Slashdot Mirror
AP Looks at Piracy, Misses the Point
TechDirt is reporting that the Associated Press has covered several stories recently about what a "huge threat" piracy is in other countries. This article, however, argues that they have perhaps missed out on the whole story by ignoring the other side of the coin. From the article: "the AP doesn't bother to mention how all that piracy helped created new and different business models for musicians in China that let them thrive despite the piracy (actually, in some cases, because of it). Nor does the AP bother to mention how software piracy helped boost certain aspects of the industry in China by decreasing the cost of inputs."
Misappropriating and/or "stealing" things that don't belong to you, or just flat out breaking the law (in some jurisdictions), is okay if in someone else's estimation it's actually "helping" them?
Brilliant!
Here's the problem: the new "business model" they talk about is that free music sometimes promotes something else (concerts, merchandise, or something new entirely). Ok, great. What if it's my music, and I don't want you to have it for free, regardless of how else it might "help" me? What if I've voluntarily signed on with a record label because I think that it's in my best interests (and no, I haven't been "brainwashed"), and that record label has a trade group that represents it, and what if the laws of my country support the protections of my creations?
I love how in the AllOfMP3.com story here recently, people talked about it as a new "business model" that the record labels and trade groups just hated. Um, huh? The Russian mob taking things that don't belong to them under the guise of a very weak argument that they can do it under radio license rules (which are designed, ironically, to get people to BUY the content, not as the mechanism for people to permanently obtain pristine digital copies) and selling them for 1/10 or 1/20 of what they sell for via legitimate channels is a "business model"? I guess if you don't believe that anyone should be able to "own" content like that, ever, and that the "legitimate" distribution channels are nothing more than a state-sponsored and -backed mob, ok.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that the the content owners might need to sell the content for 2 or 5 or 10 times more than AllOfMP3.com does to actually support the industry? If your answer is "no, they don't need all these ungodly rich Britney Spears types" etc., and should be able to sell it for just the costs of bandwidth, who the hell are YOU to decide that? Chances are, some of their promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing, and production is what made a particular artist - the popular ones people often pirate - desirable in the first place. And how is it even an argument that, essentially, you can "steal"/copy something on your own and get it for cheaper, and if it's more expensive than some arbitrary value you've set in your head, it's okay to just take?
But why is the anti-copyright argument always the one touted here?
And for those in the "copyright is bad on works that can be effortlessly copied in the digital realm", consider that "art for art's sake" isn't the end-all be-all argument, either. Have you ever considered that since economics isn't a zero-sum game, that there are millions of people who have indirectly benefited economically from the industries that have sprung up around, support, and are supported by, music, television, books, and movies?
I'm not saying the trade groups aren't out for control, and maybe even aren't greedy baby-eating bastards. But this isn't binary opposition: it's not RIAA-like "thuggery", or no ownership rights at all. Where's the middle ground? And no, I'm not saying copyright should be perpetual and infinite, either. But can we ignore A.A. Milne's shit that's 75 years old for a minute as an arguing point, and talk about what's really at issue, which is brand new, current, and popular music and movies?
"Misappropriating and/or "stealing" things that don't belong to you..."
No. Duplication of files does not meet the definition of appriation or theft of files. If you want to get it straight, you shouldn't change the subject to something entirely different in your summarization.
Where were you when the voynix came?
As an anime fan, I download fansubs. Now, for the most part, this is piracy. These are television shows that have been recorded or ripped from DVDs, give subtitles, and been made available for free trade online through P2P networks.
However, it proves beneficial. Take for instance, Funimation. At conventions, the Funimation booth runs contests, and on the entry form you may list anime that you would like Funimation to consider licensing. They know these shows are being downloaded, and instead of condeming the person downloading like some other organizations, they ask if they should bring it stateside so that it may be introduced to a wider audience through American television.
I would prefer to see many organizations take this approach. I would love for record labels to ask "what unsigned artists are you listening to that you think we should consider signing".
Piracy can actually be used to a company's advantage at times, and too many seem pre-occupied with the short term loss of a $20 Ashlee Simpson CD to notice.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
And nor does AP bother to state that the US itself explicitly encouraged the pirating of foreign works in its 1790 Copyright Act:
Only in 1891 the US started protecting foreign works under the Chase Act. It serves to remember that the US justified pirating foreign works as being economically beneficial for the country. Even the Chase Act wasn't too friendly to foreign authors: it did protect their rights, but the Manufacturing Clause prevented their publishers from publishing their works in the US. This clause was removed only in 1986. It took the US 101 years to join the Berne Convention.
TFA and it's linked stories don't really go into much detail about what the actual benefits for the chinese industry are.
Can anyone supply some more information?
It's easy to invoke the old arguments about a colapsing business model and the failure of big companies to react to the market etc. etc. but how and why are chinese artists better without a working copyright system?
This isn't a rhetorical question, I'd like to know.
It's true. Hong Kong had a thriving film industry until the late '90s, when pirated DVDs started flooding the sidewalks and subways. Dozens of studios went out of business. Others went downmarket and only do low-budget cheap thrills anymore.
Just one example of many. It astonishes me how many people here on Slashdot can't tell truth from fantasy even when truth looks them in the eye.
Bonsai Kitten: TNG
How about the Offspring? They even tried to release one of their albums for free off the internet but were stopped by the record company.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
It is noteworthy that someone who sneaks into a movie or concert without paying is charged with tresspassing, not theft.
The ancient world had no concept of "intellectual property", and creators of content in Greece and Rome understood that their work would be freely copied without compensation.
People have since the beginning of civilization tried to claim things. In ancient times "intellectual property" mostly existed in the form of trade secrets. Recipes and processes that were closely guarded family trade secrets passed down from generation to generation. The primary reasons there were no laws for written works were: the high cost of reproduction, lack of audience, lack of awareness (how would somebody in Italy know their book was copied and taken to Greece).
Modern changes like mass production and digital communication, have also shifted the economy from valuing physical labor, to valuing IP. Hence the focus of ownership has also shifted from physical objects to ideas.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
I'm just like the grandparent; I've done much the same thing on several occasions, and I know many others who do so as well.
The fact of the matter is, those who do not follow this pattern would not have paid for the content in the first place, so it is not in fact lost revenue.
The problem that still needs addressing is: Do we really want to limit cultural experiences to those who can afford them all (there's a limit)? I can't afford every CD I want to listen to, or every piece of artwork I'd like to look at or every book I want to read.
Luckily, we invented libraries for the last one.
How about the first two? Radio doesn't really count incidentally because of bias and advertising. The originators of Copyright in North America believed that works should be in the public domain in the not-so-long-run so as to allow as many americans access to culture and education as possible. Where did we go wrong?
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)