Slashdot Mirror
File Swapping and the Analog Hole
forehead writes "Lawmeme is running an interesting piece on piracy in the digital age. It covers a number of the logical fallacies often cited by the major media companies and certain lawmakers."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
how can you claim a "loss" for pirated materials if the parties in question would nevcer have paid the retail cost for the materials?
This consistently boggles my mind, all these companies saying "piracy costs us $500 mil a year". Listen, some third world family that makes $100 a month isn't going to pay $700 for office, alright?!?
-rt
mpaa.com that is link to in the header seems to be a legitimate business, but mpaa.org is the cartel we seem to be concerned with.
.com and .org domain rules where .org's are supposed to be "non-profit!"
So much for the internic's rule of
Protect themselves how? By making laws that do nothing for the public good, instead only helping to line their pockets? How is making progams that have perfectly legitamite uses illegal their "right"? is that what you mean? Can you name a tool that can be used for illegal purposes that is illegal in the united states? Crack pipes? Guns? penises? Nope. Nothing. Why? becuase who is to say what a object's legitamte purpose is. Why do you want to be analy raped by huge corparations? I don't get it. Why would anyone defend the rights of an entity that isn't even alive? it's bizzare behavior.
I would argue with this point. In what way do hackers differ from other people who make art on an amateur level? There are people who write, produce music, and produce visual arts non-commercially, and some of this material is damn good, such as Penny Arcade, PvP, or Megatokyo. This is true for all media forms and goes back to a central flaw in the media industry's argument.
They would like us to believe that without commercial distribution i.e them, media would not exist, but this is simply false. Money is not the sole reason people create art, they do so because they enjoy it. They whole idea copyright and IP in US is based around the idea that "Hmm, It would be nice if people who create art could charge for it, allowing them to more easily support themselves and create more." This initial idea was valid and good, but it has now been carried over to the extreme. The media industry now is essentially rabidly trying to destroy non-commercial media, as a threat to their profits.
The attitudes the RIAA shows towards independent labels and bands are really the opinions the media industry has about all amateurs, if we start amusing ourselves, we won't need them. This is why content creating is in danger from SSCA/CBDTPA. They want us to be locked into them with no other choice.
But surely the real 'threat' of digital media is actually the close-to-zero marginal cost of copying the original.
With a VCR each copy is a real, physical, medium. With digital everything is, well, virtual.
Yeah, but if you have an analog copy, you make it into a digital copy, and the game's over. And there's always someone who will be able to get a higher-quality "rip" then you did, somewhere, someplace. That's why this is all such a futile waste of effort on their part.
Unless the {RI,MP}AA manages to outlaw ALL computers and recording devices and criminalize ALL recording not performed by them, an analog->digital rip will always be possible and the content will be available. The world is digital and we can't turn back the wheels of Progress. (In fact we should Promote it!)
I'm not convinced that model works for music and movies though.
The basic model they have now seems to be working just fine.. how much did Spiderman make?? All they need to do is lower their expectations of gross margins to the levels of most every other established industry.
This article, which I though was generally excellent, unfortunately stops short of naming the MPAA's true goal - continuing its monopoly on the production of blockbuster movies by ensuring that no high-quality filmmaking equipment falls into the hands of non-studio filmmakers.
Back in the pre-digital days it was easy for a determined independent artist to throw together some analog video equipment (eg consumer VHS decks, camcorders, and mixers) and make a film. The only thing you couldn't easily do is distribute the result to a wide audience...
Now, thanks to the internet, anyone who can compress some videos and set up a web server can theoretically distribute films.
*BUT* look at where the technology is going... There is no cheap digital recording and distribution system that is accessible to independent artists. (yeah, DV is fairly cheap - except for editing decks - but you can't *distribute* on DV). You can buy DVD burners for a few hundred dollars now, but consumer-level burners do not let you "author" a properly-formatted, CSS-scrambled DVD like the megadollar Hollywood systems can. And there is certainly no low-cost high-definition format on the horizon - HDCAM is insanely expensive, and HD DVD will be read-only. Broadcast digital video systems use obfuscated encryption methods and will only be accessible to studio productions.
