Tim O'Reilly Says Piracy is Progressive Taxation 569
Idmat writes "In Tim's latest opus, he reflects on the lessons of his experience as a publisher: (1) Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy, (2) Piracy is progressive taxation; (3) Customers want to do the right thing, if they can; (4)Shoplifting is a bigger threat than piracy; (5) File sharing networks don't threaten book, music, or film publishing. They threaten existing publishers; (6)"Free" is eventually replaced by a higher-quality paid service; and finally, courtesy of Larry Wall, (7)There's more than one way to do it. "
good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Ciryon
Re:good thing (Score:2, Funny)
Well... All except 'new rock' artists. They don't have talent, so they are in it for the girls and money.
Re:good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Think about it. Every six months take somebody who can sing, teach them to dance and appear in front of a bunch of screaming girls / yelling boys. Result? petty cash for the artists, but mucho money for the labels. And then when the artists become "demanding" scrap them and get new artists. Why else would shows on how to become a star become popular? In those castings there are thousands that want to get their 15 minutes of fame.
There are very few "new rock" artists that actually made it long term. Exceptions include George Micheal, Robbie Williams, and few others. But notice once they leave the "new rock" band they become interesting artists.
How many remember "Wake me up before you go-go" and how "gay" George Micheal looked.
Will we ever get past this? I think so because with the rise of Pink, Avril, etc it is starting to tilt back into the artists favour.
Re:good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Well done.
Bowie, also... (Score:5, Interesting)
But I agree with your comment.
Here's a quote from David Bowie
Grateful dead, also (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Grateful dead, also (Score:4, Insightful)
--trb
Re:Grateful dead, also (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course the whole Slashdot crowd burned poor Lars at the stake because of the perception he was against technology or against file sharing. If we ever need to go to war I'm sure the collective knee-jerks of Slashdot could pulverize any enemy!
Re:Grateful dead, also (Score:3, Insightful)
You raise a good point, but the biggest difference between trading bootlegs and Napster is that with the bootlegs, fans are just trading with fans. In the case of Napster, someone was trying to get rich off of it. I think had Metallica stressed this aspect of it, they would have come off in a better light.
Re:Grateful dead, also (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bowie, also... (Score:3, Interesting)
-a
Re:Bowie, also... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that's what the RIAA is afraid of. Thanks to Mp3s, they have to treat their customers.. *GASP* FAIRLY!
It bugs the hell out of me that once I open a CD, I own it. That's it. I can't return it under the typical 'satisfaction guaranteed' policy that most other products enjoy.
By the RIAA's way, I have to make a purchasing decision from hearing 1-2 songs on an album I caught on the radio. In other words, I have no way of knowing (unless I want to invest way too much time into research...) if the CD has $15-$20 worth of interesting content on it.
P2P and MP3s really level the playing field. Now the RIAA has to treat me nice instead of fending me off with a stick. Too bad they're still trying the stick approach.
Re:good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
So in conclusion, anecdotal evidence sucks
Re:good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the dilemma for RIAA and record companies in general:
When TV was introduced, everyone watched it. It was free, and it was awesome. Then cable came around. Why would someone pay a subscription for something that's free? Easy: THERE WAS VALUE ADDED! Quality pictures, more channels, guaranteed reception, etc.
The record companies don't get it. Humans will not pay for something that they can get for free (whether it's illegal or not is irrelevant).
They need to ADD SOMETHING that makes it better than what we're getting now. It's not my job to think of that *something*. But when it comes, I'll pay a subscription fee for music.
Re:good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
I just want the websites I work on viewed and enjoyed.. the money is just a bonus.
Oh wait, I have bills to pay! Excuse me if I'm greedy and want to be paid for my work.
Re:good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait, I have bills to pay! Excuse me if I'm greedy and want to be paid for my work.
Having done some session work in the music industry, as well as having worked with a few fledgling lables, I gotta say, if you're trying to make money off of your music, don't sign with a major label. (Heaven help you if you want to make a living by the written word.)
