MPAA Pretends 'Offering Something' Is The Same Thing As 'Offering What People Want'
from the and-that's-why-they're-such-failures dept
We recently wrote about David Pogue's article highlighting how the movie industry's failure to embrace what technology allows is a huge cause of infringement, and the industry still doesn't seem to get that. In response, in typically tone deaf fashion, MPAA spokesperson Howard Gantman has taken the usual tack of not actually addressing what Pogue wrote, but making an unrelated argument. He says that somehow, magically, because there are more crippled, annoying, expensive, incomplete movie services out there, no one should complain. You see, in the MPAA's world "offering something" is proof that they're innovating, even if it's not what people want.But this shows a rather remarkable lack of awareness of what customers seem to be saying. They're saying they don't want services that only let you watch a movie for 24-hours. They're saying that they don't want movies that cost ridiculous prices. They want reasonable access at reasonable prices -- and the reasons some people aren't flocking to some of these services isn't that they're evil "thieves," but that they don't find those new offerings compelling. The proper response is to make them more compelling. But, apparently, in the world of the MPAA, the response is to berate and guilt people for not using their crappy offerings.
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
Reader Comments
The First Word
“I cannot access any legit alternatives for online streaming due to my region. Even an incomplete service would be a blessing for me at this point. Instead, they are just blatantly forcing me (and in extension my country) to piracy, while trying to FORCE their laws here via the TPP.
Screw these guys.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Give me the content I want to watch in a way that I want to watch it. That is how you get my money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problem - as always - is money
If Hollywood used "number of paid views" as their benchmark of success, then they wouldn't have to try and nickel and dime every last cent out of every movie to prove how "successful" they are. Then they could focus on maximizing the number of people who paid the movie instead of how much they actually paid...
[ 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 ]
Made me laugh
This actually made me laugh out loud. HBO GO doesn't count at all, and that they don't realize that is downright hilarious. At least Ultraviolet is in the ballpark, even though it's so poorly done as to border on worthless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if they offered cars?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What if they offered cars?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What if they offered cars?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What if they offered cars?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What if they offered cars?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But maybe he's right. Maybe I should sign up for a dozen different video services in order to see all the movies I want. Then maybe what I pay for online streaming will match what people pay for cable. Or I could just get cable, and then enjoy some HBO GO.
Totally missing the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hush yo' mout'!
Yes we do! 24-hours is plenty of time when you're too rich to work for a living like we all are!
(consumers) don't want movies that cost ridiculous prices
We want them to cost more! We are all filthy rich and dumb as trucks!
(consumers) want reasonable access at reasonable prices
No we don't. We despise "reasonable" and think the MAFIAA types should control our entire lives - just like they think!
(consumers are) evil "thieves,"
And we're darned proud of it!!
(consumers) don't find those new offerings compelling
I do too! I find them as compelling as hell! I just looooove being screwed repeatedly up the backside by a cigar-chomping MAFIAA gang of doves!
I don't know what your problem is. The MAFIAA cabal is on the only right road just like they tell us. Hell, I should be able to declare them to the IRS as dependants (that means "evil slime-sucking low-lifes", right?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
Just because a customer wants something in a particular form doesn't give the customer the right to stomp their feet like a toddler when the company doesn't deliver. And boy does everyone around here expect the company to deliver immediately whenever anyone dreams of getting it, or else taking something is morally justified. At least that's the argument around here. Theft, piracy and "sharing" are all a-okay if some company doesn't deliver exactly what you want when you want it.
So when is my positive coverage of the RIAA going to arrive? If I don't get it, I'll have to think of some laws to violate once you fail to deliver. Boy that will be fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
Huh? That's EXACTLY the right of the consumer. We have the money. We don't have to give it to anyone we don't want.
So when is my positive coverage of the RIAA going to arrive?
As soon as they do something positive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
My real target are the blowhards around here who justify their piracy by saying that the record companies don't deliver the content in a form that meets an ever growing list of requirements. They don't spend and so they aren't "customers" even though Mike treats them as such in the articles that valorize their rationalizations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
Here's how most of these threads end up going.
1. Techdirt posts that XYZ seems like a bad move because it doesn't do anything for the customers and thus won't drive more sales.
2. Why are you justifying piracy?!?!?!?!
3. Us customers find something else to spend our money on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
Most TechDirt posts cycle around:
The *AA offering isn't going to attract customers.
Customers are going to ignore offering and still find the easiest route.
*AA person will yell that TechDirt endorses piracy.
TechDirt will reply that it does not endorse piracy, and that piracy will decrease if the legal *AA offering is easier to use. (As iTunes and Netflix demonstrate.)
Also that piracy is never going to go away, so find ways to make their media as available as possible.
Rinse and repeat because the shill wont listen or engage anyone here in a thoughtful discussion of how to make the best offering/service ever. I have some ideas!
For myself, I am happy to pay for what I want.
I just can't seem to find what I am looking for. Good thing I don't live overseas. At least I have some crappy choices in the US.
Oh yeah, while I'm typing, that digital download that comes with DVD/Bluerays - make it so I can view it on all of my devices (I paid for it, as desired!) and not some strange (Suspicious) file that I need some strange (Scary - Very Untrusted) media player that may be inventorying my system.
Just give me the file I bought and I'll play it on my VLC player.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
Can you actually point out the individuals to whom you are referring and prove that they don't pay for media?
Otherwise, you might as well be saying, "I'm not talking about everyone on this forum, just the ones that screw goats and think it's okay to wear white after Labor Day!"
As for the "ever growing list of requirements," I'm not sure what you're referring to.
There are plenty of indie music sites that sell music in multiple formats, that allow easy format shifting, that allow artists to release content for free via creative commons licenses and/or let artists allow fans to set their own prices, that allow streaming of their music on YouTube without issuing DMCA takedown notices, etc.
