This itself nails half of the core of the issue. The other half is getting rid of the middle men, who are now just struggling to justify their existence. Their time will come.
Can I speak as one of the creative people that, you know, actually works to produce the content so many people seem to feel righteously entitled to? If you're going to pirate/copyright infringe, do so, but please stop trying to rebrand it as a freedom of speech issue. It's embarrassing.
As I see it, there are four types of people who generally don't pirate content:
- The technically illiterate.
- People who have made a conscious decision to support the producer of the content.
- People who fear enforcement of copyright law.
- People who have no interest in the content available.
The whole piracy political movement is manifestly obviously just rationalisation, with the goal of striking back at shadowy 'middle men' being particularly ridiculous.
Pirates are those that proportional spends more money to support artists and producers, than those that do not pirate. Many make very conscious decisions in regard to independent labels, so that money gets funneled to those that need them mostly.
As for your comment as a whole, rationalization to explain political motives is as old as politics itself. Worker movement = people who just want more wages and work less. Social reforms = people who want free money. Medical reforms = people who want free medical care. Tax abolition = people want to spend less money on taxes. Green movement = ...
Sorry, the argument of rationalization to explain political motives are a horrible bad argument.
Right now we know that's true and I'd surmise it's because those who pirate are those who are most interested in the medium therefore consume it most in all it's forms.
But most people now are those who've grown up with some understanding that music or movies or games are things you might / should pay for.
My question is will it continue to be the case that the largest consumers of media continue to be those who actually pay most once you have a generation who've been bought up with torrenting as their primary method of consumption?
Essentially are we in an interim space where it sort of works because the core consumer group have an expectation and a behaviour pattern which is a hangover from a previous time but which won't be replicated in the future?
This is a very important question to keep in mind. Forget about when the economy is bad, like the last couple of years. Even in the best of times, children have a very limited amount of money when it comes to purchasing media, and conversely have a relatively large amount of time. Torrents completely obviate the need for children to spend their allowance or money they worked for on content, and are easy for them to figure out with some time. Why spend that precious money on music or movies when you can spend it on a physical object instead?
The real problem is that once the torrenting habit is established, it's very difficult to break it. I'm talking about people under the age of 20 here - people who started torrenting at 12 or 13, when torrents first took off in the early 2000s. Contrary to what many people on this site suggest, torrenting is not that hard once you've learned how to do it when you have the free time (as a teenager), and viruses are not rampant, particularly if you're downloading only media (and not software). The only thing it's missing is live streaming, but with fast connections these days (which will only get faster over time), you can still get an HD movie in under half an hour.
I don't think we can ever get back where childrens money, saved over months and months of having a paper route, goes back to pay for culture, art and useful information (programs). There is also a question if its morally right to deny children of culture, art and useful information, on the basis if they can pay for it. Currently, schools are the primary actor in bridging the gap between rich children, and poor ones, but its not a long term solution.
For adults, its a complete different question, one which usually ends up on the question of convenience, price and opportunity. Afterall, Wallmart will always sell DVD's and games, even if copyright would go away. They also sell bottled water, and in some places, air.
Torrenting and wallmart dvd's do not directly compete for the same market group. In same way, streaming provide a convenience that torrenting do not. Add channels with preselected entertainment, and we are talking about quite different experience between streaming and torrenting.
If you are a person who careful select what you want to view before hand, and got time to prepare downloads, and do not impulsive buy DVD's at stands, then yes you might be a person who would rather torrent than buy (and thus get a superior product without drm). On other hand, that kind of person is much more likely to spend money on independent movies, on cinemas and expensive collector boxes with additional items like props and books.
Because children eventually become adults. So the purchasing habits of those who are children now will become the purchasing habits of adults in the future.
> In same way, streaming provide a convenience that torrenting do not. Add channels with preselected entertainment, and we are talking about quite different experience between streaming and torrenting.
This is exactly the kind of misconception that I'm talking about. Most HNers grew up before torrents became hugely popular, and thus don't really understand their convenience. For those born after ~1995, services like Netflix are not that convenient compared to torrents. Not only does the service require a credit card to sign up for (requiring parental approval), torrents are just not that hard once you're used to them. Learning how to use torrents is a one-time investment of time, after which you're good to go forever.
> If you are a person who careful select what you want to view before hand, and got time to prepare downloads
And I already explained this. You can get the equivalent content from torrents in <30 minutes. 30 minutes is not that big of a wait (or if you get it in SD, like much of the stuff on Netflix, <10 minutes). Moreover, once you get used to it, it's not a big deal.
No, as an adult I have a lot more money than time, so buying a game I want over Steam is much more preferable than torrenting it and finding a working crack. I know how to pirate games, it's just that I don't want to spend the time and I have the money.
So I don't think it's habit-forming, unless you're a compulsive hoarder that just downloads ALL THE WAREZ because you can, but then you have other problems...
A colleague this morning was talking about streaming sites where for him one of the benefits is that he can be watching the movie faster than if he owned the DVD. You can make your legitimate purchase as fast as you like but when streaming and downloading is that quick and easy, you're not going to get it to the point that the legitimate mechanisms offers a significant convenience advantage and is anyone really going to hand over cash for be watching in 20 seconds instead of 60 seconds?
For anything mainstream where it's widely available the cash rich time poor argument really doesn't hold up.
If pirate sites weren't so dispersed and worried about being shut down all the time someone would have probably developed a system that searches a game database, downloads a torrent and auto installs it with the crack in a single click.
It's lucky I guess that pirates don't seem to care about usability that much.
Legit games on Steam also have the advantage that the multiplayer is more likely than a pirate game where the crack breaks as soon as an update is put out and the game dev actively tries to lock pirates out.