Independent lables like Dischord, Epitaph, Bomp, and Sympathy offer much better contracts, with a higher percentage of the royalties returning to the band MOST OF THE TIME, in my experience. Talk to independent musicians, then talk to those who signed with the multi-national. Which ones are happier with their label's support? Which ones know where the money from their sales is going? Which ones are going to complain about free promotion?
Re:good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Well that all depends doesn't it?
I worked for a label that was on the cusp of moving out of "indie" status and more towards "major" aspirations, just by the nature of their artists' success. So my feeling is: There are artists out there who are quite happy with their major label. The successful ones.
If you want to just enjoy making music and see what happens my feeling is labels are not even a good way to go. Do it completely yourself. If, however, you have songs which anyone thinks are million selling singles, or a stage charisma that demands a larger venue to play: major labels are extremely good at high-level, mass promotion of that style of artist. Anyone who thinks that by signing with Columbia or Atlantic they're going to be "nurtured" is in for a massive wake-up call.
This is where I think both labels and artists need to be more realistic. By that I mean: Columbia still to this day talks about itself as this warm fuzzy place that signed Bob Dylan and Simon and Garfunkel and took them by the hand and turned them into the successes that they are. How long ago was that again? When was the last time they did this with a new artist exactly? When was the last time anyone heard of a major label "developing" a new artist into a success, rather than "foisting" a new artist?
Key thing to remember: there are bagillions of artists out there who honestly see "making money" as the last thing on their minds when they're writing songs. I mean that sincerely. Most musicians I know are just happy to get the creative ball rolling. If it goes further: wahoo!! But if it doesn't, after you're suddenly thrust into this corporate structure etc.: non-wahoo. This is why I think labels - and label deals - are ultimately irrelevant these days.
Re:good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, how I hate that fucking line.
Let me elaborate on that. How exactly is being a musician any different from being a firefighter or a teacher? Well, lets take the entertainment factor out of it and put them side to side.
There is a very bad precedent set, which says you will make bajilions of dollars if you become a famous musician. Musicians and actors are 2 of the most overrated bullshit professions in America. I don't buy this argument about how Britney Spears has to pay bills which total 20 million dollars a year, or how Dr Dre has to have 5 mansions in Bahamas (and they still bitch about piracy). That's a simple case of overvaluation.
I "pirate" lots of music. In fact, I have over 600 Gigs of high quality music ripped and encoded to VBR via LAME encoder. I also own some 300 CDs. Do I still pay for music? The answer is Yes. From small independent labels. I don't feel like supporting Sony exec's crack habit or contributing more money to already fat purse of some of these musicians. I'll be damned if Sony, Universal or BMG ever see another dime from me.
Buy your music from Projekt [projekt.com], Kranky [kranky.net], Saddle Creek [saddle-creek.com], or Polyvinyl Records [polyvinylrecords.com] to name a few EXCELLENT labels.
Fuck the mainstream bullshit.
You're listening RIAA? I AM STEALING YOUR MUSIC, AND THERE ISN'T ANYTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.
Re:good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Both of you missed the point entirely. People have been sampling and/or listening to music without paying for it for ages (legally or otherwise) and filesharing is just another avenue to enable them to do that. If I hadn't had access to filesharing programs such as Napster, I can think of three artists in particular who would have sold at least 5 CDs less because I wouldn't have even heard of them in the first place.
All of you "starving-artist advocates" need to acknowledge that all of the music industry's problems are caused by the music industry itself, not the fans. We support the artists we love and tend to ignore the artists who constantly complain about not having enough money. (Metallica, et al.)
Re:good thing (Score:3, Informative)
With the advent of MP3, I am sure he is a happier man. More Counting Crows stuff that he couldn't get his hands on. Just because he has a bootleg of some concert thats on tour does it mean he isn't going to go? Hell no, he'll be the first one in line. When the new CD comes out, guess who is sleeping at the music store overnight to grab one.
File sharing makes big fans into bigger fans. I may use file sharing to grab some mp3s of recent stuff on the radio once in a while, and those are CDs I would never buy, but if I wanted something really good I'd buy it.
This is going to be repeated millions of times over but yes, the RIAA is a bunch of dumb idiots that are living in their dinosaur land with a bunch of yes men that won't second guess them. Yeah you can bitch about it here, or anywhere else online, but they pay the politicians and the politicians make the rules. I wonder how many geeks there are out there that could actually make a difference in voting schemes? ahhh well enuf!
Re:good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait, I have bills to pay! Excuse me if I'm greedy and want to be paid for my work.
Well I spent 3 months making my website about fecal sculptures, and I want to be paid for my work too!
If someone hired you to make the website then it's perfectly reasonable to expect to get paid. If your website provides a service that people are willing to pay for then good for you. If you put up a website as a hobby because you want other people to view and enjoy it, then cool, and any money you make is a bonus.
If none of the above apply, then why the hell are you wasting your time making a website when you have bills to pay? Go get a job instead.
And I hate to break it to the RIAA, but if piracy COMPLETELY WIPED OUT the recording industry and no one could make a cent, you'd still have plenty of people making great music and giving it away for free. Not that it could ever reach that extreme, good musicians would still have several ways to make money.
-
Re:good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Then find a line of work that pays the bills. If the existence of file sharing technology prevents a business from making money off recorded music and/or software, it's not the network that's the problem. It's the business plan.
Musicians used to make all their money from performances. Technology created a new revenue stream, and new technology might be killing it off again. This is not fundamentally a bad thing.
Re:good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
are you a website artist? are you creating your vision? your soul? are you like Salvador Dali Painting your heart and soul for others to enjoy? are you like Edgar Allen Poe writing for the entertainment of others and to tell a story? No? then you are NOT an artist. an Artist creates because they feel the need to share with the world to at least capture a glimpse of the image in their mind, to summon an emotion. A Skilled painter doesn't "Paint for profit" as a skilled musician doesnt write music to make lots of money.
The fakes and ankle bites of this world does. The rock band trying to write a hit to make it "big-time" are nothing but wannabees. they wanna-be like someone who is rich and OD'ing on crack while surrounded by 30 naked prostitutes.
you are a web-page-maker. you work for a living. you are not an artist, you do not create to please others and invoke emotion.
there is a very large difference and you do not have the ability to see it.
There is a reason they are called starving artists.. a true artist is very different from what you see.
Re:good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you suggesting that Mick Jagger, John Lennon, Michaelangelo (as an insightful poster pointed out), and John Carmack are not "skilled artists" because they accept(ed) money for their work?
Re:good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Most musicians, painters, sculptors, and authors know that they have almost no real chance of "making it big." They know that there isn't even a real chance of making enough money to pay their bills. Yet they continue to create anyway. Why? Because they have passion for their work. They must create, even if it isn't profitable. They want to share their works with others.
Sure, they'd like to make enough money from their work to pay their bills, but that's not really a choice they have. They don't have a "make money or give away work" choice. They have a "give away work and share it with others or hoard work and have no one else ever see it". Given this choice, many would chose to give it away in a moment. (And based on the large amount of legal and free web comics [keenspot.com], software [keenspot.com], mp3s [mp3.com], and other creative works online, it looks like many people agree.)
This is the difference between your website work and the work of artists. Apparently to you it's just a way to make money. To an artist, it's something that they're driven to do, something they must do. If they can't make money, it's a shame, butthey'll take a small fan base and no money over no fans at all.
Re:good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this meant to be ironic or something?
This seems like a simplistic point of view. How about:"Think about it, the artists themselves want their music to feed them..."
Most professionnal musicians I know would want to live from their music, but most of them are still obliged to take silly jobs.
Honestly, we can discuss where record money goes, but I do believe it is a mistake (or a joke??) to say artists just want to be loved.
Re:good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is to say, things like napster are actually quite desired by most small bands and independents. Only the big corporations don't like it.
Re:good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
If the owner does not like it, IMHO you're still doing sonething you should not.
Re:good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
I reckon I probably purchase about one CD per week on average - at the time of napster, it was more like 3-5 per week (sometimes more). Why was this? Well, firstly, I enjoy music, and so I don't mind paying for good music that I enjoy. But, what I despise is buying a CD from an artist you have never heard before and finding out that one song you heard and liked is nothing like the rest of their music, or is actually a one hit wonder. Or the CD that has that one really shit song on it that you hate so much you never ever put the CD in your stereo again.
I used to listen to Triple J [abc.net.au] a lot and they pushed a lot of up and coming bands. I would hear a single song, but there was no way I was spending my hard-earned cash on a CD on the basis of hearing one song once. But after hearing the entire album (mp3), I knew whether I wanted the album or not. If I liked it I bought it, if not, then I deleted it. Many of these bands I now buy every single offering they come out with, and they have gained a fan as a result. I would never have even known the name of some of these bands if it hadn't been for napster, ie. being able to hear the music before purchasing.
The only problem I can see with this view is that it does rely on the underlying assumption that people are prepared to do the right thing, like the article says. It might be a little naive, but I do honestly believe that many people would gladly pay for a CD if they enjoy the music. Those who are just downloading mp3s or wait for their friends to buy a CD and then copy it will never buy the music anyway - they have never been and probably never will be a customer.
Download and buy (Score:5, Interesting)
In the sphere of the printed medium, however, I see things as different. With O'Reilly books for example, those that I own have proven to be exceptionally valuable as a usable resource. I *do* have some books as digital resources, but they are nothing like as useful or as readable onscreen. Sure, they are more readily searched, but good indexing in printed media is nearly as useful. A photocopy of a book, or even a laser printed, ring-bound version, is nothing like as handleable.
To conclude, I think the printers/distributers of printed media have a lot less to worry about than the music/entertainment companies - because the printed medium offers far more VALUE. This is all I want as a consumer, I don't think I'm alone. When will these greedy f*cks learn?
Re:Download and buy (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the record companies, though, all they have to do to stop piracy is charge reasonable prices, and no $18 is not a reasonable price for a CD. It's barely a reasonable price for a DVD, but I can generally find even new DVD releases for $15-20. $10 is a reasonable price for a CD. I can get a cassette of the same album for that, and it costs a hell of a lot more to manufacture a cassette than a CD.
Charging reasonable prices is a historically proven method. Look at VHS: back in the 80s, when VHS movies were sometimes as much as $80, everybody and their third uncle had a big collection of tapes that they copied videos they rented onto, usually 2-3 per tape. Who does this now? Nobody I know, why bother when you can just buy it for $10-15?
The RIAA has an inflated sense of their own worth. You can't escape the basic laws of supply and demand. Charge to much, and piracy will bring the average price down to reasonable levels.
Re:good thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Think about it, the artists themselves just want their music to be played and loved.. the money is just a bonus.
That is one of the most fatuous, self-serving things I have heard in a while. Do you have the slightest proof that many, or even most artists are just in it to make you happy? Of all the rationalizations people make to help themselves to free music, this is one of the most outlandish.
If they wanted to give away the music they could. If they wanted to give away the money they earned as a "bonus" they could. Try listing how many do either. Most musicians did not favor Napster.
Most everyone else in the music business doesn't do their work to be loved either. And I don't mean just the Big Bad Labels, but the production workers, the promoters, the distributors, the music store owners. You might think they're all scum, but that provides no entitlement to undermine their legal way of making a living.
Now I'll go do a bunch of work for people just so I'll be loved. I hope you'll do the same.
Re:Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
First, are you a musician? Do you have any friends who are professional musicians? I'm just wondering where you get your perceptions on the character of musicians. I happen to be one, and many of my friends are professionals, some classically trained and some just out trying to make a living on the club circuit. I can personally attest that for many musicians, their first goal is to create good music and know that other people enjoy their labors, because music is their love. I would also suggest that the best art is created as a labor of love, and that music created out of a desire for fame and wealth is what is killing the industry today.
Your use of the term "half-baked amateurs" suggests to me that you really have no clue about what musicianship is or how the industry works. The idea of "commerical musicians" is largely a product of the "U.S. pop genre." Do you think music did not exist before there was radio and platinum-selling records? Perhaps there was a time when people enjoyed the labors of their local half-baked amateurs.
It's also funny that you bring up orchestras, jazz bands, and choirs, because those are music groups that typically rely almost exclusively on money from live performances, and have the most to gain from the sharing of their recordings. These groups also tend to be domain of the half-baked amateurs of yesteryear.
Now if I didn't know better, I'd say you were taking a deliberately contrarian attitude in order to elict response. We have a term for that around here...
Obvious (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Obvious Really! (Score:2, Interesting)
kedi
Re:Obvious Really! (Score:3, Funny)
Could I interest you in a copy of Slashdot in dead tree form? $19.95 + 4.95 S&H.
-
Re:Obvious (Score:3, Funny)
Finally! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Informative)
For a great and comprehensive look at the payola problem, check out Eric Boehlert's articles on Salon. The complete opus can be found here [salon.com].
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
I know myself when I wanted to buy the lastest version of Microsoft Office, discovering it ran $600 (!!!!) I decided to pass. It's just not worth that much to me. *If* I were to acquire a pirated copy of Office XP, it isn't lost revenue for Microsoft since I would never buy for $600 anyways, I just can't afford to pay that much. If you listen to the SPA, they would count it as lost sales, which is why their numbers are worthless. In fact, I recall reading one interview of an SPA person who actually outright said they just "make up" dollar figures for the cost of piracy. *rolls eyes*
The cost may not be that important (Score:5, Insightful)
The article was absolutely brilliant. So brilliant, in fact, that it made me wonder why the music industry is being so reactionary about all of this when many print publishers are doing their best to embrace the new technology.
The difference, I think, lies in O'Reilly's description of the mathematical necessity for go-betweens to facilitate interaction between millions of buyers and sellers. If that really was the basis of the recording industry, then everything else he said would immediately apply and we could justly accuse the recording companies of a deplorable lack of vision. However, in the case of the music industry, I don't think that is the whole story.
When I buy a book, I either go to Amazon and look at the customer reviews (for technical books) or wander into a shop and look around until I see something interesting (for novels). My decision is therefore based either on my own, (relatively un-manipulated) opinions, or those of other consumers. Despite the existence of poster and tv adverts for books, the role of a book seller is therefore primarily to present me with a wide selection of books and let me make my own decision.
The music industry is in a very different position. Through radio and TV, people are continually hearing music which is currently available. Liking a piece of music is an odd psychological phenomenon which depends heavily on repetition of the tune and perceptions of what your peer-group likes. Since the music industry has a lot of control over what you and your friends hear day in, day out, they have a remarkable amount of control over what you like, and therefore what you will buy.
The truth of this can easily be seen by the fact that it is possible for the music industry to make vast wads of cash out of such utter crap as Will Young covering Light My Fire (and, oh, I still tremble with rage at thought of that sacrilege) and the Cheeky Girls rambling on about their bums.
That level of control over the minds of customers far outstrips anything the print publishers can exert. It's a license to print money, and I believe the recording industry is scared of losing it. A well implemented peer-to-peer service in which it is possible not only to download music you know you want, but to be exposed to new music in a way the music industry cannot control could be their worst nightmare.
I don't want the music industry to disappear and, as the article pointed out, it never will. I just want it to be reduced from its current role as the definer of popular culture to to its proper place as a facilitator of popular culture. If that can happen, one way or another, we will all be better off
Interestingly enough... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I should just keep my mouth shut... the last thing we need is some sad-eyed drummer in a flannel shirt and 3 day shadow getting paid by the RIAA to say on national television (tearfully, of course):
"*sniff* Mp3 file-trading forced me to sell a kidney to keep the bank from foreclosing on my grandpappy's farm."
Re:Interestingly enough... (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the band that leaked their own upcoming CD and then got slammed for doing it, even though the sales on the CD were better than expected. Compare the ideals of Offspring to those of Metallica.
-- Azaroth
It's the Recording Industry that's the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
If you like a particular band, not only would you be in the market for the album, you might also want their t-shirt, stickers for your box or what not. The only parties that would suffer from piracy, would be the recording industry. It's their business model that is flawed, thanks to the internet. Most of the $ spent on a CD doesn't go to the artist anyway.
Would an artist rather have 1 million listeners, where 5% buy the cd, and maybe something else, or 10,000 loyal listeners, and no further audience.
The biggest benefit of filesharing, as I see it, is it promotes better works. If someone turns out to be a one hit wonder, do they deserve the same compensation, as a band that consistently turns out good work??
