True. But in a real capitalist system no one is guaranteed that their innovation will guarantee a permanent profit stream. Too many people in the IP industry have an entitlement mentality that says "I used to make a lot of money, but I am not now. It must be someone else's fault." If you don't innovate you loose. Unless, of course, you own Congress.
>>Basically, it's a firehose, and no matter what they do, they will look good. But this is the old blind mouse thing, as no matter what they do, they will get the cheese.
In other words, "Sure this works for a bunch of angry birds, but it will never work for washed-up rock stars*."
*Instead of "rock stars" you can insert "over budget movies" or whatever gatekeeper-warded group you wish to use.
Yeah, they do. My "whiners at 4chan" is a direct quote from one of the SOPA supporters. It was in a news article I have read within the last 24 hours, but I don't remember exactly where. Normally I would have said "whiners at Reddit" but I remembered the quote.
I am not sure what city you think is making money when people break the law.
This case is not about using technology to enforce simple laws. Blocking certain addresses is not going to enforce laws. As the article points out, it is ridiculously easy to get around the block. It is also hard to characterize copyright as "simple laws."
One fallout of the SOPA debacle was to give tech companies a little bit of backbone. The US content industry has been trying to bully the rest of the world for decades. Now people are beginning to realize that the bully is not as tough as he claimed. That is generally a bad thing for the bully.
>> My decision on whether to fund another movie, thereby employing more people, will be based on whether or not I get my money back on the last two, and my prospects for making money on another"
From a business standpoint this is exactly the correct perspective. The great disconnect occurs when people interject the moral outrage of the concept of piracy. As a business person the producer should be worried about making money. Most of the pirated copies would not represent lost sales and cost the producer nothing. They are irrelevant except to the extent that they represent lost sales. And most of those lost sales are probably cases where things like windowing and regional restrictions created an incentive for the piracy. The moral outrage of piracy has no place in business decisions, but it ranks very high in the OpEd pieces we see floating around.
I think the era has ended when big tech companies go along easily with RIAA/MPAA requests. The tech companies have finally figured out how the public feels about censorship and it seems to have given them some backbone.
>>especially when they have the proof in front of them that nothing needs changing?
That right there!
Above all else, the industry must do something about the Norway situation because it disproves what the IP lobby is saying. SOPA woke up some parts of the media and the tech community and they no longer automatically swallow the industry propaganda unchallenged. Before the SOPA disaster it didn't really matter if there was counter evidence because no one was paying attention to anything other than industry press releases. Now that some people in the media are waking up there is a great danger that the counter evidence will catch attention of some mainstream reporter looking for an easy story.
After guns we should outlaw sex out of wedlock. A simple law would make all premarital sex and adultery stop overnight and save marriage, just as effectively as a law against piracy would stop piracy and save the RIAA. After all, teenagers engage in both sex and piracy. An added bonus would be teaching teenagers to respect government and laws.
Let me spell out the point I am trying to make. Prohibition did not make problems go away, it made them worse. The War on Drugs has not worked; we now have more drug use than we did before the WoD started. Laws banning guns and sex would be ignored. So why does anyone think that outlawing infringement would do anything besides making the problem worse?
>>If you accomplish those 2, best to outlaw bullets as well.
Good idea. Eliminating guns and bullets in the US should be easy given the success of both Prohibition and the War on Drugs. There will be some whining about pesky constitutional issues, of course. Industry apologists are such whiners. But SOPA proves that the government doesn't really see much problem with ignoring the constition, so consider it a done deal.
Right after we get SOPA passed, eliminate piracy, and save the RIAA, we need to tackle some other social problems with laws.
1) We need to prohibit alcohol consumption. Perhaps a constitutional amendment will be needed. All we need to do is pass strong enough laws against alcohol, and the problems caused by demon rum will be eliminated. Some critics say this will just cause more organized crime and disrespect for the government, but those are just apologists for the liquor industry. We just need to get the laws on the books. It is really very simple.
2) We need to pass laws prohibiting drug use, especially marijuana. Marijuana not only leads to Reefer Madness, it is a gateway to other drugs. We need laws that have stiffer penalties for drug possession than violent crime, child abuse, and in some cases murder. If the laws end up causing more violent crime, child abuse, and murder we will just have to live with it, and it is worth the cost. Getting rid of drugs is going to cost some money and time to root out entrenched use. If we spend a trillion dollars over 40 years we should have the drug problem eliminated. It is all so simple.
The point isn't how many people get the work for free. The industry often plays the moral panic angle that people are getting the work for free and that is morally wrong and must be eliminated.