This is the 21st Century. The hard part for the RIAA companies to comply with customer demands is that they still have their heads up their asses, which is apparently where the 20th Century exists in some kind of infinite time vortex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
You misunderstand. This is not abot justification. The thing is, as long as the record companies don't deliver the content in a form that meets consumers' expectations, infringenment will keek happening. Whether Mike, you or I justify it or not is not relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
There will certainly be a good bit of thievery tucked in there as well but then, that's also an issue the old brick and mortar stores dealt with. Personally, I'm a musician and the changes in consumption patterns have been a total boon to the indie and new artist. When I started out in the 80s, getting heard beyond your home town was close to impossible and damnably expensive. Today I have a global market at my finger tips. It means working hard, learning and being open to what your fans want.
iTunes is projecting more than $13 billion in sales this year, the entertainment industries are taking in more money than ever before but they seem determined to alienate their audience. Ol' Mr Darwin has a thought for the moguls, adapt or perish. I love me some DVDs, I love special features and bonus content and I love packaging and art work. I'm middle aged, that's how I roll. I buy discs instead of downloads. But every damn purchase comes with an annoying, insulting and deeply stupid set of inconveniences. I'm sitting in my house with the disc I purchased, why am I being prevented from getting at the content I bloody well paid for? Oh, I have to have an MPAA warning, an FBI warning, I can't skip past the triumphant logos and then there's the advertising and previews for every piece of crap that the company is trying to foist off.
In my day job, we spend tons of time and money on UX, if I buy a legit product, don't berate me about piracy. I'm not a friggin' pirate. Make my experience as simple pleasant and rewarding as possible. That's basic. So here's the bottom line, every download or copy does not equal a lost sale. Period. The solution to downloading and copying is not to make the official releases more aggravating to use. Period. Screaming thief in the face of your fans and potential fans is not good business, does not build loyalty or encourage positive behaviour. Period. The fundamental media landscape has shifted and shy of arresting everyone on earth with a phone, a computer or digital device... it won't change back because a load of old, stupid, spoiled goofs are demanding progress be rolled back twenty years to accommodate a dead broken business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
The lack of a similarly fair alternative for movies is really vexing to people, myself included. For instance, I recently bought a digital copy of an old movie through Apple. I did not realize DRM limited it so that I can only play it on six different devices.
The requirements are not ever growing, really. People are looking for fair price (competitive with, say, a blockbuster or red box rental), fair use (a reasonable time limit for rental, and no DRM for bought-to-own digital content), and a decent, reliable selection that does not arbitrarily disappear (as it does for Netflix and hulu).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
You can't label people as pirates who aren't customers if you don't give them a reasonable chance to be customers. People are willing to spend their money, but they don't want to jump through hoops to give their money away.
Yes, I agree that it doesn't justify piracy, but who cares? Does the entertainment industry want money or not? To get customers' money, they have to offer a compelling product that is easy to buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
Stop complaining and just go straight to the source: http://riaa.com/
You won't be able to make any comments though. Have fun!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
Looking at the mothership - RIAA website.. Comments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
I show my respect to artists by giving them my money.
Supporting RIAA will never happen, not because I don't support artists, but because RIAA is engaging in actions that directly harm me, society, and an awful lot of what I hold dear.
They believe that the best way to support their clients (which are not the artists) is to restrict freedom from everybody, whether or not they even listen to music or watch movies at all. They have declared war on everybody. At that point, it no longer matters what their principles are, they must be opposed.
You do realize that this isn't the stance of Techdirt at all, nor is it the stance of most of the commenters here, right?
The point that's being made is that piracy is a much easier problem to address if you're actually meeting the needs of your customers, and the major labels and movie companies aren't meeting these needs at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
I was going to mark this post as funny by the end of the first paragraph since it was clearly a genius display of sarcastic wit and then I read the next paragraphs.
I'll make you a deal. I'll write something positive about the RIAA (even though we're talking about the MPAA in this article, but we'll excuse the off-topic nature of your rant just to be nice), as soon as the RIAA and their lobbyists actually start fighting to the artists' rights.
The RIAA is an organization of recording companies. They don't represent artists at all. They purport to, but in the same manner that Congressmen purport to represent their constituents when they pass legislation written by corporations for the benefit of corporations.
If the RIAA and their lobbyists are fighting for artists' rights, why aren't the companies making their standard contracts more fair to the artists they sign? Why aren't they changing the way advances and other accounting practices that charge artists for the privilege of creating profitable works of art for the labels work? Why are they fighting having to pay artists like Eminem a bigger share of the profits that he's earned for them? Why are they not making sure that royalties are actually getting to the artists? Why aren't they making sure that payments from the fans they shakedown for settlements go to the artists?
When you can show that the RIAA is doing those things, heck, even just one of those things, convincingly, I will write something positive about the RIAA.
As it is, the only nice thing I think I'll ever be able to say about the RIAA is that one day it will die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
And then they stomp their feet like toddlers that their customers are going to other sources to get the services that they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
How does one extend to the other at all?
That's a very common straw man around here but no, that's not what anyone is saying at all. What's being said is addressing those reasons is how you stop piracy, not screaming 'piracy' into the wind and stomping your feet like a toddle when the government doesn't write the laws you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
and "If you don't like it, you can take your business elsewhere."
Then when the customer takes his business to a retailer that not only custom designs his content to his liking, but does so at a reasonable price, you cry foul.
Hardly anyone here says "Theft" which has little to do with infringement, "Piracy" (see: Somalia) are okay. We do think "Sharing" (see: Caring) is alright, we've been sharing music since we learned how to talk.
In all seriousness, Most people here DO support artists, writers, singers, dancers, etc. But we choose to do so directly. Many of us Don't download illegally what is not available right now. That doesn't mean we don't have an opinion, or the business foresight to see what it would take for content industries to turn would be infringers into customers. or recognize that they are pushing potential customers further and further away with lawsuit scare tactics and punishing people for wanting their product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
I'd like to see you try to violate Techdirt's copyright in a way that anyone cares about, and which wouldn't be shortly fixed by social mores (as opposed to lawyers).
Copy all his sites content? He's already pointed out sites that scrape entire articles and repost them - without attribution. No one cares (or bothers reading them as far as I can tell). If somehow you attract readers, someone will point out that you were taking credit for Mike's work, and it will just drive more traffic to the real Techdirt. So good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
If they want to regain any part of there old customer base they need to start listening to there customer, there ignorance has already caused most music and video rental stores to close, and if they are not careful it will mean theatres and radio could be the next businesses that are boycotted, if they do not want to listen to there customer there customers will, and have stopped listening to them.
now go and tell them what you have learnt here, go and tell them that people actually do want to pay for content they consume, but however they charge customers it is going to have to compete with free and if they cannot figure out how to compete with free they need to get out of the business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
If these jackasses had their way you'd have the send them money every time you touched the disc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
I guess you missed the articles about Amanda Palmer, Louis C.K., Dan Bull and quite a few others. That's okay. I understand that ignorance is bliss and it's much easier to pretend Mike doesn't respect artists rather than realize he very much does and gladly puts artists before gatekeepers. (Thus all the articles denouncing those who claim to fight for the artists yet screw them at every turn. Want some links?)
