Episode 262: I Didn't Say I Pirated It, But Let's Just Say It's Awesome [Discussion] [Archive]

hellhound

07-07-2010, 08:13 PM

For me the difference between piracy and theft is that I wouldn't necessarily pay for those things anyway. For some of these things, if they weren't free I would just go and do something else. It's not a lost sale if I wouldn't have paid for it anyway. A music video on youtube without copyright owners permission viewed 500 times doesn't amount to 500 album sales.

QFT.. Piracy is such a stupid term. It should be called something like "copying without permission". It surely isnt theft because to steal something you take something from someone so that you have it, and they dont have it anymore. Is going to the Louvre, taking a digital picture of the Mona Lisa, and printing it out on a canvas.. Piracy?
Perhaps thats next.
I used to D/L alot more than I do now because now I have more cable boxes w/ DVRs. I used to D/L shows I missed on tv but now the On Demand service has expanded to all the shows on the pay services (HBO, SHO, Starz, etc..). I pay for them all on my cable bill (I buy every movie channel (full digital HD package w/o the pay-sports). In a way its better for me now w/ the improved "On Demand" because now I'm not using up my internet B/W cap to D/L a show I missed.

Decent show.. they only had maybe 2 beers apiece on it so cant say they were hammered and use it to explain away the poor live show. Am dreading next weeks show. Did they film 2 Diggnations back to back at the apartment before doing the live show and next week will be 3 week old stories w/ them doing a really short and rushed ep? And I hope they dont do a video that was on Diggreel 2 weeks ago next week.

wilx

07-07-2010, 08:55 PM

hellhound

07-07-2010, 09:29 PM

frankiethewaffle

07-08-2010, 12:31 AM

Joe Biden:
> But piracy is theft. Clean and simple.

No it is not. Even the Supreme Court says so:

from http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100622/1142419921.shtml
> Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

> It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise].

Yes it is. If the merchandise was stolen from Tiffany's, they no longer have it to sell. Copyright infringement (piracy) is making a copy of the merchandise, but merchandise is still in Tiffany's for them to sell, making this a very different thing than theft.

This is the best argument against the claim of piracy being stealing. But it can't win. Their claim is that it cost them the potential profit gained by you paying for it. Their side is gaining popularity among people that are likely receiving some of that profit to get them to their side.

I guess they would feel the same way if some one were to rent or buy a movie/CD and have a party allowing another to see the film with out that potential profit. (sarcasm) Making around 500million a movie just can't sustain their hard work.

I used to download movies and music. When I got Netflix, iTunes and other services, I didn't have to anymore. Not to mention the quality is much better. My reason could be a word for word copy of what Kevin Rose said. Don't tell him I pirated his quote. I just wanted it then with little trouble.

ghelyar

07-08-2010, 12:44 AM

If it is easy, fast and inexpensive to get a quality product, the vast majority of people won't try to get it illegally.

Example: I use iTunes to buy my music because it only takes a couple of clicks and a few seconds to download an album, at better quality than a torrent of mp3s for both the audio and the metadata. Without iTunes or something similar it is just too expensive and too much effort to drive to town, buy a CD for twice the price, rip it for use on computer/portable player (which may also be illegal anyway, I know there are issues with doing this for movies in America and its essentially the same), etc. Shops are only open during certain hours, which is usually the same time that most people are working, and if you buy it online and get it delivered it will take at least 1-3 days before you even get it.

Higher quality PC games also have much less piracy relative to sales than lower quality games, even if those lower quality games use very strict and annoying DRM.

skyline0410

07-08-2010, 01:14 AM

This episode was quite funny but some one is going to have to teach Kevin how to drive a manual transmission so he doesn't have to pass up such an opportunity again. I guess he'll still get to drive it, but it just wont be the same.

fantastopia

07-08-2010, 03:41 AM

this episode made me smile inside ^_^

cerilia

07-08-2010, 04:02 AM

> It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise].

Yes it is. If the merchandise was stolen from Tiffany's, they no longer have it to sell. Copyright infringement (piracy) is making a copy of the merchandise, but merchandise is still in Tiffany's for them to sell, making this a very different thing than theft.

You also forgot to mention that smashing said window would account for property damage, the same cannot be said about copyright infringement. :P

tangerine

07-08-2010, 04:41 AM

Edward 40-Hands was one of my favorite episodes EVER!
Do it AGAIN! AGAIN! One last time ... *sigh*

It was not disturbing to learn that Hippy Glenn
is the Kiefer Sutherland (http://therudeculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/kiefer-sutherland-pants-front1.jpg) of movie viewers.

Better than a Beer Tasting retreat: Burning Man
Where was Hippy on this one???
Lost in Beer Olympics (http://www.worldbeercup.org/)

Since I am completely out of the demographic
I can attest, as a parent to teens, it would NOT be embarrassing to ask if you were breastfed
or where you were conceived.
We would love to tell you.

The Fiesta? In #D2691E?
Easily dream car. 40mpg.

G33k LOVE to @BryanKersey
(prisoner in Georgia with wonderful handwriting)
If you are a lawyer
or have access to one -- HELP HIM!

Address:
Solomen Kersey
Dooly County Justice Center
P.O Box 96
Pinehurst, GA 31070

imma gone miss this weekly show, damnit.

masterq

07-08-2010, 08:16 AM

pretty solid episode... much better than most recent episodes.

Difference between theft and piracy:

Theft: You physically take a watch from someone so that you possess it and they do not. The original owner loses very valuable property.

Piracy: You observe the watch and have a machine make an exact replica of it for you. Both you and the original owner possess identical watches. The original owner loses absolutely nothing.

Piracy also does not translate to lost sales. Let's say you are giving away free pens. 1000 people take a free pen from you one day. The next day you decide to charge $1 for a pen. You cannot expect 1000 people to buy a pen from you, or that the 1000 people that took a pen for free would have paid for $1 for it. People will often take free things not because they actually desire them, but because they are free and they can obtain something without it costing them anything.

I feel that people are often unintentionally persuaded to pirate. Take music for example. Modern MP3 players (are we still calling them that?) can hold many gigabytes of music. This equates to thousands of songs, each costing about $1 per song. People want to fill their players up with music... its in our nature to want as much as we can get. However most people either can't justify paying thousands of dollars or simply don't have that kind of money to spend to fill their players up with music.

Our government and these narrow-minded companies also don't see many modern industries owe a large portion of their revenue to piracy. I'm sure everyone here can think of many industries that owe a lot of their prosperity to piracy. While the content makers may (may is a very important word here) make more money if piracy went away, many more people in perfectly legitimate industries would suffer great losses.

jtv

07-08-2010, 02:28 PM

rhett803

07-08-2010, 02:38 PM

Kevin can't drive a stick? Wow, gonna have deduct another point from the Man Card. Try to be careful, don't want to lose anymore. The Velcro shoes aren't helping.

Edward 40 Hands would be nice to see. I prefer the shows that have more spontaneity to them.

tokenuser

07-08-2010, 02:50 PM

Kevin's Tag Hauer analogy wasn't very good.

There can only be one of the watch, and it's only in the possession of one person at a time. The things people are pirating (software, music, movies, etc) are digital and there can be an endless number of copies of them.

One person buys an album, uploads it to bittorrent, and an infinite number of people can download a digital copy. You can't do that with a watch (or any physical item) unless Kevin has one of those Star Trek replicator machines that can make a copy of anything. He is the second most powerful geek in America, so who knows...

edit: Poster above me said almost the exact same thing, I guess I should read more than the first page of a thread before responding hehe.IS it theft? If theft requires a physical item, then no.

