.
Whole-heartedly Agree! If you pirate content just to spite them, it provides ammunition for them. They can point to the levels of piracy as being a cause of action on the part of the legal system. If there is very little piracy there is little reason for the industry to be reactionary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not every pirate does the job perfectly. I'll concede on the snark. "Live by snark. Die by the snark."
I am glad that you understand that what people actually want is CONTENT. It doesn’t matter what your distribution method is (even if you could magically compress an entire season’s worth of 1080p content into a file the size of a 16px X 16px GIF file) without content (whether that is USER generated or produced by a professional crew) no service will flourish.
Right. This is what people want and many are actually willing to pay for.
I think that the point you are trying to make is that people pirate “becuz of the DRMz”, which is oversimplifying to the point that it is absurd. The content industry could argue that people pirate because they don’t want to spend any money. Everyone knows that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Some people will NEVER pay for content. Some people WOULD pay for content if they couldn’t find it on a pirate site. Some people WOULD pay for content if they could get it. Some people are frustrated with DRM and use that as an excuse to pirate. Some people will NEVER pirate even if it means they cannot access content.
I'm not making that point, or at least not as exclusively as you state I am. It's one of many reasons. It certainly drives people away from purchasing content laced with DRM. It has also been stated here (and other places) that people have purchased a legit version and torrented one that actually worked. The truth is somewhere in the middle. The people making the argument to "just go without" seem to believe that it's either/or. Pirate/don't buy. There's a lot of solutions in between those two extremes. Many times the "solution" is purchase and put up with the bullshit.
It IS childish to expect the entire world to supply you with entertainment without compensation. The rights holders are people just like you and I, they have the right to market their creative works as they see fit. The free market (free as in free of controls, not as in free as in free of cost) will dictate their level of success. Piracy circumvents the free market, it introduces artificial competition because you aren’t competing against another creative work or another form of entertainment, you are competing against your own content (I am using the word “you” ambiguously to mean any and all rights holders). You will notice that I used the words “rights holder” in lieu of content creator, this is because the content creator in many cases sells the rights to someone else. In many cases the content creator is paid by the distributor, which might be the big bad wolf (BIG HOLLYWOOD).
I don't think a majority of people (at least not those arguing along the lines I am) are trying to get content for free. They're just not interested in paying for intentionally damaged goods. Piracy may circumvent the market system, but to use this as an excuse to cripple, window, or place other artificial limits on legally purchased goods is asinine. Whoever the rights holder may be, from an indie publisher to the "Big Bad Wolf," it's ludicrous to suggest that people shell out for broken software, movies, etc. simply because piracy exists.
If you're going to be "competing with your own content," the least you can do is try to provide a superior product.
Why is YOUR way more realistic than simply doing without? The reality distortion field is strong with this one! In opposition to your “reality” I present the following: If the content creator doesn’t create something, the consumer will be doing without, right? You know how to make sure a content creator doesn’t create something new, simply pirate their work and ensure that they don’t make any money. You seem to think that FANS = SUCCESS but I can show you countless cases where that simply isn’t true. So arguments that “piracy HELPS” are anecdotal at best and almost always cognitive dissonance (people are rationalizing their unethical behavior because it makes them feel better about themselves).
My way is more realistic because that's what actually happens. People circumvent your protection schemes. People pirate your content. People go without. The difference is that people are actually using/enjoying your content. However slim the chance may be that they'll convert to a paying customer or pass it on to someone who will put money in the creators' pockets, that chance still exists. Going without usually means a person is divorcing themselves from a creator/production company/software developer. No more purchasing from X.
Piracy CAN help and evidence does exist. Here's one link:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/04081614319/perhaps-sequel-can-be-dont-fking-worr y-about-piracy.shtml
Not all of it does, but again, the potential exists. And as for all the arguments that piracy is killing future creativity... I'm not buying it (no pun intended). There's more music, software, movies and books being created than ever, despite the ubiquity of piracy.
