If you are seeking to understand what is happening and how to respond to it, calling it "theft" immediately shuts the door on a variety of important points. It closes off a path to understanding both what's happening and how one might best deal with it. I find that incredibly dangerous from the perspective of a content creator. Calling infringement theft or not isn't just a semantic argument from people who like to argue. It's about actually understanding what's going on, and that's simply not possible when you put up a wall to understanding.
And here's my post about infringement and theft in the last month.
"I am concerned that your stealing is causing more restrictions upon MY rights."
And why are you so concerned for someone else now, when it's obvious their behavior isn't taking money from your wallet?
" If people didn't steal there would be no reason for DRM. "
Which is broken and punishes legal customers of a product...
"There would be no reason for DMCA."
Which was the RIAA's response to Napster and their wet dream...
" Those things came about BECAUSE of piracy, they are industry reactions to the problem."
"You are the one that has closed your eyes, you are trying to validate your theft of services---"
"theft of services"
How do you steal a service provided? If it's not to your liking, you go to a competitor, whether authorized or not. That could be a video game, another movie, or even listening to music free of charge.
" These are synopses of the movie for promotional uses that are available for free all over the place."
And here's a speedrun of a game in under 2 hours: Link. You're competiting against games, and music for people's time. And you're losing.
"If you do not create a product (movie, music, book, etc...) you do not have any right to determine it's cost or the distribution method used."
So no one has the rights to products they legally bought? Great argument...
" If you don't like the method the producer chooses don't watch/listen to/read it."
Sure, I'll just post a scathing criticism of useless laws prohibiting people from finding a more efficient method than CDs and DVDs.
Has a court of law decided that? Are they following the Constitution in their proceedings? I didn't know that there was an amendment that says you can't talk nor discuss the newest movie, nor give an opinion. I didn't know that the Fair Use doctrine doesn't help to protect users from various ways to produce content without needing permission of the companies that seem to think the use is wrong.
"Nor is having a discussion board ancillary to an infringing site immunize it from being seized or inoculate it with First Amendment protections"
Funny, If it was seized due to prior restraint, then there's a reason to create a stink about it. It was seized unlawfully.
" Seriously, are you trying to argue that thousands of people are illegally watching a movie for free and that is somehow driving more of them into the theaters or to purchase a DVD? I know there are people who stream movies from the internet who never go to a theater, never buy a legitimate copy, and never pay a dime. Those are the people that are negatively impacting sales. "
Wrong. I'll use two examples:
The UFC has gained a massive following. More so than boxing or even wrestling. The PPV costs $50. Not everyone is going to afford the PPV, but there are plenty of people that afford the DVDs ($20), T-shirts, and other ancillary products that come with marketing the UFC fights. And yes, if you look hard enough, people stream the event at ZERO cost to the marketers. However, through some twisted logic, the UFC doesn't realize that the streams aren't costing them money, they think about the lost money that the high cost of the PPV is losing to these people "freeloading". Hence, the excuse that "you need their permission", rather than their own poor marketing plan being at fault.
"The delusional opinion that piracy has a positive impact on sales is most likely driven by humans need to validate their shortcomings, i.e., "He may pirate movies, but he did purchase a DVD once after watching a crappy phone-cammed bootleg". "
It's not a delusion. When you give people a reason to invest into a game, movie or other form of entertainment, they won't go to alternatives that offer a better product. That's why TF2 went free. That's why it's been updating for the last 4 years. It's why they Valve lowered prices in Russia. Higher price = less money to you. So piracy can work for you, if you know how to work it. It's called word of mouth.
"The delusional opinion that piracy has a positive impact on sales is most likely driven by humans need to validate their shortcomings, i.e., "He may pirate movies, but he did purchase a DVD once after watching a crappy phone-cammed bootleg". "
It's not delusional, there's more studies saying that it increases sales than there are naysayers trying to blur that image with no proof. Oh wait...
" You know as well as I do that is not the case you just want to try to justify the actions of pirates because it serves your goals and makes you feel better about streaming bootlegged movies."
Try this on for size: "I don't want to lose my civil rights because some business guy in a suit can't figure out how to make money on the internet".
" You are demanding conclusive evidence without providing access to that evidence - that's a convenient ploy"
This is the same AC that linked to the GAO piracy report above.
Also, there are the Hargreaves Report for the UK as well as the "Media Piracy in Emerging Economies" book that are even better at showing this inaccuracy.
The fact is, there IS evidence. People are ignoring it to say that piracy is the problem. It's not.
The RIAA and MPAA aren't anywhere in this deal. I would not be surprised if they soon raised a huge stink as these small companies are going to replace the role that the large labels do. The fact remains that they're slowly becoming extinct and probably don't even know it.
"Not a relevant example, unless the little girl is stealing your lemonade and giving it away for free. The free stand won't exist long giving away something that costs them money. It's the trick of piracy, the raw materials don't cost them anything, so whatever they make is profit."
No, he has a point that you're trying to evade. If on one side of the street, you have a girl selling lemondade for $5, and on the other, she's giving away her lemonade, then there's no added value to the product. Since they're competing goods, the $5 girl has to do something to make her product worth more in the customer's eye or drop the price accordingly. It doesn't matter if she does a dance for the money, gives them a note to wash a car, or shows how she'll give part of the proceeds to charity, the fact is, she'd have to compete against the new price point by changing how she prices her wares or adding something new.
It's becoming more and more obvious, you've never taking a marketing class. You don't understand simple economics. Are you sure you want to keep plugging your own argument with holes, by continued used of tired rhetoric?
"When you are only in the business of selling music, once it is given away for free, you have nothing left to add. You cannot value add to your sole business, at least not in a meaningful way."
... The song isn't the only business of an artist... You have no idea how people create nor market themselves, do you?
"It should also be clear, the only reason they are in this position is because of piracy."
Nope, try again. Piracy is a symptom of unmet demand and a failing business model of trying to get people to spend on overpriced CDs/mp3s instead of offering better products in general.
" It's cause by people who children, throwing their toys out of the pram if they can't get the new movie of the week online, in their preferred format, now, and for free."
Try to rewrite that sentence again, but this time remember that Spotify uses free and very few musicians have to get legal on their customers.
"You need to accept the basic concept: If someone doesn't want to sell you something right now, it isn't permission for you to go and take it anyway."
Wow, you're still on thinking that Hollywood controls what I spend my money and time on. So Hollywood doesn't want me to watch their movies for $20? Okay, I have a game I can play for free and spend my time and money elsewhere. Remember this sentence?
No shit, sherlock. That's why alternatives pop up.
I have alternatives to Hollywood. It's called Youtube, Jamendo, Dmusic, Twitch.tv, Valve.com, or *gasp* the great outdoors. They don't have something I want, I can do without. Without piracy. But of course, since Hollywood is paying you to promote them at the behest of various legal forms of content, be it on Vodo.com, Kickstarter, or whatever, it would behoove you to just constantly think since they're growing more and more.
Obviously, money is being made in all three industries despite piracy. And from the looks of it, piracy hasn't killed any of them. Or would you like to be schooled on how you can use the economics of free to promote yourself, find new marketing strategies, and use better ideas than this tired belief that the large industries control how their content is consumed?
"Then why the fuck is the Hollywood stuff the most popular and most in demand stuff on the pirate sites? "
Ladies and gentlemen, this is called the 1:1 correlation. You see it's subtle. But when you look at this sentence, you carefully note that it's ignoring all of the legal alternatives in order to propogate Hollywood as the only important stuff on the Bittorrents. For there are a few facts that the AC doesn't even consider while he tries to say "only Hollywood matters"
1) Most downloaded material happens outside of the US - Since the US has the most legal alternatives of any other country, it's natural that Bittorrent usage goes up in a place like Russia where copyright is used to beat down legal alternatives.
2) The legal sharing of Jamendo music, Grooveshark music, old games that aren't even on the market, movies that have been out of print for years, or even a foreign market that is stymied on DVD (but not on the internet) is ignored... All for Hollywood
3) There's no mention of other alternatives and how they compete for time. There's only 24 hours in a day, and you can only spend so many watching movies. I wonder what would happen if you played video games instead of watching movies? Oh wait... That's costing Hollywood a fortune!
Hmmm... I wonder who the AC works for?
" I didn't say stop using music, notes, or instruments, I said stop using the music."
Actually, here's your words:
Your comments come across as greedy and self-centered. If you don't like the terms of the content, STOP USING IT! Go make your own (without using their content to do it).
So in order to make content, people get inspiration from other things. Since you're using the English language, I don't want you to take anything from me. Not my words, not the context behind them, nothing. Just stop using them.