Now lets force that person to decide what they would like to see, and then wait 30m. Even if it was 10m, the question of what to see is as much of an issue as the wait.
There are also programs to torrent a file in order if you've managed to run out of all other media and have no subscriptions.
If somebody were to release a TV set top box that used the pirate bay as the back end they would sell millions overnight.
Anyone 21 or younger here who can say roughly what the opinion on buying things is among people your age?
It won't be wholly accurate, as my opinion on buying things (for example) changed as I got more disposable income.
People who have the money will pay for content if it’s presented to them in an attractive way at a reasonable price. I never pirate movies, because why bother? I can rent them from Amazon/Google for a few dollars or get them from a redbox that is a couple hundred feet from my apartment. I wait for TV shows to be on Netflix/Hulu, even though I might be behind a season or so but who cares? Same with movies, I don’t care anymore if I have to wait a year for a movie to go on amazon/Netflix/google. If I have to wait awhile or I forget about a movie and never see it then oh well the world still turns.
I do have to admit that I never pay for music though. I prefer to pay for live shows. To me music has always been free simply because of the radio. I know technically, it’s not because of advertisements, but that’s how it feels to me. That being said if I would be much more apt to buy music if I could buy it directly from the artist at a reasonable price (ie 5-10 dollars for an album), especially if the quality was high (320kbps mp3 or flac). That’s part of the reason why I don’t like mp3 services like amazon and itunes, the bitrate just isn’t high enough for me. I didn’t spend hundreds of dollars for nice headphones to listen to poorly encoded music, and I don’t live in the 90’s anymore so I’m not going to buy a cd.
In regards to ebooks, I think the belief that books are free has already been ingrained in culture due to librarys. Until I was an adult I never bought a book. Even now the only books I really buy are technical books. I rent everything else from the library. I don’t like ebooks, but if I did I would likely rent them as well.
I buy plenty of games on Steam (usually during sales) & the Humble Bundles. They are a cheap, legitimate way for me to play a large array of games, and I'm more than happy to support the developers.
For books, I have a Kindle and tend to pirate ebook copies of books I own already in physical form. I'll also pirate audiobooks & ebooks on occasion if I can. Not a a big fan of audible & amazon DRM.
For music, I have a Spotify Premium account and listen to the vast majority of my music from there. I have a big back-catalog of pirated music from before I got my Spotify account. I have a handful of CDs that I bought as a child, but mostly just pirated since the dawn of broadband internet.
For TV Shows, I have a Netflix Account & Amazon Prime account. I also pay for Verizon FiOS cable, and get HBO/Showtime. I use HBO Go and whatever the Showtime app is called to watch those shows. I sometimes pirate episodes of shows I watch if I happen to miss watching them, can't see them on Hulu, or didn't record for whatever reason.
For movies, I buy Blu-Rays only on occasions where I want the HD experience. Think concert Blu-Rays and things like Planet Earth or 2001: A Space Odyssey. Like I said, Netflix/Amazon Prime/HBO/Showtime get me through a lot of movies. If I can't find them there, I'll pirate them.
The reason I subscribe to these things and still pirate is basically a lack of $$. The services I pay for are a relatively cheap way to see a lot of content, and I would probably not go out and buy more DVDs/CDs/games if I couldn't subscribe to these or get great deals on Steam.
I do, however, intend to purchase far more content when my bills aren't so overwhelming. I also cannot forsee myself encouraging my kids someday to pirate material. I feel like I'd be instilling a value into them that I'm not particularly proud of, and without a doubt if they can say "but dad does it!" it'll be hard to explain to them why they should not.
I only ever rented VHS/DVDs and I buy blu-ray used and only if I want to own a re-watchable experience (Dark Knight, The 300, Pulp Fiction, etc.) First-run blu-ray movies are RedBoxed or downloaded in 720p x264 from usenet (RIP NZBmatrix) and deleted after viewing.
Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and Pandora/Spotify round out content. I watch more stuff now that I don't have cable (around 2hrs/day) than when I did (30min. or less/day).
This means absolutely nothing. According to your logic, if someone spends enough money on media, they get an all you can eat pass to all other media?
How much money would these pirates spend on media if they did not pirate? Presumably more than they currently spend.
Some people may be able to afford to spend $50 (say) on stuff a month and then download everything they want they can't afford. Take away downloading and the still only spend $50 - they can't afford more and just put up with having less (by afford here I also include choose to spend $50 - essentially people who for one reason or another will cap their spending around a certain amount then after that make do).
In this case you're potentially damaging the artist by stopping them copying as there's no money to be had BUT they might get exposure to an artist through piracy and become a legitimate consumer of their work later.
In a similar vein they might be being given copies stuff by friends who like an artist and will then go on to buy other material by that artist actually increasing the total spend (I'm guessing I'm not the only person who has been given a mix tape / CD and gone on to love something off it and make a legitimate purchase).
Or they might be downloading on a "try before you buy" basis in which case they might just seek out other ways to sample stuff before they buy it and their spend doesn't go up.
They might be downloading stuff that you can't buy legitimately (I've done that) in which case the amount they spend doesn't go up because there is no legitimate alternative.
Reality is that the amount spent per person on average would probably go up some but not as much as the assorted industries being "wronged" by piracy make out and it's a fair bit more complex than they make out.
Maybe you the stuff you pirated is better than the stuff you paid for? In which case since you probably can't get a refund on that you should really buy the stuff you pirated next month instead. How often that happens in practise is uncertain.
Or maybe it all averages out in aggregate.
His original argument was that those in the second group receive increased exposure of their work, which if you think about it, is almost just as valuable as cash itself.
He said that he thought of it as loss-leading marketing iirc.