Although the percentage of the audience that purchases the album, might drop, if the listener base increases at a greater rate, isn't this better?
I'm not sure any more (Score:4, Informative)
But I met up with a friend I hadn't seen for a while the other weekend and he told me he now *only* get his music off the net and doesn't pay for any of it.
And this is someone who would previously have been a heavy spender in this area.
I think that this attitude - which seems prevalent particularly amongst my work colleagues is a Bad Thing - I don't care if we change the method of distribution or if the record companies go bust but it is important that the artists receive payment for their work.
Re:I'm not sure any more (Score:4, Interesting)
If there were a reasonable channel of distribution social pressure would guarantee that artists get paid. We're in the worst of all possible worlds right now because the content companies have a stranglehold on legal distribution and want to do everything they can to make sure the artists don't get any of the middleman's cut.
Your friend is being rude, no doubt. But who can blame him? It's tough to be conscientious when the record companies are screwing everybody in sight.
Support (O)penmusic- check out openmusicregistry.org. Share these files, provide another substantial, non-infringing use for the gnutella network.
For now, I'll support local and independent musicians, and those artists who do business with record companies will just have to suffer since I refuse to overpay the middle man.
Re:I'm not sure any more (Score:4, Interesting)
I see absolutely no reason why I should pay anyone for work that they have already done and for which they will be amply rewarded by driving ticket sales. It's overkill. Noone goes back to a dishwasher years later to give him royalties for a job well done, nor to a doctor (to whom you'd arguably own a greater long term, ongoing debt of gratitude for his services). Why do artists get this special (and relatively new, let's not forget how new this idea of Intellectual property is in terms of the history of the world) treatment? If that means polished studio CD's go the way of the DoDo, so be it. Hell, more live music isn't such a bad thing, is it?
-Tom
Customers want to do the right thing, if they can. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say that this is completely true. I myself and many (if not most) of my friends "pirate" software, movies and music frequently. In fact, we've got several terabytes worth of pirated material between us just among me and my closest friends. Does that mean we never buy software, movies or music?
Definitely NOT, in fact I've never bought as much software, movies and music as I do now. I've got a couple of shelves filled with game boxes, many of those from producers that would normally be far too obscure for me to purchase otherwise, had I not tried out their software in advance. Our DVD collection is starting to rival our VHS collection, and we shouldn't mention how much I've been to the movies recently. As for music... well, I never listen much to music anyway but thanks to the net I've had the opportunity to find performers I'd never think of buying normally.
If I find something I like, feel I have a use for or just plain want to support, I do the right thing and buy a copy of my own. My friends do too, and I think so do most people.
Cool ! (Score:4, Interesting)
As many here i sometimes grab stuff from the net, but when i really enjoy i usually buy...
Very good article... (Score:3, Informative)
People for the most part are honest and will pay a resonable price for a product. When he says that P2P is a progressive taxation, he means that more music books and movies get exposure, which means that people will spend their money on more different things than just the Top 40 stuff they have access to. (Same thing most people have been saying since Napster).
On the other hand, actual selling of bootlegs is harmful because it dilutes the market for legitimate sales. However existing laws are enough to cover this. Finally, it ends in some options where possibly the media giants could come to some sort of agreement with ISPs to offer sort of like premium cable. Pay 60 a month for broadband and all the movies or music or whatever you can use off a local server.
Not a bad idea.
So no we have reasons to steal (Score:5, Insightful)
I tend to disagree with this. I think it is safe to assume that a majority of the people in the US will always take the 'free' alternative if they can get away with it with ease. People says that "If the music industry let me pay $.50 per song to download in a unrestricted format, I would pay instead of steal" and while some would, most would still get their music from kazaa. The reason why we hear people on slashdot say this so much is that they know a system like this will never happen with the current RIAA. Instead they decide to use it as a poor moral justification to their illegal music swapping habit.
In conclusion: (1) People like stealing if it is anonymous, easy, and leaves no possibility of getting caught and (2) People need to stop trying to justify their actions as if it were some kind of morally justified duty bound civil disobedience
On a side note, I have gigs of downloaded mp3's but will not pretend that I have a good reason for breaking the law.