And yet, you can't see the idiocy of what you're trying to say to Marcus of coming up with something "original" from a vacuum, instead opting for an ad hom attack that makes your argument even weaker. But hey, I don't have to tell you you're an idiot. You're doing a bang-up job shredding your own argument by being dense.
"Jay, this is possibly the stupidest comment in the thread, and that is saying a lot."
Ad hom.
"How are the suppose to compete with their own product, when someone is giving it away for free, because they have no costs involved?"
It's called adding value to the product. The fact remains that making a song free will only entice so far. Making a game free will only work. But maintaining a connection with those that want to support you, listening to their ideas, implementing them helps to build a new business model than what copyright does. That's the part you seem paid not to get, I guess, but the reality has been working in every entertainment industry. It just doesn't work when you try to control everyone's spending habits.
"What you guys don't seem to get is that is they "get out of the market" it won't be available on your pirate sites either. "
Tell that to the Beatles. Tell that to JK Rowling before she switched her stance. Or better yet, tell that to the mountains of evidence that piracy is caused by unmet demand instead of an arbitrary limitation on supply. Keyword: arbitrary. That limit is removed on digital. Or will you play the "obfuscation" card again?
"At the moment it sells, it becomes a product, especially if it is something that is replicated / duplicated from an original."
No, the art is advertisement. The product is the artist themselves. Ever heard of commission? The art piece could sell elsewhere without the artist being involved, and he still wouldn't be entitled to that money. But I guess that evades you.
"Can you come up with a reason why you should be able to tell and artist how their should live, work, and sell their art?"
Can you come up with a better reason that people should rely on copyright instead of finding new revenue streams that are far more efficient?
On the post: 'British Cinema's Golden Age Is Now': So Where's The 'Serious Problem' Of Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you PLEASE clean up your logic there? It's not making any sense.
On the post: 'British Cinema's Golden Age Is Now': So Where's The 'Serious Problem' Of Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obviously, you've never thought about the idea of having one computer offline for watermarks...
On the post: 'British Cinema's Golden Age Is Now': So Where's The 'Serious Problem' Of Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Neither does anyone else since infringement and stealing, have very distinct legal and economic points:
If you are seeking to understand what is happening and how to respond to it, calling it "theft" immediately shuts the door on a variety of important points. It closes off a path to understanding both what's happening and how one might best deal with it. I find that incredibly dangerous from the perspective of a content creator. Calling infringement theft or not isn't just a semantic argument from people who like to argue. It's about actually understanding what's going on, and that's simply not possible when you put up a wall to understanding.
And here's my post about infringement and theft in the last month.
"I am concerned that your stealing is causing more restrictions upon MY rights."
And why are you so concerned for someone else now, when it's obvious their behavior isn't taking money from your wallet?
" If people didn't steal there would be no reason for DRM. "
Which is broken and punishes legal customers of a product...
"There would be no reason for DMCA."
Which was the RIAA's response to Napster and their wet dream...
" Those things came about BECAUSE of piracy, they are industry reactions to the problem."
It's not hard to figure out that the industry's response isn't how reality is determined. Particularly, more artists have cropped up, the RIAA is now irrelevant, and piracy is going to increase, not decrease thanks to high prices for media goods, low incomes, and cheap digital technologies.
On the post: 'British Cinema's Golden Age Is Now': So Where's The 'Serious Problem' Of Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"theft of services"
How do you steal a service provided? If it's not to your liking, you go to a competitor, whether authorized or not. That could be a video game, another movie, or even listening to music free of charge.
" These are synopses of the movie for promotional uses that are available for free all over the place."
And here's a speedrun of a game in under 2 hours: Link. You're competiting against games, and music for people's time. And you're losing.
"If you do not create a product (movie, music, book, etc...) you do not have any right to determine it's cost or the distribution method used."
So no one has the rights to products they legally bought? Great argument...
" If you don't like the method the producer chooses don't watch/listen to/read it."
Sure, I'll just post a scathing criticism of useless laws prohibiting people from finding a more efficient method than CDs and DVDs.
On the post: 'British Cinema's Golden Age Is Now': So Where's The 'Serious Problem' Of Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Has a court of law decided that? Are they following the Constitution in their proceedings? I didn't know that there was an amendment that says you can't talk nor discuss the newest movie, nor give an opinion. I didn't know that the Fair Use doctrine doesn't help to protect users from various ways to produce content without needing permission of the companies that seem to think the use is wrong.
