Slashdot Mirror
Learning To Profit From Piracy
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Wired has an interview with Matt Mason, author of The Pirate's Dilemma: How Youth Culture Is Reinventing Capitalism, which discusses how businesses could make money off of piracy, rather than attacking people in a futile attempt to suppress it. And some of his ideas are gaining traction; work is underway on a TV show called Pirate TV, which he describes as 'two parts Anthony Bourdain, one part Mythbusters.' (Heroes executive producer Jesse Alexander is on board.) Also, Mason is pretty good about practicing what he preaches in that you can pirate his book on his own website."
Arrr, we know you're 'ere, poppet!!
Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
You are not pirating his book if he picks a license that allows you to copy. Otherwise he is being the pirate, by making available a copyright work.
If you download on his website it is a bit of a stretch call it piracy.
1. Sell pirated booty on eBay.
2. Profit.
3. Write book restating the obvious.
4. Recommend it be pirated.
5. Fail.
Also, Mason is pretty good about practicing what he preaches in that you can pirate his book on his own website
I dislike the use of the vague and slanted term "pirate" in place of the more exact "copyright infringement".
But the use in the summary is even worse. If he's freely offering the content, then those who download it are not pirating (even by the inaccurate, though generally-used, definition). Then are downloading it with permission.
(It's like someone giving out free food samples at a grocery store, and then saying "go ahead, steal another.")
1. Pirate
2. ???
3. Profit!
I've produced a few bands' records, and asked them to repudiate copyright on their tracks. 2 of them have, and they've skyrocketed the amount of fans that come to shows (in the thousands, on their last tour), and the amount of personalized merchandise they sell. Anything easily duplicated is called "advertising" or "marketing." You don't charge others to receive a show flyer (which could take a few hours to design, plus hours to print and many hours to distribute), so why charge for music?
I repudiated copyright on all my writings over a decade ago. My blogs let others take the content I created, and republish it as their own if they want. The two e-books I've written also are freely distributed, with a request for $20 in the final chapter if the books help them.
My business newsletter used to cost over $1000 per year, but now it is free, and I tell others to photocopy it or email the PDF out to others. It generates traffic for my websites, and it also builds reputation to my expanding customer base.
I see no reason for copyright any longer. For items that are costlier to create (TV shows, movies), product placement is a fine way to profit from the distribution of the product. Subscriptions also can work, just like a chapter-by-chapter written blook that continues as people fund the author's writing.
Those who hold onto the statist idea of intellectual property will be left behind. They'll find their market swamped by amateurs with the same amount of talent, and with more drive to distribute their creations as artists always have.
I like this idea, and I recommend others consider going that route when they create content that is easily duplicated. To support it, there are always ways to create value added items (t-shirts, in-person signings or shows, etc).
I license this post in the public domain. Try stealing it now bitches!
Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
It's been said that the most stolen dead-tree-form book is the Christian Bible.
Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
As much as I agree with what Matt Manson says, I do believe it's hard to see a world (at least in a close by future) where things like music and books will be free. Let says for a minute that it would happen, then what? How would the musician and writers make any money? Increase concert tickets which are already quite expensive for some groups. And since writers only make money from what they sell, does that mean they have to find a side job? Then what's the point.... And if it does really happen and let say the government make a deal to give money to artist to get their music or books for free, then they're just going to raise taxes, and in the end, we'll still be paying.
Someone should change the author of this book and re-distribute that way, then he will learn merits of piracy.
If he is such a strong believer in piracy, why is he allowing users to download it for free? Shouldn't he force them to pay for a DRM version while he secretly leaks a free torrent on the side? Now THAT would be hardcore.
I will bend like a reed in the wind.
The answer is advertising in new forms.
Example: product placement in TV shows. Everyone who watched 24 "knows" that the Cisco network can defend itself. That people are seeking it out and actually want to watch it is a huge bonus to Cisco.
You can't place products in music, but you bombard conventional channels with associations. Music is powerful in that way. Get an artist deeply associated with a product and just give away the music.
The music industry has already moved halfway toward this model, the only thing that remain is for advertising companies to start signing artists, and for the old model companies to die.
The last bit will take a while, but I am convinced it will happen.
The p2p networks are a potentially huge resource for advertisers, they only have to find formats that actually deliver something to the pirate.
Does anyone here have the PDF of the book or know which trackers I can get it from? =)
Uncle Mantis
Obviously, Microsoft is anti-free enterprise today.
They just don't understand that it's not a zero-sum economy, and others' freedom of enterprise with their enterprising efforts is good not only for everyone else, but for them.
Without the pirates, would they have known to sell Windows for $3 in China? Of course not!
http://rocknerd.co.uk
I can't imagine a world where everything ( books, movies, games ) is free. It's just Utopian. But I wish a better price.
.:. Done !
"âoeIâ(TM)m convinced that Steve Jobs is currently working on a double-sided touchscreen laptop, which has a great screen density so you can hold it on its side and you can touch it and turn pages. When something like that comes along, then the e-bookâ(TM)s going to be a real threat. And I think the publishing industry is going to collectively crap its pants.â"
There's just one problem with this argument. Books aren't as easy as movies and music to pirate. Oh it's possible, but it's not as easy.
The other is that print has had several centuries head start over modern piracy and has refined mass production to the point it can stay ahead of pirates. Just look at how far behind Gutenberg is with the public domain stuff.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Pirates and bankers are parasitic. Neither creates new technology or wealth.
In college the biggest pirates I knew were the guys who had enough money to buy most of what they got illegally. It never even phased them that they were often pirating the works of small bands that needed every penny that they could get. It never occurred to them to just wait until a DVD came down to $7.50 at Wal-Mart. I still know people who are like that, and they're pulling down nearly six figure salaries.
Charge them with petty or grand theft as appropriate, if you ask me. If you want to change the youth culture it's really simple. Get all of this copyright infringement and DRM bullshit out of the picture and start hitting them with theft charges.
I'm just sick of the entitlement mentality that is wedded to a near Stockholm Syndrome among a lot of younger people. If the music and movie industries are so bad, stop downloading their shit. Ignore them, make them irrelevant. I swear, it's like a bunch of rich kids crying about exploitation, while they shop at the Gap and A&F.
Matt Mason was a toy.
So, he's a journalist, too!
Volume!
For items that are costlier to create (TV shows, movies), product placement is a fine way to profit from the distribution of the product.
"Mommy.. why is Gandolf drinking a coke?"
"Never mind, dear."
# (/.);;
- : float -> float -> float =
The wisdom in this probably depends on which one or more of the following are your "product":
1. Recordings of your music
2. Merchandise with your logo on it
3. Attendance at your live performances
4. Promotion of other products (for instance, Miley Cyrus's music is mostly about getting you to watch her on TV and buy her lunch boxes)
For a music act whose real product is #3, giving away #1 counts as advertising. For an act whose real product is #1, giving it away, including giving up copyright protection of it, is bad management. It really does depend on your product and the market for it. That said, I wish more music acts considered live music to be their product and everything else to be promotion of the same.
I see you're falling into the trench of "I have it figured out for $medium, therefore copyright is moot." Unfortunately, not everything falls under those banners.
And what about movies or TV shows where such product placement would be horribly out of place? A medieval movie with GM/GE/Pepsi placements? Hell even my favorite hobby, anime, was getting into it with Code Geass, which was packed FULL of Pizza Hut ads which were distracting and ended up being the butt of jokes there were so many.
I recall Stephen King trying this and giving up.
Or they'll give up, when they find that they can't recoup the costs of production, much less make a profit.
You can't eat drive and talent (well you can, but it's considered anti-social...) I don't see people making entire movies and TV series that they just toss up on the internet unless they've got some greater source of funding to ensure they won't go broke in the process.
Which is pointless, since if you repudiate the copyright on your works (ALL of your works) then someone else might as well hang at your shows and sell knockoffs of what you're selling. And signings have limited effectiveness beyond single authors/bands, I'd like to see how you would fund the creation of an entire TV series with that.
Copyright is a very effective tool to allow for the creation of easily duplicated works without sticking it to the creators and essentially punishing them for making the investment. It needs to be reworked and it needs respect. However, the internet audience is extremely insular, rude, and just as selfish and greedy as the MPAA/RIAA (and member companies) when it comes to these things.
Those who hold onto the statist idea of intellectual property will be left behind.
Suppose I take the copyright-free versions of your songs, form my own band, and start performing those songs live (in front of paying audiences), releasing my own records of those songs, and selling my own merchandise. I don't claim them as my own necessarily, but I never give your bands credit, and I certainly never send along any of the money. What would you suggest your bands do about that?
You make money by host high quality pirated torrent on fast server!! Then set membership service, people pay 5 Yuan for password to encrypted torrent since they already spend so long download it!!111
OR just burn onto CDs and sell on street
dumb American always ask dumb question... this why China rising power, America have no spirit of great business success
PS. I OFFER SPECIAL DEAL ON HIGHSCHOOL MUSICAL 3 VIDEO CD WITH CANTONESE, MANDRIN, TIBETAN, VIETNAMESE AND HMONG HARDCODE SUBTITLES. PLEASE CONTACT FOR INTEREST
Netbooks, they come with Linux or a $3 copy of Windows. Either way, Microsoft loses.
if you make him walk the plank after you read it.
So I tried to download the book from the website right, it has an initial value of $5.00 but you can set the price to whatever you want. I set it to $0.00 as I like to "try before I buy." But unfortunately, the "free download" amount has reached it's limit for the day and I was told to try again the following day.
:P
So, for those of you wondering how you can pirate a free book... if I get it in a torrent, well there you go.
But on the other hand, some people like myself can't escape the pirate label, since my great grandfather was in fact a pirate. It's like like the geico commercials, "so easy a cave man can do it."
My abilities are only limited by my imagination
I recall Stephen King trying this and giving up.
And the Red Hot Chili Peppers shouldn't give their music away for free either, at least not in an attempt to make money. For people who are already extremely successful in the traditional methods, they're not going to see the same amount of money using this new technique. However, for people like Brandon Sanderson who are just getting into it, letting out free works can be a good way to get entrenched and build good will.
Those who hold onto the statist idea of intellectual property will be left behind. They'll find their market swamped by amateurs with the same amount of talent, and with more drive to distribute their creations as artists always have
It is interesting I saw this same effect in the emulation scene.
2 dudes had the corner on NES and MasterSystem emulation.
Then suddenly others figured out the same things. Their emus were not as good at first. So they attacked the emu on not being 'pure' or 'as good as'. They are but footnotes in the history of emu now. They wanted 25 bucks a copy. Others didnt think it was worth that.
I was reading some online comics a few days ago and wondering would these dudes have been able to get into a paper 15 years ago? Probably not. Would they have even BOTHERED to keep doing it?
You don't charge others to receive a show flyer (which could take a few hours to design, plus hours to print and many hours to distribute), so why charge for music?
While I'm with you on other ideas, this one is simply misleading.
The flyer is clearly a secondary/supportive item - the show is the main item.
The music, on the other hand, is the main item of a band. There's nothing that it supports. It is the thing.
So you can't compare them. Two different classes of things.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
You don't charge others to receive a show flyer (which could take a few hours to design, plus hours to print and many hours to distribute), so why charge for music?
I'm sure you'll get responders who tell you that's simplistic, but I want to explore that idea further. Nobody gets to profit from everything forever without operating costs. Corporation or individual, you have to put in time, effort or money somewhere to get more money out. If you want a profit, you don't charge for the show flier because it's advertising, aimed at making you money from something else. Maybe you sell the music, maybe the music is another part of the give-aways, and you sell ads, or controlled concessions, live tickets, or whatever, but if you want to sell anything, there will be investment costs associated. You can't even sell your work to an employer without committing to be there on time, a dress code, or simply eating breakfast to suit the employer's schedule.
For all the people who are pro the existing copyright laws, and especially the ones who love to throw around the violation=stealing line, what about the people on your side who seem bound up in the illusion of unlimited profit with no investment? Take a company which is making a profit selling tee-shirts with its logo and advertising on them, and is actually getting paid by people to let them become walking billboards - Is that a sustainable long term model, or will fashion doubtless change? Can anyone really afford to enforce copyright against people distributing movie trailers? If someone uses the law to control negative reviews, how can they avoid reducing free word-of-mouth advertising by the very same act? How can they file hundreds of cases in court and avoid people thinking they are sue happy? You've got organizations on the pro-IP side that seem to think the law will stretch to let them do all that, and more.
Even if you care deeply about creator's rights and feel the people doing illegal downloading are all thieves, how are you going to satisfy the IP holders who want unlimited profit with no investment, and think tougher man made laws are a way to somehow bend what are really laws of nature that stand in their way. IP law can't protect a creator from all risks associated with seeking a profit, it can't squeeze blood from a stone to actually get $250,000 settlements from violators who barely make minimum wage, it can't keep them from having to advertise if they want to reach a broad audience, it can't let them slavishly imitate a true leader in marketing and get all the benefits of coming up with something for the first time.
Who is John Cabal?
That's not related at all to Stephen King's attempt. He tried doing the suggested pay-by-chapter method where readers could optionally pay if they liked it, and it ended up being a waste of his time. I don't know if he bothered to wrap the novel up and publish it the regular way or just gave up on it.
And I never said they shouldn't give their music away for free, that's entirely -their- call. My issue is with the OPs suggestion that they repudiate their copyright, which is needless self-punishment that opens the door for someone else to make use of it without ever acknowledging the source (thus defeating the point of said "promotion" entirely.)
On the contrary, they are the only ones who will likely see any sort of success from it as the hard part, promotion, is already paid for. Everyone knows who Radiohead is, so people flocked in server crushing numbers to their website for their new album. However for new artists like the one you linked, it'll give him goodwill among small circles but it doesn't have nearly the punch as getting on the radio (another jar of worms) or your music on some movie soundtrack (which is what the giant labels do.)
And again, releasing one's music has nothing to do with OPs suggestion of releasing without copyright. Said movie studio will just have some famous name cover your song and leave you out to dry.
this criminal and his gang have.
Cheers,
Kilgore Trout
1994 to the rescue!!
"If you don't send this book to two of your friends and eleven of your enemies, you will be eaten by the Open Source Version of a Grue".
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I don't know, I've been getting more into music lately and almost have a band together. The thing is, we're all college students, and then most of us are going to go on to be engineers and scientists, and if we keep up with it, we're not going to have time for many live performances, while recording can even be done long distance. I doubt #2 and #4 are going to be our product, and although it's for fun, making money at it is a good thing. We're probably going to go with the "Put everything up on a website as CC and beg for donations" route, or maybe the Jonathan Coulton "CC but you have to pay for it" route. but I can understand #1 being a big part. Music is EXPENSIVE to make well and I can understand people with other day jobs not being able to gig.
You don't charge others to receive a show flyer (which could take a few hours to design, plus hours to print and many hours to distribute), so why charge for music?
Really there are a couple different issues to talk about. The first question is, what's your policy toward consumers of your products? This question seems to be what your post is focussing in on, and I agree that there's probably a good business model for content with loose controls.
But that doesn't require that you actually repudiate your copyright claims, and copyright takes care of other issues too. For example, you talked about releasing your writings without restricting distribution, and requesting $20 in the final chapter. Is it still acceptable for me to take your books, alter the final chapter to request that people send $20 to me instead of you, and republish them? Because if you've really given up your copyright, then there's nothing to stop me from doing that.
Also, though the Internet is a terrific distribution medium, lots of books are still sold in book stores. So let's say I make a deal with a small publisher to print up a bunch of copies of my book and sell it in book stores, and it becomes wildly successful. What then stops another publisher from taking my book, republishing it, and selling it themselves without giving any money to me or the original publisher? What stops the big publishers from simply driving smaller publishers out of business?
I think copyright still has a purpose to serve. It has just gotten a bad name over the past several years due to chronic abuse.
"And what about movies or TV shows where such product placement would be horribly out of place? A medieval movie with GM/GE/Pepsi placements?"
A knight's tale had a product placement for Nike.
1. Steal doubloons
2. ???
3. Profit!
This guy Matt Mason comes really close to thinking something original, and then completely misses it entirely. He sounds like a complete and utter knob!
It's amusing. You might think a pro-free-information ideology would go over well in the slashdot crowd. But this guy absolutely doesn't get it.
My business newsletter used to cost over $1000 per year, but now it is free,
Your ideas interest me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter (now that it's free, of course!)
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Black markets emerge for commodity goods when there are significant discrepancies between marginal costs and market price. This is exactly the case for digital entertainment media, where technology has eliminated the ability of major media producers to (technically) control the means of distribution of their product, and the marginal cost of distribution is orders of magnitude less than the price to legally buy the good. The development of the black market / piracy is expected in this case.
But - there is a middle ground. There is not just "selling media" vs. "pirating media"...
We have built LegalTorrents to get around the "dilemma" we have a working business model that both incorporates emerging technology and ALSO provides financial supports to Content Creators. The answer is simple: give away what you can't control, and provide value when customers choose to pay.
All the media we host can be downloaded without paying for it, but Content Creators can ask for Sponsorship - voluntary payments. Why would a user pay for media they can get with out paying for it? The answer is give them more: Give them more. Give public credit and community props for those users who pay for the media they love. Give them access to the Content Creators. Give them extra material not easily found online. Give them early access to concerts, private events, etc. Enable the Content Creator to build up a community around their work that is available for those users who pay to support it.
The thing is reason #1 is already a very small percentage of musicians. 10% of CD's are profitable:
On top of that, the percentage of musicians making much of a profit on music sales at all is so low that this hardly matters.
Further reading:
http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20030313214407/http://www.riaa.org/PR_STORY.CFM?ID=491
That's not related at all to Stephen King's attempt. He tried doing the suggested pay-by-chapter method where readers could optionally pay if they liked it, and it ended up being a waste of his time.
My point was that he was only wasting his time if he was looking to make money on that one novel, and since he didn't he killed the project. If you're looking to make money off of that project specifically, then you're doing it wrong, especially when you've already got a proven vehicle to make a ton of money (which was my point with the red hot chili peppers).
Radiohead made money off of sales which were benefited by the free/donation release, and because of that it was a huge success. Cory Doctorow releases everything for free and he's successful. Many bloggers make a lot of money off of content that they give away.
However for new artists like the one you linked, it'll give him goodwill among small circles but it doesn't have nearly the punch as getting on the radio (another jar of worms) or your music on some movie soundtrack (which is what the giant labels do.)
Actually, it helps to keep excitement up for him, it helped to get good feedback, and it gave his fans something to read between his books (there was a break there for a while). And nothing can beat the publicity generated by having a video go viral on Youtube, just ask Jonathon Coulter. Releasing without copyright or with a permissive license isn't something that everyone can do successfully, but it works phenomenally well for a lot of people.
I went to his site to get the book, was forwarded to the shop site and a standard 5$ fee. Changed the fee to the advertised 0 and was told I needed to wait another 7-8 hours until I could get a free copy again. So I went to everybody's favorite pirate haven and got it immediately. It's really interesting that his web presence basically forces the kind of problem on his potential freeloading readers that he seeks to address with the book.
At $463,832 in profit on an unfinished novel, I would love to have such a "waste of time". http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/02/07/stephen_king_reveals_the_plant/
I don't have 2 friends you insensitive clod! All my friends fled!
...we're not going to have time for many live performances, while recording can even be done long distance.
I'm not trying to be snarky here, and I'm also a musician who has played in a few bands and even recorded a few albums, but here's the thing: if you're not willing or able to put in the time to gig, maybe you don't deserve to make money at it.
You see, too many people think that just because they created something, they deserve to be paid for it. That's simply not true. Being in a band should be a job, not just something you do for a few weeks or months and then expect to sit back and let the royalty money flow in for the rest of your life.
You have every right to try to make money off your music. However, if it doesn't work, then too bad. Nobody owes you just because you decided to record an album.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
I've produced a few bands' records, and asked them to repudiate copyright on their tracks. 2 of them have, and they've skyrocketed the amount of fans that come to shows
Yeah, but how many of the increased fans were actually just /.ers that showed up to support an end to copyrights? And did they immediately leave when they realized the bands weren't running linux?
> You are not pirating his book if he picks a license that allows you to copy. Otherwise he is being the pirate, by making available a copyright work.
Actually, it's not copyright infringement if he gives permission. It's still piracy in the loose sense: getting something for free that most people pay for. At least, that's why I used that term rather than call it "infringement" when it isn't.
I put that in there to rebut the idea that you "can't make any money off of free" because it's clear that you can. You just have to be willing to change your business model to give away the free stuff and charge for the real goods. That's not always easy, so I think it's good for people to see that it can be done.
After all, there are lots of folks who might give this a shot but need some inspiration. Copyright will only get worse as long as the industry fails to adapt to it. Companies are a lot like rabid animals when they're backed into a corner and people should be thinking about a way out of this mess, because things will get really ugly when copyright collapses under its own weight otherwise.
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a GNU?
This comment is for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to real insight or information is purely coincidental.
And cinematic gems like this one:
Elrond: The ring must be destroyed. It must be cast into the fires of Mordor whence it was forged! The path will be long and treacherous, but with the aid of Google Maps, you may find your way.
Aragorn: We will need supplies for our journey. Doritos, to replenish our strength. Adidas, to outrun the Nazgul. Skittles, that we may taste the rainbow of victory. A Honda, to travel long distances with above-average fuel efficiency.
