Doug Stanhope: Piracy Is A Problem Only If You Think Of It As A Problem
from the frame-of-mind dept
As the legacy of Louis CK grows, as does his fanbase and his ability to get the closed to be more open, it's worth noting that comedians have long existed on the edge of the IP world. While some comedians will occasionally pull out the copyright card, accusations of joke-stealing and copyright infringement of their acts haven't found the same hold as in music and movies. There is a great deal of borrowing and tweaking going on in the joke world and yet the comedy business is still around.Now we can add another comedian to the list of folks who just don't see infringement as a problem, and think of the internet as a boon rather than a threat: Doug Stanhope. In an interview with Wired -- which is hilarious enough to be worth reading the entire thing -- the former Man Show frontman took on the notion that piracy is harmful.
The internet has done nothing but good for comedy all around. Comedians no longer have to rely on TV execs and club owners deciding if they are funny or not. There’s the problem of piracy if you think it’s a problem. I credit piracy with getting my name known enough to have a decent career. People bootlegging shows on cellphones and putting material out before it’s finished is a problem for every comic, but compared to all the upsides of what the internet has done, it’s a fact of life that we’ll learn to adapt to even if it means finding these people and killing their families in front of them.Now, I'm at least 75% certain that the last bit about killing families for infringement is a joke, but his larger point is a gem. When we, all of us, think about what we want the internet to be, it is important for us to weigh the sum total of its impact. If I may extrapolate on Stanhope's statement, I would argue that this completely undermines the view the piracy and/or sharing must be stamped out on simple moral grounds. We've all heard the "but piracy is just wrong!" arguments (or, heard that in substitute of an actual argument) but that's nonsense. Piracy, infringment, and sharing would be wrong if there were a net-negative impact on the works being infringed upon or shared. If there is a net-benefit to those people, as Stanhope suggests there indeed is, how in the hell could that be morally wrong?
Further on that point, while some may argue that it is still wrong because the infringers are not respecting the wishes of the artist, look at how Stanhope frames it: Piracy is a problem if the artist thinks it's a problem. Bootlegged shows and uploads may present challenges and problems, but they are going to adapt. It seems to me that it is every bit incumbent upon artists, be they comedians or musicians, to change their frame of reference as it is on the internets denizens to respect the artist's wishes.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: adapting, comedy, doug stanhope
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> continue to attempt to shoehorn physical
> goods morality onto non-physical goods
And Google. Don't forget Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not making any money in your business is a problem only if you think it's a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ideas and thoughts aren't infinite!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your second point is even further from the mark. This blog has never been against companies making money. Quite the contrary, it often advocates methods that businesses can use to make a lot of money. It also bemoans opportunities to make a lot of money that RIAA companies have passed up as they tried to cling to its antiquated business models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "People Problem"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ 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 ]
leats
really? are you trying to make my head hurt more?
There is something wrong with the dyslexic complaining about typos... but yeah...
Piracy is and continues to be the scapegoat for all of your artistic ills... and the smart ones are breaking out of that idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I was just trying to save you from the grammar and spelling nazis who will totally discount everything you say if you juggle your and you're.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay, now what about $100M movies?
"Piracy is a problem if the artist thinks it's a problem." -- Okay, some do. Now where's your solution besides mere contradiction?
All hail Mike "Streisand Effect" Masnick!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
To properly honor Mike, I propose "Masnick Defect" as term for out-of-bounds self-aggrandizement such as years of trying to turn a single quip into fame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, now what about $100M movies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Okay, now what about $100M movies?
Are Hollywood accountants that stupid not to see such a goldmine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Okay, now what about $100M movies?
I also, I want $1,000M statues, but you masnick-loving freetardians keep saying that the statue can be seen from miles away so why should you pay. You people make me sick. Can't you just avert your eyes until you've paid the creator?! No, you pirate glances at the $1,000M statues making it impossible for that creator to make more.
Stupid freetardian, masnick-devil-hitler-loving, stalinesque pirating, pol potian grifters the lot of you!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Okay, now what about $100M movies?
no... no you can't...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Okay, now what about $100M movies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, now what about $100M movies?
Also, you continue to make yourself look the brain dead moron you are by referring to Mike on an article that Mike did not write.
The sooner you die, the better for humanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Okay, now what about $100M movies?
That's a bit harsh. I think you're assuming a person can be that brain-dead and still comment on the internet; which ignores more likely alternatives like "he's a paid shill"--seriously, ever notice how the trolls get quiet when certain laws reach their crux time?
It's possible he's here to do a job, to attempt to disrupt this hub of subversive activity, while simultaneously paying attention to what's being said.
Now, a lurker could observe and report, but if you want to disrupt a group you *must* be vocal and ludicrous.
See how we waste our time responding to his nonsense?
And every time a troll fades away, another steps in and fills the exact same function, almost as though somebody hired a replacement. Their number here is constant--the logical conclusion: paid shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Okay, now what about $100M movies?
Seriously?! You need to get over yourself. Plus, I don't think you understand what "subversive" means (or do you work for the people you're trying to 'overthrow?'). A little perspective might be in order; try reading up on current world events.
And you know, you seem to have A LOT of time to post endlessly here, floating conspiracy theories about the media; there's no way a person with a full-time job could do that, so obviously you must be the paid shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Okay, now what about $100M movies?
What if the Hinduism is correct and he gets reincarnated as an even worse person (because he's certainly not coming back any better)...?
That would then be worse for humanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Okay, now what about $100M movies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay, now what about $100M movies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay, now what about $100M movies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, now what about $100M movies?
Oh right, because the costs are all fictitious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Okay, now what about $100M movies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, now what about $100M movies?
And I strongly challenge the notion that this kind of costs are necessary to begin with. If I take a look at fan made no budget movies and the type of CGI and visual special effects they can make in their spare time essentially for free, there is no reason to this insane costs at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, now what about $100M movies?
And the $100+ million movies that were decent, like Lord of the Rings, didn't seem to have any trouble making huge profits.
So what the hell is your point? Do you want good movies, or just expensive movies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Okay, now what about $100M movies?
Don't lie like that. No movie has ever made a profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Okay, now what about $100M movies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay, now what about $100M movies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Okay, now what about $100M movies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, now what about $100M movies?
When are you going to make good on your threats, and fuck off the site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Six Months
Nice going...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abolish copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Abolish copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Abolish copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, that hasn't stopped us from drafting and vigorously expanding a host of laws to try to accomplish just such a thing, but I think by now we are all familiar with their lack of effectiveness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Somewhere, an MPAA/RIAA executive is freaking out trying to figure out how Doug managed to obtain a leaked copy of the top secret next draft revision of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you have the money for lawyers to constantly look out for you and fight for you, then you're already a success because you've made that much money sot this is not a worry for you.
If you haven't made it big yet and you don't have much money, it wastes so much creative time and effort worrying about people stealing your stuff that you're always paranoid and angry and can't even be a good writer/performer any more. And of course hoarding your stuff defeats the purpose.
I think you should prioritize your time, money & energy to protect the biggest most important things (e.g. if you spent ten years writing a book & you want to sell it, do make the effort to get it copyrighted) and then be kind to yourself and relax over the less important things and accept that there are some things you can't prevent. Also remember that no one can steal your talent - the person who copies you one day will be asked to produce something new or perform and they won't be able to do it because something that good can only come out of your head!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AAaaand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]