It's in Hollywood's best interest to keep recording and distribution technologies out of the hands of independent artists. Using the cry of "piracy!" as a distraction, they are trying to pass laws that will basically make it illegal to use high-quality video equipment outside of the studio system. This way the MPAA companies will maintain their control over what films get made, resulting in fewer choices and higher prices (the inevitable consequences of a successful monopoly).
Incidentally, in my own production work I've already been hindered by the media industry's efforts. On two occasions I've had to perform a digital->analog->digital dub to record copy-protected music, *the rights for which I had legally paid for*... Also, I've been forced to reverse-engineer a high-definition video transmission format, because no such equipment is available to those without a studio-level budget.
Just to point out, as the article details, a DIGITAL bootleg of Spiderman was out on the Net the day before it hit the theater. The result? The theatrical release STILL was the largest grossing opening day (and weekend) ever. Its second weekend was the largest second weekend for a movie ever. Its third weekend (this weekend) is sitting at $46 million which is, surprise, the largest third weekend ever.
Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones.
Ditto. Movie out in digital piracy a week before opening, and it still makes obscene amounts of money ($86 million this weekend and $110+ million so far).
Wanna check on the sales of Star Wars I: Phantom Menace when released on VHS/DVD? One of the best sellers; ditto for The Matrix -- both of which were floating the web in DivX format before they hit the theaters, much less DVD/VHS.
The last 4 years (1998-2001) are the best on record for revenue generated and attendence at theaters. DVD/VHS sales are thru the roof.
In the "perfect" world, where movies are uncopiable and you have to see it at the theater and/or purchase a legitimate copy, the industry would see only a paltry rise in revenue compared to today -- not the $3 Billion touted by Mr. Valenti.
Most people who get rips would either do without altogether, or wait until the DVD/VHS that THEY WERE GOING TO PURCHASE ANYWAY became available.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Mike
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
I think the funniest part of this whole "losses from piracy" thing is that newspapers around the country run a story about piracy whenever a big movie is bootlegged before its release and then go on to mention the "threat" that these bootlegs pose to the box office revenues of the movie... but they never do follow-ups saying, "Oh, I guess not" whenever that massively marketed movie breaks a dozen box office records in a single day.
;)
Gee, could these big corporate newspapers be writing in the favor of their even bigger corporate owners?
No it isn't, its just that Telstra (my broadband carrier) sucks ass.
You see, in Australia, there are two companies that give cable. Telstra and Optus. Telstra is a 51% owned government company, and while it may have good telephone service, its cable service is expensive, gets knocked out with regularity, and it has special software that doesn't run on Linux. Optus is waaay better, especially since there is an option for the cap to be X times what the average user uses. Excellent stuff.
(For all Telstra Broadband Cable users, use BPA Login, a linux friendly, easier and more extensive configuration client)
Back to the point. I certainly wouldn't waste my time downloading a crappy movie (on my 15'), one which i can see with more enjoyment in front of a nice big tv, with good sound and clear picture.
Besides, I would find it strange sitting with a bunch of friends watching a movie on the PC, or for the few with GF's, how the hell are you mean to curl up with her if your infront of a computer???
Yet these MPAA and RIAA just want to keep enforcing more "protection", make us jump through more hoops, and do not give people the benefit of choice. I make sure i buy all my cd's, DVD second hand etc, and you should too. Its cheaper, anyway.
DVD is an excellent idea for storage and lots of files on the one medium, but due to the MPAA and RIAA's selfishness and oversight, and the corrupt american system (I am not american, Im an Aussie, but we stupidly adopt most american things about 6 months after),the high-tech, convienent uses for DVD is going down the drain.
If that law goes through (and then, undoubtedly, come here), its illegal for me to download Mandrake and burn it onto CD so I can do a install, and have the CD's there for booting or use on other computers. Quite frankly, its gh3y. So much for the tech revolution. More like the tech devolution.