10 years ago touring was purely a means to promote record sales and there were maybe a dozen acts who made money doing it (Madonna, the Rolling Stones and the like). Now it's flipping and touring is profitable for a lot more acts than it used to be.
But doesn't that speak to the exact issue you're responding to? I'd more than happily pay for Game of Thrones season 2 if it were available for me to pay for on its own or with other things I want. The problem is that in order to get it I have to subscribe to cable, which is a hefty tax to pay for a single show.
I'm not begrudging HBO for deciding that's the best way for them to make money. But I gladly reward artists and companies that are thinking outside the box and doing direct-to-consumer or generally breaking away from the middle man.
But film, tv, games, software - some of these projects take thousands of people working full time for years, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce.
The public want slick, expensively produced mass market entertainment. They just don't want to pay for it if they can avoid it.
The only feature I wanted in my washing machine was regular wash cotton. I should've stolen it I suppose.
Oh no, your shitty analogy has fallen apart~
Come back when someone invents a washing machine that does only cotton and costs 95% less than a normal washing machine, then patents it and won't let anyone build them. Maybe then you'll see the problem.
"The problem" is that you can't see Game of Thrones. Really? REALLY?? Oh the humanity!
I don't know how people ever did anything before Game of Thrones. It would be absolute chaos if people couldn't steal it.... how else would they survive?
It does matter if it's petty entertainment. I might agree with you if you were having trouble eating over this. But you can't watch Game of Thrones without buying HBO and so you have to steal Game of Thrones? You don't have to steal anything. You can simply not watch their show if you don't agree with their business model.
People don't agree with chick-fil-a giving money to homophobic groups, and they don't eat at chick-fil-a. They don't go out and steal chicken sandwiches because they want them that badly. You have that option as well.
You have a problem: people doesn't want to use the content in a way that's easy to monetize. You don't like the solution of changing your business model.
So the answer is draconian IP laws, privacy invasions and public resources devoted to ensure private profits. Resources paid by every tax payer, that can be used to prosecute most of them.
The entitlement is forgetting that copyright (or property at large for the matter) is just a means to an end, not an absolute concept.
For me, if the price of privacy and freedom is that professional contents producing disappears, so be it. Now what? Would you consider changing the business model or would you rather see the business dying? For the people in the industry (the proverbial "middle-man") the answer is clear: they don't think it's gonna die before they cash, so they're happy taking the hard line and stretching the rope.
You've constructed a straw man, I haven't once argued for draconian IP law. I simply stated that those that engage in piracy should be honest to themselves about their own motivations. I'm not even judging them, it's just the political affectations I find preposterous.
Most laws have developed from a consensus of what benefits society as a whole. This is no different. Nobody is claiming entitlement to be paid for anything. They're asking for the ability to choose on which basis people consume their product. We already have laws for this, the currently difficulty is in how to enforce them. I don't claim to have an answer to that question.
No You didn't. You said, among other things:
The whole piracy political movement is manifestly obviously just rationalisation
These are two very different statements. A pirate can be both honest with himself and part of the political movement for reasons other than rationalization. You were the one who established the strawman.
You're choosing to ignore that the draconian laws are actually in place and for the stated reason to prevent piracy.
They're asking for the ability to choose on which basis people consume their product.
They can't on their own, so they demand the government to apply an unreasonable amount of force. There's no consensus for the actual situation, just political inertia and propaganda.
This is true, but I'm not sure it then follows that because you want to enjoy some work, you are entitled to not pay for it. The creator is entitled to charge for it and receive nothing and you are entitled to pay nothing and enjoy nothing.
Thank you for that. The rhetoric on this issue is really over the top. While all content I think is entitled to certain protections as art, let's not pretend that the content in question is high art. It's entertainment, largely produced by people for the sole purpose of making a lot of money.
Even arguing that borrowing is temporary seems a poor argument at best. Most people only play games or watch movies a small number of times and then rarely pick them up again. And, even so, there is nothing stopping borrowing again.
If the library paradigm is okay, why is the downloading content paradigm not okay?
I think what you're probably thinking of is not library shelves but library checkouts. And I think that you'll find that library checkouts did consist 90% of trashy paperbacks, the text equivalent of pop movies, back when people got that kind of stuff from libraries instead of online.
If you were to judge the contents of a library by the size of the largest items on the shelves (exactly as you have done with torrents), you would come away with the mistaken impression that they consisted primarily of dictionaries and boxed sets of language learning CDs. In fact, these items represent a very small portion of the items in the catalog.
What's being counted as a single item here is not a single bound volume of a chemistry journal, nor the entire archive of Bioconjugate Chemistry, but rather the entire chemistry-journals wing of the library: 539 gibibytes, including 226 different journals. By comparison, the latest five items on http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://... are 3.7MiB, 11.7MiB, 350MiB, 730MiB, and 260MiB; the chemistry-journals library is some 2000 times the size of the median of these and 120 000 times the size of the smallest, which happens to be a two-volume book called "Great Moments in Mathematics".
It turns out that when you have a power-law distribution crossing five orders of magnitude, like the one that characterizes file sizes, rather than the much narrower distribution that characterizes book sizes, you actually can get a useful approximation of the makeup of the total by looking at the makeup of only the largest items. It's surely not an unbiased estimator, but it's still a useful one.
Feel free to invest the work to do a better approximation.
Unless one is loading a moving van or trying to estimate the number of shelves required to store it, one characterizes the contents of a library by the items in the catalog and their subject matter, not by the volume they consume. You don't go in and ask for "a cubic foot of books" any more than you torrent "a megabyte of music".
The latter is more interesting: does one need to be capable of suffering a loss of an object in order to share it? Does access have to have a bandwidth limit for sharing to be reasonable? An interesting example are ebooks at libraries. My university offers a number of these. They are not able to be stolen like regular books and they have no limit on simultaneous borrowers. Even if there were some artificially imposed limit, what purpose would it serve? Do extra restrictions on use make a product more valuable? Does it create more profit for content creators?