“A bit of the old infringement” Ahhh, the use to casual colloquialisms to endear readers to your side. Not that anyone reading this fluff piece on the virtues of piracy would have any problem discerning pro-piracy stance, but still, it is somewhat tired.
So, no paraphrased A Clockwork Orange for you?
“..just watching uploads on YouTube”, as if watching pirated content that someone else uploaded is any better than BT downloads. The end result is the same, the person doing this is accessing content to which they are NOT entitled.
Yeah. "Accessing." Like using a VPN to get out of the rolling blackout that is Youtube in Germany? Many of the videos are blocked there simply because GEMA acts like a hard water filter in search of a LimeAway bath. The videos are legit in the US but suddenly not legit because of someone's IP address? Weird. Germans are not ENTITLED to watch label-uploaded videos. Not everything is pure piracy. Some of it is just regional stupidity.
“Streaming video is infringement? (Or was, pre-Posner.) Or somehow morally wrong? That's a position I can't even fathom.”
Stealing cars is illegal? But I want Chevy to lease me a 2013 Camaro for $1/day. I refuse to pay more. I’m willing to pay but they won’t meet my demands. Plus I want one that gets 100MPG, so until they can provide that should I be allowed to infringe on their rights and just borrow one, RIGHT?
You seriously cannot be making a car analogy. You actually want to compare driving around in a borrowed/stolen vehicle with temporarily watching something with my eyes or hearing it with my ears. A stream is in motion and is temporary. A car is a physical object that is noticeable in its absence. A stream doesn't remove any content from anywhere. (Neither does torrenting, but let's keep the metaphors on the same page.)
“I realize that ad revenue or DVD sales are "lost" when this happens but I have a hard time believing a temporary video stream represents a true loss to the creators. It's not as though it's residing on my hard drive and being transported to and fro by portable devices. It's not a replacement for an actual product I can use in a more versatile fashion.”
If I just borrow the car, I don’t retain permanent ownership so it isn’t theft, RIGHT? People who stream illegally distributed content instead of purchasing a legitimate stream are taking something. They are taking the experience of watching the content and doing so without providing compensation to the rights holder.
Point me to some legitimate streams. Hulu is a bricked-up joke thanks to studio interference. Netflix has what it has and thanks to windowing, etc., it's not much. Hollywood doesn't want to play with Netflix. Their call, but the studios aren't really offering up anything to replace it.
For a personal reference point, I watch a lot of BBC stuff and obscure TV shows that have long since gone off the air. There's no legitimate streams out there and for the BBC stuff, the DVDs aren't available in the proper region coding. There may not ever be enough of a potential market to make these available in formats I can purchase. But how much would making these available via a legit streaming service cost as compared to doing an actual DVD run? Legit streamer very likely would PAY THEM, so what's the angle?
CAR ANALOGIES ARE NOW BEING ACTIVELY IGNORED.
To me, streaming video is about as "infringing" as going over to a friend's house to watch their TV. True, the internet gives me a bigger selection of "friends" and a bottomless DVD selection. Other than that, when I'm done with the stream I "leave my friend's house" and the "DVD" stays with "him." If I want to watch it again, I can't do it from my TV. I have to visit him again.
Let me be clear on this, the 700 people on your Facebook account are not really your “friends”. The thousands of people using BT to get the latest Batman installment are not even acquainted. Your comparison of going to your friends’ house with downloading movies from BT shows how strong your reality distortion field really is. Watching a movie at a friend’s house actually is providing a service to the rights holders, you are exposing that person to something he or she might purchase. Providing an always available, easily accessible, free, pirated copy of a movie to millions of people simply abets infringers. (I firmly believe that Judge Posner’s opinions will be overturned or simply ignored when considerations of precedent occur)
First of all, I'm comparing streaming, not torrenting, so my reality distortion field is only as strong as your misreading.
"Watching a movie at a friend’s house actually is providing a service to the rights holders, you are exposing that person to something he or she might purchase."