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
Why does no one ever seem to bring up the Constitution in these matters? The Constitution says:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
The progress of science and the useful arts.
Securing for limited times.
Authors and inventors.
The only copyright that is Constitutional is one granted for a limited time to the author or inventor for a limited time for a product that promotes the progress of the useful arts or science. The rest are not Constitutional.
If it's not a copyright to the Author or Inventor, it's not valid.
If it's not a copyright granted to promote science and the useful arts then it's not valid.
If it isn't for a limited time, it's not valid.
Even if one were to agree that internet piracy is decreasing the revenue of the RIAA and MPAA, even if Microsoft (yes, they are doing a similar scheme with their new licences) were actually right about the dangers (to microsoft) of OSS, in my opinion it boils down to a simple problem: Resitance to change.
Why are they resisting the change? Because of revenue. All the above organisation's profits are dropping for various reasons and they are trying to stem the loss with either restrictive laws or restrictive licences. As I posted in another topic, this only changes the response to the laws and licences, but does not stop the actual process itself. Trying to exert control, by American companies, of personal devices and media, in an effort to stop the growing digitalisation of society will only result in even more resistance by consumers and the general move of innovation away from the US and bitter infighting amongst the industry. Trying to outlaw devices such as the general purpose PC, will drive parts of an entire industry, into insolvency (Software and tool developers above all) and will make the US an unpopular place to do business in and shift the impetus of media away from there.
I'm not sure but I think that whichever way they go, they will have to face restructuring in the long term and this means losses. There are so many examples that one could fill pages with them- The steel industry trying to stop change with protectionism (only resulting in retaliation from overseas traders), The car industry trying to stop unionisation with violence and anti-communist propaganda (didn't win there either), the English monarchy trying to stop the US from gaining independance, AT&T trying to hold onto it's monopoly in the communication business. - In the long run it mostly backfires. Musicians who earn next to nothing from the RIAA can and will use these restricive laws to further their own poularity by speaking out against it. Companies moving to OSS because it's cheaper and less controlled. Developers not making products for sale or use in the US due to the restrictions there.
I think, in the long run, laws such as these, are immensly damaging to the very organisations trying to enforce them now, because your average person, who doesn't pirate, will get ticked off that he has to pay more for a DVD or CD (or did you think that they were going to implement all these copy restrictions for free?), the same guy will get ticked off that he has no access to independant media, that everything he does on his non-general purpose computing device is watched and controlled by someone. Programmers in the US will be the laughing stock of the world if they can only code within a strictly defined set of parameters that entails very little freedom.
I'm not a fan of Science Fiction analogies but "Flow my tears the policeman said" by Philip K Dick is good reading for the case that these restrictions become law.(Especially the epilog)
Ironically enough it's the members of the MPAA who are using science and engineering to advance while the computer industry stagnates and refuses to pay any attention to consumers except for video games. And the video games industry is more a product of Japanese society--Americans are just resellers.
The motion picture industry in the past decade has accomplished the switch to having special effects be the real stars of movies. This results in a more uniform and dependable product where the consumer is guaranteed to at least have some payoff. The mass media also embraces scientific marketting where demographic segments are separately marketted to based on gender, age, etc. The American computer industry on the other hand has disinvested from consumer technology except for Apple. Resellers such as HP/Compaq and Dell add absolutely nothing of importance to their products. If there are cheaper and more powerful devices it is due only to the entrepreneurial hustle of Taiwanese, Koreans, and Japanese, not Americans. The basic PC experience for users of all categories remains a hellish nightmare of incompatibilities, nonfunctionality, and blatant lies.
The most elementary advances in the computer industry are made impossible by the industry's stubborn denial of mistakes and a refusal to adopt to technology even decades old. As a small example, the original programmers of C developed the language and Unix on a machine whose capabilities are laughable compared to modern machines. The operating system cut back on features that had been planned for the failed Multics project. In such a restricted environment decisions such as deliberately forgetting the true length of arrays were required just to have an operational system. There is no such excuse today, yet the computer industry persists in trying to sell to consumers knowingly defective products which are compromised by simple buffer overflows. The computer industry thinks its just fine that consumers should have to constantly try and engage in a futile endless quest of "upgrading" to patch security holes that would not exist if a proper computer language had been used to write the base system.