Elrond: And these you shall receive.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
and how did you arrive at this conclusion? did you do any research, or did you just assume that all internet users are rude/selfish/greedy/etc.?
actual studies have shown that P2P file-sharing boosts CD sales. so P2P users actually spend more on music purchases than non-P2P users.
your post is a classic example of the reactionary mentality preventing the RIAA/Big Four/major labels from adapting to the new market climate. this attitude of antagonizing & alienating your best consumers is the reason why many RIAA labels are losing money and fans while the industry as a whole continues to experience a net growth.
sure, CD sales (particularly CD singles) are plummeting, but internet download purchases have more than made up for those losses. so it's internet users who are keeping the music industry alive, and even helping it to prosper. but i suppose exploring music online is rather "insular" and "rude." how dare consumers discover music for themselves instead of letting the radio tell them what to purchase.
or maybe the RIAA are just pissed off that their Payola scheme is losing effectiveness.
Care to name these bands?
Ironman was ruined for me by the relentless advertising which led my girlfriend to ask sarcastically at one point "does everyone drive an Audi in America?" No to product placement - it sucks massively.
You have to compare that to what he normally gets paid to write a book to decide if it is a "waste of time" or not.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
More drivel advertising.
How are you pirating his book, when he gives permission by giving access on his own website.
I'd suggest actually reading about pirace from someone that doesn't have a confused idea about it in the first place. /., please. Not so much do you have to do 100 percent due diligence in the stories you write, can you just do a basic sanity check?
Piracy is NOT downloading things you have permission for.
--Toll_Free
For some bands maybe, for others the live show is the thing.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
> I dislike the use of the vague and slanted term "pirate" in place of the more exact "copyright infringement".
It's not copyright infringement when it's licensed, though. So I was stuck using the term "pirate" informally, in the sense of allowing one to acquire for free what one usually must pay for.
While I do agree with your point about terminology on some level, you can't really correct the world. At best, you can get a new meaning to supplant the old one, but even that is hard. Though there are a number of people calling it 'imaginary property' these days...
I knew they wouldn't be lasting that long (ours was turned off some time ago) but now I'm unable to browse Usenet mp3 and lossless genres and d/l stuff that I thought might be interesting. I found so much cool stuff that way and even went to a few concerts (and bought CDs) because I found artists that I liked. I also recommended stuff to friends.
Ever since the ISP terminated access to binary groups I don't try out new stuff any more. I even terminated my GigaNews account as I just used it as a fill-in server. So I don't advocate anyone's music any more. Their loss, really. Not mine.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
Piracy is reinventing Capitalism? Piracy is capitalism. Copyrights -- those limited monopolies whose usefulness is quite debatable nowadays -- are the antithesis of capitalism and have been "reinventing" it for a while now.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
People don't deserve to be paid for it just because they created it, however, they do deserve to be paid because someone considered their product (a recording) worthwhile to purchase. People should be allowed to charge for their recordings. Recordings are a valid product, they provide utility, and therefore a valid and fair price can be set for them.
5. Get less money.
Let's face it. Publishers and through them, artists, used CD distribution in order to make insane amounts of money. Whatever is the new system, they will make less money and success will be measured differently than by number of clients.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Willing to put in the time and being able to put in the time are two very different things. I have a full time job, house and family. There is no way I could take off more than a few days to tour to promote my band's album. Saying if you don't tour you don't deserve to be paid for your music is ridiculous. True that just because we created an album, we don't necessarily deserve to be paid for it, but if somebody wants to own our music, that also doesn't mean they get it for free. Of course they need to pay for an album. XTC has not toured for over 10 years. So you think people should just be able to take their music because they don't tour?
Meanwhile, on the real piracy front, the MV Faina is still being held by Somali pirates. It was surrounded by US warships weeks ago. Now some additional NATO warships are surrounding it. The pirates want $20 million to release the mostly-Ukrainian crew, and Ukrainians have collected the money. This sort of piracy happens frequently, but this ship is unusual because it's loaded with old Soviet tanks and other weapons.
This has been dragging on for weeks. Neither the US nor NATO wants to take the casualties and risk the hostages to take the ship back.
But the situation will soon change. The Russian Navy is sending one warship, the Neustrashimiy, to the scene; it just passed through the Suez Canal and should reach the target by the end of the week. The Russians aren't saying what they intend to do, but the general consensus is that when they get done, the pirates will be dead. The hostages may be dead too, but that won't bother Putin, or, indeed, many Russians.
You can't because the IP holders are greedy pigs that think ripping your cd to your iPod is stealing because you didn't cut them another check. For those of you that think copyrights are fine as they are,I have one sentence for you: Steamboat Willie is still under copyright. The man has been dead for half a century,yet the first cartoon he made,which was made at a time when most cars still had to be started with a handcrank,is still under copyright. That is just fucked up.
Copyrights are SUPPOSED to be a contract between the public and the copyright holder. We give them a limited monopoly on their creations in return for enriching our society through addition to our public domain. As it is now we get nothing in return but screams of "piracy!" and demands for more money every time we buy a new device. I repeat that is just fucked up.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Occasionally, people who work in advertising or marketing actually realise the horror of what they're doing to the world. Then they put it into a funny advert instead of killing themselves. As you'll see here.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
But where do all the calculators come from?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The O'Reilly book, "Using Samba" was published using a free license, prohibiting only commercial large-scale printing for profit.
The book was then shipped with Samba, as the Samba Team's official reference, and people started reading it online, printing off small chunks and using it.
When they wanted a complete copy to mark up or to read in the bathtub, they went to O'Reilly and bought the nice printed copy on thin paper that you could actually carry in one hand (;-))
Net result: it jumped to the top of Samba book sales, and was very profitable for O'Reilly.
And all because my editor (Andy Oram) was smart enough to realize that he could try an experiment in new media with a little help from the Samba Team
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
... by Abbie Hoffman.
Calling it a "how to survive by dumpster diving and shoplifting" manual would not cover it.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Many here have observed that recording an album does not entitle you to payment. This is certainly true.
However, if I derive value from the work of another, am I not obligated to reciprocate? The problem with the typical suggestions from the pro-piracy/copyright infringement crowd is that this reciprocation becomes voluntary, and it's obvious that the majority of people choose not to reciprocate when if they don't have to.
> I see you're falling into the trench of "I have it figured out for $medium, therefore copyright is moot." Unfortunately, not everything falls under those banners.
And I see that you forgetting that copyright was only formally _recently_ invented in the 17th century, by _publishers_. OMG! How did the world ever survive until that point!? :-)
The quality and distribution of art is not dependent on copyright, and in fact the reverse is true in that copyright is used a tool to restrict supply in the hopes that it will generate profit. In a digital world, this fallacy and assumption is no longer valid. The value of a thing is no limited by supply, but by the "perceived" value -- the same way money is in the phase of being phased out, as people realize it never had any "real" value to begin with, it was only the illusion of being "buying" into it, that gave it value.
The fact that the majority of textbooks are copyrighted, shows that the world clearly values greed over the greater good and lasting value of educating people.
Anytime art is created, you can classify artists into one of two camps (or both):
1) Those that do it because they enjoy it, or
2) Those that do it for the money
The time is coming in the near future (within 100 years) when money will be a thing of the past due to people's basic's needs of food, shelter and energy are provided for, and then the true artists will be the only ones left. There is nothing wrong with sharing what you derive enjoyment from -- and anyone who tries to tell you different seriously needs to have their motivation and biases checked at how they are trying to profit. Thankfully they are the dinosaurs in the new world that is coming.