"Nor is having a discussion board ancillary to an infringing site immunize it from being seized or inoculate it with First Amendment protections"
Funny, If it was seized due to prior restraint, then there's a reason to create a stink about it. It was seized unlawfully.
On the post: 'British Cinema's Golden Age Is Now': So Where's The 'Serious Problem' Of Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 'British Cinema's Golden Age Is Now': So Where's The 'Serious Problem' Of Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re:
Wrong. I'll use two examples:
The UFC has gained a massive following. More so than boxing or even wrestling. The PPV costs $50. Not everyone is going to afford the PPV, but there are plenty of people that afford the DVDs ($20), T-shirts, and other ancillary products that come with marketing the UFC fights. And yes, if you look hard enough, people stream the event at ZERO cost to the marketers. However, through some twisted logic, the UFC doesn't realize that the streams aren't costing them money, they think about the lost money that the high cost of the PPV is losing to these people "freeloading". Hence, the excuse that "you need their permission", rather than their own poor marketing plan being at fault.
"The delusional opinion that piracy has a positive impact on sales is most likely driven by humans need to validate their shortcomings, i.e., "He may pirate movies, but he did purchase a DVD once after watching a crappy phone-cammed bootleg". "
It's not a delusion. When you give people a reason to invest into a game, movie or other form of entertainment, they won't go to alternatives that offer a better product. That's why TF2 went free. That's why it's been updating for the last 4 years. It's why they Valve lowered prices in Russia. Higher price = less money to you. So piracy can work for you, if you know how to work it. It's called word of mouth.
"The delusional opinion that piracy has a positive impact on sales is most likely driven by humans need to validate their shortcomings, i.e., "He may pirate movies, but he did purchase a DVD once after watching a crappy phone-cammed bootleg". "
It's not delusional, there's more studies saying that it increases sales than there are naysayers trying to blur that image with no proof. Oh wait...
" You know as well as I do that is not the case you just want to try to justify the actions of pirates because it serves your goals and makes you feel better about streaming bootlegged movies."
Try this on for size: "I don't want to lose my civil rights because some business guy in a suit can't figure out how to make money on the internet".
On the post: 'British Cinema's Golden Age Is Now': So Where's The 'Serious Problem' Of Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
This is the same AC that linked to the GAO piracy report above.
Also, there are the Hargreaves Report for the UK as well as the "Media Piracy in Emerging Economies" book that are even better at showing this inaccuracy.
The fact is, there IS evidence. People are ignoring it to say that piracy is the problem. It's not.
On the post: 'British Cinema's Golden Age Is Now': So Where's The 'Serious Problem' Of Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: YouTube Now Helping Artists Sell The Scarce
Pay very close attention
On the post: ICANN Takes Over Time Zone Database; Dares Astrolabe To Sue
Second thought...
On the post: Roger Ebert Points People To The 'Ebert-Edit' Of Psycho On The Pirate Bay
Re:
On the post: BMI Hurting Artists, Yet Again
Re: Freaking Evil
On the post: British Historian On Porn And Internet Censorship: North Korea Is Right -- The Internet Is Our Enemy
Re:
On the post: BearGriz72's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
Nope
"Not a relevant example, unless the little girl is stealing your lemonade and giving it away for free. The free stand won't exist long giving away something that costs them money. It's the trick of piracy, the raw materials don't cost them anything, so whatever they make is profit."
No, he has a point that you're trying to evade. If on one side of the street, you have a girl selling lemondade for $5, and on the other, she's giving away her lemonade, then there's no added value to the product. Since they're competing goods, the $5 girl has to do something to make her product worth more in the customer's eye or drop the price accordingly. It doesn't matter if she does a dance for the money, gives them a note to wash a car, or shows how she'll give part of the proceeds to charity, the fact is, she'd have to compete against the new price point by changing how she prices her wares or adding something new.
It's becoming more and more obvious, you've never taking a marketing class. You don't understand simple economics. Are you sure you want to keep plugging your own argument with holes, by continued used of tired rhetoric?
On the post: BearGriz72's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
On the post: BearGriz72's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
*Yawn*
... The song isn't the only business of an artist... You have no idea how people create nor market themselves, do you?
"It should also be clear, the only reason they are in this position is because of piracy."
Nope, try again. Piracy is a symptom of unmet demand and a failing business model of trying to get people to spend on overpriced CDs/mp3s instead of offering better products in general.
