Slashdot Mirror
Fighting For Downloaders' Hearts and Minds
iateyourcookies writes "As opposed to enforcement which usually makes the headlines, The BBC is running an article called Inside A Downloader's Head which looks at the film and music industries' attempts to prevent copyright infringement. It details some of the campaigns, their rationale, controversy surrounding them and notes that 'there are plenty, even among the young, who can be eloquent about why they believe illegal downloading is not wrong. These can include everything from what they see as the unacceptable "control freakery" of DRM and regional coding, to overcharging and exploitation of the very artists the music industry claims to protect.' However, PR company for the industry Blue Rubicon attests that 'campaigns can change hearts and minds... If you do them right you can make a material impact on people's behaviour.'"
"Blue Rubicon attests that 'if you do them right you can make a material impact on people's behaviour.'"
That will certainly make a material impact on Blue Rubicon's net profits. But change people's behavior? That's pretty unlikely. History is not on their side.
...but it seems to escape them that home taping did not kill the music industry! I guess they just think it means their campaign worked.
And of course I could also mention VHS (aka "The Boston Strangler").
I can't justify everything I've downloaded from the pirate bay, however, there are certain instances where I don't feel the least bit sorry:
* I purchased Spore and then downloaded the cracked version, which I installed on my computer, and then edited the system registry to give myself a the key. Sorry, if I purchased a piece of software, I deserve to get at least as good an experience as the pirates do, which means no rootkits.
* Several years ago, I purchased RPG Maker XP. I've gone through several computers since the purchase, and it no longer allows me to activate the software. I'd like to continue using the software that I legitimately paid for, and my only option is to download a cracked, pirated version.
* On many occasions, I've downloaded no-CD cracks for games I've purchased legitimately.
Did I violate the DMCA in these cases? Probably. Do I feel justified in doing so? Absolutely. I shouldn't be locked out of software that I purchase, and when I buy software legitimately, I shouldn't be punished for it with shitty DRM.
Ok this is coming from someone who actually does download a good half the movies he watches.
It *is* theft. The movie was produced to make money.. and it is quite fair for them to expect that people won't just take it and not pay.
No matter how you water it down, you took something that you didn't pay for. If you can live with that choice, then fine.
But don't go around making up reasons why you're doing the world a favour by saying 'fuck you' to 'the man'.. You're only lying to yourself.
there are plenty, even among the young, who can be eloquent about why they believe illegal downloading is not wrong. These can include everything from what they see as the unacceptable "control freakery" of DRM and regional coding, to overcharging and exploitation of the very artists the music industry claims to protect.
"Principled opposition to copyright itself" is, of course, left out of their range of acceptable dissent.
AEIOU: open-source anonymous internet currency
No, they want control back of your wallet. So stop spending money on computer games, mobile phones, or something else, help out those poor people in the RIAA and film industry.
If they want to win the hearts of people the solution is ALL with the RIAA / Film industry.
1) Stop producing cr@p that nobody is interested in. How many remakes of classic films can you do, do you think people don't realise a rip-off? How many formulaic "artists" are in the music charts when there's other stuff out there which does not get a look in because of the rigged radio market.
2) Stop selling the DVD's and CD's at such high prices. The market has moved on and there's competition for the money, people have more things they can buy, as I mentioned already, computer games, mobile phones etc.. It's not the 1960's where for teenagers there was music, film, and that's it.
3) Stop loading DVD's with unskippable cr@p (Disney the worst offender), stop putting idiotic unskippable trailers on copyrights - we just bought your legit DVD damn it! At least with VHS you could rewind to a spot where the actual content starts!
4) Stop putting crapware on CD's, we want Red Book Standard CD's, and we also want the cases and CD's to have the logo on it to prove they are REAL audio CD's, not the fake crap put out today.
5) Stop putting DRM on legit downloads. It p1sses me off that such and such file is restricted to what file format a device will play (with DRM built in to the player). I don't want to pay extra for a MP3 player to make some DRM licensee richer.
6) Improve the audio quality of Audio CD's, and digital downloads. Audio CD's are chasing the loudness battle - I recently bought a compilation CD and had to give it away because I had ear ache after 5 minutes of this unlistenable compressed music. Digital downloads are also not much better, where are the file formats like FLAC on ALL download sites, not just highly specialised sites. Hell, you can buy a CD then rip it to make a FLAC and it will outclass and MP3.
7) Get rid of the copy restrictions on DVD's, HD discs, camcorders, and the other formats.
MAYBE after all that, downloaders MIGHT think about buying more music and films.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
The core of what is wrong is the abuse, exploitation and extension of copyright law. Region coding is not justifiable as a means to do anything but control multiple prices in multiple markets. Content protection systems (aka DVD-CSS) are not justifiable as it does not prevent copying and only serves to control how and what players are used to access the media that, once purchased, the media companies no longer have any right or entitlement to. And the very idea of DRM is not only a problem in the sense that it grants no rights to the user and that they literally have to "ask permission to access" each and every time the user wants to access it, but it also runs the risk of becoming theft on the part of the DRM controller as when they shut down, they deny all access to the content that was legally paid for by the consumer. (They selleth, and then they taketh away!) And the extension of copyright terms to durations that can only be useful to immortal corporate "persons"? That is more unreasonable than words can express.
And before anyone can say "but that does not give you the right to steal" I have to say "so fucking what?!" Look. Fighting against "wrongness" in any way available is how the USA gained its independence. Some colonials wanted to stay connected to the crown of England and didn't want any part of it. Sounds like the "no right to steal" crowd.
And forgetting all this morality stuff, let's be plain about it. The amount of copyright infringement is negligible and most infringers are also people who buy things when they can and when it is good enough. These media jerks should let it quietly go on because they are still raking in tons of money and are still getting their laws passed. They don't need the enemies they are breeding and they don't need the growing fight they are getting. The more fight they give, the more doom they bring upon themselves. Wait and see... they will be wishing for "the good ole days" when they have everything nearly the way they wanted.
Some honest two-way dialog is what's needed, not preaching the old way.
I could be wrong but I think my first impression of the summary was somewhat like yours, though expressed differently. When I saw this part:
My first thought on reading that was "because a material impact is the only type they're capable of recognizing." I also have my doubts that their campaign is going to try to "change hearts and minds" with facts and reasoning. It's sort of like a debate which has an audience: if you're good, you can "win" a debate or an argument whether or not you are actually correct, particularly if your audience is naive, unfamiliar with argumentation and critical thinking, or has no independent understanding of the subject matter. Unfortunately, I think all three of those factors are working in favor of the *AAs. The Slashdot crowd is exceptional in many ways, but I would not expect the average person to be so familiar with these issues and many unrelated things remind me of the general public's lack of familiarity with argumentation and critical thinking.
Talk-show hosts do something similar all the time. They like to use the Socratic method not as a teaching tool, but to control the conversation by forcing the caller/guest into answering a series of simple questions that don't permit appreciation of differing viewpoints. Any attempts to suggest that the subject is more nuanced than this, that the questions don't cover the full scope of the issue, or that determing your conclusion prior to taking any other steps might be intellectually dishonest are dealt with. That's why the host's voice has a higher gain/volume than the caller's, why the host has a mute (or hold) button to instantly silence the caller, and is one (of several) reasons why calls are screened before being taken. Put those same hosts in a situation where they must interact as equals who cannot force the other person to submit to their control of the conversation and suddenly they'd have much greater difficulty seeming like they are always "right."
The situation with media campaigns is likewise asymmetric. The *AAs can easily afford to run these campaigns and get their side of the story into public view. Could you or I afford to produce and air our own commercials, on a national level, that argue against them and show any flaws in their reasoning? You mention two-way dialog. Imagine what it would do to all of PR and advertising if that were the norm.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
My personal thoughts are the best way to counter piracy is to make people like you. I can only really give examples from my experience, as I don't really know other people's piracy habits.
I am an avid gamer of all systems, although I rarely game on my PC anymore, as it's typically too much of a hassle with configurations and DRM. The DRM decreases my chance of buying a PC game, (especially if there's a good console version) and makes me more likely to pirate. As an example, I bought a copy of Spore. My bought copy of Spore thought I was pirating it. After screwing around for a bit, I decided to say screw it, and downloaded a pirated copy from the Pirate Bay. As a result, were I actually interested in the Sims 3, I feel I'd be much more likely to pirate it, now that EA's ticked me off.
I have around 200+ console + handheld games, none of them pirated. Several of my systems (DS + PSP in particular) have very active "homebrew" communities, that make it very easy to acquire "backups". Despite the ease of which I know I could get handheld games for free, I choose to buy them, because I derive a great deal of value in having the original box + manual + disc/card to display, and because I actually like the companies.
Pirating a game from, say, Nintendo to me would feel like kicking Mario in the groin. Nintendo (and others) have brought me such good times, that they seem almost like a friend. The few times I've even considered pirating DS games, I've felt very uneasy, the thought of it feels just wrong, to me. The RIAA, on the other hand, does not invoke such warm, fuzzy feelings to just about anyone. Perhaps if they stopped suing so many people, and installing rootkits on people's computers, they might have some more goodwill left.
Those are just my thoughts. I know plenty of people don't derive the same satisfaction from having a big collection of legit games/music/whatever, but I really think that if the RIAA stopped suing people and instead built up a strong relationship with its customers like many gaming companies, and Apple, they might see similar loyalty and less piracy.
Also, suing little kids is stupid on a logical level. I pirated plenty of software when I was around 12 or so because I had no money. Ten years later, I have plenty of disposable income, and provide the entertainment industries with many thousands of dollars in revenue a year.
1) Stop forcing people to watch through "piracy is a crime and teh FBI will jail you for 10 years if you bring your camera phone into a movie theater" for 5 minutes before every movie. Doing that just makes the TPB version a superior product to your version. It's basic capitalism - don't cripple your own product. It's that simple.
Your example is childish and disingenuous because you are ignoring the labor that went into a product.
Incorrect. Illegal copying doesn't deprive anyone of their labor (or cause them to labor against their will) any more than it deprives them of the work being copied.
Only a finite amount of labor went into that product, and the labor has already been performed by the time anyone has a chance to make a copy. Whether you buy a copy legally, download a copy illegally, or don't obtain a copy at all, the amount of labor doesn't change -- the artist does exactly the same amount of work, no matter how many copies are eventually made or how many of those copies are legal.
Another way to look at it is that the artist gains no benefit when people choose not to download his works. His life isn't any richer or easier when his work is seen by 10 paying customers than when it's seen by 10 paying customers and 500 pirates. The pirates cause him no extra effort and take nothing away from him.
This, by the way, firmly places you in a clinically pre-adolescent stage of cognitive development.
When you've posted a completely boneheaded argument, pretending to be a psychologist only makes you look worse. Please, keep it up!
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Or you can do what I do. Keep a relatively large library of movies available for me to watch. Completely legal, good selection of things I like, and it's easy to switch my choice with little thought.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
(I'm no psychologist, but the GGP seems to be making an argument based on abstract reasoning, which is at least adolescent thinking.)
He didn't say copyright infringement was acceptable, he said it wasn't theft.
This requires explanation. If it isn't theft, why isn't it acceptable?
Lots of things that aren't theft aren't acceptable -- murder, polluting rivers, stealing handbags, flirting with my best friend's girlfriend and talking in class being examples.
(And incidentally, thinking only in black-or-white allowed/denied terms could be considered immature.)
Copyright law exists to encourage artists to create works by enabling them to profit from sales of copies of those works, performances etc. Infringing copyright denies the artist the compensation they request for the works/performances.
(When you get to the bottom of it, copyright infringement is unacceptable because society has decided that artists should be able to earn a living from their art, and excessive piracy would stop that. Obviously, this is something that's much more likely to change than society's attitudes to murder, theft or pollution.)
Keep trying. Your flaw is that if taken to the extreme of all digital media being pirated, the creators would indeed be deprived of the fruits of their labor.
How silly. You might as well claim you're being deprived of the fruits of your labor when you mow your neighbor's lawn (without asking him first) and then he refuses to pay you.
They're only entitled to "fruits of their labor" when someone has agreed to pay for that labor beforehand. If I decide to spend my time making a movie, the only thing I'm entitled to afterward is a copy of that movie. My choice to perform labor doesn't obligate anyone else to pay me for it. Such an obligation can only come from a mutual agreement between me and the person who's paying.
Even if only a fraction of the output is pirated, the business model of selling digital goods is subverted.
So what? No one is required to make another person's business model work, especially such a foolish model as "work for free now, sell copies later", and especially when propping up that model requires ceding one's own right to communicate.
It is specious to insist that nothing is lost simply because a material item did not change hands.
No, it's just a straightforward application of the meaning of "lost". You can't lose something you never had. You can't lose money that belongs to someone else. You can, however, fail to convince someone to give you their money.
Music, video, games, etc. are digital information that required a great deal of labor to create.
Indeed they are. That's why it's so foolish to do all that labor for free and then pray that you can recoup your production costs by selling copies, especially when you know anyone can cut you out of the loop by making their own copies at home. The creation is the valuable part, not the copying.
Copying it without compensation or in violation of the artist's chosen license does indeed transfer a good from the artist to the thief.
More directly, it transfers a good from the uploader (who is almost certainly not the artist) to the downloader.
But "transfer" is not theft. When I tell you that the acceleration due to gravity on Earth is 9.8 m/s/s, I've transferred information to you, but I haven't lost anything. If you pass that information on to someone else without my permission, I still haven't lost anything.
Theft absolutely requires a loss. That's what makes theft a bad thing in the first place: not the fact that the thief gets something for free, but the fact that the rightful owner no longer has it. If you could wave a magic wand and make a copy of someone's car, few people would object to that (since it doesn't make them any poorer), and you'd have a hard time convincing anyone to call it an act of theft.
Most people have a better understanding of what theft is, and why theft is wrong, than you seem to. The best possible outcome of your line of argument is that you convince a few people that there are two kinds of "theft": the kind that's bad and the kind that isn't. Is that really what you want?
Keep denying it. You are stuck in the past. In this century, digital goods are a valid commercial entity.
I'm not the one who's stuck in the past. Copyright is an artifact of a relatively brief era when copying on a massive scale was practical for a few wealthy entities (who could afford printing presses, CD manufacturing plants, etc.) but not for the masses. Copyright is enforceable when you only need to keep an eye on factory owners who see copying as a business venture. But that era is gone: copying is now practical on a massive scale for anyone, the most dangerous copying (to the antiquated business model) is casual and noncommercial, and copyright is no longer enforceable without utterly decimating free speech and technical innovation.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
What insult? Did you follow the link? Piaget's stages of cognitive development are very well established criteria. But you already knew that, right? Right?
Insults disguised as armchair psychology are still insults. But you already knew that, right?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Do you know what? Home taping did not kill the music industry! I still remember those days, I was a kid but I saw it! : people did 'pirate', when you wanted a tune you could just copy one for yourself, liked it? Great! you might be the one buying the tape first next time before sharing it with your friends...
The new people don't have it that easy, if they just want to copy a video they have to go to some site to crack the DRM, and etc. Or maybe they can just download the cracked version from one of the piracy sites. In my country's case, there was no such thing as streets full of hundreds of pirated tape-selling b*stards . Because, people could just easily share their stuff without their aid...
So, if you want to know the truth, all DRM is doing is make things hard for consumers that want to share their tunes. Pirates have it easier now, thanks to IT. Not only that, but the international mafias behind piracy get all their web site money and CD sales, because copying is not trivial anymore. DRM is feeding these mobs, they wouldn't exist if copying was something the most layman guy could do.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
3) Stop loading DVD's with unskippable cr@p
That's one thing I don't get. I'm actively trying to skip it; I'm getting increasingly annoyed; my urge to kill is rising. Is that really the association they want to make with what they're advertising? Isn't it counterproductive to make the consumer subconsciously link your studio logo to frustration? EA does that with games and it's equally maddening.
... also, I can kill you with my brain.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If accurate, that right there tells me that you were dealing with a passive person, a pushover or a lightweight or whatever you may call it. If he lacks his own understanding and his own perspective he's going to compete poorly against someone who has those things. That's one thing I very much like about argumentation: those who are not independent thinkers (the "sheeple" if you will) have a chance to discover why this is a significant disadvantage.
In my previous post, I mentioned talk-show hosts in particular because they have complete control of the forum and can steer the conversation whether the caller is aware of it and wishes it or not. The scenario you mention was between peers, which again indicates that you were dealing with a passive individual who was willing to let you have more than your share of control. In fact, he may not have seen that as a choice. Unless you have good reasons for it, it's generally poor strategy to allow your opponent to lead you and guide your moves as though he had your best interests at heart, as though he were not strongly interested in your failure. It generally does not occur to reactive people that responding in a predictable fashion makes them the effect of someone else's cause, nor do they seem to appreciate the full implications of this. It sounds like you gave him a lesson. I'll just say that whether you derived more enjoyment from shooting a fish in a barrel or from providing a valuable lesson is not for me to speculate.
Indeed. People like to believe that "the truth will win out", and it will, provided you love the truth more than you love to be entertained, more than you love showmanship, and more than you love to be told what you want to hear. There are a lot of people who would be quick to say that this describes them, mostly because it sounds good. It does not require great powers of observation to discern that unfortunately, only a minority of people truly understand this and really try to live like they understand it. Throwing money and power into the mix makes this much worse, not by changing the mechanics of the situation but by raising the stakes.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
So give people something worth paying for. Make the physical product fit with what people (the market) are demanding. Make the DVD cheaper and more convenient. Sooner or later, whether through unofficial downloads or consumer apathy, the "entertainment" industry is just gonna have to change their broken business methods or they will die.
That's a simple fact in an environment where people no longer buy what they are selling. No, one download does not equal one lost sale, but the genuine lost sales - the people who are disillusioned with the product, they are the ones who will destroy the industry, because they are the ones whose money will buy some other form of distraction instead.
DRM is like a debt collection department - a necessary evil of any corporation to protect their income stream.
That is provably false. DRM only affects the people who have already paid for the protected content. Please explain the need to protect an income stream that you have already received. Once your product has been paid for - it's no longer an income stream, it's assets. The only way to protect an income stream is to ensure that it continues. DRM does not do this.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
"Stop producing cr@p that nobody is interested in"
They make movies and music for people who BUY it. If you are part of a demographic that is not buying music and movies, then newsflash! no content is being produced for you.
Music and movies still sell (as slashdotters always shout about when they defend piracy) so has it occurred to you that actually the majority of people out there buying that stuff actually like it?
It costs money to make games, movies and even music. People will not make stuff that they know they can't sell unless its a hobby.
In short, if you want stuff you will enjoy, you need to send signals to the market by actually BUYING what you enjoy.
No movie or record company accountant gives a fuck that their product was top of the torrent chart. That cant be used to pay people.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games