For the time being, copyright is a necessary evil, until people spiritually mature to realize that ownership is a myth. Greed, Control, Ownership and Money are all based on the belief of fear. There is another belief that is stronger. And there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to stop it.
Insinuating the internet audience is rude is an insult to the intelligence of everyone. Maybe you like to stereotype, but not everyone does.
--
Unless you have been dead, you _know_ nothing about Life
And if the music you make can't be performed live, then what? Watching someone piece together sounds on a laptop for a couple of months isn't really possible.
"You see, too many people think that just because they created something, they deserve to be paid for it. That's simply not true. Being in a band should be a job, not just something you do for a few weeks or months and then expect to sit back and let the royalty money flow in for the rest of your life."
To play the devils advocate for a moment... I apologize but the world does not work anything like that. There's plenty of people who make money doing damn near nothing of value, except looking good. If you're going to make the time spent at a job (i.e. emphasizing that a job and time spent is some moral pre-requisite to earning money). We could take that moral claim further that some types of jobs don't 'deserve' to earn as much money as other types of jobs, and some jobs should always have the worker work for slave wages and poor working conditions and/or be totally free, etc. It's one big arbitrary point, the word "job" is an all encompassing vague willy nilly term for how a particular group of people value someone else and what they do or not do in order to dominate them or berate them for their perceived lack of worth according to someone else in some way.
Now I appreciate what you're getting at but this world is filled to the brim with injustices, we could take it further and ask whether the economic system is imorral and why is it that certain kinds of people get to rule and hog all the earths resources, etc, etc... your point touches upon the perceived and real injustices in the world at large, but the failings are our lack of being exellent people, compassionate, nice, forgiving, etc... they are moral failings IMHO, most people think they are moral when they are not, their territoriality, perceived selfrighteousness and selfishness over rule their other better qualities because the society we live in fosters them.
The real problem itself is that old conceptions of property when applied to many duplicate items in large populations adds elements of complexity due to the territorial psychology of the human beings... It's complexity is wholly psychological and has to do with culture and inherited ideas and values whether right or wrong.
I'm curious. Do you mind sharing with us the numbers on people who actually sent those $20?
To do list for Windows
Seems to work for PBS.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Subscriptions also can work, just like a chapter-by-chapter written blook that continues as people fund the author's writing.
I recall Stephen King trying this and giving up.
King's 'experiment' should be a lesson in how NOT to sell subscriptions.
He wanted people to pay for each chapter AFTER it was released, not before.
That was so stupid that it makes me wonder if his intent (or whomever proposed it to him) was to deliberately fail.
A good subscription based system will give away a few chapters/episodes/songs and then start requiring a minimum amount of money in the bank before the next chapter/episode/song is released because such systems are all forms of the 'ransom' business model - no kidnapper would be stupid enough to return the kid and then demand a ransom, but that's the equivalent of how King ran his experiment.
The 'ransom' model actually has a lot of benefits all around - it reduces the risk of losing money to nearly zero since the money is in the bank before production work even has to get started. For consumers, it takes the middle-man, the guy who treats all content as just another product to be packaged up and resold, out of the middle. It allows people to much more accurately vote with their dollar for what productions they want to see get made.
I'd sure like to see what Mr Repudiation would have to say if one of his copyright-free songs were used in an Ipod commercial.
You're implying that greed is bad.
But beyond that, the people who write, edit, print, ship, etc., textbooks deserve to eat too. (Nowadays there are textbook selling/trading sites, so you don't have to just sell it back to the campus bookstore for a tiny fraction of what you paid at the beginning of the quarter/semester.. I wish something akin to this was around when I was in college.)
I recall Stephen King trying this and giving up.
Yes, Stephen King gave up. He said in an interview that he did the math and realized that at the rate of subscription at the time he stopped writing the story he would end up making "only" just over $10,000 for writing the book.
...Some people would consider that a perfectly fine outcome.
Black markets emerge for commodity goods when there are significant discrepancies between marginal costs and market price.
The problem is that the marginal cost of media is now roughly zero. The whole price of production is fixed up front costs. Obviously nobody can make a profit selling at a price of zero.
I think that voluntary payment has a future but it will require a cultural shift. People worship their favorite artists/authors/actors. People will send them money. It will just take an effort to make the transition. We're not used to it yet. We need a new attitude/psychology.
It should also be noted though that only a small fraction of the advertising money paid for a TV show actually goes to the production of the programming. If a producer could get just the equivalent of the price of a couple thirty second adds (using product placement, little sponsor logos where network logos currently go, or just a sponsored by X at the beginning and end), they could independently produce the media and then distribute it costlessly through bittorrent.
It might not work for a really expensive show but it could definitely work for something that was maybe 500k to 1m per episode. Although bittorrent distribution might restrict the audience some (probably not by much for a show targeting an audience under 40).
If you want to paid, provide something to people that is in limited supply. Digital music is infinite in supply. Current laws create an artificial scarcity, but that is no longer something that benefits society, and I believe those laws will not last.
Perhaps if copying their music freely was legal, they wouldn't be so heavily marketed, and other bands with comparable talent and less money would be able to compete for fame.
Copyright is not for the benefit of artists. It is for the benefit of society at large. It is to encourage the creation of new works, so that everyone has music to enjoy. We've reached the point where the supply is virtually limitless. If copyright was no longer valid, there would be no shortage of new bands and recordings. Therefore society at large benefits most from the right to freely copy music.
Besides touring, I think bands should retain rights to profit. They can sell tshirts and special edition recordings of their music, as well as sell CDs for any profit they can get from those people who want physical media. This creates avenues for the listeners to support the band even if they can't see them live.
That's like saying for movies, the theater experience is the thing, and so they should give me a DVD at the door on the way out.
"I see no reason for copyright any longer. For items that are costlier to create (TV shows, movies), product placement is a fine way to profit from the distribution of the product. Subscriptions also can work, just like a chapter-by-chapter written blook that continues as people fund the author's writing."
Copyright goes further than just the music that you are giving out for free.
Without copyright, somebody could take your band's music or merchandise (and even the name) and start selling it as their own.
Copyright is for the benefit of both artists and society at large. It encourages the creation of new works by making it more economically feasible to do so, by offsetting both the explicit and implicit costs of creating works. While the costs of production went down (still, it requires a decent investment to get instruments and recording equipment. I'd estimate a cheap rock band and a cheap recording set would be about $2500 at least) A person is going to have more time to devote to works if they have income from their works.
That said, I wish more music acts considered live music to be their product and everything else to be promotion of the same.
Technology will have to improve first in order to have better real time audio processing. There are some artists that no one would want to hear without all of the audio engineering done on their albums. As a fan of electronic music, I can say it isn't such an issue there especially since there are few live PAs and tons of DJs. Even the live PAs are hardly live and most prerecorded and run from Ableton Live. This isn't new by any means though. In 1996 or so there was a flame war raging on Usenet because a performance by Moby was run from a sequencer. A fan noticed because a synthesizer didn't have a power cord plugged in to it.