Think about a street musician who is doing it strictly for the money and does not get any satisfaction from entertaining people. Hundreds of people may hear him play in the subway, but only a few drop a significant amount of money in his tip jar. The hundreds who pause to listen for a few minutes and then walk on are like pirates who are enjoying the music without paying for it. From a business perspective, the musician does not care how many people listen for free; he only cares about how many people drop in his tip jar, and how much they drop in.
If the musician gets in a moral panic about the freeloaders he could stop playing in the subway. That way no freeloaders hear him, but also none of the tippers hear him, either. So his income drops to zero. As a businessman he cannot afford the moral panic. Once over the moral panic the musician may notice a few other things. For example, having a crowd standing around listening attracts people who leave tips; in effect the crowd of freeloaders is advertising. Having a crowd of freeloaders is likely to have other serendipitous effects. Someone in the crowd may inspire a new song. The freeloaders are also a focus group for testing new material. Perhaps someone in the crowd knows a band that is looking for a new musician, and the fellow gets hired.
This story is really just an illustration of the adage that an artist's real enemy is obscurity. An artist who worries about pirates is going to retract and become obscure.
Blaming piracy is a great excuse for not taking responsibility for the bad decisions the industry has made over the last two or three decades. If you repeat an excuse often enough, and if your annual bonus is big enough, then it is pretty easy to actually believe it yourself.
>>That's how I know everything you've ever written is a lie.
Do you actually know any high school students? I mean, really know them and what they do? That is an extremely accurate statement. The only way it could be made more accurate would be to say "extra beer and tree money."
Note: "Tree" in this context has nothing to do with perennial woody plants.
Additional note: People with a severe humor impairment should probably refrain from reading Techdirt.
On the post: Angry Birds CEO Explains How The Company Embraces Piracy
Re:
True. But in a real capitalist system no one is guaranteed that their innovation will guarantee a permanent profit stream. Too many people in the IP industry have an entitlement mentality that says "I used to make a lot of money, but I am not now. It must be someone else's fault." If you don't innovate you loose. Unless, of course, you own Congress.
On the post: Angry Birds CEO Explains How The Company Embraces Piracy
Re:
In other words, "Sure this works for a bunch of angry birds, but it will never work for washed-up rock stars*."
*Instead of "rock stars" you can insert "over budget movies" or whatever gatekeeper-warded group you wish to use.
On the post: Hollywood Gets To Party With TPP Negotiators; Public Interest Groups Get Thrown Out Of Hotel
Re: Re: Re: All Bets!
Yeah, they do. My "whiners at 4chan" is a direct quote from one of the SOPA supporters. It was in a news article I have read within the last 24 hours, but I don't remember exactly where. Normally I would have said "whiners at Reddit" but I remembered the quote.
On the post: Hollywood Gets To Party With TPP Negotiators; Public Interest Groups Get Thrown Out Of Hotel
On the post: Dutch ISPs Refuse To Block The Pirate Bay Without A Direct Order
Re: Revenue?
I am not sure what city you think is making money when people break the law.
This case is not about using technology to enforce simple laws. Blocking certain addresses is not going to enforce laws. As the article points out, it is ridiculously easy to get around the block. It is also hard to characterize copyright as "simple laws."
On the post: Dutch ISPs Refuse To Block The Pirate Bay Without A Direct Order
On the post: Pro-SOPA Folks Push Fact-Challenged Op-Eds
Re:
From a business standpoint this is exactly the correct perspective. The great disconnect occurs when people interject the moral outrage of the concept of piracy. As a business person the producer should be worried about making money. Most of the pirated copies would not represent lost sales and cost the producer nothing. They are irrelevant except to the extent that they represent lost sales. And most of those lost sales are probably cases where things like windowing and regional restrictions created an incentive for the piracy. The moral outrage of piracy has no place in business decisions, but it ranks very high in the OpEd pieces we see floating around.
On the post: Author Jonathan Franzen Thinks That Ebooks Mean The World Will No Longer Work
Re: Re: Cute, but which will last longer?
On the post: Will Academics' Boycott Of Elsevier Be The Tipping Point For Open Access -- Or Another Embarrassing Flop?
Re:
On the post: Megaupload Users Plan To Sue... As Their Files & Data Are About To Be Destroyed
Re:
"We don't need no stinkin' evidence."