"And by extension, more respect for the hard working lobbyists like the RIAA who are fighting for the artists' rights."
LOL! Wow. Delusional much? Those "hard working lobbyists like the RIAA" are fighting for everyone but the artists' rights. Namely, they're looking out for one group, the gatekeeprs/copyright holders (both of whom are seldom artists themselves).
And sorry, but why should Mike right anything respectful about a group whose methods have included suing people with little to no proof of having committed any type of crime, have colluded to inflate product prices, have routinely resorted to shady accounting practices to avoid paying artists, have falsified studies to lobby the government to legislate their business failings, have actually gone as far as to try and have laws passed that would lead to censorship, etc etc etc?
No, those "hard working lobbyists like the RIAA" deserve absolutely no respect whatsoever. And that you would place them on equal footing with actual artists is rather atrocious.
"Will I get it? I'm not holding my breath."
Good thing you aren't, because you won't get anyone to respect the RIAA. Ever. Nor the studios/labels. Their actions speak for themselves, and suffice it to say their actions are not the actions of individuals you would in any way, shape or form respect.
"Just because a customer wants something in a particular form doesn't give the customer the right to stomp their feet like a toddler when the company doesn't deliver."
Actually, it does give the customer the right to do exactly that. In case you aren't aware, which you obviously aren't, you are nothing without the customers. If you don't please your customers and meet their wants and needs you have no business. You can make all the records and films in the world, but if no one wants to buy them then you have nothing on your hands but a huge waste of time, effort and finances.
"And boy does everyone around here expect the company to deliver immediately whenever anyone dreams of getting it, or else taking something is morally justified."
No, taking something is not morally justified. Leave morals out of this. Yours aren't mine and mine aren't Mike's and so on and so forth. But when thought about reasonably, it's easy to see how some would feel justified in obtaining things by methods that aren't approved of.
Also, in this day and age, at this point in time, with all the technological advances we have literally at our finger tips it makes no business sense, much less any sense at all, to not try and deliver a product as quickly as possible to market for mass consumption/purchase. You can literally film a movie and have it ready for release and with the simple click of a button on a mouse and keyboard put it on a website and make it available for purchase to anyone around the world. A purchase that can take place within seconds, and where the customer can view it within seconds (assuming their internet bandwidth is fast enough).
So why can't they deliver it immediately, again? Let's hear your response. The technology isn't there? Lol. Silly rabbit. There's one reason and one reason only, they're stuck in the past and want to try and extract the maximum amount of profit through the use of windowed releases. A terrible sense of entitlement if I've ever seen one.
"At least that's the argument around here. Theft, piracy and "sharing" are all a-okay if some company doesn't deliver exactly what you want when you want it."
Don't conflate sharing with theft. The point is moot and has been slapped down more times than you'd believe on this site. And also, no that isn't the argument around here. The argument around here tends to be along the lines of we would love, abso-fucking-lutely love to give you money for a huge range of music and video products, unfortunately, due to a variety of restrictions and outdated business practices you don't want to sell us anything that is already available. As such, some people turn to less than legal methods of acquiring said products. After all, if you don't want our money, then you have no right to complain when someone is willing to give away the same product for free. We try and meet you, even now, more than halfway. We adamantly tell you we have money and want to give it to you and you turn us away. We then tell you how you can get our money and what we'd like in return and you and yours label us as pirates and tell us to mind our business. You then demand government protection, which at the end of the day we pay to put in place and enforce through taxes we pay, to defeat a problem that is a result of your own inability to meet the wants/demands of the market. Sorry, but if you don't want our money then I see no problem with not giving it to you. But suffice it to say if I decide to go with a less than legal alternative you have no right to complain.
"So when is my positive coverage of the RIAA going to arrive?"
When they do something positive. Until then we'll keep getting the same coverage on them that we've been getting.
"If I don't get it, I'll have to think of some laws to violate once you fail to deliver."
Technically, this site just covers what's going on. Nothing more, nothing less. As such, if you aren't getting positive coverage for the RIAA then it's because the RIAA isn't doing anything positive. Which means it won't be because "you" (Mike) fails to deliver, it will be because the RIAA fails to deliver. See what you did there? You blamed the wrong person. You don't work for the studios/labels by chance do you? Just asking, seeing as how you blame the wrong people for the wrong things.
As for violating laws, well... hop to it. But just keep in mind that violating the law can and does have consequences. Of course, sometimes they're almost nil, but that depends on what laws you violate. However, I'd be careful making such statements like you did because if you do violate a law someone could easily say, "He was going to do it and said so right here." That won't look good for you.
"Boy that will be fun."
Yeah, I'm sure it will be. But not as fun as it's been rebutting every single thing you said.
The sad part is you got a "LOL" next to your comment there. Because people thought the entire thing was a joke. So whatever point you thought you were going to make you didn't actually make. You're so over the top you fail on delivery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just got an email from VUDU: link
First movie listed is Disney Nature Chimpanzee at $22.99
Now a quick search on Amazon for the same movie: link is amazingly $22.99 for both BluRay and DVD.
Makes allot of sense to even consider digital purchases doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"a lot" is two words, it means "many"
"allot" is to set aside for a special purpose. (You can allot space for a delivery or you can allot funds for entertainment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'll give you part credit to helping out with grammar.
But OMG, you forgot the close your parentheses!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Grab your red pen, walk 10 paces, turn and start marking! :)
[I'm being silly by the way]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But, as usual, this discussion gives me reason to pirate by not giving me a reason to buy, a slight headache, and includes an oxford comma.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Never start a sentence with a conjunction!"
"But what about times when it seems necessary - like dialogue in which a person is responding to another speaker?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As far as examples go, this is one of the less egregious ones.
Good advice: I don't recommend reading YouTube comments. Your brain will hemorrhage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grammer Nazi - My Apologies
If people want instant gratification, they will justify piracy due to the lack of choices, restrictions and pricing. If they are willing to wait, they will simply purchase elsewhere and create their own digital copy; which in turn is probably creating more products in the "black market" of internet piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Grammer Nazi - My Apologies
I hate ripping my own DVD's. I'll admit I'm lazy and would rather the *AA made a nice clean non-drm file for me instead.
But they don't. TPB has them and I own the DVD (Yes, I buy too many and my wife isn't happy about it.) so I get the file.
