It might be a better analogy to think of it as somebody making perfume, spraying it into the air, and trying to charge the people who walk by for smelling it. Distraught by the number of people experiencing the unique scent for free, they hire a bunch of thugs to chase after the people who "steal" a whiff.
The vendor has the choice of whether or not to spray the perfume in the first place, but after it's been released, it's not up to him any more, the scent "belongs" to everybody who walks by.
The market for copies is over - they can be made infinitely at home, by anybody who wants to. They don't need justifications, as it just makes sense in terms of availability, cost, selection, you name it. Instead of trying to find reasons why people should stop, change your business model to take advantage of it. Charge people up front to create new content for everyone, Kickstarter-style, or use the infinite copies to sell scarce things. Better yet, do both - but don't waste your time trying to tell people that they shouldn't engage in an activity as fundamental as sharing.
Re: Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
Honestly I think "morality" is a fall back after all the practical arguments against filesharing are refuted. As we see on TechDirt all the time, the only course of action that is actually practical and makes sense is to take advantage of it, not try to fight it.
Re: Re: Re: With a response like that I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't nameless one's alt or something. Or maybe angry dude is his alt. I've always suspected he is just trolling these comment threads
I did read: The Constitution, where there are inalienable rights, and then the privilege later misnamed copy "right."
Re: Mike: At some point, +++common sense+++ is supposed to kick in and the pedestrian says, "hey, this is not designed for walking."
Copyright actually contradicts common sense by artificially suspending individuals' rights. Only with copyright does somebody feel entitled to insist that others not share the things they like and enjoy.
Re: Re: Re: It seems to me that piracy has a negative impact on some individuals but overall has no negative impact on the economy, and may in fact actually have a net positive effect on the overall economy
Just because "right" is in the name doesn't mean it's a right. They are not rights, but a suspension of personal liberty made (ostensibly) to promote progress.
They do not promote progress, therefore, give the public its liberty back.
Okay, but they haven't actually proved that you did anything illegal. So isn't this kind of like accusing somebody of sexual harassment and saying you'll sue them if they don't pay up, knowing that they might rather pay to avoid the reputation damage even if they know they're innocent?
There's always Gawker's star commenter system. I'm not sure what I think of that, but I do notice that showing only featured discussions on their sites usually gets me the highest quality stuff.
While I think this particular statement from Silver is on target, I have a hard time getting behind anything coming out of the Featured Artists Coalition. For one, these are the folks supporting "three strikes" type legislation.
I get the impression from reading their website and some extensive discussions I have had with their members that the FAC is more about ensuring that artists get a bigger share of the royalty checks. They want a bigger part of the same old business models rather than truly looking for something new.
Of course, this runs contrary to what Silver says here - maybe their position has changed, but as of now his organization doesn't have much credibility to me.
That'd be pretty awesome, but of course everybody would start doing that. If everybody has a Porsche how will you demonstrate your elite status? Perhaps you would commission Porsche to make an entirely new design - being the first in the world with a unique Porsche design might be worth the money to you. The people driving by and copying it will all be second to you.
It's not the copies that are valuable, but the work.
Why do people so vehemently deny advocating for the dismissal of copyright? We see on TechDirt every day how it's practically unenforceable and irrelevant to modern business models. Arguing for term reduction ignores the fundamental problems with the system.
Exactly. What about paying a few dollars to be a part of a live webcast of a show (that will be released for free on YouTube later)? The free recorded videos build excitement for the next webcast, when fans get the opportunity to share in the experience themselves, and even more excitement for the in-person show (for people able to travel there).
That's the "Voluntary Collective Licensing" plan that just doesn't hold water. For one, the last thing anybody needs is another corrupt organization "disbursing" money to artists. For two, there isn't anything wrong about sharing files, there is no need to "go legit." The files are being "sold" for their market price, $0.
As for me, I'm tired of people trying to cook up ways to sell me digital files. I'm not at all interested in paying for that, unless I'm paying somebody to write a new song and send me the mp3.
On the post: Writer David Gerrold Highlights Why Any Industry That Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
Re: The problem with all analogies...
The vendor has the choice of whether or not to spray the perfume in the first place, but after it's been released, it's not up to him any more, the scent "belongs" to everybody who walks by.
The market for copies is over - they can be made infinitely at home, by anybody who wants to. They don't need justifications, as it just makes sense in terms of availability, cost, selection, you name it. Instead of trying to find reasons why people should stop, change your business model to take advantage of it. Charge people up front to create new content for everyone, Kickstarter-style, or use the infinite copies to sell scarce things. Better yet, do both - but don't waste your time trying to tell people that they shouldn't engage in an activity as fundamental as sharing.
On the post: Writer David Gerrold Highlights Why Any Industry That Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
Re:
On the post: Writer David Gerrold Highlights Why Any Industry That Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
Re: Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
On the post: Writer David Gerrold Highlights Why Any Industry That Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Joe Konrath Explains Why Authors Shouldn't Fear File Sharing
Re: Re: Re: With a response like that I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't nameless one's alt or something. Or maybe angry dude is his alt. I've always suspected he is just trolling these comment threads
On the post: Woman Sues Google After She Follows Google Maps Directions And Gets Hit By A Car
Re: Mike: At some point, +++common sense+++ is supposed to kick in and the pedestrian says, "hey, this is not designed for walking."
On the post: Michigan Politician Proposes Bill To Regulate Journalists So He Can Tell You Which Reporters To Trust
Re: Re: Would be nice
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Re: Re: Read the article
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Re: Re: Re: It seems to me that piracy has a negative impact on some individuals but overall has no negative impact on the economy, and may in fact actually have a net positive effect on the overall economy
They do not promote progress, therefore, give the public its liberty back.
On the post: And We're Off: Hurt Locker Files First 5,000 Lawsuits Against File Sharers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Extortion
On the post: James Murdoch Lectures On Copyright, But Still Seems Confused
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Could You Replace Copyrights And Patents With A Fairness-Based Legal Liability?
Re:
On the post: Chair Of The Featured Artist Coalition Explains File Sharing Isn't Going Away; Artists Need To Innovate
Taken with a grain (or two)
I get the impression from reading their website and some extensive discussions I have had with their members that the FAC is more about ensuring that artists get a bigger share of the royalty checks. They want a bigger part of the same old business models rather than truly looking for something new.
Of course, this runs contrary to what Silver says here - maybe their position has changed, but as of now his organization doesn't have much credibility to me.
On the post: 50 Cent Says The Movie Industry Will Get New Laws Passed That Will Help The Music Industry
Re: Re:
On the post: Mitch Wagner Asks About Ethics Of Downloading Media You Already Paid For
Re: Re: Re:
It's not the copies that are valuable, but the work.
On the post: Maryland Police Confiscate Biker's Computers After He Catches Questionable Activity On Helmet Cam
Re: Involuntary recording
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
On the post: The Future Of Content: Protection Is In The Business Model -- Not In Technology
Re:
On the post: The Future Of Content: Protection Is In The Business Model -- Not In Technology
Re: sounds like the "piracy pass"
Next >>