On the post: Megaupload Users Plan To Sue... As Their Files & Data Are About To Be Destroyed
On the post: Entertainment Industy Back To Demanding That Search Engines Censor The Web... Through 'Voluntary' Measures
On the post: The Sky Is Rising: The Entertainment Industry Is Large & Growing... Not Shrinking
RIAA's real fear
This is why the RIAA is afraid of. Artists empowered to get along without the blessing of the RIAA cartel is their nightmare scenario.
On the post: The Norwegian Music-Streaming Experience Shows Why Tough Anti-Piracy Laws Are Unnecessary
That right there!
Above all else, the industry must do something about the Norway situation because it disproves what the IP lobby is saying. SOPA woke up some parts of the media and the tech community and they no longer automatically swallow the industry propaganda unchallenged. Before the SOPA disaster it didn't really matter if there was counter evidence because no one was paying attention to anything other than industry press releases. Now that some people in the media are waking up there is a great danger that the counter evidence will catch attention of some mainstream reporter looking for an easy story.
On the post: The Tech Industry Has Already Given Hollywood The Answer To Piracy; If Only It Would Listen
Re: Re: Re: Re: You forgot
Let me spell out the point I am trying to make. Prohibition did not make problems go away, it made them worse. The War on Drugs has not worked; we now have more drug use than we did before the WoD started. Laws banning guns and sex would be ignored. So why does anyone think that outlawing infringement would do anything besides making the problem worse?
On the post: The Tech Industry Has Already Given Hollywood The Answer To Piracy; If Only It Would Listen
Re: Re: You forgot
Good idea. Eliminating guns and bullets in the US should be easy given the success of both Prohibition and the War on Drugs. There will be some whining about pesky constitutional issues, of course. Industry apologists are such whiners. But SOPA proves that the government doesn't really see much problem with ignoring the constition, so consider it a done deal.
On the post: The Tech Industry Has Already Given Hollywood The Answer To Piracy; If Only It Would Listen
1) We need to prohibit alcohol consumption. Perhaps a constitutional amendment will be needed. All we need to do is pass strong enough laws against alcohol, and the problems caused by demon rum will be eliminated. Some critics say this will just cause more organized crime and disrespect for the government, but those are just apologists for the liquor industry. We just need to get the laws on the books. It is really very simple.
2) We need to pass laws prohibiting drug use, especially marijuana. Marijuana not only leads to Reefer Madness, it is a gateway to other drugs. We need laws that have stiffer penalties for drug possession than violent crime, child abuse, and in some cases murder. If the laws end up causing more violent crime, child abuse, and murder we will just have to live with it, and it is worth the cost. Getting rid of drugs is going to cost some money and time to root out entrenched use. If we spend a trillion dollars over 40 years we should have the drug problem eliminated. It is all so simple.
On the post: Paulo Coelho On SOPA: 'Pirates Of The World, Unite And Pirate Everything I've Ever Written!'
Re: Just wondering...
Think about a street musician who is doing it strictly for the money and does not get any satisfaction from entertaining people. Hundreds of people may hear him play in the subway, but only a few drop a significant amount of money in his tip jar. The hundreds who pause to listen for a few minutes and then walk on are like pirates who are enjoying the music without paying for it. From a business perspective, the musician does not care how many people listen for free; he only cares about how many people drop in his tip jar, and how much they drop in.
If the musician gets in a moral panic about the freeloaders he could stop playing in the subway. That way no freeloaders hear him, but also none of the tippers hear him, either. So his income drops to zero. As a businessman he cannot afford the moral panic. Once over the moral panic the musician may notice a few other things. For example, having a crowd standing around listening attracts people who leave tips; in effect the crowd of freeloaders is advertising. Having a crowd of freeloaders is likely to have other serendipitous effects. Someone in the crowd may inspire a new song. The freeloaders are also a focus group for testing new material. Perhaps someone in the crowd knows a band that is looking for a new musician, and the fellow gets hired.
This story is really just an illustration of the adage that an artist's real enemy is obscurity. An artist who worries about pirates is going to retract and become obscure.
On the post: EMI VP Comes Out Against SOPA/PIPA; Says The Answer To Piracy Is Providing A Better Service
On the post: Movie Theaters' Top Lobbyist Resorts To Making Up Facts Concerning SOPA/PIPA
Re: OMG
Do you actually know any high school students? I mean, really know them and what they do? That is an extremely accurate statement. The only way it could be made more accurate would be to say "extra beer and tree money."
Note: "Tree" in this context has nothing to do with perennial woody plants.
Additional note: People with a severe humor impairment should probably refrain from reading Techdirt.
Next >>