As is watching streams. If the BBC ever springs for some Region 1 encoding, I will be buying some DVDs. I'd rather watch these shows from the comfort of something comfortable rather than sitting at my desk.
As for Posner, we'll see. As for the rest of your point about torrenting, it's all yours. I'm still discussing my personal views on STREAMING.
I agree in principle that part of the responsibility for some of the infringement lies with rights holders’ neglecting the digital marketplace. I would much rather purchase content directly from the rights holder, that way I know I am reimbursing the appropriate person or organization. Ideally I could see a wholesale marketplace so that competitors can choose to lower their prices. Unfortunately, I can’t see that ever happening, there are too many power players pushing for exclusive distribution rights. You can actually blame part of the problem on Apple, Amazon, Vudu, etc…
If possible, I do the same (purchase directly). The number of competing distributors, rights holders, etc. make this little more than a fantasy. But you'd think the actual top end of the content world, the ones making the most noise about piracy, would start slashing through the accumulated cruft NOW while they still have the power and the means to do it, rather than just slowly bleed to death.
My guess is: not enough money. Ad-supported streaming sites can't match the licensing fees these companies can extract from other services. So we're right back where we started: money being left on the table.
Absolutely, RIGHT! The first thing you have said that I have no argument against.
[Restrained huzzah!]
I don’t think shoehorning everyone into an ad sponsored business model is the thing to do, and I know I am not alone in this. Many people are tired of seeing ads on almost everything around us. It’s advertising overload, I would rather pay a reasonable fee to free myself from advertising than pay nothing and be forced to watch ads. Yes I know about ad blockers, I chose not to use them because I do try to provide the content creators, Techdirt included, with a revenue stream.
Right. As a value-added service, ad-free streams or rentals, etc. Illegitimate streaming sites serve tons of ads. All you'd have to do to beat them is offer a low, flatrate monthly fee (a la Netflix) with unlimited viewing and you could draw some viewers. You could still run an ad supported site for those who just want free access. The simpler the fees are and the more the prices hover around the "impulse purchase" end of the spectrum, the better the results. All speculation on my part, but it's not as if Netflix doesn't have tons of loyal viewers.
As I said earlier, it’s the YouTube’s, the Netflix’s, the Vudu’s that are causing part of the problem. You seem to want to put all the blame on the content industry, but it’s the distributors that have caused this mess. Everyone wants exclusive content to draw people to their business.
I won't put all the blame on the content industry, but it certainly has done its part to price itself out of Netflix's budget and despite being handed one of the few piracy-killers on a golden platter, it's decided to bite the hand that feeds it. Hulu's being crippled by its new masters. If the content industry wants to play hardball with exclusive content, fine. But if no one can afford to carry it for them, then they need to seriously get something going on their own end, or they're simply ceding viewers back to unpaid services.
I don't know what's more annoying: the moral ground cowboys who would rather the creators made no money than fix their broken delivery systems or the industry "titans" who are constantly being outdone by any techie who can set up a decent file locker.
I am not a “moral ground cowboy”, nor am I a pro-piracy shill sent by the Pirate Party, I am a pragmatist. Ultimately what needs to happen is that content needs to made available digitally, in diverse formats, at reasonable prices and consumers should be forced to go through legitimate channels to obtain that content. If you take away all of the DRM arguments: ease of use, availability, file size, time-shifting, place-shifting, etc. There would still be people who would choose to pirate. Nothing will ever prevent piracy but more can be done to limit piracy. Just like more can be done by the industry to provide access to the content.
I'm almost in full agreement here. But you can't possibly have meant to type this sentence this way: "consumers should be forced to go through legitimate channels to obtain that content." You really can't "force" the consumers to anything without going full-on legislative draconian, and I doubt even that would turn 100% of pirates into paying customers. I don't think resentment is a healthy thing to foster in potential purchasers.
"Nothing will ever prevent piracy but more can be done to limit piracy. Just like more can be done by the industry to provide access to the content."