It is the computer industry that in recent years has suffered a complete collapse in revenue and valuation. It is the American computer industry that thinks marketting to consumers rectangular beige or black boxes with no style or gender customization is just fine while in Japan there is no reticence to market electronic devices directly to females.
The only reason the American computer industry didn't have a day of reckoning sooner was the incestuous selling between corporations for IT spending, with the last hurrah the bubble caused by Y2K sales. But that opportunity is now gone and the computer industry is openly admitting it has no new ideas. The motion picture industry for the most part spends the money to develop new movies that for a few hours can satisfy the dreams of its customers. The computer industry can't even make a reliable PC. The motion picture industry eventually embraced DVDs and has changed the economics of the industry so that even apparent flops eventually earn more money than was spent to produce them. The PC industry's idea of progress is removing serial ports, parallel ports, and floppy drives because it can't figure out how to otherwise manage the pathetically small number of IRQs. The American PC industry is quickly heading towards Dell being the only reseller to consumers and businesses while Apple fills a niche upper-class market. Meanwhile the motion picture industry keeps on churning out monster hits such as Spider Man and continuations of franchises such as Star Wars and The Matrix, not to mention potential new franchises in Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. So who are the dinosaurs and who are dying? It's not the motion picture industry.
Quoth the poster ---
/., somebody has FINALLY stated that which SHOULD have been obvious. The whole SSSCA/CBDTPA uproar in Washington has LITTLE, if anything, to do about you and me downloading "mp3z" or "|\/|0\/i3z" over the internet. It's all about the fact that the means of content production and distribution have gotten inexpensive enough that the CREATORS of the content are no longer beholden to the publishers of content.
<QUOTE>
The media industry now is essentially rabidly trying to destroy non-commercial media, as a threat to their profits.
The attitudes the RIAA shows towards independent labels and bands are really the opinions the media industry has about all amateurs, if we start amusing ourselves, we won't need them. This is why content creating is in danger from SSCA/CBDTPA. They want us to be locked into them with no other choice.
</QUOTE>
After all the ranting I have seen on
The "pirates" that scare the bejesus out of the MPAA and the RIAA aren't the "CD-rippers". They are the indie artists who can afford to purchase mixers, etc. and record and digitally encode their own music and distribute it LEGITIMATELY over the 'net without Sony, Time-Warner, MCA, Disney and the rest of the "usual gang of suspects" getting THEIR cut.
It's not about copying, it's about CONTROL. It's about the survival of an outmoded business model that has left many of the original artists of rock dependent on charity in their old age. It's all about preserving the KNOWN historical rip-off (of the artists by the labels) by preventing a future speculative one.
It's all about the fact that digital camcorders and digital audio recording is on the verge of making the studios and labels and their 18 layers of middlemen and IP lawyers as obsolete and dead as the dinosaurs.
utter rubbish
How is making more laws going to HELP? It is ALREADY ILLEGAL to copy the stuff and give it away. Dont belive me its written on every cd vhs dvd I own. Laws that are not enforced do NOTHING. Digital is just a new way to store things. Why in the world do we even make a distinction? Technicaly there is but from Joe consumers point of view one just looks better than the other. He give a rip if one is digital or analog. They just want a better product!
Their WHOLE busness model was based on content distribution charging/control. They are just starting to realize it. Which is why they are lobying VERY hard for new law to 'help' them. When distrubting it costs almost nothing, and they do not control the proces of getting music, the price WILL and MUST go down. They are whining as their busnesses can no longer sustain the higher costs of their OWN system they setup. Also given we are/were in a economy downturn im surprised they are doing as well as they are. There were LOTS of companies that lost ALOT of money in the past few years. However in the past few years in the eye of competion from a new startup basicly (napster/kazaa/gnutela). Did they do what all smart busnesses do when someone else comes out with a similar product? Did they inovate, lower prices, anything? No they bitch and moan and try to pass more law.