Ever since there was piracy, there were attempts to profit from it.
And attempts to fight it were, every once in a while, called "futile".
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Your annology does not work because both a DVD and the Theater are the same, just a bigger screen. Much more different then listening to a recording, and listening to a live performance.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
I admit it's not perfect, but my point was, it's the music that's the thing, the live performance is a way of getting the music that has its benefits.
"sure, CD sales (particularly CD singles) are plummeting, but internet download purchases have more than made up for those losses. so it's internet users who are keeping the music industry alive, and even helping it to prosper. but i suppose exploring music online is rather "insular" and "rude." how dare consumers discover music for themselves instead of letting the radio tell them what to purchase."
The reason internet download purchases have increased has nothing to do with p2p or its users. It's because CD players are on the way out.
Everyone I know owns and MP3 player and hasn't actually used or purchased a CD in years. Technology has changed.
"or maybe the RIAA are just pissed off that their Payola scheme is losing effectiveness."
Your reasoning reminds me of the labor unions in the US. They started out saying they were for the little guy..but are now just as bad and corrupt as any of the big companies.
If we as a society can have every piece of music ever recorded freely available to every person, that is such a huge benefit that it seems to dwarf other considerations.
Music will always be created by those with a drive to do so, even if they can't sell the recordings. The copyright system has given certain artists more resources, but it has also created the ugly monster known as the music industry. Setting copyright aside will put artists on more even terms, making them compete for attention based on the quality of their work rather than depending on marketing muscle. Those who do gain fame will find ways to profit other than from selling recordings.
Then go ahead and try to sell it. Nobody is saying that you can't try to sell your music, just that you shouldn't expect that, simply because you put lots of time and energy into it, you deserve to be paid handsomely for it.
People will pay what they'll pay. If that's not as much as you'd like it to be, then you'll have to come up with other ways of making money with your music. If there are no other ways, then maybe you need to consider another career and just make music on the side.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
The problem with the "Drive" argument is that someone who maybe could drop a second or even their first job with the income from their works is getting a definite increase in the amount of time they can devote to their music.
Knowing from experience, making music requires both time and effort, and inspiration.
Copyright is for the benefit of both artists and society at large. It encourages the creation of new works by making it more economically feasible to do so, by offsetting both the explicit and implicit costs of creating works.
Well, technically, there's an important distinction to be made between the goal of copyright law, and the effect copyright law has in order to achieve that goal.
The goal of copyright law is to benefit society. How it goes about doing that is by encouraging the creation of new works by providing a benefit to the creators of those works. In other words, the benefit to the creator is merely a means of achieving the ends of benefiting society.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Now 90% of the computers are running Windows, thanks for lax enforcement of copyright law in China.
New Economic Perspectives
Of course people should be allowed to charge for their recordings. But if other people aren't willing to pay what you're charging, then you'll simply have to look for better ways of making money.
The best way is to provide a product that isn't so easily reproduced. A live show is one example of that. If you're not able to do that, then you'll just have to accept that the product you are providing simply isn't as valuable as you'd like it to be, and look into finding a day job to support your musical hobby.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
True.
Just because you produce good content and can make $ on product placement etc, doesn't mean others can. People with poor content need copyright to make a living!
production, recording, promotion and distribution costs
If you give away your digital music, you eliminate the production and distribution costs as people copy it freely, the music promotes itself through word-of-mouth reccomendations and you're left with only recording costs to cover. Using any of #2, #3 and #4 above, and many other ways, this should be trivial if your music is any good. The major labels have no future without a massive change of attitude.
If you want to paid, provide something to people that is in limited supply. Digital music is infinite in supply.
It's *good* digital music that is in limited supply. Unfortunately, every geek in a bedroom with ProTools thinks *his* music falls into that rather limited space. That's why gigging will never die: talent + ambition will rise to the top through (first) word-of-mouth and (second) free media exposure. (Who gets reviewed? Bands that passed the word-of-mouth test.) Success requires passing a test with multiple parts: you have to have at least a passing grade on all the parts, and that only gets you in the door.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
Starbucks makes a fair bit of money from expensive coffee.
You can easily make your own coffee at home for the price of a DVD-R, and some say better coffee. Why don't people do it? Convenience, habit/ritual, social.
Even if one day someone created a Star Trek like Replicator that could replicate Starbucks coffee, I think Starbucks would still be in business.
McDs are based on Location Location Location aka Convenience.
I think the cinema and movie business would still be around.
Teenagers aren't going to take their girlfriends to "Home Theater" especially when Dad is around and perhaps watching a movie. And if you get Dad to stop watching the movie, he might find more inconvenient things to occupy his time with.
Distribution? If the distributors can't do it in a more convenient way than P2P, then I really don't see why people should be paying them. Currently they're charging parasitic amounts for stuff that screws up your computer. If they work their way down to symbiotic or at least "less annoying parasite" amounts then they would still be around.
I know people who pirate stuff because they can't buy it online (due to all sorts of BS restrictions), and they're not going to drive, park and walk to the shop only to find that the shop doesn't have it.
People make $X an hour, at least for the reasonably wealthy, their leisure time should be worth more than $X/hour to them. How long does it take for them to drive, park, buy, return? How long does it take for them to figure out how to find and P2P a specific song?
So if you make it very convenient and charge a fraction of how much their _leisure_ time is worth to them, they'll buy.
1. Read the book 'The Pirate's Dilemma'
2. ???
3. Profit
Did anyone else notice the tag at the (front) bottom oops, gave the game away.
Open eyes
Good for you! I'd like to add that, to really demonstrate our collective independence from copyright, we refuse to buy, download, distribute, or otherwise deal in any copyrighted material, including, but certainly not limited to, licensed media that rely on copyright to work (like GPLed software). That'll show those Big Media fat cats and the government how much we need copyright!
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I think you'll find that to be incorrect if you actually talk to people who supposedly think that. It's a common misunderstanding, arising from the fact that it's far more elegant to say "artists deserve money for their creations" than to say the more correct "artists deserve to make money if people find their art enjoyable/useful/whatever else, rather have their sales forcibly cannibalised by free versions of their own work".
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Why? Why should we allow that? We have to decide what we will reward as a society, and while some people advocate rewarding the useful and the entertaining, you seem to be for rewarding the scarce. Why can't we simply allow people to be paid for something that, while it won't be scarce a few minutes after creation, it is still beneficial?
Proof please. We're not going to abandon copyright, the thing that has seen us through our cultural boom, the thing that may well be the singularly largest contributing factor to said boom, and the thing that may hold the key to our continued cultural wealth, without damn good evidence that it won't do damage. If copyright is so unnecessary, how come most of our works are still copyright protected? How come those new bands who don't need to make a living off music haven't already stepped up to the plate, and blasted the hell out of commercial bands? This question, and many, many more, you'll have to answer before anything is done.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
... for his calm, rational, and comprehensive rebuttal against a post that embodies none of these qualities, and yet still manages to score higher for some reason.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
When you consider that an economy is intended to create and distribute wealth, it is important to note that these "pirate" innovations turn $100 economic systems into $25 systems.
So when we examine the economic innovations of people who are first motivated by an unwillingness to pay money, it is not surprising that their economy offers substantially less capital for income.
It's a change. And it's cheaper. But as far a economies go, it's not an improvement.