Is this really the case. Based on my, admittedly very limited, outsider view of the scene most distributors get their copy via review copies sent to the press or it's an inside job by someone working for one of the companies in the production chain. Having a pirate copy up before something is available in the store is a big deal in the pirate scene and that rather precludes buying a copy.
Second, personal property and real property are different categories. Real estate is somewhat artificial, but the ownership of personal items that you can carry around is a very natural right. It comes naturally from possession and autonomy, and does not need laws to exist.
Also I am actively against software patents. Poor time to make assumptions.
Price fixing! Racketeering! A cartel!
Mr. Producer, do you want to support a whole cartel? How much of the product of your work is siphoned into the pockets of these middlemen that you claim are so shadowy? Is it because you don't want to pay them that you downplay their role?
Why are they entitled to a share of what you earn, when distribution models that scale and support themselves in a feedback loop like BitTorrent are available, and the people who are consuming your content will foot the bill to the cartels for these distribution contracts?
What justification is there for price fixing, where regions that have larger collections of wealth amassed into smaller groups that can afford to pay more are gouged? What basis have you to charge more in the US or Australia than in India and Africa, where digital broadcast entertainment might be more or less pervasive?
I am obviously very angry, I don't know what you make, but the reality seems to be that you are claiming ownership of an arrangement of bits. It's in my nature when discovering interesting configurations of bits to show them to others, or to keep them to myself (to maximize my benefit from them), and it's wrong for you to play on both sides of the fence like this.
What specifically are you angry about? Is it my claim that piracy is more about convenience and personal gain than free speech? Would you disagree with that sentiment? Could you explain why?
I'm not sure what to make of the rest of your post but I think you have quite a narrow view of the film industry. I can assure you that vast, vast majority of people you might meet who work in film spend their time thinking about making films, not price fixing.
Obviously it's not a short path from point A to point B.
I also know that as a computer enthusiast, I spent a lot of time learning to copy things that your camp would prefer I didn't copy, so that I don't have to keep collections of cheap (disposable) plastic discs. That's a huge investment too, and if the effort is duplicated... well, in the free software community especially we don't like duplicated effort. Can't someone else do it?
Then I pay for these pipes (again from my perspective: your camp) and it's really a lot simpler downloading from the cloud than making a large investment in plastic discs and time and labor spent on copying. Furthermore, according to the DMCA, if I did buy the media and try to consolidate it in accordance with fair use, long accepted as a measure in place for free speech, I am still breaking the law because of the anti-copying measures that I need to break in order to do it, which is directly illegal today. So why not just download?
... you won't get paid. That's why.
I want you to get paid, but I don't want you to dictate my viewing schedule or media organization, and I also don't want to pay for thousands of channels I won't watch just to get three or four I care about, once or twice a week... hope that you can see how your side are not really making it any easier for me to enjoy your work in relative comfort and with the benefit of modern technology.
Quite sure this can be somehow solved by using bitcoins...
You should be a patent attorney.. on the Internet!
I don't know about Lovefilm, but the rest of the solutions you proposed all require an ongoing commitment to pay every month, they don't provide any copy, and they are useless without an additional recurring payment to a third party that was not involved in producing content. You misunderstood my comments about the plastic discs. I hate them because they take up space, but I love them because they can be copied!
Why are there ads in Hulu Plus?
Again, a thousand channels I will never use, and I don't get a copy of the merchandise to keep for myself. What happens when I move out to the boonies and I can't get good internet? Oh yeah, I cancel all of my web-based subscriptions and I can never watch any of my favorite shows again. How about my favorite content providers? Sure, the partners will be paid, 70% of Hulu's revenue goes to... the advertising partners.
OK, I wasn't able to find any hard numbers on how much MrScruff gets for his contribution. But you know, I don't care, if I lose my access when I cancel my credit card and internet subscription. Tell me what ongoing benefit the ISPs provide! New content? No... they just provide peering, and hopefully reliable access, and then they also mail a bill every month. And guess what... it's more than Hulu is charging.
But you're right. They earned that money. The telecom lobbyists and the streaming advertisement providers made sure that I can't legally obtain a copy of anything new for myself, and now I'll have to go on needing them forever, no matter how much favorite content I've amassed into my collection. My archives will never be complete, at least not until I've received next month's internet bill.
>>>I can assure you that vast, vast majority of people you might meet who work in film spend their time thinking about making films, not price fixing.
I believe you. The people who create the content, with jobs like editing, directing, writing, acting, camera work, special effects, logistics, costuming, set design, and even the runners and gofers are all hardworking people who "spend their time thinking about making films".
The result of the hard work done by these laborers is a film. This film's "copyrights" are "owned" by the people who financed the venture, also known as "capitalists". These are people who do "spend their time thinking about ... price fixing". Under law, they have monopoly rights regarding certain elements of copyright. Armed with these rights, they employ accountants in an attempt to make as much money as possible. The most blatant and greedy of these attempts are lumped together with the phrase "Hollywood Accounting".
There is a great contingent of consumers that would like to give more of their money to the workers, and less of their money to the financiers. Please refer to indiegogo, kickstarter, and the ancient concept of patronage for well established ways of legally doing this.
This is not a comment about piracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage
Also, cheers if you are this Mr Scruff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS_CLIF1h-o
If it's the same or different Mr. Scruff, I really enjoyed the dancing taco and fat cats :) would watch again, 10/10
>> Kickstarter ain't gonna raise enough money to fund the next Hobbit trilogy. Sorry but huge blockbusters aren't ever going to be able to find enough people willing to put down enough money via Kickstarter. Small indies yeah, hundreds of millions of dollar type summer blockbusters no.