I want to play ball with you guys, I really do. And hell, I'll give you my money!
We have a deal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Grammer Nazi - My Apologies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
off topic
http://www.techdirt.com/techdirt.com/articles/20120821/19130920119/dvd-is-dying-hollywoods-pl an-do-nothing-cede-ground-to-file-sharing.shtml
Second techdirt.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, if you're really so anti-piracy, then why don't you ever point the blame at the people who make the conscious decision to pirate? I don't get it. Why blame the victims? I think it's disgusting how you blame the rights holders for the fact that the pirates decide to violate their rights. Seriously. Please respond, if you would. {And to all of you who feel compelled to answer when Mike is directly asked a question, I honestly don't care what *you* have to say. I'm asking Mike for his answer, not yours.) Thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Masnick is too much of an intellectually dishonest, little man to admit it, but everyone knows it.
http://johndegen.blogspot.ca/2012/08/legitimate-piracy.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Fact: “One thing that we have learned is that piracy is not a pricing issue. It’s a service issue,” explained Newell. “The easiest way to stop piracy is not by putting antipiracy technology to work. It’s by giving those people a service that’s better than what they’re receiving from the pirates.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
isn't pointing out ways to more effectively reduce piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
isn't pointing out ways to more effectively reduce piracy."
I know it's pirate apologism!
Anytime Masnick complains about injustice in our fair and most absurdidly non-corrupt legislation system, it is definitively, unequivocally and rightfully pirate apologism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the kid had stolen 2 CDs from the store, he would have been fined like $250. Thats the problem with this case, troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The dumb little asshat also lied in court. He belongs in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's so easy with a single sentence to dismiss the numerous articles that Mike has written about ways to reduce piracy and to make money for artists if you just pretend they don't exist.
"We did a survey of Mike's articles that included a single article, and from that single sample article we can extrapolate that 100% of Mike's writing clearly shows that he's a pirate apologist!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You people jumped the shark a long time ago, but everyone seems to realize it but you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://i.imgur.c om/Op4CX.png
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You people jumped the shark a long time ago, but everyone seems to realize it but you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This "everyone" who seems to think "we" (whoever "you people" constitutes, as if we're all the same and unified in our beliefs and all argue the same thing) have jumped the shark seems to be a very vocal minority of anonymous shills and IP lawyers whose jobs depend on perpetuating a corrupt system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's just Masnick complaining about it every time it's enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What about false DMCA takedown notices? Where are the stories about how big companies that falsely swear under perjury that they have legitimate copyright claims getting punished for censoring free speech?
If there's no injustice there, then you don't know what the word means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
isn't pointing out ways to more effectively reduce piracy.
You're correct. It's pointing out the whacked out laws that govern this country. Just because you find the punishment unjust doesn't mean you support the crime.
I'm a bit old fashioned in that I don't support adultery. I prefer people to be honest with their spouse and agree to a lifestyle or move on. That said, I'll bitch left and right every time an adulterer gets death by stoning as punishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
isn't pointing out ways to more effectively reduce piracy."
Unfortunately, the settlement dished out to a pirate kid that lies in court is also not a way to reduce piracy. In fact an organisation that gloats about financially ruining someone's life out of pure spite is a good way to turn people off giving that organisation's member companies a single penny in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Really, if you tried and challenged TechDirt to come up with a service that would make you rich beyond your dreams, I honestly think TechDirt could easily get you farther than you are now.
As for getting rid of piracy, it isn't going away. You CAN significantly reduce it with awesome legal offerings. Or you can continue to call people names and cry at the existing piracy. Frankly, I'd rather be filthy rich and have happy customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He's already stated he's anti-piracy. End of story.
Secondly, realizing piracy exist and listing ways to EFFECTIVELY fight it (such as more legal offerings, giving the people what they want, etc.) is NOT him being a piracy apologists/supporting piracy.
Thirdly, fighting off symptoms (meaning blaming pirates for downloading this or that) is NOT going to solve the root problem (lack of legal alternatives for the masses).
"Why blame the victims?"
He's not blaming the victims, per se. He is however pointing out, just like any rational person, that the root cause of their problems is easily remedied by themselves and requires no outside sources/authorities to solve/fix said problem. That they rather cry and ineffectively combat piracy is foolish and a true waste of time/effort.
"I think it's disgusting how you blame the rights holders for the fact that the pirates decide to violate their rights."
I think it's disgusting how you blame the consumers for the fact that the industries are blatantly and almost maliciously ignoring consumer demands and wants/needs.
"Seriously."
Seriously. EMPHASIS ON SERIOUSLY!
"Please respond, if you would."
Translation: I will hound you incessantly, article to article, day after day, insult after insult UNTIL YOU GIVE ME THE ANSWER I WANT TO HEAR AND THEN I WILL KEEP INSULTING YOU BECAUSE I AM A CHILD AND CAN! RAWR!
"{And to all of you who feel compelled to answer when Mike is directly asked a question, I honestly don't care what *you* have to say. I'm asking Mike for his answer, not yours.)"
Translation: YEAH, I CAN F*CKING READ. BUT I DON'T LIKE YOUR ANSWERS EVEN IF YOU ARE DIRECTLY QUOTING MIKE (FROM PREVIOUS QUESTIONS/STATEMENTS/ARTICLES)! I WANT MIKE TO ANSWER ME! COME ON MIKE! WHY WON'T YOU ANSWER ME?! DEBATE ME! YOU PIRATE APOLOGIST YOU!!! RAWR!
"Thank you."
No, thank you. For that unbelievable nerve you just showed. Demanding Mike personally take time out of his day to respond to you, especially after you not quite call him out for questioning why those who are able to stop piracy fail to do so. Man, it must be tough for you up there on that cross. Wanna come down to where the rest of us are and realize piracy could easily be dealt with by giving the people more legal options that don't require signing up for and paying for 50 different services? (We'll start small with that. Then we'll work to offering it to people outside the United States. I don't want to risk pushing you too hard now. I know how fragile sanity is for some like yourself. Wouldn't want you snapping and demanding Mike answer your question now, would we?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hardly. Day after day it's post after post defending pirates and blaming the victims. Are you seriously suggesting that TD is an anti-piracy blog?
Secondly, realizing piracy exist and listing ways to EFFECTIVELY fight it (such as more legal offerings, giving the people what they want, etc.) is NOT him being a piracy apologists/supporting piracy.