*hides from all the -1 flamebait mod points*
Re:So no we have reasons to steal (Score:3, Funny)
To quote Nelson from the Simpsons, "It's a victimless crime, like when you punch someone in the dark."
Bruce Sterling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So no we have reasons to steal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So no we have reasons to steal (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes to piracy, I don't think people do it because its free. I think they do it because the total effort/expense to them is less than obtaining it in the store. But, thee quality isn't as good. You dn't get the lyrics, cover art, etc with your pirated MP3 (oh, wait, this is Slashdot... I should've said Ogg).
Now if people could download legitimate MP3s (read: no DRM) of their favorite band, get a JPEG of the cover, XML of the lyrics to plug into their favorte MP3-player's Karoke add-in, and were registered to get preferred tickets at concerts, sneak previews of upcoming albums, etc... all for say $0.50, I think a lot of piracy would be curbed.
But because what someone considers to be the cost/reward of piracy is subjective (in fact some peole may see a personal advantage in the CHALLENGE of getting around the piracy) that you will never stamp out piracy. BUt you can curb it tremendously by conidering it a competitor rather than futility fighting it as a crime.
So, I don't think people like to steal. They just steal because its easier and what they get isn't much less than what you'd get in the store.
Re:So no we have reasons to steal (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the main reason use Kazaa or what have you is because it's easier AND cheaper than going to the store and buying the CD, then ripping it.
If the music labels made it EASIER to get their music in unrestricted formats for a reasonable price, you've just demolished one reason for using P2P.
Then you've got one left -- cheapness. Free P2P music would only remain to be 'free' if your time is of no value.
Which is more likely to happen if the labels started selling affordable unrestricted music online:
- You pay a reasonable fee to download a high-quality MP3 album directly from the label's fast network pipe. On a cable modem, this may take you 5 minutes of active work (even less if they license Amazon One Click Shopping®!), and another 10 minutes of waiting for the 80MB download.
OR
- You spend an hour or more searching P2P networks for all the songs that make up a new CD release. Even then you might not find them all. Even if you do, some of them may be shitty quality. Even if they're not all shitty quality, how many times did you have to retry a file because the person cut you off, or the connection was too slow?
Re:So no we have reasons to steal (Score:3, Interesting)
Everyone else spends a few minutes searching P2P networks for all the songs that make up a new CD release. They find them all easily, they have been purchased by a few people from the same source, and shared. You get a perfect quality album in 10 mins.
You're whole assumption is based on the fact that the majority of people on P2P are buying new albums, ripping them in high quality, and sharing them.
I would contend, based on my experience on P2P, that it's mostly people getting a few songs from a CD and sharing it with all their friends. I am basing this on how hard it was to find several complete CD's worth of music on P2P. I tried Kazaa Lite, Gnutella, etc. It's a pain in the ass. If your theory was true, it should have taken me 10 minutes.
And I'm not talking about obscure shit either. On example is I when wanted to hear the entire Eminem CD a week or so after it was released in stores.
Even if some guy has the whole album, all laid out nicely and easy to find, his connection is nowhere near as fast as downloading it from big, fat pipe that the music labels could afford. Even if he's on a cable modem and you're the only one downloading, and he's your next door neighbor... you're looking at download speeds of 25-30KBps, if you're lucky, because most cable connection upload speed are capped that low.
I don't see how it significantly changes from the current distribution system - someone still pays for the original music somehow, then shares it. The only change is that it may be easier for that original person to buy the whole MP3 album than it is to rip a new CD you bought from the store.
Here's how it'd be different:
1. It's easier. Go to your favorite band's website, and they'll most likely link you directly to the label's page to buy the MP3 album. Or go to the label's site and search for the artist. Assuming they make it as easy as Amazon.com, you're in and out in no time.
2. It's faster to locate an album. No searches of poorly organized music over P2P, trying to figure out which MP3's are the good ones, which are not complete, which are accurately named, etc. All the songs would be there, guaranteed, unlike P2P.
3. It's faster to download. You'd be downloading over a big, fat pipe, not joeblow's cable modem shared with 5 other people downloading from him. Less chance of your download getting cut off prematurely.