I agree that Kickstarter is unlikely to raise 300 million dollars for the next Hobbit trilogy. I disagree that a huge blockbuster will never be crowdfunded. Transformers, Harry Potter, and Avatar all cost less than 300 million dollars. 30 million people pre-paying 10 dollars is not ridiculous, when you look at how many people use Google, and how many users Facebook claims to have.
Surprisingly, movie studios don't necessarily fund the projects that they profit from. Since you mentioned LotR universe:
"New Line made enough pre-sales in foreign markets, and there were enough subsidies to pretty much cover their costs. New Zealand was not the only subsidy. There was also the British Commonwealth subsidy and the German tax subsidy in those days. New Line didn't have to put up any cash to make that movie."
Also movie studios consistently claim to not make profits from their movies.
"However, New Line later produced accounts showing that instead of making a profit, the movies made "horrendous losses". According to Hubbard: "We found it surprising because it was one of the biggest box office success of all time.""
Other funding options: a company could start making short films and then transition into making larger, more expensive ones once it gains the trust of its audience. The films could be broken into "episodes" to reduce the amount of money that each chunk would cost. This all ignores patronage, another alternative funding mode.
Lastly, most movies aren't blockbusters. Even if everything I just said is a lie, the vast majority of movies will be just fine, because their budgets are laughably small. District 9 was shot for 30 million dollars. Primer was shot for 7000 dollars. When Harry Met Sally cost 16 million dollars. Citizen Kane cost 15 million. Pretty Woman cost 14 million. The government funded BBC has produced such things like The Office, Monty Python, and Billy Elliot on less than 5 million each.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&#...
I was not very pleased at this point and walked in to my office where we have a 1Gbit connection. I proceeded to torrent the game and grabbed Farcry 3 as well because, fuck em. This took about 45 minutes of downloading. I walked home and was playing 15 minutes later. Ubisoft is forever on my To-Pirate list for brazenly wasting my time on their pointless DRM.
I don't think I fit in your narrow categories.
PS: I spend about 200$/month on paid iTunes Content.
I myself prefer to pirate ISOs rather than find reinstallation media in my closet (a rare need), and it is just as irrelevant given most people seeding and peering also want the serial crack/gen file as well.
Downloading other products from the same company, just because they ticked you off? You've just escalated the situation from what is likely an unfortunately operational issue (no malice) to some form of revenge.
If you want relief from the harm done to you (which, I would argue getting the pirated copy of AC3 was), allow a court to determine the reward. In this situation, it's likely overkill.
You need to install a program that according to their license can basically spy on you.
Some people will say nobody forced you to buy the game, but imagine: if all companies selling cars decided to add a bug to record your talks claiming they can this way offer a better service, how reasonable would it be?
Give me a moment to explain my philosophical transformation by way of example:
Suppose you walk out into some unclaimed forest and gather some wood. Per John Locke, you have mixed your labor (gathering) with a natural resource (wood) and now own the gathered wood.
And what is ownership? Ownership is the right to do with your property whatever you'd like, provided what you do does not affect or threaten the property of others (including the property they have in their own persons). This is understood intuitively in the scope of the example here that it would be wrong for someone to, by force and against your will, take the wood that you gathered.
To continue the example: your friend Bob approaches you and shows you an invention of his - a wooden seat, exquisitely crafted and very comfortable to sit upon. It's a fantastic idea, and you're really quite taken with it. Instead of purchasing the seat, however, you decide to produce some of your own, using the wood you own, for your own use and to sell to others. You do so.
Bob comes to you, quite upset. You've stolen his idea, he says, and profited with it against his will. And here the internal conflict introduced by the concept of "intellectual" property is highlighted. You used your own property as you pleased and in a way that did not harm or threaten to harm anyone else's property, and yet according to Bob, you've violated his "intellectual" property rights. In fact, the only way to not violate Bob's "intellectual" property is to not do with your property as you please, even though that use is entirely nonviolent. Bob's exercise of his "intellectual" property right is a violation of your property right!
I hope I have sufficiently demonstrated here that IP cannot be a right at all, because it destroys the internal consistency of property rights in general.
The response to this is usually utilitarian: "But how are artists going to get paid without IP?" I offer a riposte here not because I have to (the ends do not justify the means) but because some people need firm ground to stand upon before they can move into a brave new world sans copyright. The threshold pledge system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system) is a means of providing compensation to artists for their work that does not depend upon IP law.
Before our century the word for IP was "Monopoly Privileges". It is funny and scary how a simple change in wording: adding "property", is slowly brainwashing people in a very unnatural way of thinking.
However I do agree with you that they are brainwashing people so that they can have almost unlimited control.
As for your point about there being no inherent right to protection of IP, I would have said that was obvious. However the legal system doesn't exist to just enshrine and enforce basic rights. It's also used to shape societies in ways we (or our representatives) feel are beneficial.
Currently we as a society choose to enforce IP law. If that changes, then sure, I'll find another job. Good luck waiting for that Game of Thrones season 3 though.
This is the free rider problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem. It is exacerbated by the fact that piracy is easier than obtaining content through legitimate channels.
> Currently we as a society choose to enforce IP law. If that changes, then sure, I'll find another job. Good luck waiting for that Game of Thrones season 3 though.
There are other solutions to the free rider problem. Take your pick from the examples on Wikipedia (i.e. assurance contracts, which are remarkably similar to the way Kickstarter works). The information revolution has changed the economics of your job, but I believe as a society we will ultimately find a better way to incentivize your work.
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all." --Thomas Jefferson
"An unjust law is no law at all." --Augustine
I guess what I am asking is this: Do you think that 'public ownership' of IP is impossible, impractical or immoral?