BUT what piracy does do is diminish the value of the original item.

The argument ou hear is "I downloaded it, but I wouldn't have bought it." If you wouldn't have bought it, then why would you bother downloading? A CD with a stated value of $15 has its value diminished to $0 because you wouldn't have bought it. Point is, you now have a copy. The media you obtained it by is largely irrelevant. In your eye, it is worth $0, but in the eye of the owner of the property it is still worth $15. By listening to the CD or using the software, you have implicitly agreed to its value of $15 and are denying the owner of the property of the $15. It might be a terrible CD or buggy software, but you have still used/listened to it ... and you owe the legit owner $15.

By not paying up, you aren't really stealing something per se. They still have the original to sell ... but I suspect a better argument could be made for an implicit breach of contract and failure to pay for goods and services rendered. Contract law isn't sexy. Its like nailing Al Capone on mail fraud.

darknessgp

07-08-2010, 04:35 PM

people really should get things straight...

When you take an item from Walmart without paying that is STEALING

When you download copyrighted material without authorization that is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT (yes, technically you could pay for it and it could still be copyright infringement because where you are getting it from might not be authorized to distribute)

I really dislike the term "piracy" because it is usually used to make it sound worse than it is and used as a basis to try and tie it to physical theft. Many companies and people try to make it public opinion that copyright infringement = theft. It's just not true. Copyright infringement is a crime, but we can't just treat it exactly like theft, especially not in the courts.

afizzledbear

07-08-2010, 05:01 PM

I've always thought that of pirating stuff like if I saw a street vendor and then took one of his things while he's not looking; he might not know it happened or who did it but it still hurts business.

vorticose

07-08-2010, 06:05 PM

Huge difference in my mind:
* Stealing - The Vendor loses an actual real object. They produced a real item and this cost them time/effort to create and get it to a store. Usually it didn't cost them very much compared to the retail price of the item but it definitely cost them something.
* Copyright Infringement (Piracy) - The creator spent the time/effort making the work and recording or coding or whatever, but they did NOT spend any additional effort or money creating these pirated copies.

I've seen piracy ads which say "You wouldn't steal a car." but if I could make a copy of someone else's car, and they got to keep their car, and it continued to work fine, and they didn't even know, well I would be a lot more tempted and I certainly wouldn't consider it to be ethically as bad as stealing a car.

Also I think Copyright Infringement and Music/Software Piracy has much more in common with 'counterfeiting' than stealing. It's copying someone else's design and depriving them of possible sales.

davo1111

07-08-2010, 06:17 PM

I just posted the prisoner guy some IT books, and some personal toiletries etc

I hope it all gets through :)

ajax299

07-08-2010, 11:01 PM

Whether piracy is theft depends on your definition. If you believe in intellectual property (copyright, patent, etc.) as most people do then piracy is for sure theft. If you feel that intellectual property is a flawed concept in that it states what I can and can't do with my own property then piracy isn't theft. I choose the latter.

If it is theft then pirates should definitely be persecuted as if they broke a copyright or infringed on a patent. No doubt. It's a social issue because society has decided to make it one and so it should be treated as such.

It's all just so damned silly. But a country of the people, by the people, and for the people (which I hope America still is) demands that if the people wish it inherent freedoms must be sacrificed. And so silly things like intellectual property, fines for not wearing seatbelts, bans on consuming certain substances, and many other freedoms get squashed. And Government keeps on growing...

tymac94

07-09-2010, 02:21 AM

I agree this last episode was a good one and what kind of velcro shoes are them? looks kinda retarded. At the end I was surprised to learn that @bryankersey lived in the same city as I do also surprised to learn that someone else watches diggnation where i live. I am glad the diggnation community is supporting him. I wish I could help him.

masterq

07-09-2010, 05:10 AM

It's all just so damned silly. But a country of the people, by the people, and for the people (which I hope America still is) demands that if the people wish it inherent freedoms must be sacrificed. And so silly things like intellectual property, fines for not wearing seatbelts, bans on consuming certain substances, and many other freedoms get squashed. And Government keeps on growing...

I always say that to people. Most people download music illegally and have absolutely no moral objections to it. Hell, I bet most cops, politicians, and lawyers also download music for free and probably don't have a moral problem with it. In a democratic form of government, if the majority of the people do it and have no moral objections, shouldn't it become legal? I guess you can say I may be taking things a bit far with that statement because if everyone became murderers we shouldn't make murder legal, but there is a moral objection to murder. Things like wearing a seatbelt are safety issues, and some people aren't smart enough to realize the dangers, so in cases like that I can see going against this idea. However, there is no safety concern with downloading.

Most people also need to realize that the RIAA and the MPAA are not the government, just normal, run-of-the-mill organizations whose views on topics such as this are based off of out-dated 20th century business thinking. No offense to all older people but a large majority of older people just don't "get it" when it comes to newer technologies and the way they influence our indusrties... these are the people behind this shit. No wonder almost every mention of them brings on the obligatory "FUCK THE XXXX"

Its sad to say but the tech world will be a much better place when the people currently under 30 are the old-timers. Again, not all older people are technologically backward but I would say most are. People need to wake the fuck up and get with the times... *Steps off of soap box*

ksboyintx

07-09-2010, 06:59 PM

please stop making good shows like this one. with the recent annoucements, if I am not able to hate all the remaining shows then..........

then I'll never be able to quit you!

murphy1d

07-09-2010, 07:21 PM

I wanted to just note that the Tiffany's analogy would be better suited if it went like this:

Would you walk past the Tiffany's window, and if you had the ability to make an exact replica of the T-shirt in the window, would you?

Well, yes. Of course I would. And they would still have the original still in the window to sell to someone else who could afford it.

(and yes I know there's a whole "support the original artist" but when it comes to a $400 program that I couldn't afford anyway, they wouldn't have had the sale).

tokenuser

07-09-2010, 07:41 PM

I wanted to just note that the Tiffany's analogy would be better suited if it went like this:

Would you walk past the Tiffany's window, and if you had the ability to make an exact replica of the T-shirt in the window, would you?But would it come in the "little blue box"?

Tiffany's are a jewelry store. They don't make t-shirts. The t-shirt you see in the window would be a reflection of the one you are wearing.

Well, yes. Of course I would. And they would still have the original still in the window to sell to someone else who could afford it.

(and yes I know there's a whole "support the original artist" but when it comes to a $400 program that I couldn't afford anyway, they wouldn't have had the sale).That is where I have a problem with the argument. You would not have bought it, yet you are still benefiting from the product. Theft? Maybe. Not physical theft, but a denial of revenue - which amounts to the same thing. Immoral? Yes. When you finally produce something of value, you will understand how it is theft more. Of course, you could release it under a CC type deal, or any number of GNU style licenses, but that would be your choice, not the choice of the end consumer.

Would I call the pirate a thief? No. It wouldn't stop me from calling them a self centered ass though.

fantastopia

07-10-2010, 02:41 AM

No your all arguing about irrelevant shit

if we are making a direct copy of something we are not taking any energy (6 dimensional space)

but we are taking information (information dimension) all dimensions have a $ value

information is now essentially free, so they will never be able to compete with physical mediums

they just need to stop their fucking crying and start a god damned itunes/steam

conservatism is not productive

smeerkaas

07-10-2010, 03:51 AM

It can be very counterproductive to slam down hard on pirating. This is why companies such as Adobe have big discounts for schools and students. And why they shouldn't be that upset that young people 'steal' software such as Photoshop.

Think about it. If you pirate PS, it is the program you use and know. Then, when you start a business of get a job in for instance graphic design or whatever, you are going to use PS. Not an alternative. The real deal. And you are going to pay the full retail price for it. It'll cost you more to switch apps and get back up to speed skill-wise, that to stick with PS and use that.

If you coulnd't pirate PS to get familiar with it when young, then the full retail sale later on in life wouldn't be money in the bank for Adobe but for another company. Or even freeware such as the Gimp.

I think Microsoft used to do this early on with Word. They gave it away for free of very litte. This is how they broke WordPerfect's dominance in the market. And now that everyone uses Word, they hiked up the price. It's just like dope. Give it away for free and then when the users are hooked, you can ask full price.

Also I agree with the statement about how if I couldn't get a movie for free, that would just mean a loss in sale for the company that sells it. A missed pirated download does not equate to a gained legal sale.

masterq

07-10-2010, 09:05 PM

if we are making a direct copy of something we are not taking any energy (6 dimensional space)

but we are taking information (information dimension) all dimensions have a $ value

i don't think you have the right understanding of the dimensions... not saying I do but that doesn't sound right.

heres my understanding of the dimensions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCQx9U6awFw

but heres a thought... when we finally do get replicators like on star trek (just a matter of time) are we not going to be able to replicate anything because the information on how to replicate something is the "intellectual property" of someone? That is basically what we are doing when downloading. We are replicating 1s and 0s...

fantastopia

07-11-2010, 03:06 AM

i don't think you have the right understanding of the dimensions... not saying I do but that doesn't sound right.

heres my understanding of the dimensions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCQx9U6awFw

but heres a thought... when we finally do get replicators like on star trek (just a matter of time) are we not going to be able to replicate anything because the information on how to replicate something is the "intellectual property" of someone? That is basically what we are doing when downloading. We are replicating 1s and 0s...

I think I was confusing geometry and spacial dimensions eh, wont go into this; I feel that there are an infinite amount of dimensions, but see if I try to explain why I think 3 dimensional space is actually 6 you probably will just say im crazy

i really enjoy thinking about quantum entanglement, and how the whole being in multiple places at once works, as a programmer I am inclined to think that there must be some kind of localization dimension, like an address or unique identifier that is defined by the strings vibrations and directions they are pointing, so if 2 atoms touch and their frequencies equalize or duplicate however that works maybe since they have the same localization value then those 2 points in space are now 1 point in space, connected by a wormhole in space time, with the single peice of matter 'dipping' in and out of the wormhole? i dunno i can see it in my head it makes sense to me; it's probably all wrong but i haven't read any string theory or any shit like that

MasterQ: of course, once we have power plants that are capable of producing the vast amounts of power required to replicate matter like this, these sorts of issues around information value would have been sorted - by this time anyway we will probably have AI that innovates for us, thus making innovation and new information free - it's too far into the future to bring it up as a relevant argument

the point is, if someone wants to create information, be it music, movies, books, whatever, you need to sell it online in a digital format or you will not be able to compete in anyway at all since information can be duplicated for free by anyone

it's in our DNA to do the moral thing, if its priced well then there is no need for someone to go the back streets for information, there is always a huge satisfaction buying something real vs something copied - thats what these idiots should be leveraging, not telling their users they are criminal thieves; its a lack of foresight and innovation on their part

IMO this is why I would always hire a hippie over a suit, hippies accept change, suits always go conservative when presented with the slightest bit of risk

masterq

07-11-2010, 03:59 AM

it's in our DNA to do the moral thing, if its priced well then there is no need for someone to go the back streets for information, there is always a huge satisfaction buying something real vs something copied - thats what these idiots should be leveraging, not telling their users they are criminal thieves; its a lack of foresight and innovation on their part

IMO this is why I would always hire a hippie over a suit, hippies accept change, suits always go conservative when presented with the slightest bit of risk

I agree... I think the best way for the industry to battle piracy is to not fight it. Fighting only glorifies it, which is why the pirate bay gets a huge surge of traffic after they attempt to shut it down and get huge press over it. The best thing to do would be to get rid of all DRM and stop treating their paying customers as potential criminals. Allow them to put the music on whatever device they want or listen to it the way they want...maybe even give them the music in MP3 format. Then, just campaign to ask people nicely to do the right thing and pay for the hard work of the artist. Telling the consumers they are thieves and that they are stealing which makes them criminals gives a hugely negative message that IMO actually promotes piracy.

fantastopia

07-11-2010, 07:36 AM

I agree... I think the best way for the industry to battle piracy is to not fight it. Fighting only glorifies it, which is why the pirate bay gets a huge surge of traffic after they attempt to shut it down and get huge press over it. The best thing to do would be to get rid of all DRM and stop treating their paying customers as potential criminals. Allow them to put the music on whatever device they want or listen to it the way they want...maybe even give them the music in MP3 format. Then, just campaign to ask people nicely to do the right thing and pay for the hard work of the artist. Telling the consumers they are thieves and that they are stealing which makes them criminals gives a hugely negative message that IMO actually promotes piracy.

oath.

I only buy music from www.beatport.com now; itunes meh, I feel like its my responsibility to pirate as much of thier shit (groups who fund RIAA/MPAA) until they get the message and stop being such douches

I love supporting my favorite artists but seriously, wake up guys, that piece of music is now worth a whole lot less per unit - but guess what, your going to sell more units than before

I dream of being able to download 20MB mp3 files as a lossy version and a nice fucking epic lossless file, all DRM free

They can do this right now... now i feel like im beating a dead horse; RIAA you are treading on my dreams!

evan_s

07-11-2010, 07:32 PM

A few things.

I agree with Kevin and Alex and the poster above with the whole thing about pirating now, paying when you afford. Of course there will be those who never pay.

If I were producing music or movies (one day hopefuly) I would not mind people pirating if they can't afford because I've been there. I may get something because I can, but it doesn't really equate to a lost sale. What it does equal to is a potential sale in the future. Maybe more, with Adobe, etc, when I can build some studio of some sort.

lavakillu

07-11-2010, 10:12 PM

masterq

07-12-2010, 04:46 PM

Semantics aside, it is "wrong" to take something that doesn't belong to you but, so far, the punishments that have been doled out have been ridiculous.

Most of the cost and effort of perusing and prosecuting "pirates" could be eliminated if the record/software companies would charge a price that actually reflected the value of their product. With NO cost for distribution and little relative cost for manufacturing media, most of what is charged represents raw profit. If I could legally procure media at a FAIR price, that is, one much lower than I would have paid for the hard copy of the same media, then I wouldn't hesitate to buy pretty much everything. I'm all about greed and I have no problem with companies getting what they can for their products but, the prevalence of "piracy" should be interpreted by them as a necessity to adjust the price point. Instead, they choose scorched earth policy and, now, with the blessings of an overreaching executive branch.

It all comes down to a sense of morality. Yes, it is morally wrong to download things that you did not pay for. However, it is even more morally wrong for these four letter organizations suing people for 100x what the average person makes in their lifetime because when they were downloading something there was a possibility that other people could have downloaded it from them. Both sides are technically wrong, but its not hard to figure out which side has more morals.

fantastopia

07-13-2010, 07:08 AM

It all comes down to a sense of morality. Yes, it is morally wrong to download things that you did not pay for. However, it is even more morally wrong for these four letter organizations suing people for 100x what the average person makes in their lifetime because when they were downloading something there was a possibility that other people could have downloaded it from them. Both sides are technically wrong, but its not hard to figure out which side has more morals.

Exactly. MasterQ has his fucking ideas sorted. If only everyone could see things the way we do lol.

tokenuser

07-13-2010, 03:25 PM

So, somehow it is wrong for the owners of intellectual property to protect THEIR rights? The RIAA/MPAA don't go about it the right way, but they are within their rights to go about shutting down unauthorized distribution channels and (based on server log) estimate the revenue the person lost them.

It's a bitch, but we are not at the egalitarian economic model used in the star trek universe, and people who make stuff like to be paid ... because it helps pay the bills.

fantastopia

07-13-2010, 04:21 PM

tokenuser

07-13-2010, 05:01 PM

That's fail.

It's about choosing the right distribution method, noones saying they work for free.the fail is you saying "I don't like the license you've chosen, I'm going to use this one instead."

That is not your decision. It is the content creators decision. Whether it is audio, video, or software, failure to compensate the content creator directly or via a marketing organization who manages those payments, is theft. Might not be theft of a physical item, but it is theft of intellectual property through unauthorized usage and denial of derived income.

masterq

07-13-2010, 05:08 PM

So, somehow it is wrong for the owners of intellectual property to protect THEIR rights?

Yes because usually the content owner "protecting their rights" includes inhibiting my right to fair use for the content that I paid to watch. The fact of the matter is that there is a huge difference between protecting your rights as a content maker and treating all of your paying customers like criminals for no reason... unfortunately for everyone, almost all content makers choose the latter.

Whether it is audio, video, or software, failure to compensate the content creator directly or via a marketing organization who manages those payments, is theft. Might not be theft of a physical item, but it is theft of intellectual property through unauthorized usage and denial of derived income.

Theft is not an accurate term. Theft implies that the original owner of the property loses it when someone else takes it.

tokenuser

07-13-2010, 05:30 PM

Yes because usually the content owner "protecting their rights" includes inhibiting my right to fair use for the content that I paid to watch. The fact of the matter is that there is a huge difference between protecting your rights as a content maker and treating all of your paying customers like criminals for no reason... unfortunately for everyone, almost all content makers choose the latter.that is a different argument. You are talking fair use. It is not you obtaining something you didn't pay for. I am all for fair use, I am not for piracy.

Theft is not an accurate term. Theft implies that the original owner of the property loses it when someone else takes it.
I don't like calling it theft ... That is what it amounts to, but the lack of a physical object makes it hard to define.

wilx

07-15-2010, 10:52 PM

So, somehow it is wrong for the owners of intellectual property to protect THEIR rights?

Wrong implies a moral argument, but if this is about selling more music CDs, then stupid would be more accurate. If you wanted to drastically increase CD sales, the first thing you should do is stop trying to protect your rights and remove the DRM from them. DRM does not decrease piracy, instead it increases it. If it can be listened to, a copy can be made. No DRM can stop everyone and only one person needs to figure out a way to bypass it and piracy will still happen. What DRM does is decrease the value of the CD to the point of uselessness for most potential buyers. If a fan buys a CD they want to put a copy on their Ipod, their media center, their whatever and DRM stops them from doing that. Better and easier to just get an un-DRMed version whether you pay for it or not.

The RIAA/MPAA don't go about it the right way, but they are within their rights to go about shutting down unauthorized distribution channels and (based on server log) estimate the revenue the person lost them.

The RIAA can sue, but does not have the right to shut down another company.

Interesting choice of words on the estimate of revenue lost. The RIAA has caused more revenue to be lost by the Record labels than the Pirate Bay or any of its ilk. It is never a good business decision to sue your biggest customers. As a whole people who pirate music spend more on music than people who don't.

fantastopia

07-19-2010, 04:03 PM

the fail is you saying "I don't like the license you've chosen, I'm going to use this one instead."

That is not your decision. It is the content creators decision. Whether it is audio, video, or software, failure to compensate the content creator directly or via a marketing organization who manages those payments, is theft. Might not be theft of a physical item, but it is theft of intellectual property through unauthorized usage and denial of derived income.

you have no fucking idea what you are talking about man

there is no way in hell i'd let you run a company

tokenuser

07-19-2010, 04:28 PM

you have no fucking idea what you are talking about man

there is no way in hell i'd let you run a company

So your company model would be "I've spent 3years of R&D on this product, and I am going to give it away and live in a cardboard box."

Have you ever produced something of value that other people want? As a content producer, your view on value shifts. Walk into your local Myers and try walking out with a CD, DVD, or software package.

Argue with the police that they have no idea how to run a company, and that everything on the shelves should be free ... see how long that argument holds up.

You are a fucking moron.

masterq

07-19-2010, 04:57 PM

you have no fucking idea what you are talking about man

there is no way in hell i'd let you run a company

i wouldn't go that far... although I don't particularly agree with tokenuser on this subject, it is all opinion. No one is exactly right and no one is exactly wrong when talking about this subject and everyone has their own opinion. That is why it is called "controversial"

companies need to take a good look at their business models. The record industry is an example of an industry that is trying to force an out-of-date business model into a modern one, which is why it is not working. charging for music works for things like iTunes, but not so much for CDs anymore. On the other hand, things like pandora allow users to listen for free and make money on advertising.

One thing that you have to realize is that nothing is truly free, and although the consumer may receive a product at no cost through something like pandora, the companies still make money from this. Another example of this is Revision3. Some people argue that the shows on Revision3 are free, when in fact they are not. It is an illusion of free simply because we are not paying with physical money, but with something else. In the case of revision3, we are paying with our time by watching pre-roll ads, post-roll ads, overlay ads, in-show ads, cross promos, etc.

phatlip

07-21-2010, 03:56 AM

I admit I pirate things. I also admit it's wrong. I still do it, because that's my choice. The choices you make have consequences, and if I ever get in trouble for it I'll have to live with those consequences.

I don't care if you pirate things. But quit trying to justify it. It's wrong, and you're an idiot if you try to make an argument claiming it isn't. Man up.

dralezero

07-27-2010, 07:58 AM

Steam has full featured games on sale for $5-10 a lot of times. Although a few years old sometimes. Its like candy, not trip to stores, etc. People would eat it up on a mobile.

hellhound

07-27-2010, 05:14 PM

So your company model would be "I've spent 3years of R&D on this product, and I am going to give it away and live in a cardboard box."

hmm.. Linux community must all be amazing developers coding from cardboard boxes.

Interesting talk on Intellectual Property:

The Evils of Intellectual Property | by Jeffrey A. Tucker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KSua3Nczjk

not sure how much I agree and disagree w/ many points but raises some interesting lines of thought

tokenuser

07-27-2010, 07:56 PM

hmm.. Linux community must all be amazing developers coding from cardboard boxes.

Interesting talk on Intellectual Property:

The Evils of Intellectual Property | by Jeffrey A. Tucker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KSua3Nczjk

not sure how much I agree and disagree w/ many points but raises some interesting lines of thoughtThe whole Austrian Economics school of thought (to which Tucker is a staunch proponent), has positives and negatives, and in a perfect economy it would work.

But its not a perfect economy. It is a capitalist society and not as market driven as the Austrians (economists, not nationals) would like.

IP is evil, but that is unfortunately the current model we need to work in.

The cadre of Linux programmers out there are not (for the most part) coding Linux as their full time job - its a hobby, or a distraction to gain kudos with the Gnu Herd while they are going through college. There are companies doing Linux based software out there, but they survive not on the generosity of strangers but largely on professional services (offering support). IBM has a large Linux programming group .... but they aren't making money. Its the Consulting Services Group that is the cost centre.

Anyway, my point is not about whether IP is evil, or DRM is evil, or any of that.

My point was that just because you don't like the distribution model chosen by an entity (individual or corporate; software, music, or video) doesn't mean you have the right to say "I don't like that method" and wrap your own licence around it (ie, "rip the DRM and put it out there for the world to use".)

People have bills to pay, and we do not have the egalitarian economy that the Libertarians want.

Phatlip said it well up above:

I don't care if you pirate things. But quit trying to justify it. It's wrong, and you're an idiot if you try to make an argument claiming it isn't. Man up.

frankiethewaffle

07-30-2010, 06:58 PM

Oh, Oh, one more thing. Anyone seen "Ironweed" lately? Huh? NO! Cause it is in a property dispute within studios.

Great movie. I had to settle for a VHS ripped at the highest quality possible. In two different files. If this crap of fighting for rights to a great movie didn't exist, I would happily buy the DVD and I pray for the BluRay. Someone HAS to release it. Check out amazon.com. It isn't there.

Pirate it? Yes I will!

fantastopia

08-05-2010, 02:22 AM

tokenuser

08-05-2010, 01:06 PM

tokenuser: sorry I shouldn't have raged earlier, but still completely disagree with what your saying

sure your a content producer so now your greedy and overinflating the value of what your selling by arguing bullshit out of date laws...

no

thats not how things are going to be done in the futureDisagreement is fine ... but there are ways to argue a point and then there was you method ...

It's OK. I understand that you see your position as being a leech on society as more important than the livelyhood of those that make what you desire.

As a content producer, you need to work within the CURRENT laws. Thats the part you are missing. The "all content should be free" model is a great one, but not CURRENTLY sustainable. It might be a goal for the future, but regardless of the Austrian School of Economic Theory, or Libertarian Market Driven Economic Models, that is not how the world CURRENTLY works.

At the moment you are a parasite. Consuming, but giving nothing back. No better than a tick on a dog. Indeed, like a tick, piracy can have the effect of paralizing a small company by cutting off its revenue and killing it. You could argue that they should have changed how they licensed, but in the CURRENT economy thats not how it works.

I am still waiting for your "trillion dollar" company to come along, and wondering how your $250,000 buyout offer of Digg is coming. You are obviously a fucking brilliant web designer/architect ... and really hope that your desire for the Facebook phone comes along soon. People with your vision are rare :rolleyes:

alaskalonewolf

08-05-2010, 08:21 PM

...if all content was free, there wouldn't be that much of it.

wilx

08-06-2010, 06:34 AM

...if all content was free, there wouldn't be that much of it.

I guess you have never heard of YouTube. There is more free video posted to YouTube every day than paid for Movies or TV combined.

wilx

08-06-2010, 06:43 AM

To tokenuser:

You seem to imply that P2P networking has devastated the Music and Movie businesses, but neither is true. Each of them has grown since P2P first started.

Currently the dollars spent on Music breaks down into 3 roughly equal parts. 1/3 sales of music, 1/3 live performances, 1/3 business to business. The sales of music third breaks down further into MP3s, CDs and other stuff. Every aspect of the music industry is growing except the sales of plastic disks.

The two biggest reasons for reduction in the sale of plastic disks are:
1. Plastic disks are a technology coming to the end of its life cycle.
2. DRM reduces the value too far below the alternatives. (as I explained in a early post)

You demonize P2P file sharing, but I would argue that the more a song is pirated the more popular it will become and the more money it will make. You might think that it will reduce the Music sales third, but it would obviously increase the other two thirds. I personally believe that it will increase all 3 thirds, but I would understand if you don't believe that.

People who pirate music spend more on music than people who don't.

Buy the way, I don't pirate music, but I am about to start a new company with a new business model and have studied the market forces in depth.

Wilx

tokenuser

08-06-2010, 03:57 PM

To tokenuser:

You seem to imply that P2P networking has devastated the Music and Movie businesses, but neither is true. Each of them has grown since P2P first started. Not at all.

P2P and online distribution is valid.

Another misconception is that being anti piracy is being proDRM. They are unrelated - because you can make a backup for personal use (which I am all for - regardless of the original media format purchased) does not mean you should be able to give copies of it to those that did not pay for it.

Currently the dollars spent on Music breaks down into 3 roughly equal parts. 1/3 sales of music, 1/3 live performances, 1/3 business to business. The sales of music third breaks down further into MP3s, CDs and other stuff. Every aspect of the music industry is growing except the sales of plastic disks. Important part of what you said. Money SPENT. Money has changed hands. Again, not piracy. Distribution method is not important. Physical disc is not important. P2P or direct electronic download is perfectly fine. Again, dont confuse P2P with piracy. I don't. One is a parasitic ethic. The other is a legitimate distribution model - one that is chosen by the content provider, and not by some random guy that copied the content and decided to release it for free to others.

The two biggest reasons for reduction in the sale of plastic disks are:
1. Plastic disks are a technology coming to the end of its life cycle.
2. DRM reduces the value too far below the alternatives. (as I explained in a early post)No argument. DRM is evil, and the Library of Congress have pretty much come out and said so. Finally the legal loophole where it has been legal to have a backup of media you own (under the fair use provisions of the Copyright Act), but illegal to crack the DRM to obtain the backup (under the DMCA). DRM is not dead, but its on life support. Given recent developments, I am curious to see what the RIAA and MPAA respond with. You can be sure that it will be an even bigger PITA.

You demonize P2P file sharing, but I would argue that the more a song is pirated the more popular it will become and the more money it will make. You might think that it will reduce the Music sales third, but it would obviously increase the other two thirds. I personally believe that it will increase all 3 thirds, but I would understand if you don't believe that.Again. P2P is legitimate. Whether a content provider (and you say music and video, but ignore software so far) choses to release their product under a mechanism that allows for P2P is THEIR choice. The content provider chooses the licensing mechanism. The choice of releasing it as free, ad supported, or donation supported is THEIR choice.

People who pirate music spend more on music than people who don't.Really? Links please. Given the illegal nature of music piracy I'd suggest that the numbers are skewed - higher on the legal side. Lower on the illegal side. The actual tracking of music downloads is an issue as well, since the distributors lose track of actual marketably researchable <?> stats when it is downloaded from independent trackers.

I just tried searching NPR for a pair of stories I heard over the past couple of months - one was about the changing face of music distribution, and (I think) included an interview with Keith Richards talking about the "golden age" of music when the artist got a huge cut, then the record labels got overly greed (again) and didnt keep pace with distribution models, and the increased need for touring/merchandising. A second story was about the increased need for acts to tour to stay alive, the rising cost of concert tickets (to offset decreased record sales and risiing touring production costs), and the lack of venues and increased number of music festivals. All very music specific.

Movies are another story - and piracy of a film is where the discussion for this thread started.

Buy the way, I don't pirate music, but I am about to start a new company with a new business model and have studied the market forces in depth.

As a software engineer working on my first "private" application (after too many years working for "the man"), I've been looking at revenue models and distribution methods too. In addition to a full on paid version, I'm trying to figure out whether an ad supported free version will fly. Alternatives are a free crippled version after a full featured trial period.

