Slashdot Mirror
The Pirate Bay, Featured in Vanity Fair
koregaonpark writes "Via the TorrentFreak site, an article in the latest issue of Vanity Fair about BitTorrent, movie piracy and The Pirate Bay. The Vanity Fair piece is lengthy, and covers the MPAA's struggle to stamp out piracy, Hollywood's increasing losses, and how the 'heartfelt testimony of Ben Affleck, a man who was paid $12.5 million to star in Gigli,' didn't help one bit. 'Pirates of the Multiplex' covers the saga of Pirate Bay in a very high-level, mass-market fashion. Did you ever think you'd be reading about TPB in Vanity Fair?"
I appreciate this article because it shows common sense in how the market of distribution operates. Would daddy give his daughter The Little Mermaid on a DVD written with a Sharpie? But that isn't the key element of why "piracy" is good for the market of art creation -- "piracy" is the return of power to everyone, rather than just those who are politically powerful.
Regardless of what the State tries to do to create monopolies using force, you can't stop the commoditizing of a product. In the case of copyright, the commoditizing isn't the actual movie or song, but the distribution system. For the first few thousand years or so of writing on paper, the distribution mechanism was a tiny industry of copy-writers. Most villages had one Bible as their own written word, and it stayed this way for generations. The printing press blew open the door for people getting their ideas out -- that is all it was about. People wrote to increase their power to attract an audience to pay them for their knowledge. Shakespeare's money didn't come from bookmaking, but from attracting others to his plays. His name was strong because of the press, but his money came from his repeat labor of continuing his work throughout his life. Can you imagine if Shakespeare had copyright to protect his first book, and never returned to the writing desk to continue writing? That's sort of what we're seeing today with the implementation of ridiculous copyright laws -- forced monopolies that give the distribution system more power than the author or the actor.
After 100 years of copyright really dooming the amateur and the new content creators to obscurity, we're finally seeing distribution move from a coerced monopoly to the masses. We're moving to the day that everyone will have a level playing field in terms of their ability to market their product to the masses -- but no one will be able to "get rich quick" with only a few months or a year of hard work -- if you want continued success, you will have to continue to work. This is how income has always existed -- you work, you find a market/customer, you get paid, you continue to work and the cycle repeats. Copyright has destroyed that cycle for the top tier elite, and thankfully The Pirate Bay and the Internet at large is destroying that State-perversion of the market so we all can have access to the system of distribution -- if we work hard at marketing our product.
I can't wait to see what happens to the current distribution systems as our preteens and teens hit their 30s and 40s. They've grown up around knowing that information is readily available freely. For a short period of time, artists and producers may get harmed by this fact -- they will see much of their work copied freely without reimbursement. But this means we'll see more artists and producers moving to a repeat-labor market where they work for their dollar -- more concerts, more plays/live productions, more face-time with their fans, etc. You can copy the new Fall Out Boy album for free, but their concerts will cost you $30-$50 a ticket. Why? Because these famous, popular musicians have the opportunity to provide their customers with a unique experience, and the supply of this particular artist does not meet the demand for them -- the price goes up. This is a GOOD THING.
I'm paying $180 to see Prince in Vegas in March. We love seeing him play live. He made a good decision to go around Universal and the rest of the collusive monopolists in the distribution market -- he plays lives twice a week at his club. He sells it out. Good for him. I see Matthew Broderick and David Hasselhoff have embraced this market too -- instead of just making movies, now they act live in musicals and theater productions -- commanding high ticket prices for the truly scarce product. As I've said before, an artist might spend 3-6 months creating something new and unique, and they hope to make money on it forever without more work. A plumber might spend 3-6 months learning a new task to fix a bathroom sink, but the
What bizarre form of nerd reads Vanity Fair AND /.?
'He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.' - Douglas Adams
Maybe there is a correlation between eating TV dinners and being lazy...
Well there is truth to the statement that a lot of good jobs are in the movie industry and that there are lots of people from construction, lighting, writing, catering etc that all benefit from film production.
:) But she loves to buy them. I'm a movie nut myself and she outspends me, and i consider her a more casual consumer of films.... cause she buys lots of crap :)
The problem is.. Hollywood themselves do not support American film makers. Hollywood at any opportunity will move productions to Canada, and other foreign countries just to cut production costs (cheaper crews)
So Hollywoods own pr is bullshit in many respects. Theres definatly some truth to it though. I do think piracy hurts them... but not as much as they claim. For example I havent gone to the movies much at all this past year... It's not because i've been downloading dvds like a dope addict... cause i havent been. Its because they havent inspired me to get off my ass yet. Spiderman3 i'll go see, theres a few others i'm looking forward to, but overall the way they promote films turns me off. I dont want to really go see a film that i pretty got the story from the commercial. I want to explore films, find ones that are interesting, not be told that this is the funniest film of the year... and have it not be.
Consumers are smarter... thats all. They have more options when it comes to seeing a film and not paying for it... so they need to really be fair with consumers, lowering the ticket prices is a good start.
My friends girl, buys dvds constantly. I mean 200$ at a time. All legal of course. We think shes nuts.... "you can rent them and copy them we exclaim"
DVD sales have slowed dramatically though. Most analysts will say that the dvd days are done. The sales are bottomed and they're hoping for HD and Bluray to spark that massive dvd like buying trend that took place with dvds.... I dont know if people are that willing to buy another entire library of films they already own... Sure some films... but thats asking a lot form a consumer in a format war.
Its possible that the saving grace to film sales, will be technology... a constant upgrade in technology.... Soon uncompressed 4000x3000 resolution laser displays! Freddy Got Fingered will have never looked better! (i love that movie.. its brillant... i know.. shut up)
I read not too long ago the industry was making record profits.
Of course, the piece I read was in a business magazine, and seemed aimed at potential investors, not consumers.
Guess the message changes depending on who they're talking to.
I'll read about movies shattering box office records one day, and then read the sad, sad, tale of how Tom Hanks, Ron Howard and Glazer "only" get 25% of the net from Da Vinci Code, instead of 40%, because it didn't make the box office they'd hoped and the studio wanted more bucks. This is all because of internet piracy, not because it's a shitty formulaic movie based on a shitty formulaic novel that many people were sick of hearing about.
I don't support pirating DVD rips, because IMO, unlike the RIAA, I actually think DVD's are priced fairly. They sell very well, as I'm told, and as far as I can see from anecdotal evidence: In our mall, the two music stores are gone - and a suncoast movie store just opened up, and another gamestop.
Whatever, they can whine about piracy and we can whine about how we feel justified in pirating, etc. Nothing is going to change, though. If the big studios cant compete they'll close down, and others will take their place.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Try cooking when you work 3 jobs. The people buying the crappy TV dinners tend to be the working poor, not the sitting on their ass doing nothing poor.
Also, making a cheese pizza for 2-3 bucks is a poor choice when you can buy a TV dinner with all 4 food groups represented for $1.50.
i'd like to also add that the movie experience, the theatre, is still an experience people are willing to pay tickets for. in other words, the DVD aftermarket for movies is obsolete, exactly as you suggest. however, the movie house is not obsolete, as you suggest
forget the internet for a moment: television was supposed to kill cinema in the 1950s. why is it still alive? why did it in fact boom in growth after the 1950s?
psychologists have done studies showing that people actually subconsciously like the ooohs and aahs and laughs and startles of their fellow popcorn munchers at a movie. yes, a site like slashdot won't admit to the fact, but people apparently have an enhanced emotional experience in a packed theatre... subconciously
consciously they won't admit that fact. they will complain about babies and cell phones, but that's what a lot of people do: whine and bitch and moan... and still go to the movies. people whine about greenhouse gases and global warming, but they still get in their cars every day too. people whine. and then forget about it. cest la vie
look the experience of watching a first run movie at a giant screen surrounded by other people as emotionally enthralled as you. you've never seen it before. everyone else is anonymous to you, their reactions are real and honest. it's almost like church and you're a religious ecstatic: the presence of others and the overwhelming audio/ visual media greatly enhances your enjoyment
ok, now compare: you're going to sit, alone, in front of a 19 inch monitor, in your basement, with your computer whirring in the background, and watch lord of the rings
oh joy
see my point?
add popcorn. add a friend or two. make it a projector. add a booming sound system. it's stil not the same. really
every single slashdotter who ever complains about cellphones and babies and loud rude jerks is still going to go to the movie theatre. again and again. i will bet money on it. in fact, their emotionally strong reaction to the ringing cell phone or loud rude jerk in theatre tells you exactly how important the movie theatre experience is to them. they don't want it messed with. people loudly proclaim how they will abandon something the love dearly if they are hurt or wounded. but they always come back, because they still love it
the cinema isn't going anywhere. look only for future growth. that's a fact
even if the MPAA magically said tomorrow they were completely abandoning DVDs and releasing all movies for free on line in highest quality the same day as release in theatres. people are still going to flock to movie houses, and movie houses will still grow. point of fact
so like you talk about prince giving live concerts, or matthew broderick in the producers on broadway: i say to you that the movie house experience is just as much still alive and kicking and unthreatened by bittorrent and just as irreplaceable
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Are you insane???
A $1.99 Tv dinner costs way less than "real food". I suggest you go out and look at prices of "food" and then the prepackaged garbage they pass off as food in grocery stores. Low grade veggies are cheap like iceberg lettuce. But Romane lettuce costs $3.00 for a head. Everythign else and fruits all cost way more than bujying the prepacked garbage that is made from the grade D vegatable pieces and Meat and then breaded and deep fried to hide it's horrible taste while making it even worse for you.
Poor people have bad nutrition because the cheap food is bad for you. It is expensive to eat good veggies, meats,grains. A loaf of crap-white bread is $0.89US a loaf of good multigrain is $3.25.. do I buy the good for you food and we starve for the week, or do I buy 2 loafs of the cheap crap and 1 jar of cheap peanutbutter (more sugar than protien) and at least have enough to make it to the next paycheck.
I strongly suggest you get a reality dose on how the poor people really eat. Because you seem to not have a clue as to what is in most things and the costs of them. When you start digging into things like this you become horrified and then disgusted.... and dont even look at the chain fast food, that stuff will make you puke when you find out how horribly bad it is... There is a reason they can sell you a hamburger cooked and packaged for less than $1.00...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
"And what father would give his little daughter a copy of the 20th-anniversary edition of The Little Mermaid with the title scrawled in Sharpie?"
This one.
To not do so would be hypocritical on my part.
The "end of the entertainment industry as we know it" does not strike me as a bad thing.
I hear and understand all of what you're saying, but without a positive mental attitude to go with that talent and luck (mostly luck, I agree) you're going to get nowhere. The biggest opportunity could land in your lap, but unless you have a decent attitude, you won't even notice it, let alone have the ability to take advantage of it.
I'm not American, but the phrase "the American dream" comes to mind; you can only live the dream if you try though. If you just sit back and think "I'm not ever going to do any better" you never will.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
You're intentionally missing the point. TV dinners are about nutrition/time value. I only work one job and don't have time to cook. My lunch is 15 mins. of /. while I down a Trader Joe's burrito. TV Dinners (or should I say Desktop Lunches?) are a compromise between eating out and finding time to cook.
You have no idea what it's like to be poor, and your snide comments merely show your ignorance, not your superior problem solving skills. Don't think you are mentally superior to everyone who is poor.
I'm not poor (now) and I still eat frozen dinners for lunch because it's economical. $0.80 to $1.00 per cheap dinner, 350-500 calories per dinner plus decent amount of vitamins and minerals added. I love to cook, but figuring in my time, cost of ingredients, and so forth, the dinners are far more economical than what I can make. Not nearly as tasty or good for you, but I'm a busy guy so frozen dinners make sense for me.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
5lb. bag of rice, 5lb. bag of beans, and some fruits/veggies. Cheap as hell and extremely easy/convenient to prepare a variety of different foods. People have enough time to make food. There are very few people anywhere that do not have 15 minutes to cook a simple meal. TV dinners really aren't that much of a time saver, and are expensive. More importantly, they are often absolutely horrible for you. Even fast food, when you take into account the time spent driving to/from the restaurant is not that much quicker than cooking.
I eat about 3-4 rice-based meals a week and it takes me a month to go through a ten pound bag which costs me $8. Stuff like beans, pasta, and fresh fruit and veggies are also extremely cheap and easy to cook.
They should make movies, music etc. much cheaper and without DRM, especially the main stream media. Sure they can say, that it costs a lot to create stuff, but if we give the performing people according to what they do and not what they look like, that would make the costs plummet. I always hate when they talk about an actor, getting $13 million for maybe a year long project. I probably won't ever make that in my life. I currently think I am paid pretty well (70k+) and I can support myself. I can understand that they probably need/want/deserve more but anything over $2m/year is a little overrated for me.
Also, eliminate organizations like RIAA, MPAA and other shills that are not adding any positive value to the process (that includes DRM, ratings etc). Look at any standard business model, any piece in an organization that is not performing or delivering any added value (short or long term) to the organization is (usually) cut loose.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
FTFA: "...the prosecutor responded in hysterical Valenti mode, comparing Pirate Bay to the I.R.A. ..."
WTF... Seriously. The IRA (Well all the different factions thereof) is a criminal organisation that has *killed* thousands of people. (Or is this some pacifist Swedish I.R.A. that I'm not aware of?)
The Pirate Bay has caused no loss of life with its intellectual property infringement. Unless you count the despairing MPAA executives jumping to their deaths. That prosecutor has no fscking idea what he is talking about. Seriously.
It's basically the same as comparing Bush, Blair, [insert disliked politician] to Adolf Hitler, or calling certain groups Nazis (that don't actually have an anti-foreigner agenda). Totally asinine and downright dangerous in any case, except when the groups involved are *actually* Neo-Nazis of some shape or form.
Stupid comparisons like this cause people to forget how horrific some things were, and cheapens the lessons that history has taught us at so great a cost.
[Disclaimer: I'm Irish, so this is a particular gripe of mine.]
Will one of your $100,000 wonders cause people to watch the movie just because they're in it?
So what has society given us, since by and large owning a house has never been a 'luxury' before modern times?