As a content creator do you have an objection to public content on principle? Or do you dislike it because you don't see it being possible?
I am asking this out of pure curiosity. I am just kind of surprised to see someone on hacker news of all places saying that information should not be free. I can understand saying that now is not the time or that models are not yet ready but it seems ridiculous to think that we should ignore the power of the internet for content distribution forever because it doesn't pay the bills now.
I'm curious as to why you think people posting on Hacker News should wish for information to be free. The vast majority of start ups benefit from withholding information from competitors, for example their source code or client list. In general, I would say most people like to be given the opportunity to choose which information is free and which is not.
Just because the internet makes that difficult to enforce doesn't fundamentally change this in my view. As long as we still have a concept of wealth, at least.
IP is use of law to prevent others from using something that is public.
Note: I don't think copyright is that evil, just current term lengths, enforcement laws, and infringement damages. Patent as it exists now is pretty screwed up and in order to not be evil would have to be pretty radically different from what it is now.
Using the word "information" in this context is rather disingenuous. We don't play music on our information players, we don't buy books at the local information store, and we don't see movies at the information theater. If we are going to have a good discussion, let's call things what they are.
It seems ridiculous that we should ignore the power of the internet for content distribution forever because it doesn't pay the bills now.
Fiat money is ridiculous in exactly the same way. Would you say that it seems ridiculous to ignore the power of Xerox because it doesn't pay the bills for sellers of physical goods?
Fiat money is ridiculous in exactly the same way. Would you say that it seems ridiculous to ignore the power of Xerox because it doesn't pay the bills for sellers of physical goods?
That makes no sense. I don't see what you mean. Right now the internet could deliver content to more people more efficiently than a retail store but it is being restricted by laws that have been put in place to guarantee a paycheck for the content creators. I don't think that this is bad but I do think that we are in a state of transition and that in the not so distant future you will not go to a store to get music movies or books (except possibly as a novelty)
Seriously, you can make up esoteric arguments ad infinitum and ad absurdum but the fact is, an arbitrary distinction - digital vs. printed - does not a theft unmake. Information wants to be free but books, movies and songs want to sell, or we wouldn't be having this argument.
One last interesting thing for you to ponder: the entire fiction genre is, by definition, misinformation.
You are being absurd. A physical book and a digital representation of the information are completely different. The only thing that they have in common is that once used you get the same information. If you steal a book, that is theft. If you copy a book that is copyright infringement. The difference is that the person who had the book stolen from then is deprived of property in one example and in the other they are not.
This is not a simple matter. Making a copy is not theft. There are not clear lines here.
I am saying that digital content will one day be freely available (or available on a subscription) because it costs nothing to copy. Never before has content been restricted when it could be copied freely. Radio is free television is free and websites are free. I think that is the natural end point of intangible goods it is just a matter of figuring out how to pay the content creators.
Intellectual property is an umbrella term that encompasses copyright, trademarks, patents, etc. Using someone else's trademarks also does "not harm or threaten to harm anyone else's property". I know that you don't mean that, but in that case, you should offer more practical arguments against IP instead of getting all philosophical.
What I can say is that the area that the term covers is arbitrary and that you can discuss one facet of it without involving the others.
There is no reason that trademarks need to be discussed when talking about content distribution systems just like there is no need to talk about expiration dates when shipping plastic lawn chairs.
>However the legal system doesn't exist to just enshrine and enforce basic rights. It's also used to shape societies in ways we (or our representatives) feel are beneficial.
There is no benefit in IP except to the holder of the state-granted monopoly, and perhaps the politicians who get MAFIAA money. You enjoy the copyright system and feel entitled to more than you would have earned without it.
There are slews of studies showing that patents hamper innovation. I challenge you to find one showing it aids it. You are repeating a falsehood, something people "feel is beneficial" but really isn't.
followed by:
There is no benefit in IP except to the holder of the state-granted monopoly, and perhaps the politicians who get MAFIAA money.
Do you seriously consider this to be an argument? Because I would classify it as tired cliché.
You enjoy the copyright system and feel entitled to more than you would have earned without it.
What absolute tosh. You know absolutely nothing about me and make such ridiculous statements.
I challenge you to find one showing it aids it.
Ok, after 5 seconds of google:
http://allafrica.com/stories/201211290581.html
I'll hazard a guess that you'll dismiss the report authors as copyright loving MAFIAA apologists though.
[pg. 11] "International companies would only invest in research in locations with sufficiently strong IP."
Yeah, I would prefer to put my investment where I have government helping me strongarm people into paying me more money too. Somehow your paper failed to mention other possible factors like being able to get away with testing sexual dysfunction drugs on children and only getting fined $97: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16381458
[pg. 15] "Most policymakers reported that the IP system was an asset to encouraging domestic innovative activity. Changes in the IP system in Brazil was seen as significant in setting the foundation for innovative activity."
This is just bare assertion from policymakers.
[pg. 37] "A common measure of the output of innovation used in the literature is the number of registered patents in the country. In particular, it is common to see analysis based on the number of international patents (defined as the number of patents granted to inventors from a particular country)."
[pg. 43] "There has been a clear increase in innovation in terms of patents. Leaving aside South Korea, this again shows the dramatic performance of China, but also gradual progress in a number of other markets."
This is ludicrous to measure innovation by the number of patents. The "dramatic performance of China" is an increase in patents due to strengthened IP laws in recent years, that's it. If the mechanisms for enforcement of an IP regime are strengthened, then sure you will see more people using it. More companies are willing to disclose trade secrets because they have patent protection. That's all this shows, not that innovation is occurring because of IP law.
I don't really see much more that needs to be addressed in this paper, certainly no supporting evidence for your claim that IP is beneficial besides to the monopoly holders and monopoly givers. It's your claim, so you need to do better than just link an article. There is a more meaty section in your paper, but you would have to actually read your own source to find it and then I can proceed to demolish it.
> Ownership is the right to do with your property whatever you'd like, provided what you do does not affect or threaten the property of others (including the property they have in their own persons)
Ownership doesn't intrinsically preclude you harming others. Ownership is about exerting exlusive control over property. If you own a gun, you can do whatever you want with it because you exert control over it and it's in your possession.
The part that precludes us from harming others is part of a separate legal framework. You also can't use your wood to build a fence around the forest, or a barracade to impede other people's movement. There is a lot more you aren't allowed to do with property then "affect or threaten the property of others "
So the fundamental issue is that you're conflating the two into a more narrow definition of ownership and then you're claiming IP "destroys the internal consistency of property rights in general"
_____________________________
As for "threshold pledge system"... The problem is it's a non-capitalistic mechanism that relies on the altruism of the wider population. Altruistic systems don't scale (see communism). Not to mention it rewords free-riders. If a bunch of people fund a movie, and then I come in and pirate it at the end, then I end up being better off than them (b/c I too get to see the movie and I also get to keep my money). This will probably lead to disenchantment.
I just can't believe that you think like a big budget movie like say the latest James Bond could be funded through a threshold pledge system and then distributed for free. It seems rather naiive
Altruistic systems don't necessarily scale. GNU, Linux, and Apache would like to tell you that it absolutely can scale.
>>I just can't believe that you think that big budget software like say an operating system could be funded through a threshold pledge system and then distributed for free. It seems rather naive
I completely agree with you that it seems naive. I wouldn't believe it myself if I wasn't using it to send you this comment.
Kickstarter has funded plenty of large projects.
The point is that the threshold-pledge-system isn't a viable substitute for ALL funding. Therefore getting rid of the copyright system would destroy the potential for a lot of project (like my James Bond example) because they wouldn't be able to be funded through altruistic schemes.
The burden of proof - that it is viable to substitute to the copyright with the threshold pledge system - is on its supporters
How can I have property rights (ownership) if you can simply damage my property through your "property rights"? Property rights can not exist in this case.
It is intrinsically implied that people can not use their property to damage the property of others.
A hurricane can come by today and destroy your home. It doesn't mean you don't have the right to own the home.
The protection from damage is a separate right from that of ownership. That's all I'm saying.
In reality, this is what happens. Aside from the utilitarian argument, there is a moral argument to be had here. You agreed to not make use of Bob's idea, and then you did. You broke your word, and are responsible for the pain you caused Bob.
You might argue that there are scenarios in which you never actually talk to Bob - Bob shows his idea to Tom, and Tom is the one who breaks his word. You're merely getting the idea from Tom, and are as such free from any moral obligation.
However, I would offer you this rhetorical in response: If you are offered goods in such a way that you reasonably know these goods to be gained through deceit or other immoral acts, is your acceptance of those goods (and therefore benefit of the immoral act) a moral act itself?
IMO, copyright laws are a good thing as it leaves the choice to the content producers themselves whether or not they want to make their work freely available. However, as those laws are close to impossible to enforce effectively (on the Internet), there might be an argument for discarding them completely, stop fighting a lost battle and moving on.
The music scene would be optimized for musicians if there was a 100% piracy/distribution rate and artists sold their own tickets/merch/ringtones/etc online.
I can assure you, those people can and do pirate content just fine, in many cases being easier to copy it from torrents than it is to purchase it ;-)
> People who have made a conscious decision to support the producer of the content
There are 2 problems with these kind of people: as such purchases are all about giving-back, they are easily pissed off by DRM schemes and they are a minority, because we are talking about an economy based on artificial scarcity here.
> People who fear enforcement of copyright law
Also a minority, especially because the probability of being prosecuted as an individual for copyright infringement is smaller than being hit by a car tomorrow.
> The whole piracy political movement is manifestly obviously just rationalisation
You cannot hand-wave facts.
- People who believe it is unethical to pirate content
Nothing to do with fear, or interest, or deciding to support the content producer.
It's not being "rebranded" as a freedom of speech issue, it has become one by the nature of the only possible ways to enforce copyright laws on the internet.
I agree that a "right to share 3rd party artistic works" isn't freedom of speech, but protecting the ability of people to secretly transfer bits is abso-fucking-lutely the freedom of speech issue of our time.
It's the difference between a stance based on what you think "should be" and one based on the practical limitations inherent in designing legal constraints around online sharing.
We can give enormous surveillance powers to some central group to police copyright and destroy freedom of speech, we can have no way to stop copyright infringement except for cultural norms or we can reevaluate how we, as a society, compensate artists.
This has been reevaluated many times in the last thousand years and it looks like another one has been thrust upon us, since I'm not sure we can stop people from sharing files just by shaming them. Pirates spend more money buying artistic works than non-pirates so I can't blame people who feel that the honesty system will work, but I don't really think it will work. I'm too cynical perhaps.
If we want to keep having a system dependent on the state, as which copyright itself is today, we could follow a system of taxes and support artist through grants. It would then follow the same system as with medical research, as tax payers are already paying for that. The majority of medical research are today supported by taxes, and the drug companies would the last people wanting to go pure capitalist system, as that would be billions of less dollars in free R&D.
Or we could go with no state involvement at all, in which case music for hire and concerts would become a primary method for artist to put food on the table. You would likely to see more live music, but also less healthy life style (see Troubadour lifestyle). Likely, systems like Flattr and other similar ideas would go large scale to support artist, somewhat like donations to medical research do today.