The landscape is changing, but piracy is still illegal.

brit

08-06-2010, 07:48 PM

As an independent software developer (I make money on every sale of my software), it's always worrying to hear a lot of people on forums argue that they should be allowed to pirate stuff. While I tend to go easier on people who can't afford the stuff they're pirating or can't actually buy it (because it's out of print, or not available for sale in their own country), a lot of the arguments end up implicitly arguing that everything digital should be free. That's just a bad argument. I'll agree that it's not identical to regular property theft (because regular theft deprives the victim of the item), the reality is that we simply can't afford to produce works unless we get paid. A closer analogy might be something like sneaking into a concert, a movie theater, or an amusement park - assuming that they're not 100% full. (Cue the argument about how sneaking into concerts is okay because you're not depriving anyone of sound.) While there are methods (fences and bouncers) that can keep large numbers of people from doing those things, it's much harder for those of us creating digital media. This means we have to rely much more heavily on users doing the right thing. Obviously, we can't continue to produce works for free any more than musicians, movie theaters, and amusement parks can continue to operate expensive entertainment if everyone gets in for free. Companies cannot spend a few million or a few hundred million creating software or a movie if everyone gets it for free. The problem is that when we begin selling our products, we're deeply in debt due to development costs - if nobody has to pay, then we can't pay back those debts, which makes the whole thing a very, very bad investment. The end result of the pirate's "everyone should be allowed to get it for free" is bankruptcy for all of us creating your entertainment - and that just leaves everyone worse off in the long run.

You seem to imply that P2P networking has devastated the Music and Movie businesses, but neither is true. Each of them has grown since P2P first started.

Music sales are half of what they were 10 years ago. Once you adjust for inflation, per-capita spending - as far as domestic box office revenues (i.e. people going to the movie theater) - you find that movies have also declined by about 14% since 2002, which was the peak year for the movie business. ( http://www.atomicboysoftware.com/blog/2009/12/hollywood-box-office-numbers-and-piracy/ ) I've also seen some numbers for year-to-year DVD sales that show some pretty decent declines.

Currently the dollars spent on Music breaks down into 3 roughly equal parts. 1/3 sales of music, 1/3 live performances, 1/3 business to business. The sales of music third breaks down further into MP3s, CDs and other stuff. Every aspect of the music industry is growing except the sales of plastic disks.

Well, yes, and sales of digital music - while growing - are nowhere close to compensating for the decline in sales of CDs. To put it another way, music sales - even when you combine together CD sales and digital sales - are getting hammered.

You demonize P2P file sharing, but I would argue that the more a song is pirated the more popular it will become and the more money it will make. You might think that it will reduce the Music sales third, but it would obviously increase the other two thirds. I personally believe that it will increase all 3 thirds, but I would understand if you don't believe that.

And that may be true, but if we're going to talk about the legitimacy of piracy, we need to expand the discussion to more than just music. Movies and software are in a much worse position to get alternate systems of revenue.

People who pirate music spend more on music than people who don't.

I've heard statistics all over the place on that argument - everything from studies claiming that pirates buy 12 times as much music to studies that claim only 30% more music sales to pirates. There's lots of reasons to question those studies - everything from the possibility of pirates lying about their music purchases to a correlation-causation fallacy (i.e. if music lovers are more likely to be pirates, and music lovers are more likely to purchase, then there might be higher purchasing among the "pirate, music lover" demographic than among the "non-pirate, non-music-lover" demographic).

wilx

08-06-2010, 11:07 PM

Really? Links please.

I am surprised you missed all of the studies that found this, there must be a dozen or more. Do a quick Google search on: People who pirate music spend more on music than people who don't ... and you will find lots of them. Here are a few:

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars
http://torrentfreak.com/pirates-are-the-music-industrys-most-valuable-customers-100122/
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Pirate-Fileshare-Music-Download-Illegal,news-5001.html
http://gizmodo.com/5219587/study-finds-pirates-buy-10x-more-music-online-than-non+pirates

wilx

08-06-2010, 11:59 PM

As an independent software developer (I make money on every sale of my software), it's always worrying to hear a lot of people on forums argue that they should be allowed to pirate stuff.

If that was directed at me, I didn't say "they should be allowed to pirate stuff." That is part of a moral argument. My interest in the subject is "How do I use the changing market forces to get rich?". For better or worse, piracy is a market force I must take into account. I will leave the whining about the moral issues to others.

Music sales are half of what they were 10 years ago. Once you adjust for inflation, per-capita spending - as far as domestic box office revenues (i.e. people going to the movie theater) - you find that movies have also declined by about 14% since 2002, which was the peak year for the movie business. ( http://www.atomicboysoftware.com/blog/2009/12/hollywood-box-office-numbers-and-piracy/ ) I've also seen some numbers for year-to-year DVD sales that show some pretty decent declines.
Well, yes, and sales of digital music - while growing - are nowhere close to compensating for the decline in sales of CDs. To put it another way, music sales - even when you combine together CD sales and digital sales - are getting hammered.
I guess I wasn't clear. Music sales has shrunk to one third of the music business, but the other 2 thirds have grown more than music sales have shrunk. While this is bad for record labels who based their entire revenue stream on the sales of music and can't adapt, it is a boon for the artists who always made very little from CD sales and made most of their money from the 2 thirds of the business that is growing.

RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml)

Movies and software are in a much worse position to get alternate systems of revenue.

I know, most people aren't innovative enough to come up with a business concept to take advantage of the changing market forces and that is what is going to make me rich again. I came up with a business concept where giving away the software we develop will definitely make us more money than selling it. I am in the process of looking for 1-2 million of angel financing right now, so until I get that I don't want to give away the details on how I am going to do it here. Don't worry once I get it going you will hear about it on TRS.

brit

08-07-2010, 12:49 AM

If that was directed at me, I didn't say "they should be allowed to pirate stuff." That is part of a moral argument. My interest in the subject is "How do I use the changing market forces to get rich?". For better or worse, piracy is a market force I must take into account. I will leave the whining about the moral issues to others.

No, it was more aimed at the numerous people on this thread looking to justify their piracy with arguments like 'it isn't theft because I haven't deprived you of anything (and therefore it's perfectly okay)'.

I guess I wasn't clear. Music sales has shrunk to one third of the music business, but the other 2 thirds have grown more than music sales have shrunk. While this is bad for record labels who based their entire revenue stream on the sales of music and can't adapt, it is a boon for the artists who always made very little from CD sales and made most of their money from the 2 thirds of the business that is growing.

RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml)

Well, to be fair, I don't share the same exact views on labels as most people. In as much as labels provide marketing and money to bands, bands want them. Most people on the internet see labels as leeches on music with zero redeeming benefits to the bands themselves (which raises the question of why bands would want to work with them). If bands can make it without labels, more power to them. Maybe the internet can cut-out labels entirely, and that would be a net benefit. But, if a band is earning $10,000 / year from music sales and $10,000 / year from touring, and then that band signs with a label, loses all the money from music sales, but labels promote them so much that the band is earning $100,000 / year from touring, that's a net benefit for the band. Eliminating the label in this case means the band has no option to choose between $20,000 / year (without a label) and $100,000 / year with a label. My point is simply that this whole "the label makes the money from the album sales" is kind of missing the point and it doesn't prove what people thinks it proves.

Besides, your getting back to the issue of music piracy again, rather than the larger issue of "information wants to be free" piracy.