Of course it exists. We all realize that. What he does is write articles like this where he blames the victims. Instead of trying to get the victims to change their ways (when they have no duty to do so), why don't you guys focus on getting the lawbreakers to stop violating other people's rights. Saying "it exists" while blaming the victims for its existence is the definition of pirate-apologism.
Thirdly, fighting off symptoms (meaning blaming pirates for downloading this or that) is NOT going to solve the root problem (lack of legal alternatives for the masses).
There are legal alternatives. And if there's something you want that there is no legal alternative for, you don't get it. It's called the real world. The internet isn't special. The rules still apply. Blame the pirates, not the victims. I wouldn't blame Mike if someone violated his rights. That would be disgusting. But it's what you and Mike and the rest of the TD crew do everyday. Pirates, blame thyselves. Trying to pretend like the victims are to blame for the wrongs that are committed against them is absolutely disgusting.
He's not blaming the victims, per se. He is however pointing out, just like any rational person, that the root cause of their problems is easily remedied by themselves and requires no outside sources/authorities to solve/fix said problem. That they rather cry and ineffectively combat piracy is foolish and a true waste of time/effort.
The root cause of their problem is the fact that other people consciously decide to violate their rights. They have done nothing wrong, and despite Mike's obvious opinion to the contrary, they don't deserve it. You don't blame. It's absolutely disgusting what you and Mike and the rest do.
I think it's disgusting how you blame the consumers for the fact that the industries are blatantly and almost maliciously ignoring consumer demands and wants/needs.
You don't need movies and music. Just like in the real world, if you don't like someone's offerings, you don't have to buy it. If it's not available, you don't get it. Pretending like the internet makes all the wrongdoing OK is just disgusting.
You certainly carry the TD torch well ("Blame the victims 'cause they didn't give me exactly what I want!"), but in the end, you know that what I'm saying is right. There is *no one* to blame for piracy but the pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, I'm not suggesting TD is an anti-piracy blog. I know it isn't. Just because they don't harp on and on like the MPAA site or like David Lowery's site about piracy and about how evil everyone who does it is DOES NOT make it not an anti-piracy site.
Mike has plenty of articles going on about artists succeeding in the new digital era. He has article after article discussing all the new ways to TRY to change and attempt new business models. And so on and so forth.
But because he dares to say, "Hey guys, that idea you have to defeat piracy. That's not going to work. Because of reasons X, Y and Z." Well, your post is evidence of what that leads to. "Piracy apologist blog blah blah blah."
"Of course it exists. We all realize that. What he does is write articles like this where he blames the victims. Instead of trying to get the victims to change their ways (when they have no duty to do so), why don't you guys focus on getting the lawbreakers to stop violating other people's rights. Saying "it exists" while blaming the victims for its existence is the definition of pirate-apologism."
No, you don't realize that. Because if you did you wouldn't spend millions on lobby efforts to combat what can't be eradicated. You'd realize that instead of wasting money on fruitless endeavors, you could use those same funds to start innovating and coming up with new methods to offer people what they want, AND NOT LIMITING THEM. (Meaning, not U.S. only, or eee sorry you have to sign up with all 20 services to enjoy content from ALL the industries/labels/studios.)
Your problem is well laid out in that article about having a car broken into to get at the iPod inside. Rather than, you know, not leave the valuable iPod and technology lying in the front seat. You immediately demand that others change their ways of life to prevent the theft, then accusing others who don't want to change their lifestyles to protect yours as supporting theft.
We're not blaming the victims. The victims are the artists/creators. We're putting the fault for the state of affairs squarely where it belongs, on the gatekeepers and copyright holders WHO REFUSE TO CHANGE AND ADAPT.
"There are legal alternatives. And if there's something you want that there is no legal alternative for, you don't get it. It's called the real world. The internet isn't special. The rules still apply. Blame the pirates, not the victims. I wouldn't blame Mike if someone violated his rights. That would be disgusting. But it's what you and Mike and the rest of the TD crew do everyday. Pirates, blame thyselves. Trying to pretend like the victims are to blame for the wrongs that are committed against them is absolutely disgusting. "
No, there are legal alternatives FOR SOME. (FTFY.) You're falling back on the handful of options you allow us and saying, "See! We're trying!" Then getting mad when we say but what about this and that, what about if I live here, what if I don't have a credit card from Country A, etc. etc. etc.
And then immediately after you fall back to the "do without" argument. Which ends with no one winning at all. Yeah, real smart business move. "You want to give me your money for a product I have but am currently refusing to sell to you? GET THE FUCK OUT HERE WITH THAT YOU FUCKING ENTITLED PRICKS! AND DON'T YOU DARE ACQUIRE IT ELSEWHERE BECAUSE THAT'S STEALING AND CAUSING ME A SALE!"
And could you stop with the "disgusting" bit. Really, we get it. You're morally outraged. No need to repeat yourself incessantly. Stop trying to not debate me! RAWR! (Lol. Just kidding.) Leave your moral outrage at the door. Everyone has different morals, there's no room to bring them into any discussion.
And also, stop with the assumptions. I'm no pirate. I'm a paying customer. But you're high and mighty-ness is certainly not making me want to go out and buy any content. I've got enough comics and books to last me a lifetime (literally). There's enough free content out there (of the legal variety) for when I want a break. And guess what that does? GETS YOU NOT A DIME! Why? Because of your attitude I'm avoiding not giving a cent to people like you. Congratulations. You're officially a pirate because you just caused Warner Bros. and Universal Music lost sales. YOU'RE DISGUSTING!
"The root cause of their problem is the fact that other people consciously decide to violate their rights. They have done nothing wrong, and despite Mike's obvious opinion to the contrary, they don't deserve it. You don't blame. It's absolutely disgusting what you and Mike and the rest do."
The root cause of the problem is an ancient mindset and an unwillingness to meet consumer demand. Period. All you have to do is quit with the windowed releases (both time and geographical), allow for more legal methods and ways to purchase the content, offer it at a reasonable price (no one wants free, some do, but the majority of us would have no problem paying if you didn't try to milk the content for every cent you felt entitled to), and watch the money roll in. You'd be amazed at how much you'd make if you'd just try it. Literally. Just try it. With a few popular items. It'll make you smack your head into a wall when you realize how stupid you and your kind have been and how moronic you are for ignoring what we've been telling you. In fact, heads might roll for not having done this sooner.
"You don't need movies and music. Just like in the real world, if you don't like someone's offerings, you don't have to buy it. If it's not available, you don't get it. Pretending like the internet makes all the wrongdoing OK is just disgusting.