There has been several suggested methods on how to measure things like popularity with music, methods that remove any judgment call by some bureaucratic agent by the state. One is to measure a small sample (like with pre-voting polls), an other is to measure repositories, while a third is to only measure current places like radios.
All this method need to do is to be better than a state supported monopoly that has managed to give less than 1% of the revenue of copyrighted works. How hard can it possible be to beat that?
What happens if a lot of stuff gets distributed P2P or via an independent repo who don't want to hand their server logs to the gov?
Also medical research still has contentious issues like Stem Cell research etc. And it is easier to justify objectively like "will help X thousand cancer patients".
Creative works are more difficult, for example what if somebody wants to make a film that might be perceived to promote racist views? There are certainly people who would not want their tax money spent on that.
There would also be people who would see it as an affront to free speech for such a film to not have a fair chance of being made.
- People gaming the system to inflate "downloads" or whatever metric is used to determine payouts.
- Politicians pushing their views on others reaches a whole new level when they decide which media should be produced.
- For technology products like software, government has generally proven to be inept in the face of change. So entire industries would be held back due to bureaucratic "management".
- The entire export value would be ruined when products are released at no charge. US GDP declines.
This just sounds like a recipe for waste, cronyism, and job loss.
I may be misinterpreting the quote, but it seems like the middle men are entirely the "issue," not the artists and creative people. Artists like Louis CK and Smashing Pumpkins have already proved they can make money without the middle man.
YouTube and online help nobodies become somebodies. Labels help somebodies become megastars. The bottom end is rising, and the top end is compressing, but I don't believe we'll ever see them equalize.
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2011/02/11/inside-th...
You just proved my point that if the world likes what you're doing (70k+ views), you're bound to get a lot of attention more easily. It's also easier to get an initial presence too. Prior to "web 2.0" the chances of him being discovered would be practically non-existent considering he was just a kid doing covers of his favorite songs. Back to the original point; the middle man isn't as crucial as he used to be.
Also, it's unfair to simply assume that labels are middle men and are gatekeepers to success. They're essentially venture capitalists who reap licensing deals in exchange for large marketing investments, while providing production direction (with or without the artist on board). Compare to hands-on tech VCs who invest a lot of capital, own the majority of the equity, and provide product guidance, with or without the founders on board, who might be soundly fired. A solo artist can't really be fired, but band members have been replaced.
Labels are indeed becoming less important, but they're far from dead. I don't see them ever completely dying off -- we'll just have more of them (like Google/YT itself), each with smaller wallets. Sorta like larger seed/angel rounds. Any predictions on a Series A crunch ... in music? Maybe it's already happening.
I agree that Smashing Pumpkins and Louis CK were already big stars, and you're right, they don't fit into that category. However, my point was that the initial successes of Justin Bieber and Kendrick Lamar were founded from YouTube videos and without them, they probably wouldn't have been discovered by record labels. Bo Burnham (comedian for those of you who don't know) found success the same way.
He's not disputing this point. His point is that YouTube, in an of itself, would not have made either of those people the dramatic successes they are today. His statement is that the labels, like it or not, are a crucial part of the ecosystem, instead of purely vampiric like they are being portrayed by many people in this thread.
People are citing Louis CK as a reason why labels and agencies are entirely predatory and unnecessary, even though without them he would would only be moderately successful - and certainly unable to command nation-wide independent attention like he is able to now.
>His statement is that the labels, like it or not, are a crucial part of the ecosystem
I agree, but that's not my point. The only reason why they were discovered by labels is because of YouTube. He's absolutely right, they wouldn't be on world tours solely from YouTube, but they also wouldn't be going on them if it weren't for YouTube in the first place.
My initial point was discovery is easier because it no longer requires a middle man: the middle man will simply be able to take you further. Traction can be easily gained via Soundcloud, Youtube and a whole bunch of other sites. No longer do the 3 guys playing in a bar have to peddle their CDs to radio DJs and hope to get some air time. If they are "that" good, everyone will know shortly thanks to YouTube.
tl;dr It's easier for talented musicians/artists to get noticed.
>Even if you're noticed, it's still these labels that are creating a majority of the jobs.
Really? It's the record labels? You don't think it's concert venue's employees or employees of the companies that create the software to distribute the music and videos?
I'll go back to the top again.
>Justin Bieber was a nobody until he put his videos on Youtube. Kendrick Lamar was discovered this way too. It's easier to gain recognition now than ever. If the world enjoys what you produce you don't have to worry as much about a distribution channel like you did 10+ years ago.
Yes, they get more recognition, but for what? They can convert this Youtube recognition into a small portion of money through Youtube ad monetization (a brand and a distribution channel, though I guess not a label). These examples ended up with a major distribution channel (a major record label) that will bring in enough revenue to survive on or to become a star (something Youtube ad monetization can only do for a very small few). Youtube was just the equivalent of that buddy you have in the industry that can pass on your sample tape with a kind word to get them to look at you. That one buddy probably means more to people in the labels than 100k views.
To continue with your direct response, music labels were promoting artists before iTunes. "[E]mployees of the companies that create the software to distribute the music and videos" most likely include employees of the label itself or contracted companies to write the software. Promoters have been around since the town crier, and their value has kept the job existing (and now unfortunately they take the lion's share of the revenue).
I make no comment on the middle man's ability to adapt to modern distribution channels. I don't think it's relevant to them picking up artists.
Concert venues and software contractors do create jobs, but they very rarely spawn into the giant companies we see represented by the RIAA. If they did, why would this power imbalance exist?
No, I meant what I said. Really? It's hard not to perceive it any other way.
>Concert venues and software contractors do create jobs, but they very rarely spawn into the giant companies we see represented by the RIAA
Such as youtube, soundcloud, itunes, amazon and google, right?
Exactly. Full communism now!