" It's cause by people who children, throwing their toys out of the pram if they can't get the new movie of the week online, in their preferred format, now, and for free."
Try to rewrite that sentence again, but this time remember that Spotify uses free and very few musicians have to get legal on their customers.
"You need to accept the basic concept: If someone doesn't want to sell you something right now, it isn't permission for you to go and take it anyway."
Wow, you're still on thinking that Hollywood controls what I spend my money and time on. So Hollywood doesn't want me to watch their movies for $20? Okay, I have a game I can play for free and spend my time and money elsewhere. Remember this sentence?
No shit, sherlock. That's why alternatives pop up.
I have alternatives to Hollywood. It's called Youtube, Jamendo, Dmusic, Twitch.tv, Valve.com, or *gasp* the great outdoors. They don't have something I want, I can do without. Without piracy. But of course, since Hollywood is paying you to promote them at the behest of various legal forms of content, be it on Vodo.com, Kickstarter, or whatever, it would behoove you to just constantly think since they're growing more and more.
Oh, and if you haven't noticed, Gaming industry revenue
movie industry revenue
Music industry revenue
Obviously, money is being made in all three industries despite piracy. And from the looks of it, piracy hasn't killed any of them. Or would you like to be schooled on how you can use the economics of free to promote yourself, find new marketing strategies, and use better ideas than this tired belief that the large industries control how their content is consumed?
On the post: BearGriz72's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
Ladies and gentlemen, this is called the 1:1 correlation. You see it's subtle. But when you look at this sentence, you carefully note that it's ignoring all of the legal alternatives in order to propogate Hollywood as the only important stuff on the Bittorrents. For there are a few facts that the AC doesn't even consider while he tries to say "only Hollywood matters"
1) Most downloaded material happens outside of the US - Since the US has the most legal alternatives of any other country, it's natural that Bittorrent usage goes up in a place like Russia where copyright is used to beat down legal alternatives.
2) The legal sharing of Jamendo music, Grooveshark music, old games that aren't even on the market, movies that have been out of print for years, or even a foreign market that is stymied on DVD (but not on the internet) is ignored... All for Hollywood
3) There's no mention of other alternatives and how they compete for time. There's only 24 hours in a day, and you can only spend so many watching movies. I wonder what would happen if you played video games instead of watching movies? Oh wait... That's costing Hollywood a fortune!
Hmmm... I wonder who the AC works for?
" I didn't say stop using music, notes, or instruments, I said stop using the music."
Actually, here's your words:
Your comments come across as greedy and self-centered. If you don't like the terms of the content, STOP USING IT! Go make your own (without using their content to do it).
So in order to make content, people get inspiration from other things. Since you're using the English language, I don't want you to take anything from me. Not my words, not the context behind them, nothing. Just stop using them.
And yet, you can't see the idiocy of what you're trying to say to Marcus of coming up with something "original" from a vacuum, instead opting for an ad hom attack that makes your argument even weaker. But hey, I don't have to tell you you're an idiot. You're doing a bang-up job shredding your own argument by being dense.
On the post: BearGriz72's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
Ad hom.
"How are the suppose to compete with their own product, when someone is giving it away for free, because they have no costs involved?"
It's called adding value to the product. The fact remains that making a song free will only entice so far. Making a game free will only work. But maintaining a connection with those that want to support you, listening to their ideas, implementing them helps to build a new business model than what copyright does. That's the part you seem paid not to get, I guess, but the reality has been working in every entertainment industry. It just doesn't work when you try to control everyone's spending habits.
"What you guys don't seem to get is that is they "get out of the market" it won't be available on your pirate sites either. "
Tell that to the Beatles. Tell that to JK Rowling before she switched her stance. Or better yet, tell that to the mountains of evidence that piracy is caused by unmet demand instead of an arbitrary limitation on supply. Keyword: arbitrary. That limit is removed on digital. Or will you play the "obfuscation" card again?
On the post: BearGriz72's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Control Issues
No, the art is advertisement. The product is the artist themselves. Ever heard of commission? The art piece could sell elsewhere without the artist being involved, and he still wouldn't be entitled to that money. But I guess that evades you.
"Can you come up with a reason why you should be able to tell and artist how their should live, work, and sell their art?"
Can you come up with a better reason that people should rely on copyright instead of finding new revenue streams that are far more efficient?
Next >>