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."

Comments

It's not piracy if it's OK

[giorgist]

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.

Nitpick

[JustinOpinion]

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.")

Re:Nitpick

[CSMatt]

The problem with the terminology is that words like "theft" and "steal" (which gain merit from the word "piracy," as this was one thing sea pirates did) are deliberately used by the powers that be to confuse people into thinking that the infringement of copyright carries exactly the same consequences as shoplifting or other deprivation of physical property. Only a moron would believe that you can receive spam (the food) through e-mail.

Re:Nitpick

[LandDolphin]

"confuse people into thinking that the infringement of copyright carries exactly the same consequences as shoplifting or other deprivation of physical property"

As it stands, you'd get in less trouble for stealing a CD then copyright infringement

Re:Nitpick

[Wildclaw]

Which makes sense if you think those in power mainly are interested in creating artifical scarcity to maintain control. A shoplifted CD doesn't decrease scarcity, while a copied one does.

Re:Nitpick

[David Gould]

Look people. Quit equating "piracy" as in "Arrrgh, matey. Ye be walkin the plank!" with "piracy" as in "I downloaded the latest Adobe Photoshop without paying for it!". They are spelled the same, but they aren't the same word (you know, a homonym).

It is the same word, but with two very different meanings. The word was chosen in order to create an association in people's minds between copyright infringement and one of the most despicable types of crime known at the time. If the phenomenon of copyright infringement were only now beginning, and in need of a catchy name, they'd be calling it "terrorism", and arguing that PATRIOT Act powers should be invoked for copyright enforcement. This matters. Arrrrr.

Re:Nitpick

[LandDolphin]

IF a million people (in America/Europe) want to download a CD, then there is probably enough draw that the artist will sell some CD's too.

one downloaded song does not equal one lost sale. Many people that download would never purchase albums in the first place (i.e. they are cheap). So those people do not result in lost sales.

Re:I repudiated copyright, and recommend others do

[ari_j]

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.

Re:I repudiated copyright, and recommend others do

[Microlith]

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.

For items that are costlier to create (TV shows, movies), product placement is a fine way to profit from the distribution of the product.

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.

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.

Those who hold onto the statist idea of intellectual property will be left behind.

Or they'll give up, when they find that they can't recoup the costs of production, much less make a profit.

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.

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.

To support it, there are always ways to create value added items (t-shirts, in-person signings or shows, etc).

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.

Re:I repudiated copyright, and recommend others do

[Microlith]

And the Red Hot Chili Peppers shouldn't give their music away for free either

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.)

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.

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.

Re:Screw the pirates

[gilgongo]

In college the biggest pirates I knew were the guys who had enough money to buy most of what they got illegally.

They may have been *able* to pay, but how do you know they *would* have paid? This is the thing - you can't prove that a download is a lost sale any more than you can prove all the people that take free newspapers handed out at the station in the morning are depriving the broadsheets of sales. There simply isn't a 1-to-1 substitution going on. If it's there for free, most people will take it. But if it wasn't for free a great many would never bother to pay in the first place because it's not as if music (or news) is essential.

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.

Er, by your own logic, I think they ARE ignoring the music and movie industries. They are instead paying attention to the artists. Can you see the difference?

Re:I repudiated copyright, and recommend others do

[Rary]

...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.

Re:it could still be piracy

[Architect_sasyr]

This gets my vote as post of the year. I do not believe I've ever seen anyone. Ever. be polite on slashdot.

Carry on.