They really need to work on evening out this ratio. To date, "limiting" seems to be more of a priority than "providing."
P.S. This argument also bugs me: "X is an asshole so I'm going to pirate the shit out him." Really? I don't know how someone can argue "piracy's effect is overstated" or "piracy is a convenient scapegoat for the content industries" and then make a grand statement that you're going to punish someone by doing something ineffectual, only ANGRIER. Vindictive piracy makes absolutely no sense.
Whole-heartedly Agree! If you pirate content just to spite them, it provides ammunition for them. They can point to the levels of piracy as being a cause of action on the part of the legal system. If there is very little piracy there is little reason for the industry to be reactionary.
It's like threatening to kick someone's ass and then wailing the everliving shit out of the air three feet away from them.
[ 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 ]
Streaming
One thing I'll note is that I use stream sites like Youtube to get all my content. Using realplayer downloader plugin and a format converter I get all my music, and there is a low risk of being sued by studios. Even if I were sued, I think there is a good defense as all that content is saved to a temp folder on your hard drive anyways. It would be a big step to outlaw using content that is automatically downloaded to a temp folder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Streaming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Streaming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Streaming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's the true bullshit mentality that says "Mike Masnick supports piracy". I know, I know, you claim you don't support piracy. But this paragraph alone is the build up to why you think piracy (or unpaid enjoyment of other people's stuff) is acceptable. If the maker is going to get 0 either way, why not just enjoy it?
The truth is Mike that when you do without X, you often then enjoy Y. When you do without a movie, you don't just sit still, turning your brain off and doing nothing for 108 minutes. You do something else. If that something else is legal (like watching a movie you paid for or have the rights to watch) you have done something. So X got nothing, but Y got something.
Life doesn't operate like an economics calculation, done seperately for each transaction. Humans operate fluidly from one thing to another. There is always another transaction or another thing happening in absence of something.
So your justification for piracy, while amusing, is weak. But it does show you for the piracy supporter that you truly are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thing is the whole reason piracy was claimed to be wrong in the first place is "lost sales".
Since both "piracy" and "doing without" have the exact same results for the copyright holder just "doing without" instead of pirating is meaningless morality wise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
if they pirate, we know what they will be doing for the next 90 minutes. If they don't pirate, who knows?
It's just a simplistic way to justify piracy, and it doesn't fly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you do without X, X is deprived of any possible and potential income that could have arrived in the form of purchasing the next release.
So someone spends the money they would have spent on X on Y, only Y isn't a movie or CD, it's a video game. The movie and music studios will still bitch and complain. The content rights holder, and obviously the creator, still get $0.
However, they lose even more, because now they have 0 potential for FUTURE income.
You sound like an investment banker, economically short-sighted.
If we actually could stop all filesharing of copyrighted works, I guarantee you'd see even lower sales. But that's what you want isn't it. Then you could claim the indie movies and music are really copies of corporate owned material, but it's so well hidden like the samples in Vogue.
So then you can destroy the Internet's filesharing ability completely. Won't that be nice, kill off the obvious competition who'd actually benefit by the lack of corporate content on the filesharing networks?
Only then would the people who bitch and complain, MAYBE, see more income from the complete destruction of competition. That's really the goal isn't it?
Considering how piracy helped Battlestar Galactica become the highest watched Sci-Fi in the US months after coming out in the UK.
What if they didn't see it, what would the viewership/ad revenue and DVD sales be like? No confirmed good promotion (we all know the studios think their shit is good regardless), so what would that result in? Less sales!
It's not a justification, it's a "stop the bullshit" with the "do without" argument, because that's all it is; bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As if that's not enough, I have to sit here and watch copytard sycophants insist that we're all pirates. Seriously? You decide that we should "just go without" - we decide that you're going to "just go without" our money. Why are you entitled to the money if you didn't make the investment to make that profit? Why is that logic alright for you but not paying customers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“