Please don't call it "copyright theft"; that's RIAA-speak. Copyright theft would mean stealing the documents which prove you're the copyright owner, and making myself the one who has the exclusive right to make copies, or something like that. AFAIK nobody has every stolen anyone's copyright, though of course most of us have ignored the exclusive right to copy granted by law. That's called "infringing". The copyright holder still has the exclusive right under the law, it just doesn't amount to a hill o' beans any more due to the trivial nature of infringing.
The only thing worse than the free-for-all mentality of pirates is turning around and profiting off of the illegal activity. I would hope anyone caught making money off of pirating would be doubly punished. And saying it is futile to catch pirates doesn't mean we just stop and say it's ok to steal, just because it is hard to enforce.
I'm a PBS donor, but not for one minute do I think that they'd survive without huge government subsidies. In other words, if you are a taxpayer, you are also a PBS donor!
You didn't notice the Cadillacs in The Matrix or Ford's dominant placement in I Am Legend?
Product placement has been around for a long long time, and I have no problem with it so long as it doesn't distract from the immersion of the story.
And not everyone drove an Audi in Iron Man, but most of the nice cars were Audis.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
GPL'd products are Copyright. In fact, the GPL requires Copyright to work properly. Without Copyright, companies could steal GPL'd software and incorporate it without giving back the freedoms they enjoyed themselves.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Ironman blatantly advertised Audi, Burger King, LG and Dell that I can remember off the top of my head. As you say if it doesn't distract - well in Ironman it certainly did.
Of course bands are holding onto their copyrights. It makes economic sense for them to do so. Despite all the file sharing, recording labels are still pulling in big money, and are influencing our government heavily. The system benefits certain people and so it tends to self-perpetuate.
However, there is already so much good music that a music listener can hardly keep up with it all. If a person wants to own many of the classics, they have to pay thousands of dollars for works made decades in the past. Most people can't afford that, and so they miss out on appreciating those works. Also, culture is impeded when people are not able to reuse music in other works such as videos and remixes.
A culture in which people can listen to, learn from, and build off of previous musical works at no cost would be vastly more creatively productive. The great majority of people would benefit, and we would see more new music, not less. Those who wanted to turn their music into a profit source would just need to be more creative. We have full time bloggers who give away their words, so why not full time online music makers?
Proof that there would be no shortage of new music if copyright expired? Myspace.com. Any large city's music scene. Many of those bands are hoping to make it big, but they also know the chances are slim. And yet, they make music anyway. There are plenty of motivations for making music besides the opportunity to sell physical copies of your recorded sounds.
I think you'll find that to be incorrect if you actually talk to people who supposedly think that.
Actually, I've worked with people who think this way. Obviously, I don't claim that everyone or even most artists/musicians think this way, but they do exist. They figure that the fact that they invested time, effort, and money into a recording is reason enough for them to be able to recover their expenses and make a profit. Whether or not they actually have a market for their product is irrelevant to them. They put in the effort, therefore they should be paid for it.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Why? Why should we allow that? We have to decide what we will reward as a society...
It's not an issue of choosing what to reward, it's an issue of reality. You have every right to try to sell blades of grass for $100 each, but why the hell would I buy one when there's millions of them lying around all over the place that I can just pick for free? If you want to be paid $100 for something, it needs to be worth $100. Something that I can just pick from any random field can't possibly be worth $100 to me. It's not the result of a societal choice, nor a failure of capitalism, nor whatever else anyone might want to blame it on that this is the case. It's just simple reality.
If copyright is so unnecessary, how come most of our works are still copyright protected?
You're asking about copyright being necessary, but ignoring the more important question: necessary for what? Copyright's originally intended purpose differs from its current actual purpose. The purpose of copyright today is to guarantee virtually unlimited profit for companies that hoard copyrighted material. For that purpose, copyright is essential, and that's why most of our works are still copyright protected. The question is, is copyright necessary for the purpose that it was originally created to serve? That is open to debate.
To be clear, I don't advocate abolishing copyright, although I find the idea interesting and I like hearing people's arguments in favour of it. I do, however, think it needs to go back to its original purpose. I personally advocate a single short copyright term of maybe 10 years, possibly varying depending on the nature of the copyrighted work, with the option to renew for a price that increases with each renewal, but with a limited number of renewals allowed.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
If micropayments work and are convenient maybe you could actually make a fair bit from repeat customers.
;)
How many of you have copies of files/info you know you already have _somewhere_, but it's faster/easier for you to use google, find it, download it, than for you to search your hard drive for it.
Will the masses really have stuff so organized that they can find "that song" they want when they want it? Or even remember they already have it?
If a song is really cheap, they might go, ah nevermind just buy it again - since it's so easy to do it.
And if your online music channel has a better idea of what each listener likes than their ipods, they might just pay for it.
It's just a thought, it might not be viable - the costs could be more than the profits. But the costs may go down in the future.
Yes, I forgot about the worthy artistic endeavour A Knights Tale. Truly the sparking of a new renaissance, that was.
I write bullshit
I wasn't saying that it was a great film (although it is on my list of "films i'll watch on tv, even if i already own them on dvd",) just that the idea of a product placement in a movie that takes place in another time period has been done.
it's not inconceivable that there could be a restaurant called "mcdonald's" that exists in a film from the 1800's, no? product placement doesn't necessarily mean that there's a can of soda on someone's desk, although it typically does mean that...
You are in a windowless room. A monitor casts a soft glow onto a set of stairs ascending to ground level
And signings have limited effectiveness beyond single authors/bands, I'd like to see how you would fund the creation of an entire TV series with that.
I'm pretty sure television used to make money off of commericals, and way back when, they used to have cable tv, which you payed for because there were no commercials. Now you pay for cable tv AND there are commercials. Why can't I just pay for the shows I want to watch and get rid of commercials, or just pay for a few channels without commercials. And there is certainly no reason why the movie industry can't make movie theatres that are better than home entertainment and make money on concessions, have a commercial/socializing break and make money, All possibly without the use of copyright. Thing is, you need to CHANGE, re-invent, INNOVATE, all things they do not wish to do.
ERROR: SIG NOT FOUND (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?:
But you have to have a sense of ethics. You need to have integrity. You need to respect others. Anyone who pirates has pitiful ethics. Piracy is sloth and greed.
No, digital music is not in infinite supply. Not even close. The only reason that it looks that way is because the music industry is still making a crapton of money on music. Remove the glut of money and the quantity of new music will decrease. You can't copy a song no one has written and recorded first, can you?
Let's be fully honest with ourselves. The reason people download music is because they can. If there was a threat of it going away, they would either do without, or they'd pay for it.
I have no interest in helping the music industry. I don't believe that I have an inherent right to download music, but they also have no inherent right to make money off of music. I went to college and paid for an education. I have experience in my field. No one is telling me that even after all of that, I have a right to be employed in my chosen profession. We do what we do because we can.
Having established my pragmatic view of the situation, I would like to also call attention to the reason I have no problem with the music industry making less money. I don't value the music industry. Indeed, I rather dislike it. I hate that music is made to make shareholder profit rather than to make music. I think that this model not only generates bad music, it also stifles good music.
I don't believe that this makes downloading right (or wrong), but I will certainly not move a muscle to help save them. They don't deserve it.