I know, most people aren't innovative enough to come up with a business concept to take advantage of the changing market forces and that is what is going to make me rich again. I came up with a business concept where giving away the software we develop will definitely make us more money than selling it. I am in the process of looking for 1-2 million of angel financing right now, so until I get that I don't want to give away the details on how I am going to do it here. Don't worry once I get it going you will hear about it on TRS.

(1) I think I should take "most people aren't innovative enough" as a dig.
(2) Show me it working, not "it's totally going to work" promise. I've worked in the software industry long enough that I've seen lots of people make lots of big talk about how their idea is the next big thing.
(3) Even if you have a working system (and they do exist - for example, World of Warcraft makes it on a subscription model because they control the servers; and iTunes can get by giving away their application for free because it's a portal to buying other stuff), it doesn't prove much of anything. You can get a large decline in the movie or software market and still find opportunities. (Case in point: iTunes has been taking a good slice of the declining music-sales business. For Apple, it's been good even as the music-sales market declines.) But the fact that you can find opportunities does not mean that piracy is good, or the decline in the market is good for society. Sometimes 'you just have to be smart enough to find the new opportunities in the market' talk is diversionary tactic to blame the producer and ignore the situation.

brit

08-07-2010, 12:52 AM

I am surprised you missed all of the studies that found this, there must be a dozen or more. Do a quick Google search on: People who pirate music spend more on music than people who don't ... and you will find lots of them. Here are a few:

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars
http://torrentfreak.com/pirates-are-the-music-industrys-most-valuable-customers-100122/
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Pirate-Fileshare-Music-Download-Illegal,news-5001.html
http://gizmodo.com/5219587/study-finds-pirates-buy-10x-more-music-online-than-non+pirates

By the way, if you really believe that piracy increases sales, then how do you explain the declining music sales? Whenever people bring up these studies, I don't get answers on the "missing sales" problem -- why hasn't the music industry's sales exploded over the past 10 years?

alaskalonewolf

08-07-2010, 01:20 AM

The reason why is because of the "iPod effect" in music. Why would anyone want to purchase a form of media that needs to be converted to use. They don't, they go to the internet where music can be obtained and directly imported to the devices which they enjoy. Long gone are the days where vinyl and compact discs ruled the day.

tokenuser

08-07-2010, 02:42 AM

I am surprised you missed all of the studies that found this, there must be a dozen or more. Do a quick Google search on: People who pirate music spend more on music than people who don't ... and you will find lots of them. Here are a few:

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars
http://torrentfreak.com/pirates-are-the-music-industrys-most-valuable-customers-100122/
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Pirate-Fileshare-Music-Download-Illegal,news-5001.html
http://gizmodo.com/5219587/study-finds-pirates-buy-10x-more-music-online-than-non+piratesMultiple stories based on conjecture, and the same study. It makes it look more common than it actually is.

wilx

08-07-2010, 04:21 AM

Multiple stories based on conjecture, and the same study. It makes it look more common than it actually is.

There are actually multiple studies if you click thought. However I will concede that you can make any study come out the way you want.

I find nothing surprising or even interesting about the fact that "People who pirate music spend more on music than people who don't." Obviously people who spend the most on music are more likely to have tried downloading music on P2P networks than people who are less interested in music. It is not a case of the tail wagging the dog. Just a dog wagging its tail. It only becomes interesting when combined with "It is never good business practice to sue your biggest customers."

wilx

08-07-2010, 06:18 AM

But the fact that you can find opportunities does not mean that piracy is good, or the decline in the market is good for society.

Both the Music industry and the Movie industry are growing, no matter how much you harp about the decline in plastic disk sales. New technologies are going to make some things obsolete, get over it.

You want to argue this on moral grounds. I think you are making a mistake. Don`t ask yourself the question: Is file sharing good or bad? Instead ask yourself if believing that way will move you closer to your goals or further away?

For instance if the record labels started to believe file sharing was a boon to their industry and went about trying to figure out how they could use it to make more money instead of fighting it, would that move them further towards their goals or farther away? Look at the Betamax decision. The movie industry fought hard against VCRs, after all it would lead to piracy. However it turned out to be the saviour of the industry as they started selling tapes to consumers and opened up video rental income as well, dramatically increasing revenues. Technology is going to continue moving forward no matter how hard they try to fight it. The big 3 record labels could be gone in as little as 3 years if they don't learn to adapt.

If you believed file sharing opened up all sorts of new opportunities in software development, would it move you further towards your goals or farther away?

tokenuser

08-07-2010, 12:18 PM

You are heaving a hard time separating the concept that file sharing and media piracy are different things.

Filesharing and electronic downloads are quite valid distribution methods.

alaskalonewolf

08-07-2010, 09:16 PM

...agreed.

File Sharing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing) ≠ Piracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_piracy)

wilx

08-09-2010, 03:43 AM

You want to argue this on moral grounds. I think you are making a mistake. Don`t ask yourself the question: Is file sharing good or bad? Instead ask yourself if believing that way will move you closer to your goals or further away?

You are heaving a hard time separating the concept that file sharing and media piracy are different things.
Filesharing and electronic downloads are quite valid distribution methods.

...agreed.
File Sharing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing) ≠ Piracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_piracy)

I actually think I used it correctly there, but didn't explain my thoughts clearly enough. Obviously file sharing is neither good not bad. It can be used for authorized or unauthorized downloads. However if the copyright owner decides to voluntarily upload the same content that was being pirated it changes from unauthorized to authorized and that is where the opportunity lies. So I was using the term file sharing to include both authorized and unauthorized.

For example most bands are far more threatened by obscurity than piracy. If lots of people don't hear their music, they will never become stars. Since most bands, large or small, make very little from music sales they could upload their mp3's themselves and authorize people to share them with their friends. If the music is really good, it will spread like wildfire and they will start raking in the bucks for live and business to business sales. It could even increase music sales if they are good at Connect with Fans (CwF) + Reason to Buy (RtB) (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090719/2246525598.shtml).

tokenuser

08-09-2010, 04:32 AM

wilx

08-09-2010, 07:53 AM

The online music distribution model was shaky, but has legitimately been sorted out. This discussion started with piracy of a movie. That is a much harder distribution model to break because of the cost to produce a high quality is so much greater.

For An Industry Being Destroyed By 'File Sharing,' Film Industry Keeps Reporting Record Numbers (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100721/07301310306.shtml)

Film Director: File Sharing Only Hurts Bad Or Mediocre Films (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100613/1518179792.shtml)

Now I personally saw this in action. In vent one of my guild mates said "I wasn't going to go see such-and-such movie in the theatre, because I just didn't think it was going to be good enough. I would have waited for it to come out on Netflix. But I downloaded a screener last night and the movie is awesome. I am going to see it in the theatre tomorrow." 4 or 5 other people were impressed enough with what he had to say about the movie that they also decided to go see it in the theatre. Now this could have gone the other way if the movie had sucked, but we tend to discuss good movies not bad ones most of the time.

Now I actually went looking for a different article I read but couldn't find it. It was about a guy who produced a movie he was proud of, but couldn't get any financing to promote the movie. So it went straight to dvd, where it languished for a long time with very little sales. Then year's later sales all of a sudden shot up and continued to grow, much to his amazement. It took him awhile to figure out why. One of his fans had put it up as a torrent. People started watching it and recommending it to their friends and their friends recommended it and so and so on. Some downloaded the torrent, some of them bought the dvd and some did both.

Obscurity is a bigger threat to movies that piracy, not just musicians.

As to the price thing: Uncle Jack (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100806/00595810520.shtml)

tokenuser

08-09-2010, 01:27 PM

File sharing and online distribution is a boon for independents.
You cut out the middle man, you cut out (most of) the distribution costs.

The GAO (Government Accounting Office) was recently tasked with trying to quantify the actual cost of piracy. They were having a hard time of it, especially for movies.

Bottom line was that they concluded (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/88641/govt-questions-riaa-mpaa-piracy-figures/) "the effects weren’t as simple as lost sales or profits, that counterfeiting and piracy has had a range of effects, some negative, others positive. It cited lost profits and tax revenue as negatives for businesses and govt, but that consumers benefited from increased access and lower costs."

The consumer benefits are obvious.
The business negatives are not so immediately obvious ... but have an interesting flow on effect.

Those profits people quote - 500% - for movies are for the ones that make money. Many many movies are not that lucky. Whats the impact. Look at MGM. New James Bond film on hold due to MGM debt (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/apr/20/007-film-delayed-mgm-debt). Is that a direct consequence of piracy? Meh. Perhaps. MGM release blockbuster movies. They are not cheap to produce. Piracy has a level of impact ... but its difficult to quantify.

People state that movies are making record box office takings. Those aren't bums on seats, or number of screens (number of screens in the US have increased from 36000 to 39000 in the last decade - 7%). Those are $$$$ numbers, and tend to ignore the fact that over the last year, ticket prices have increased 8% ... and are up 50% from 2000 (avg cost of a ticket in 2000 was $5.09 (http://www.natoonline.org/statisticstickets.htm)).

A lot of the stories you read online are from bloggers who take a single number and run with it. Very few (and conventional media are just as guilty) look beyond the immediate numbers and examine the sources and other impacts.

Personally, I look forward to my biannual Bond movie, or Batman, or any other big budget, stunt driven, huge explosion movie - those are the only ones I see at the theatre these days, everything else I do on DVD/BR (no piracy). Independent film makers cant do that to the same level.

wilx

08-10-2010, 10:27 PM

File sharing and online distribution is a boon for independents

Those profits people quote - 500% - for movies are for the ones that make money. Many many movies are not that lucky. Whats the impact. Look at MGM.

Personally, I look forward to my biannual Bond movie, or Batman, or any other big budget, stunt driven, huge explosion movie - those are the only ones I see at the theatre these days, everything else I do on DVD/BR (no piracy).

I am not sure I understand what point you are trying to make with your last post, but you see to be implying that they can't continue making 200m block blusters anymore because of piracy. Of course they can and profit margins can be as much as 500% even with piracy. However piracy makes it a little more difficult for them to fool us into seeing a bad movie just because they came up with an awesome trailer. If you are going to demonize piracy because it increases the risk of poor attendance for a bad movie, then you should also demonize The Totally Rad Show and all the other reviewers for the same thing.

"An indicator of how far MGM has fallen can be gauged by its recent releases. This was a studio, remember, that for years offered a reliable supply of first-class films, many of which etched themselves indelibly on cinemagoers’ memories. Yet last year its total output was Pink Panther 2 (a poor sequel to a disastrous remake); The Taking of Pelham 123 (a workmanlike remake of a superior film); and Fame (a botched attempt to update a decent Eighties movie). To make it worse, all these titles were co-produced with other studios. " (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/7618260/MGM-bankruptcy-lions-roar-has-long-been-a-whimper.html)

If MGM pumps out a lot of bad to mediocre movies with very few successes like Bond, they are going to have financial problems, piracy or no piracy.

tokenuser

08-10-2010, 10:50 PM

I am not sure I understand what point you are trying to make with your last post, but you see to be implying that they can't continue making 200m block blusters anymore because of piracy. Of course they can and profit margins can be as much as 500% even with piracy. However piracy makes it a little more difficult for them to fool us into seeing a bad movie just because they came up with an awesome trailer. If you are going to demonize piracy because it increases the risk of poor attendance for a bad movie, then you should also demonize The Totally Rad Show and all the other reviewers for the same thing.

"An indicator of how far MGM has fallen can be gauged by its recent releases. This was a studio, remember, that for years offered a reliable supply of first-class films, many of which etched themselves indelibly on cinemagoers’ memories. Yet last year its total output was Pink Panther 2 (a poor sequel to a disastrous remake); The Taking of Pelham 123 (a workmanlike remake of a superior film); and Fame (a botched attempt to update a decent Eighties movie). To make it worse, all these titles were co-produced with other studios. " (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/7618260/MGM-bankruptcy-lions-roar-has-long-been-a-whimper.html)

If MGM pumps out a lot of bad to mediocre movies with very few successes like Bond, they are going to have financial problems, piracy or no piracy.Studios come and go. Many of them now rely upon sales of DVDs to supplement the lost screen income.

My point was that the numbers are not as good as they look.

Studios gamble.

On the face of it, those movies looked solid enough. Remakes seem to be making money right? Didn't work that way. The studio gambled and lost.

So, MGM can fall on their ongoing revenue from the back catalog of DVDs and their releasing of movies on BR right?? Maybe ... except for the illegal copies floating around the net, and the bootleggers in SEAsia duplicating camcorder dubs.

It all adds up.

One person watching a rip is nothing. A drop in the ocean.
Two people not so bad.
A campus full of freshmen? Starts to hurt. Multiply that out. Make it global.

As selfish as it is, I blame everyone who watched a pirated movie, and the dumbass studio exec who still thinks remakes are a good idea, for me not having a new Bond film to watch next year.

alaskalonewolf

08-10-2010, 11:32 PM

tokenuser

08-11-2010, 02:05 AM

...and at the end of the fight, all that will be left will be Netflix (http://www.netflix.com/) and Redbox (http://www.redbox.com/).

You guys haven't even hit the tip of the iceberg yet... think about all the places on the internet that freely streams media: last.fm (http://www.last.fm/listen/user/AlaskaLoneWolf/) for example.Last.fm has an interesting model, but one covered largely by old technology - broadcast radio. They survive because of micro royalty payments they make.

wilx

08-11-2010, 07:37 AM

One person watching a rip is nothing. A drop in the ocean. Two people not so bad. A campus full of freshmen? Starts to hurt. Multiply that out. Make it global.

As selfish as it is, I blame everyone who watched a pirated movie, and the dumbass studio exec who still thinks remakes are a good idea, for me not having a new Bond film to watch next year.

Watching a pirated movie is not the equivalent of a lost sale.

You know what's even worse than a campus full of freshmen watching a pirated version, a campus full of freshmen who never see the movie. At least if they see it, they might recommend it to friends who go see it in a theatre, buy it, rent it or even go see it themselves in Imax.

Do you think it is nearly as bad if one of those freshmen bought the dvd and lent it to other freshmen? After all they should have paid a fee each time. I guess you must pay that fee ever time you have someone over to watch a flick? Do you pay a fee if you invite people over to your place for a party and play music? Do you know they chase people down for fees even if it is only their pet who overhears it? I know there are some ridiculous copyright laws. It is nearly impossible not to break some copyright law on a daily basis. They need to come up much more reasonable copyright laws if they expect people to take them seriously. Even the biggest proponents of copyright laws keep getting caught breaking them.

So, MGM can fall on their ongoing revenue from the back catalog of DVDs and their releasing of movies on BR right?? Maybe ... except for the illegal copies floating around the net, and the bootleggers in SEAsia duplicating camcorder dubs.

MGM sold their back catalogue to Ted Turner.

Don't worry you will get to see your Bond film. It is just delayed until someone with money finances it.