Ill quote danny deveto from other peoples money IMDB "I'll bet the last company that made buggy whips made the best damn buggy whip ever." While it may or may not be true. His anaolgy from the movie is. And if I remember from economics the only times price of product will go up in these conditions. is Increase in production cost, higher demand, or monopolistic controls. They can control 2 of those. One we the consumer controll. If 'piracy' is such a big problem why are their prices going up? Prices tend to go down or level out during recessions. Also if your market share is going down you tend to lower prices to try to attract more people to it. If your a monopoly you can put the price wherever you want. Something else is going on and I do not think piracy is the answer.
My question is simple. Why are they raising prices and therefore pricing MORE people out of their market. As they are moving the wrong way on the demand curve. They make CD's for what 10-20 cents EACH, if that. Then sell them for 15-20 BUCKS each? Their marginal revinue probley does not equal marginal cost. When that happens you are either loosing money or you could be making more. I had that grilled into me in every econ class I took. And if there is an alternative cheaper source of the same as or close to same as copy of the product available, loosing customers to other forms of media that they do not control?! Ill use the pizza example they grilled into me also. If Bob's pizza joint one sells slices of pizza for 1 dollar. And Mikes pizza joint down the street makes very similar pizza for 2 buck a slice. The Bobs pizza will do more busness on a whole baring other cirumstances such as atmospher, help working there, freebees, etc... Both will probly make about the same amount. Now Jimmy makes a magic box that he can setup on the corrner and make pizza for 10 cents a slice. While not AS good as the compition but decent. Little jimmy will make and sell ALOT of pizza. But jimmy _could_ be making more money at it. But he is happy with what he gets. Soon the market will start to change, people will want 10 cent pizza. They will ask why cant the other two places make 10 cent pizza. Why buy from them? The other 2 busnesses will either have to come up with something pretty good or move away from Jimmy. Or try to put Jimmy out of busness with law. Do either hold the patent or copyright on pizza? They may try to ruin Jimmy with health violations etc...
We are seeing from the music/movie industry is a lack of imagination (funny considering what they do!). So if you can not inovate litigate...
DRM hardware/software amounts to a tax on non-media industry businesses
Nations which already turn a blind-eye to copyright infringement will likely omit DRM measures in hardware for regional markets. This wll put foreign countries at an IT procurement advantage
The trend of closed hardware makes the media industry less competitive by raising barriers for small independent artists. (alright this one is a stretch, but its large media conglomerates who cater to the lowest common denominator.)
This article, while furnishing some interesting info about the numbers, was a sickeningly typical lawyer nitpick. Instead of attacking verbiage with better verbiage, I wish these legal geniuses would address the real issue, which is whether or not copyright enforcement benefits the general public to an extent that justifies taking away other things.
America has always been big on law enforcement, but there have traditionally been limits, like search and seizure laws and rules of evidence. The rights-ownership industry (we're not talking about creative artists here) appears to think that protecting IP should become the central goal of law in America. Privacy doesn't matter -- it could be used to hide infringement. Innovation doesn't matter -- it could be used to defeat protection. Opensource doesn't matter -- it's an evil socialist plot anyway. Everybody's behavior must be restricted so as to guarantee that people like Jamie "skipping commercials is theft" Kellner get a nickel every time anybody reads, views or hears anything other than their own bodily functions.
We ought to do follow the advice put forth in some recent article posted here (can't remember the freakin one) that advocated focusing political contributions to defeat legislators who act as toadies to the entertainment industry. Every time a new tendril appears, cut it off. Blacklist the entertainment industry and see how they like it. Does anybody know who Hollings' opponent is going to be in the next election? Send him or her money. Send letters to every other senator notifying them that you are doing this and why you are doing it.
American politics tends to be a series of one-issue campaigns. Our lawmakers understand that principle very well. Make the defeat of the copyright industry your one issue and let them know it.