Someday, this stance could lead to less music being made. At that point, we will all have to decide to do without, or to pay someone. I will pay for music I like, and the music that I don't like is someone else's problem.
Yeah, it benefits artists. Those people whose work you seem to enjoy regularly. They actually do get certain benefits in exchange for providing so many people with enjoyment. How many of them do you think will stick around (particularly the many poor ones) if all they have to look forward to is a 70% or so cut in pay, and an ungrateful public?
That's evidence that copyright law needs tweaking (in term length), rather than replacing. Or maybe not, since those classics are still quite valuable, and a collection that big is worth a few thousand dollars.
And it's an all too common (and convenient) fallacy to say that this isn't the case under copyright. You can listen to whatever you want, so long as you pay for it, or go through one of the many, many, many legitimate free channels for music. You can learn and build off the work for free.
Or movie makers too? I'm sure that google ads can pay to make blockbuster movies, right? Get real. Blogging is easy. It doesn't require all your time, it requires no extraordinary start-up costs, and you view the ads while reading. Even then, it's an extremely mean living. You need a lot of followers to get any kind of serious money, and consequently, there are very few (if any) truly full-time bloggers.
It's more of a hobby for most people. Think about the average quality of a random blog for a second. That average quality is what we get from enthusiastic amateurs, who really aren't as good as they want to be. Get rid of copyright, and the world of music and movies will become like that. There will be a few skilled professionals and a few more skilled amateurs, and a whole lot of poorly made crap that only small niches will even look at.
What if the culture that copyright has provided us is subsidising the free music scene? The music created in those scenes are hardly original (in the very purest sense of the word), so the inspiration has to come from somewhere. Now, it could be that there has been a long line of free music that inspires itself, but far more likely is that copyrighted works have heavily influenced those bands. Without our saturation in culture, who's to say whether or not people will still be inspired enough to create music, say 10 years down the track, when our volume of new works is cut to 5-10% of what it originally was? Just another thing we have to prove won't happen if we want to ditch copyright.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
No, but that's the beauty of it! We can actually change reality in our favour. We can actually choose to make art's commercial value relatively accurately reflect contribution to society rather than just scarcity! It's from a set of laws called copyright (maybe you've heard of it). It makes it financially feasible to produce artworks that can be copied unlimitedly for a living. It rewards based on demand, not scarcity. Sure, it doesn't strictly follow free market principles, but that's because if we apply strict free market principles, it produces something very contrary to the goals of said principles. There's no need to dismiss change because the status quo is just "reality".
I don't think copyright's purpose nowadays is to guarantee monopoly for companies. That's not why we keep copyrights. We keep them because they have so far been instrumental in building and maintaining our culture. We keep them, because without them, artists are not guaranteed anything for their hard work, even though their work maybe extremely popular, and may be enjoyed by many people. Even if they decide to transfer their copyrights to companies, without that initial bargaining chip, they'd be screwed. Companies and their monopolies are means to an end. I would think this all obvious, but there you go.
Ha! You're behind the times, my friend! The whole of Slashdot used to be like that! I'm not a particularly senior member, but I do remember a time, a while ago, when I posted on a copyright thread, making arguments against people in favour of abolishing copyrights (much like I do now), and I had a reply telling me coldly that I was making strawman arguments, that "nobody actually believes that copyrights should be abolished" (or something along those lines). Well, it wasn't true then. People weren't being modded up for those beliefs yet, but there were a growing number of people holding those beliefs. At the time, it was people with opinions like yours (and mine for that matter - I agree with you) that were being modded up. It was like slashdot itself had its own opinion, and you could watch it go from the opinion that copyright was too powerful (but necessary), to curiously considering abolishing copyrights, to being adamantly against copyrights. Observing this trend was the single precipitating factor in my believing the concept of groupthink. Now I realise just how important it is not to read just from the top layer of slashdot, but make an effort to read posts with lower scores, or just other sources altogether.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I cast magic missile at the darkness.
Nobody can guarantee what's going to happen tomorrow, not even an admiral from the future.
You have p0wned a grue.
All I want is to be able to buy a license to listen to the music. I don't care about the medium. I'll organise that myself, thanks! I can rip the tune or get it from the pirate bay, and if I have a license to listen to it then everyone wins. It has been said before, but the *AA need to acknowledge that the physical media is not the same thing as the license. Currently they want to sell you a CD which includes the license, but if the CD becomes damaged you need to buy a new license. WTF?
Uh, it also had "We Will Rock You" as a crowd song.
It was a movie *meant* to be anachronistic. Good luck trying to justify a Nike placement in a "serious" medieval movie...
Last I checked (a handful of years ago), Government money made up a minority (substantial though it may be) of PBS funding. Perhaps you have more recent figures handy?
Certainly, they'd have a harder time without it, but I don't believe they'd cease to operate at all. Some consolidation of redundant PBS stations in an area might even be a good thing.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I didn't care much, personally. Sure, I recognized the brands, but its not like they go to McDonald's to have business lunches in the movie.
I find it more entertaining that Stargate employees all use Dell XPS notebooks (the lights make it kinda obvious) but without the big Dell logo on them.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Well they are doing their annual pledge drive right now and they state that "nearly half" of their funds come from private donations. Since they don't have advertisements, I'd guess close to 50% would come from gov't subsidies.
That's a TERRIBLE guess...
First, there are numerous corporate sponsors, which are counted separately from individual donations, and make up a significant portion of PBS' funding. Hence the 5 minutes of near-commercials at the start of every show.
Secondly, PBS makes a substantial amount of money from merchandise. Remember "Tickle Me Elmo"? DVD/VHS sales advertised at the end of every show?
And finally, how do you know what those figures are supposed to mean? Did they specifically say that's for PBS, or are they just talking about relative amounts of funding of that local station? After all, there are no "PBS" pledge drives, they're all station-specific (WQED/KCET/KPBS/etc.).
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Well, seems like my guess isn't so "terrible" after all. It appears that 40-49% of their funding comes from government subsidies. Note, I wasn't inferring that INDIVIDUAL donors make up 50%. I said PRIVATE donations make up about 50%, which would include corporations. And no, they don't make substantial amounts of money on merchandise, as evident by their (0.5% in 2005, for example). The gap between private donors and public funds is made up by the Corporation of Public Broadcasting.
Historically, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has received 15% to 20% of its annual operating revenue from Federal sources and 25% to 29% from State and local taxes.
source: Wikipedia. Wikipedia's source: http://www.cpb.org/stations/reports/revenue/2005PublicBroadcastingRevenue.pdf
SELECT `All_Real_Nums`.`ID` AS `Copy_No`, `Digital_Music`.`data` AS `data`
FROM `All_Real_Nums`, `Digital_Music`
WHERE `Digital_Music`.`Title` LIKE '$Title'
AND `Digital_Music`.`Status` != 'New'
LIMIT 0, INFINITY();
But then I realized that the article was offtopic.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Let me add one: I just ran across an anecdote by Niel Gaiman, where he wrote about what was involved in writing Sandman for DC comics. He had to change a character and bit of dialog because DC's lawyers were afraid of violating someone's copyright, but when Gaiman checked into it, that 'someone' had died back in 1905 and the work in question was even older. How is this 'promoting progress in the useful arts' again?
Who is John Cabal?