You certainly carry the TD torch well ("Blame the victims 'cause they didn't give me exactly what I want!"), but in the end, you know that what I'm saying is right. There is *no one* to blame for piracy but the pirates."
I don't have to buy it. But like in the real world, we each and every one of us have choices we can make. Legal or not. Whether you like them or not. Because at the end of the day we have free will and can decide for ourselves what to do or not do. And that's the problem. You don't like that there are alternatives, illegal or not. So if you don't want my money, well... fuck it, no skin off my back. Hey, that guy down the street is GIVING AWAY movies. I'm not interested but I'll take one off him anyway. (This is an example, not something I'd do.)
Pretending like the internet is inherently evil and out to get you instead of an amazingly useful to to put your product out their for monetary compensation and a new way to move forward in releasing and distributing content is BLOODY DISGUSTING. And you're a bad, ugly, filthy, dirty moron with no soul for thinking like you do. (See. I can just throw around insults too.)
Oh and I don't carry a torch for anyone or anything besides my family and friends. I will however call out stupidity when I see it. Not wanting to sell people your product, despite them wanting to pay you for it is a stupid move. Thinking that you can legislate your woes away with bad laws that encroach on the rights of others is a stupider move. Not listening to those who are trying to help you help yourself is slightly stupider than the previous stupidity. And so on and so forth.
At the end of the day, I know one thing. You're an idiot who can't be reasoned with. And when things NEVER go your way or even if piracy is completely done away with through magical fairy dust tomorrow, your problems won't be solved. And you still won't get a dime from myself and many others. What then? Legislate to automatically take money from my paycheck because that's not fair? I wouldn't put it past you. What with being victims and all. The world's just out to get you. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If there's something you want that there is no legal alternative for, you can still get it. That's the real world. Once content providers realize this and do start offering legal alternatives, I'm guessing they'd have a lot fewer headaches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We don't. What happens? Your bosses run straight to the government whinig about piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nothing in the comment suggested that, so why would you even suggest it? Oh that's right, it's because you think you're clever...
"Instead of trying to get the victims to change their ways (when they have no duty to do so)..."
Currently they are falling grossly short of meeting customer demand. If they won't change their ways, they will go out of business. This is a simple economic fact. We have no duty whatsoever to give them any money if we don't want to. You can bleat about piracy all you want, but that won't actually make customers happy.
"...why don't you guys focus on getting the lawbreakers to stop violating other people's rights."
At this point, the "lawbreakers" massively outnumber those desperately trying to enforce it, probably by several orders of magnitude. At what point to you conceded that the law might actually be wrong, and simply does not match up to what technology has made so easy and commonplace and what customers want?
"I wouldn't blame Mike if someone violated his rights. That would be disgusting."
Mike's rights are different to Mike's government-granted monopoly privileges. Don't confuse the two, they are not equal.
"You don't need movies and music."
For a minute there you sounded like you were trying to convince everyone they must pay for music and movies. Now you say we don't need them. That is not a good sales pitch. The people actually trying to make money this way must cringe when people like you make such misjudged comments. I don't actually disagree with your sentiment, but it doesn't help your case one bit.
"Just like in the real world, if you don't like someone's offerings, you don't have to buy it. If it's not available, you don't get it."
Sorry, in case you missed it, in "the real word" these things are available anywhere and any time. And in what other industry would someone claim "If we won't provide it, you can't have it"? Competitors would laugh all the way to the bank.
"Pretending like the internet makes all the wrongdoing OK is just disgusting."
I don't recall anyone making such a ridiculous claim. That one came straight from your head. However pretending the internet hasn't completely changed the way customers want their movies and movies delivered to them is equally boneheaded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We don't care what you have to say either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Example Service: Playstation Network
Firstly, on principal, I am not willing to waste 5-10GB on something I don't get to keep, so that rules out rental. Bandwidth is valuable over here, so I don't want to waste it. I'm never likely to rent it again, so the studios would lose nothing by letting people keep the files.
Secondly, I can usually buy the fucking Blu-ray, somewhere on the internet, for $10-$20, so they have fat chance of convinging me to fork out double, for an inferior digital copy.
Thirdly, the content is locked, not only to my PSN account, but to the Playstation itself. I can't shift it to my media PC and watch it and there's only so much room on a PS3 HDD.
But, it's "available," right?
Screw you Sony/ It's cheap Blu-ray or a Scene release for me and you will never make me feel any guilt because of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Example Service: Playstation Network
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Example Service: Playstation Network
I decided to purchase some videos while travelling on Sony's MediaGo. I figured once I get back to the States, I could simply transfer the videos over to the PS3 to watch on my TV. Needless to say transferring wasn't the easiest. I first transfered the videos over to my PSP and then over to the PS3. The one caveat that I didn't notice was that once you transfer the videos, you no longer own these videos. The license changes from ownership to rental without informing the customer of anything. Needless to say it was about 1600円 spent on something that just vanished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Example Service: Playstation Network
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Artistic Megalomania.
The only thing that comes close to the selection or versatility of piracy is going to Amazon and buying physical media and then creating your own files from that.
However that is a lot of bother and may even be illegal.
But mostly it's a lot of bother.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They know how to compete with pirates they just do not want to.
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I cannot access any legit alternatives for online streaming due to my region. Even an incomplete service would be a blessing for me at this point. Instead, they are just blatantly forcing me (and in extension my country) to piracy, while trying to FORCE their laws here via the TPP.
Screw these guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And dont even get me started on the percieved value discussion that is part of "Hollywood accounting" -
"If I sell a track at a price of 2 dollar and people are willing to pay 5 dollar for the track, I am loosing 3 dollar for each track I am selling. The lower prices I am selling at is ruining me and all because I have to compete against piracy."
While most people will cry at the logic, it is actually applicable in some situations: Monopolies! When such arguments are used about sale of music, I start to wonder how the music industry worked in the olden days and how it is possible to make such a huge chain of people for each artists as the big 4 or 6: Moneygathering, quality-scouting, litigation, music, editing, production, cover, local marketing, local retailing, music videos, non-local litigation, non-local marketing, non-local retailing, royalty collection and more... That is a breathtaking chain of middlemen and in most other areas some of the middlemen would be cut, but in this case they add several new middlemen: Lobbyists, semi-local litigation, semi-local marketing, semi-local retailers, remixers, local antipiracy organisations, semi-local antipiracy organisations, copyrightlawyers and a split of royalty collection to be even more local than ever before! I see this solution being one of the biggest parts of the problem...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.imagebanana.com/view/cylb1y9a/notintheus02.png
http://www.imagebanana.com/view/ bir0hq1i/notintheus01.png
http://www.imagebanana.com/view/tc7dq5jq/notintheus03.png
http://www .imagebanana.com/view/zl1nw2dn/notintheus04.png
And you know what? I'm even using Lovefilm Video on Demand because that's actually available. But I'm not using it in a way that if I want to see a particular movie or TV show, I'll turn to Lovefilm VoD, because most likely it won't be there. Rather, I'm using it when I don't want to watch anything in particular or want to discover something new.
So what should I do if I want to see something in particular? For instance, Paranorman has just hit theaters over here. And I would love to see it. Unfortunately, it's only playing in the biggest and most expensive theater around and I'm avoiding that theater because it's too expensive and still 30 minutes away. So I'll have to wait for the DVD. But by the time the DVD is being released, I'll probably have forgotten about this movie. And so I'll probably just watch it if I happen to stumble upon it on Livefilm or on TV someday. Is that really what Hollywood wants?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confused
It is also true, is it not, that downloading pirated content, irrespective of what the studios do or do not do, _ensures_ that artists don't get _any_ compensation from the consumer, isn't it? It seems to me that two wrongs don't make a right. If you want access to a wide range of content from a convenient digital distribution system, that is understandable, but just because you can't get what you want through legal means is not a justification for theft. It would be if we were talking about something necessary for life but if you really want to watch a movie or listen to a song, and you can't see that movie or hear that song except through either piracy or a slow/inconvenient purchasing system, isn't it incumbent on you to accept personal inconvenience rather than do the one thing that absolutely, unambiguously ensures no revenues will revert to the artist(s) who created the content?
This argument falls apart if it can be convincingly demonstrated that there is some mechanism by which copyright violation and piracy actually increase revenues, and I am not arguing that digital movie distribution as it exists doesn't encourage piracy. But I think for the sake of precision we have to distinguish between the (it seems to me) indisputable reality that consumers are not well served by current distribution systems, and whether or not it is legally and morally supportable to commit content piracy. We can debate specifics --the ridiculously inappropriate penalties asked for, which in any case don't seem to make an iota of difference, for instance --but at the same time, I feel very uncomfortable with what seems to me to be an abdication of personal responsibility in some of the pro-piracy arguments.
Or are they not actual pro-piracy arguments? Are they actually arguments that the current system(s) encourage piracy? If that is the case, then doesn't it still come down to being willing to accept some personal inconvenience to obtain content while hoping/waiting/working for improvements? Sure, the system's deeply flawed, but stealing is stealing . . . or isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confused
No, that is demonstrably false.
Studies have repeatedly shown the people who download the most infringing material are also some of the highest spenders on content. There is nothing to be gained by vilifying them, because it won't make them pay more but it may make them choose to pay less.
Similarly many who download simply can't or won't ever pay. There is nothing to be gained by vilifying them, because it won't make them pay more but may make them chose to stop listening or watch an artist's material, and that helps nobody. Obscurity is a bigger threat than piracy.
And most people here can tell stories making purchases based on first seeing content for free. People pay to see live performances of a band because of what they pirated. People go to the movies to see something they just watched on their computer because they enjoyed it so much, or it was simply what their friends were going to see.
Call that piracy apologism if you want; I just call it reality.
Oh, and consult your dictionary. Piracy is not stealing. The two are quite different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Confused
The practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea.
A similar practice in other contexts, esp. hijacking.
Perhaps I am missing something but the key point here seems to be theft, no? Perhaps you could clarify your point?
I understand your second point (that piracy is justified because those who download the most infringing material are also those who spend the most on content.) If you can point me to a primary source or sources that verify that, that would be great (or I can look myself.)
I am not trying to "vilify" anyone, merely to understand the issues at play. Just because someone pays a lot for other content, does not in and of itself make infringing copyright through illegally downloading content defensible legally or justifiable ethically, it seems to me. They are two separate issues. It seems a logically flawed argument; as if saying a person who buys ten cars is entitled to steal one every once in a while.
By the way, I'm not looking for a fight; I produce content for a living (I'm a magazine writer and book author) and I'm trying to understand some of the issues involved in digital content distribution. I'm also, by the way, not saying that there is anything great about current distribution platforms; the dearth of reliably present, reasonably well packaged video/film content irks me just as much as the next guy, but I still don't think that makes stealing content OK.
Cheers,
Anonymous Coward, as the system would have me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Confused
Leave cars (or any other truly scarce resource) out of it. If you could make copies of cars it would translate. 'Twould be tempting to copy a car, wouldn't it? I'm a fan of late 60s muscle cars, yum...but to go and steal one? Thinking on it, I'd get less time and fines for stealing an old Chevelle than being found guilty of infringement for even one 3 minute song...
It is my belief that entertainment industry types are ABSOLUTELY responsible for the mess they are claiming they're in. They could've co-opted the Napster model but did not. They could've co-opted the MegaUpload model but did not. They are so concerned with their own preposterous non-workable methods and self-made licensing traps that they are strangling themselves. They have had going on decades to get new models off the ground and they have not - not in any majorly successful way.
How can you make money on what you refuse to sell? Why would someone freak out over someone with no legitimate way to obtain something being able to obtain it? All I can think of is that lobbying and buying legislation and/or enforcement is cheaper than being real, live business people. Real businesses adapt and change with the times, they do not expect everyone else to live in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Confused
There was a great (as a writer, I thought it was great, anwyay) video I saw on YouTube not too long ago, of a blogger whose work had been lifted word for word by a local newspaper; he videotaped himself serving them with a letter notifying them they had infringed his copyright and asking for compensation. With considerable anger, the editor of the offending newspaper cut him a check. The mere fact that content is available does not transfer copyright to anyone who wants to use it. I haven't heard an argument thus far that convinces me otherwise.
And again, I haven't (and won't, as a dissatisfied consumer myself of virtually every streaming video service available to me) argued that things don't need improvement, or that in some ways the existing situation doesn't encourage piracy. Someone leaving their laptop on a commuter train does too, but that doesn't mean I'm not obliged ethically to try and return it.
My only point in all this is that I think understandable frustration with how poorly the existing system works is somehow being conflated with other, related but separate issues. Those who own the copyright to content --well, it's been said, they own copyright to that content. I may not find the way they want to deliver it convenient, but that still doesn't entitle me to infringe on their ownership. And the car analogy does stand, I think, insofar as the fact of a car being a physical object is not necessary (substitute paying for any service entitling you to steal some at your discretion, if you like.)
Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Confused PS
AC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Confused
"Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as theft. In copyright law, infringement does not refer to theft of physical objects that take away the owner's right, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.[6] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright... 'an infringer of the copyright.'"
It is an interesting situation --""piracy of copyright" seems to be a time-honored term which is used, as far as I have been able to tell, without objection in legal opinions up to the 21st century but "theft" of copyright narrowly speaking is something that does not occur; instead "infringement" does.
AC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Confused
Your example of the writer's article being lifted word for word and passed off without credit is, to me, more related to fraud than anything copyright related. That's how I feel about plagarism in general - it is low, it is lying, it is false representation, it is fraudulent, it is far closer to theft than if I merely quoted the entire article on my blog with accreditation to the author - a situation that would expose me to claims of copyright infringement despite the fact that my quotation was for the purposes of criticism, in example. Merely the claim and ensuing mess is a problem that is far too common these days - and that is shutting folks down in ye olde free speech department.
Copyright *abuse* is, I feel because I've been reading around on it for some years now, what this site and other bigger heads than mine are pushing back against. The tying up, locking down, intimidation, blatant overreaching and overtextension of copyright is only making respect for it dwindle.
Shut up or I'll sue you. That is the leading lesson of copyright these days, and with more people cramming their whims onto the vast communication medium that is the internet, that sentiment - shut up or I'll sue you - is going to be met with either sheeplike silence or precedent setting caselaw that makes everything more confusing. And a healthy dose of "oh do feck off!" underneath both.
Digitally distributed content is disposable, gained with a click, gone with a click. Effort or costs sunk into it mean nothing, the container holding the final product is emminently disposable and therefore infinite. You can monetize service, convenience, and other scarcities (iTunes and NetFlix come to mind), but to bet it all on sales per digital file is where madness lies.
Had I the skills, I could set up a program to continually copy and delete anyone's latest digital offering, 24/7/365 from a "free" source. I have it, I don't, I have it, I don't. In the end, what would anyone have lost by this? Nothing. If I didn't delete any of the copies but merely filled terabyte drives full of them, same question. What has been lost? What harm has been done? If I handed out those drives to people on the street, what harm has been done? Some stranger has a terabyte drive filled with a billion copies of the *same damn thing* when only one will do (that he may or may not give one good goddamn about in the first place)...it's fricken WORTHLESS to him except as hardware.
Johnny in *unserved nation/state here* has no legitimate way to see a four year old Hollywood offering. Where is the loss to Hollywood if he finds it on the internet, at a stall in the street, or terabyte drive lying in the yard? No loss, they weren't bothering to sell it to him. Why should they care?
We are in agreement: things should be better. I truly feel that the only way to make them better is to curtail copyright law, to streamline and simplify and, good gawd, shorten it (dead folk don't create), perhaps even require registration again, to really push back against the abuses in most sharp and pointy ways. That is the only way that respect for it will be anything like regained. And even that might not even work. Copyright infringes upon the most basic human endeavors: sharing and communication of what we experience. To expect laws to shut all that down...not very likely.
Apologies, you seem a decent sort and I'm ranting. But I'm actually quite upset - as a consumer AND as a creator - at the ugly extent that copyright law has been used to stifle or intimidate people into shutting up or shutting down...it's the height of arrogance for one "creator" to slap down another based on emotion and use the law to further a sad situation. It's worse that it's not creators much of the time but "rightsholders" who are doing the bullying, demanding respect in the name of artists they routinely shaft with all sorts of financial chicanery.
I worry because we are all the losers when expression is silenced using the law, and that happens far too frequently anymore. Too much expecting to be asked permission than appreciating that we have contributed to the universe and all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Confused
Sorry, I didn't mean you personally, but the vilification of copyright infringers in general.
"Just because someone pays a lot for other content, does not in and of itself make infringing copyright through illegally downloading content defensible legally or justifiable ethically, it seems to me. They are two separate issues. It seems a logically flawed argument; as if saying a person who buys ten cars is entitled to steal one every once in a while."
There are a lot of hang-ups about supposed "justification" of piracy in critical comments here, but most of the time it's not justification at all, simply an explanation of the facts. But the point I was making is not that buying some content justifies pirating some other content, but that if you attack people who download your content, you may well be attacking your fans, customers and potential customers. It's very unlikely your actions will get more people to pay up. so you may well end up with fewer people giving you money as a result. If you're in this business to make money, you should carefully weigh up that risk and decide if it's worth it. The view may be great up on a high horse but the income isn't.
And the car analogy is a common but terrible one. Comparing scarce physical items with non-scarce digital data simply doesn't work economically or logically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Confused
Not to beat a dead horse (which I think the car analogy has become) but again, I made it not so much to assert any economic equivalence between theft of a car and infringement of copyright, merely to point out that multiple instances of purchasing something doesn't entitle one to a certain amount of larceny as well. All analogies fail at some point, of course --I still think the basic logical point is valid. Now, taken in view of your other point, yes, there's a customer relations aspect to all this --I mean, I personally think the way the recording, gaming, and movie industries have prosecutied copyright infringement is incredibly disproportionate and excessive; absurdly high trial costs, ridiculous penalties with no conceivable bearing in reality; punitiveness for its own sake. All that is true. In the middle of all this, though, we still each remain individuals who do have (I think) personal responsibility to decide whether or not we feel it's justifiable to infringe copyright. I'm not at all advocating for the absurd behavior of content providers or for their self-defeating behavior; merely saying that we can deplore their failures without abdicating personal responsibility for what is, after all, a violation of the rights not just of the producers and distributors, but of the creators of content as well. Yes, they've shot themselves in the foot countless times and probably alientated a couple of generations' worth of customers very badly. But I still have the personal freedom and responsibility to decide if I am going to infringe copyright or not.
AC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
The lack of a similarly fair alternative for movies is really vexing to people, myself included. For instance, I recently bought a digital copy of an old movie through Apple. I did not realize DRM limited it so that I can only play it on six different devices.
The requirements are not ever growing, really. People are looking for fair price (competitive with, say, a blockbuster or red box rental), fair use (a reasonable time limit for rental, and no DRM for bought-to-own digital content), and a decent, reliable selection that does not arbitrarily disappear (as it does for Netflix and hulu).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]