How is all this culture being locked up? You can access a lot of books, music, and movies for free (legally!) from your local public library. Why isn't that an option for pirates? Because they want to OWN that material? Well, you know -- you don't get to own everything you want to own. I'm so puzzled by this attitude, I truly am. How does "sharing everything" keep artists in a job? Are artists making more money now that their art is being pirated? Did I miss the groundbreaking research paper that demonstrated that effect? If so, please send me the citation!
People who BUY books also recommend and share those books with their friends, Rikuo. Why isn't that one of the options?
Not to mention, when it comes to a lot of this material, people can already get it for free from their local public library system -- you left out that option as well.
Is piracy leading to artists who are way more popular/successful than the artists that came before them? I haven't seen evidence of that. Nor evidence that piracy is helping artists make more money than they were making before piracy was possible.
So, you'll be avoiding any work by artists who hope to be paid for that work? Nice attitude.
I'm not missing the point -- the guy who wrote the original article is. He's the one who seems to be arguing that the poor man has the right to steal what he WANTS (not what he isn't that interested in having) -- for the sake of his "cultural" education.
What you seem to be saying I'm missing is that lots of people who steal music (or etc.) do it because they aren't interested enough in the particular product to want to pay for it. And that disinterest somehow makes it okay for them to steal it -- hey, they weren't going to buy it anyway, right, so what does it cost the creator? But that's completely illogical. That same person probably don't have plans to buy a 10-foot HDTV either -- should they be allowed to steal one, in that case? How are these two things different, at their root? That's the part I simply do not understand.
Also, unless I've just missed all the studies supporting this theory, piracy isn't making artists more money than they were making before piracy, right? If you offer someone a CHOICE between paying for something and taking it for free, taking it for free seems like it usually wins (remember Stephen King's experiment on this about 10 years ago, for example)?
What it can't be is an either/or situation like it is now -- it's not as simple as just "locking down all content" or "sharing everything." There has to be a way for people to create art FOR A LIVING, which leaves out the "sharing everything" idea (and the argument that artists don't make that much from record companies, while valid, doesn't negate the fact that they make SOMETHING from record companies, as opposed to NOTHING from pirates).
The current way this stuff is all set up is not working -- I could not agree more with that. But there's nothing "good" about a fan who steals content. Sure, word spreads -- word spreads about where you can steal the same content. The fan who stole could've had the same impact on other fans if he'd paid for the record, right? Only that way, the artist gets to keep making money off what they've created.
I think the goal should be skirting the corporations and heading more towards self-publishing, personally. But until self-published art (books, music) has the same credibility as corporate-published works, that transition is going to be hellaciously hard and financially risky for artists of all kinds out there. Which to me is all the more reason to support them during this period of all kinds of experimentation and transition, instead of ripping them off and pretending you should be lauded for it. Stealing is stealing -- it's a bullshit thing to do. It's just that simple.
Well, first of all, since when does a video game count as an important piece of "culture" that everyone needs to experience in order to be members of a society?
You really think everyone alive on the planet has the right to any video game or movie or CD they want because it's part of "culture"? Don't be ridiculous. That's not the feudal system -- how clueless can you be? Frankly, how about, if we're going to start giving out freely all the things people in our society need in order to participate fully in the culture, we start with, like, clean water and food? Once we've got that figured out, maybe then we can move onto video games.
That's just the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and I've been reading internet comments for decades. Whew.
While I agree with some of what Florence has to say about media piracy, the first paragraph of his piece sums up perfectly what I feel is the REAL underlying philosophy of the subject. If you can't afford a computer game (or an iPhone, or a Netflix account, or whatever), and you're having to choose between buying it or feeding your family, then YES, guess what, you DO have to "sit out in the cold" and miss out on that "cultural event." Dingaling. You aren't ENTITLED to it simply because you're alive and you want it. No matter the arguments made later, that entitlement issue always feels like the underlying rational for online piracy to me, and I'm constantly surprised by how many seemingly intelligent people actually THINK like that. "Do I have to pay for it? (No)" Well, yeah, see: you don't have to pay for anything if you're willing to walk up and steal it. Talk about "Lost Humanity," dude. For serious.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by whabap01.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re:
Not to mention, when it comes to a lot of this material, people can already get it for free from their local public library system -- you left out that option as well.
Is piracy leading to artists who are way more popular/successful than the artists that came before them? I haven't seen evidence of that. Nor evidence that piracy is helping artists make more money than they were making before piracy was possible.
So, you'll be avoiding any work by artists who hope to be paid for that work? Nice attitude.
Re: Re:
What you seem to be saying I'm missing is that lots of people who steal music (or etc.) do it because they aren't interested enough in the particular product to want to pay for it. And that disinterest somehow makes it okay for them to steal it -- hey, they weren't going to buy it anyway, right, so what does it cost the creator? But that's completely illogical. That same person probably don't have plans to buy a 10-foot HDTV either -- should they be allowed to steal one, in that case? How are these two things different, at their root? That's the part I simply do not understand.
Also, unless I've just missed all the studies supporting this theory, piracy isn't making artists more money than they were making before piracy, right? If you offer someone a CHOICE between paying for something and taking it for free, taking it for free seems like it usually wins (remember Stephen King's experiment on this about 10 years ago, for example)?
What it can't be is an either/or situation like it is now -- it's not as simple as just "locking down all content" or "sharing everything." There has to be a way for people to create art FOR A LIVING, which leaves out the "sharing everything" idea (and the argument that artists don't make that much from record companies, while valid, doesn't negate the fact that they make SOMETHING from record companies, as opposed to NOTHING from pirates).
The current way this stuff is all set up is not working -- I could not agree more with that. But there's nothing "good" about a fan who steals content. Sure, word spreads -- word spreads about where you can steal the same content. The fan who stole could've had the same impact on other fans if he'd paid for the record, right? Only that way, the artist gets to keep making money off what they've created.
I think the goal should be skirting the corporations and heading more towards self-publishing, personally. But until self-published art (books, music) has the same credibility as corporate-published works, that transition is going to be hellaciously hard and financially risky for artists of all kinds out there. Which to me is all the more reason to support them during this period of all kinds of experimentation and transition, instead of ripping them off and pretending you should be lauded for it. Stealing is stealing -- it's a bullshit thing to do. It's just that simple.
Re: Re:
You really think everyone alive on the planet has the right to any video game or movie or CD they want because it's part of "culture"? Don't be ridiculous. That's not the feudal system -- how clueless can you be? Frankly, how about, if we're going to start giving out freely all the things people in our society need in order to participate fully in the culture, we start with, like, clean water and food? Once we've got that figured out, maybe then we can move onto video games.
That's just the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and I've been reading internet comments for decades. Whew.
(untitled comment)
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by whabap01.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt