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?"
When I was hard up for cash I always ate better than when I had cash because I had the time to cook. I figure when I am rich one day maybe I will eat better again, but working and going to school have made me eat some of the worst food ever.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
"Instead of paying $20 for a whole album where I only want select tunes, I'll use P2P."
The mythical $20 album always pops up on these sorts of discussions. If your belief that albums cost $20 is driving your use of P2P, check your assumptions. New CD releases average less than $14 now. $20 will get you a special CD, with an extra DVD or some other value-add goodie. If you don't want the fancy $20 special edition, you can buy the $14 one. No need to be driven to P2P.
"Then pops up itunes, which last I checked WAS MAKING A LOT OF MONEY. Maybe the studios should take a hint. Just because an artist slings together a couple good tracks doesn't mean you can cram with it 50 mins of filler and call it an album."
If the iTunes store is making money, then the labels are, too. Either way, it's been a perpetual fact that bad artists will put out albums with just a few good tracks; the phrase "one hit wonder" isn't unique to the 21st century, the 90s, or even the 80s. If you've been burned by this and thus you feel that you need to resort to P2P, just do a little more research before you buy. I tend to buy my music a track at a time, but when I do buy a CD's worth, it's an informed decision that I don't regret. Either way, the top pirated songs (as tracked by BigChampagne) tends to match up with the top ten in airplay and legal sales, so it appears that pirates have the same healthy appreciation for crap as the rest of the populace.
"As for TV, most shows on TV are either shite or derivative shite [CSI, CSI NY, CSI MIAMI, CSI OKLAHOMA, CSI Alaska, etc...]. I get that they're trying to make the most amount of money without actually doing work, but sometimes that doesn't work."
The "90% of everything is crap" rule applies to TV, too. There was plenty of awful TV in the 60's and 70's, too. I presume the argument here is that since TV is so bad, people are opting to pirate it instead of pay for it. I take another approach: I don't watch TV. Don't even own a receiver. Those few shows I do want to watch, I catch on iTunes.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Actually, I never go to the theater. I know that doesn't mean other /.ers don't either, but all I'm saying is that I haven't been to a movie since star wars ep III, and neither have any of my friends.
The reason I did go to star wars is because of what you said: it was an experience. Standing in line with fellow star wars geeks, looking at the costumes, and being able to say "hey, I was there opening day." It was worth the $9.00 for the ticket.
For any other movie, the $9.00 is just not worth it. For most movies, there isn't a crazy obsessed fan base. It is simply normal people, who gab on their cell phones, kick the seat, talk through the movie... etc. No one dared talk through star wars, everyone was a true fan. Most other movies, they are just there for something to do.
Movie theaters are declining. In my area alone, most of the smaller theaters have gone under, or are converted to dollar shows. They are replaced by two main gigantic 30 screen cinemas. I have to believe that this consolidation is due to lack of demand for the theater experience.
I don't want to see the theater die for the simple fact that there are some movies, such as star wars, that I would want to see there. However, they either need to lower the outrageous ticket price or add more to the experience. My suggestion is to have theaters that are 21 and older. This way, the teenie-bopper problem is taken care of, and they can serve alcohol. This way they can lower ticket prices and more than make up for it in bar sales. Its a lot better than going to some local bar where they charge you a cover to see some crap local band play covers.
I got nothin'
However, the US is known internationally as a mass media dumper -- losses are recouped at home, and any sales abroad are pure profit, minus distribution costs (which are often picked up by foreign interests).
In THIS market, copyright is a hindrance, since the content is already created. This is similar to Anime being subbed and distributed in the US in the late 90's. If it had been sold directly from Japan to the US market, it would have bombed. However, as the cost was 0, the profit was already made, distribution-by-piracy actually increased the interest in the shows to the point where the US is now becoming part of the primary market for Anime.
A packet of Myoplex costs less than $1 if you buy them in bulk on EBay, and each packet contains about half of the USRDA of more vitamins and minerals than I care to count right now. They also have enough protein to do whatever job you need protein to do.
I'm not sure if many people have the discipline to eat them very often but they can be made to be pretty satisfying.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
A few studios have started releasing some of these pilots on YouTube and funding the ones that get a lot of views. There is no reason why this kind of practice couldn't be institutionalised; put up a video and let people pledge a few dollars if production went ahead. If enough people do, then charge them, use the money to produce the series and then release it into the public domain. Series two should be easier to fund, since there will already be a large fan base (assuming series one was any good).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
When its said someone works three jobs doesn't mean they're working 40+40+40 hours a week. They're probably only working about 60-70 hours a week. If they make minimum wage, they're probably barely scraping together 1000$ a month.
That's not a lot of money, but it's significantly higher than the poverty limit. It's barely enough for an extremely modest mortgage, utilities, toiletries, 90 or so "2 dollar cheese pizzas", and 30 gallons of gasoline. They even have some money left to splurge and buy a book once in a while.A mortgage should always be cheaper than renting: why would you possibly think your landlord's mortgage was higher than your rent?Check prices on those things. The cheese pizzas are actually cheaper per-meal- and likewise- so are the TV dinners.Maybe, or maybe they lost their jobs when the President gave tax credits to companies who outsourced American jobs overseas. Maybe they lost their jobs when their office building was blown up by an airplane. Only a fool would pretend to know.
Minimum wage is supposed to be the minimum necessary allowence to have an "acceptable" standard of living, and at minimum wage it takes quite a bit more than 40 hours of work, but you seem to think that's okay.
Just exactly how many hours a week does someone need to work in order to afford a house? Healthy food? Clean water? A child?
Or do you really believe the definition of capitalism intends for people to degrade themselves below the acceptable standards of living when someone wants to buy a book?
I think deep down, many people just want musicians to accept their new place in society -- a place that's a notch below programmers, IT people, etc. on the social and economic ladder.
Huh?? they always have been that way. Before 1920 musicians were roving poor with the incredibly rare composer that was rich only because he was fancied by the rich that threw money at him.
Musicians being rich spoiled brats is a strange happening in history and they are simply getting reverted back to what they were less than 100 Years ago.
They were looked down upon by the upper class through most of history and were equals of the working man.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Okay - my brain imploded reading this. Between the historical inaccuracies and the complete lack of understanding of what copyright is...this needs a correction.
"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."
Um, no, it doesn't. Piracy is the movement of power to the pirates. Creative power has changed hands to a large degree, but not in the way that you've described, but more on that below.
"For the first few thousand years or so of writing on paper, the distribution mechanism was a tiny industry of copy-writers."
Um...no, that isn't really true. The distribution depends a great deal on the level of literacy, and there have been some very literate societies in the past. I'm working on a textbook right now about ancient Greek and Roman humour, and if one thing is certain, it is that these people had access to literature, could read, and could write. The copying of manuscripts itself was the source of a scribal industry, but it certainly doesn't seem to be centralized at all, and the more literate the society, the larger the industry. Actually getting the manuscripts to people is another matter entirely, and we know for a fact that there were libraries - the Great Library of Alexandria being a perfect (and very famous) example.
There is some centralization after the fall of the Roman Empire, where the copying of manuscripts moves into the monasteries.
"Most villages had one Bible as their own written word, and it stayed this way for generations."
Frankly, that's really not true at all. The various Jewish communities, even through the "Dark Ages," required that everybody be able to read Torah, and a lot of commentaries were written as these communities moved around. The Islamic world remained very literate. Monasteries had their own private libraries. In many villages, however, where life had gone to a subsistence level, they didn't even have a Bible - at least not one they could generally read. While there was an Old English translation (which apparently has the war in Heaven written into Genesis), it was the exception, and the Bibles were written in Latin.
"The printing press blew open the door for people getting their ideas out -- that is all it was about."
Well, not really. The printing press made it possible to have a literate society, as it was now possible to reproduce books quickly and with (relatively) minimal effort. But, Gutenberg was trying to make money by solving a problem of reproduction, and it seems the first book off his press was an edition of the Bible. And, one of his biggest moneymakers was printing indulgences for the Church. I very much doubt Gutenberg had such lofty ideals. But, the inexpensive reproduction of texts came at a time when Europe was ready, and made the expression of ideas to a larger, literate public, possible.
"People wrote to increase their power to attract an audience to pay them for their knowledge."
Um...that's a half truth. When it came to sheer knowledge, you have to look at the first universities, based on the Cathedral Schools, where the textbook was reproduced by the professor dictating it to his students, who copyied it down verbatum. There were people like Talhoffer (one of the great swordfighting masters) who would write a book containing some of his knowledge to drum up business. Prior to the eighteenth century, most people seem to have been writing poetry, fiction, or academic treatises. Writers didn't get paid for their work at this point - they were paid a stipend by a wealthy patron who they would dedicate their work to (it's a subtle distinction, but a very important one - they were being paid to make their patron look good in their writing, not making money off the success of their work).
"Shakespeare's money didn't come from bookmaking, but from attracting others to his plays. His name was strong because of the press, but
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive