Slashdot Mirror
The Case For Piracy
An anonymous reader writes "A mainstream media outlet has published an article called 'The Case for Piracy. The writer shows how copyright has been hijacked by corporations and that publishers are their own worst enemies. 'One of the main reasons we all have anti-piracy slogans embedded in our brains is because the music industry chose to try and protect its existing market and revenue streams at all costs and marginalise and vilify those who didn't want to conform to the harsh new rules being set.' There's a lot in the article that Slashdot readers can relate to, and it's interesting that so many replies seem to agree with the author."
The fundamental problem Strong Copyright has with piracy is that technology is going to *continue* to advance. This will make copying even easier in the future than it is now. Encryption and Peer to Peer networks are going to increase in power, and will be easier to use.
The only way to maintain Strong Copyright is through government force. Increasingly it isn't about stopping people from doing "bad things" like "stealing" content. Instead it becomes a Government managed and controlled system for collecting income for a few favored parties.
Strong Copyright is about protecting the public. It is about protecting the few at the top that can rake in the dough.
Copyright is good. Linux uses it, news sources use it, our society practically requires it to function properly. Good copyright, that is, copyright that promotes the progress of science and the useful arts. Not the life+70 (or whatever the hell it is now, I can't even keep track) bullshit we have now. That? That hinders science and progress and promotes stagnation. That's all that does. Piracy? Well, it's a counter-active force to a broken system, which is itself broken conceptually. It is a practical, if unfortunate, necessity.
To all media companies out there: give us what we want (not broken with DRM) and when we want it (not 9 months to 3 years later), and you'll see piracy decline significantly. Oh, and make new innovative product rather than coasting off the work of an earlier genius (Disney, that comment is directed precisely at you.)
I suppose this is too much to ask. So, then, is paying for the same old recycled crap the media produces. So, people won't.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Not me. The only time I will ever buy music is from the band itself at a show, or directly from the band online. Or unless I know that the publisher has absolutely no ties to the RIAA or any RIAA-related entity, which is pretty hard to determine. Anything that comes out on an RIAA-related label I will download illegally, in hopes that artists will eventually stop signing to those bloodsuckers. Yes, it hurts for the artists, I make no illusions about that, but when you make a deal with the devil you must accept the consequences... Stop signing with RIAA labels and you will get my money.
I don't download music, I don't torrent music, I don't P2P music.
I am a model citizen.
More about me:
* I am over 50
* I have bought maybe 10 Albums/Cassettes/8-Tracks/Digital Downloads in my *Entire* life.
Wouldn't the music industry love having an entire market of folks just like me!
Internet restored old rule: You can make money as an artist IF you are willing to perform your art in LIVE and there is audience willing to pay for it. There was brief window in history, like 100 years, where this rule was changed in a strange way: it was enough to perform ONCE, make recording of it, and then sell recordings instead of performances. This model could work only when sharing of data was difficult. That model is going away, with or without crying loud or imposing (never quite working) copyright walls. It is really bad for films, for example, you cannot perform it live. But, cinemas and broadcasters are giving lots of money to film industry for broadcasting rights. They will only loose "DVD money". I think think they will survive just fine.
839*929
Is there anyone out there who doesn't associate anti-piracy slogans with hilarity? Don't copy that floppy!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Can't get the programme you want, the music you want, the film you want, the software you want? Can't get it in the right format, the right quality, without DRM?
Then DON'T buy it. Don't consume it. If the producers of Lost want to play those sorts of games (and they are hardly innocent here - they sign the deals that say who can distribute their product how), then stop watching the damn thing. The reason these companies continue is that people STILL buy that crap and still desire product from people that are crapping on them. Don't be one of them.
Personally, when something comes up like that, I not only don't BUY it, but I do everything in my power to stop requiring it too, including seeking out alternatives that are completely legal and legitimate.
I've witnessed businesses go from MS Office to LibreOffice for just that reason - you cannot get what you want, for a price you want to pay, and use it the way you want, so you go elsewhere even if it's an inconvenience. Some people would turn to piracy but as a business you can turn to other, more enticing, offers like free Office suites that have MOST or ALL of the functionality you require.
The problem I have with piracy is that most of it is unnecessary. There's possibly an argument that some third-world country can't afford first-world licensing and so pirates to make their businesses operate. But TV, DVD, Blu-Ray, iPod's, etc. are luxury items. They are NOT necessary. That's what gets my goat about piracy - you're only ripping off stuff that you don't actually NEED (like the people I've seen who download EVERY episode of EVERYTHING "just in case" they get around to watching it at some point, and then rarely watch 10% of the stuff they've downloaded).
If you NEED it, you'll do whatever you need to do.
If you only WANT it, then pay for it.
If you can't pay for it, but still want it, find something else to want.
It's like kids these days don't listem to music from their own era.
Who can blame them?
Digital data is unique as it can be copied over and over again without loosing anything. It can be done for cheap and any individual can do it.
Old media Each copy degrades per copy. And making the media was expensive.
This is the problem.
Copyright law is based on the old media. So those large fines for violations were fair laws. Because if you were to say pirate 10,000 records, or 100,000 books at a near production quality. Then you have already have invested a substantial money to do this, with the idea of making more money from it. So if you get caught then you probably already have a lot of wealth acquired illegally.
Now that violating the law is much too easy, now the fines are hurting the "innocent" people who's crime is closer to sneaking into a movie theater without a ticket. Even if they have hundreds of thousands of illegal material, and shared it millions of time.
The root cause of the piracy like any black market activity is the fact there is demand for a product that is priced too high, or is treated in a way people do not want. Or they legally cannot get it otherwise. To lower piracy Media companies need to expand their internet usage of their media (That is what people want), Make it affordable (Now that you have greatly increased your supply capacities as you are sharing data not physical stuff), and make sure people who want it can get it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
My parents had maybe 100-200 albums, and paid a certain percentage of their income for music.
I have 1000-2000 albums, but I certainly am not going to pay 10 times as much as my parents (if only because logically I listen to them 10 times less on average, and because I have only some Mb of harddisk space, rather than a fancy disk in a nice cover on a real shelf).
The music industry just have to get to grips that prices have to drop dramatically for people to stop downloading. I cannot afford to buy music now.
Contempt for customers
He then goes on to demonstrate several instances of where the local TV stations screwed the audience.
You are not TV's customers. You are the product being sold to the advertisers.
One Time Warner exec when so far as to say that people who TiVo shows and fast forward through the commercials are thieves. (As well as people who switch channels, or use the euphemism during a break)
If TV exec's could Ludovico you, they would.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
My new sig is relevant.
(copied to body for future reading: http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/10/alt-text-ultraviolet/)
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It's hard to argue with supply and demand. Once created, the supply of your work is infinite, it is effectively 0 cost to make another copy. Having an unlimited supply is going to drive prices down to near zero as a matter of course. Rather than asking 'why' you shouldn't be paid, you should be asking 'how'.
You can try to artificially restrict your supply with DRM but that pisses off your customers. You can try to litigate, in which case you aren't really selling your works, you're selling a no sue guarantee, and also pisses off your customers (especially since if you sue enough people you will eventually catch an innocent person in your net).
Or you can accept that some X% of your users are going to pirate, and you can charge the rest enough to make your money. Some anecdotal evidence even suggests that properly managed piracy can increase sales, so actively go out and use the pirates as a free advertising agency. More radically, you can put your old works out in public domain, and make a preorder for your next work available, basically a modern day, crowd sourced patronage model. I can think of at least one author who has managed that effectively (Charles Stross). Or you can publish your works to your blog and get some extra money from advertising. Or, if your product is software, you can give it away for individuals but require payment from businesses (who are less likely to pirate given the higher risks they face).
...that summarized that the reason MPAA and RIAA get their panties in a bunch is because they no longer control the market? They've always controlled distribution, sales, etc. Now, artists have less and less of a need to have a publisher since they can publish directly to itunes, amazon, etc. leaving the companies in the analog dust.
My issue with legit copies is that there is sometimes so much protection and so much annoyances (e.g. FORCING me to watch an ad on a DVD) that it's almost easier and more convenient to pirate.
We don't live in Shouldland.
So you want to hear music, what would you like to listen? Good music that isn't owned by RIAA? Goodnes gracious, no! Listen to the latest boxed artificially flavored crap from Britney Mandy Simpson. Or whatever. Or listen to the rebellious millionaires who sing about being depressed.
What! There's a way for people to access music we can't sell them and don't want to re-release? NUKE IT FROM ORBIT!
It was never about copyright, it was always about control. If the album you want to listen is not on the record stores, it's on purpose because it has ceased to make revenue to the "publishers" ( forget about the 1% they give to the artist). If you happen to have it in your HDD, and you share it with people, it's not costing them sales money, it's costing them brain space in you. If you make your musical taste on your own, without the bombardment of the coporations, radios, TV, movies, etc, YOU ARE DEPRIVING THEM OF THEIR FUTURE REVENUE.
Old music is what people will always listen and remember, and are willing to pay for. It's better if they can only get it for free. How many albums have The Beatles sold between 1960-1970, and how many after that? I'm betting more after and will keep rising, quality never rots. But how many albums will B.M.S. sell in 5 to 10 years? Obviously, not counting the OD or DUI death or whatever.
The Corporations want to control what you can consume. So they are limiting your access to it.
It's a well-written article, and touches a couple of excellent points on necessary changes in Big Contents' business models, but one issue remains only lightly touched on by way of a link to Mickey Mouse Copyright Term Extension Act: excessive copyright terms, with no further explanation what this actually means for the average user. The Public Domain going mainstream is what Big Content is afraid of more than piracy.
The 33 rpm vinyl recording was introduced shortly after World War II ended; as you can imagine the sheer number of albums released on that format worldwide is incalculable. How many of those have fallen into the public domain by now, almost 30 years after the introduction of its intended successor, the compact disc? How many 78 rpm records, quickly abandoned after the introduction of the LP, are actually still under copyright today?
Do you have any idea how much music, literature, sound recordings, etc. would be freely available, freely available again after decades of being unavailable, and available for remixing/re-interpretation/whatever else creative you can do with it? Granted, this wouldn't make any difference for those that run after current trends only (Gaga, Bieber), but it still would enrich the lives of many that actually enjoy exploring.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
If you've got any contact with the bands ( and for bands with small fan bases this is common) tell them to get themselves there. It's really, really easy, essentially free (30% cut from sales, but honestly that's not a lot more than materials to make a CD yourself, certainly less than even a good indie label would take) and has the double advantage of allowing fans to get paid for copies of their music, and putting them in the genre search lists... Possibly bringing new fans. I'm service agnostic, they should do this with all the big services.
I'm friends with a few musicians, the guy I mention in my example is an extreme case, but even people like my friend Beth (Celtic/alt rock fusion) make as much off iTunes these days as they do off CD sales.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Difficulty in enforcement is not a good reason, however what is the point to a law in the first place (any law). The point is to provide a benefit to society as a whole.
We shouldn't pass any law that we don't think will make society a better place in general.
Now it quickly becomes apparent why we don't want people running around killing people, it harms society by removing portion of it completely, it causes everyone to live in perpetual fear that they may be next.
On the flip side let's look at copyright, this is a very modern invention that didn't even exist a few centuries ago, and yet society flourished. People invented and created a lot of stuff before any form of copyright existed. And what happens when someone copies something? The original creator is not deprived of it. The new person now has a copy, if anything you have INCREASED the wealth of society by spreading around the creation to allow more people to enjoy it.
So while all of society benefits from a ban on random murder. Only an elite few have any potential to gain anything from copyright, and those few have shown throughout the centuries that they do just fine without such protection.
One might also look at what society as a whole wants. If something becomes the societal norm, is it still a good idea to prohibit it? If one were to believe the copyright infringement figures thrown around by the entertainment industry it quickly becomes obvious that an extremely large percentage of people must, to some extent, engage in unauthorized copying. This speaks to the idea that this is something that society approves of, and thinks is beneficial. Surely their own numbers prove that more people are in favour of being permitted to copy whatever they want than are in favour of protecting those same works. Should not the government take that in to account when writing laws? Something that society as a whole wants to happen is probably something that governments should be considering implementing!
I find it hard to be sorry for the music companies; They produce "by the numbers" music, and rip off next to all genuine artists, by calming that the cost of production through distribution is 99.9% of earnings... Akin the the movie industry claiming that a recent Harry Potter film didn't make profit...
But I don't support piracy either, artists need to eat, and diverse to profit from their work too...
It's not just digital downloads that have changed the music industry, i.e. distribution; an album can be recorded "at home", if ya know what your doing. So if the cost of production and distribution are not prohibitive factors, so how dose the industry justify the "mark-up"?
Radio you say. Yes the network to promote the music is "buttoned up tight", and the relationships go way back, so penetration is still an issue, though it shouldn't be...
Materialism vs. Virtual downloads: When I was a kid, there where these things called cassettes, you could even copy music on to them, but it was never as good as getting the whole package, album art, song lyrics, etc. Paying for a digital download still don't feel as "good value" as having the product sitting on my shelf.
If you buy an album these days, your lucky if you get more than a single sheet of paper, badly printed, and I cant remember the last time I saw lyrics...
So I pose the question; Has the reduction of the physical product made it easer to see value in the digital download, or has it blurred the line between a copy and the real product?
I see digital download(low profit) as eating in to physical record sales(higher profit), rather than offsetting the piracy numbers, so why dose the industry fixate on a non-markets rather than retaining(premium) paying customers?
PS. I've read statements recently that movie studios are becoming "more concerned about loosing distribution than the issue of piracy", very strong words...
Control is an important factor in the game. Money is actually secondary, or rather, to make money with content, you first of all need total control over it. There are companies, big, "important" companies, that have virtually no assets aside of content rights. If these rights would cease to exist over time, these companies would lose their right to exist. And while I'd consider this pretty much a given thing and the way things should be (since, well, if all you do is sit on content and don't produce anything or create anything for the benefit of the population, your company is essentially useless for the population and economy and SHOULD perish), control over content is what keeps them afloat. Losing that control would instantly mean they lose their revenue base.
Money comes secondary here, because without control, the whole market model is not sustainable.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.