4. It's clearly legal. You won't feel like you're stealing the music. No guilt.
publishers who cannot market (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't help but notice that more and more companies are losing the ability to sell to anything but a captive audience. Amazon sends me emails about Pratcett and Tolkein but nothing about the 10,000 other SciFi/Fantasy writers I may wish to read.
I'm here, I've got some cash, for Ghod's sake someone please try and sell me something new!!
Do the right thing (Score:4, Insightful)
The importance of this point cannot be overstated. Honestly, how many of us would burn far fewer CDs if they cost only $3 or $4? It's not even a matter having the CD cover or avoiding the trouble of downloading. I think most people feel more comfortable using the proper means. However, at $17 a CD and $25 a DVD many of us cannot afford the level of entertainment being thrown at us. So we pirate.
Publishers have the ability to reduce, perhaps eliminate, piracy by lowing the price to the point the majority of consumers are willing to pay. If Photoshop were $25 or could be used on a charge per time basis how many people would sit for hours trying to download it?
The prices are kept high for the obvious reason that publishers make more money with an expensive product and some pirating than they would with an affordable product and no pirating. Thus, since the publishers themselves choose to encourage piracy with overpriced products I have little sympathy for their whining.
Re:Do the right thing (Score:3, Insightful)
its all about 'try before you buy' (Score:5, Interesting)
same thing with games as well
Re:its all about 'try before you buy' (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sorry, did they pass a law requiring vendors to allow customers to try products out, at their own expense, before they decide to purchase them? They can do whatever the hell they want, it dosen't give you the right to steal. Besides, you can rent most console games.
Q: Why can't you return games?
A: Piracy
Now how do you suggest we solve this problem? Piracy? How about boycot, it's the only non-hypocritical and effective method, but since it requires sacrifice it's nearly garunteed that most people aren't going to go along with it...
CD's are overpriced, but you probably don't appreciate the production costs that go into games. Many game companies don't make their money back. It dosen't take a lot of $ to make a music cd, unless the artists are already superstars and demand a high sum, but a team of programmers and graphic artists can be very expensive.
Re:its all about 'try before you buy' (Score:3, Insightful)
consumers should be able to buy what they expect, otherwise they should be able to return it fairly. if i buy a power tool and it just isnt up to snuff. i can easily return it. media such as music and games have a channel that prevents this. that same channel also tends to misrepresent or exagerate the products as well.
i would agree console game rentals offer a good deterent from piracy. that an the proliferation of demos and beta presents some good offerings.
you cannot return games at best buy (or simular) because 'they say so'. nothing more than that. when games are not duplicatable
its not like best buy is going to take back civilization 'play the world' just because the game isnt playable yet and its on the market.
agreed, boycotting is quite dead in this era. though i think its not a perceived option because of the market pressure and values people have.
perhaps ea sports upgrade insurence for madden football is needed?
Computer Book Industry Woes (Score:3, Insightful)
It used to be that you could go into your local chain bookstore such as Barnes & Noble and find at least 1 full back-to-back aisle of computer books of all kinds: self-help, programming, graphic arts, certification. Today, the whole book industry is depressed, but the computer book publishers have been hit hardest in my opinion.
No need for self-help books--the advances of both Windows and Mac OS, as well as their ubiquity among the public, means that fewer users need them. Geeks like us are never a large community and sometimes would rather slit our wrists than buy a book, so programming and administration books have dipped sharply in sales (I personally know--I co-wrote one of them [amazon.com]).
So today, you'll find a few certification books along with a slightly larger group of programming books, and a very tiny amount of self-help books. If it weren't for Amazon, my book wouldn't be around.
In my opinion, part of the problem comes from the lack of true creativity or innovation in the industry. The Microsoft juggernaut and its "embrace and extend" philosophy (read: assimilate, compromise, or condemn) is partly to blame for this. The lack for computer industry members to consider something new or different is another part.
Not to toot Apple's horn (I do primarily work with Apple products and comment on them a lot here, so I might sound like a shrill), but they are among a handful of companies that are resisting the fears and dropping out new ideas--not anything necessarily innovative, but perhaps core application ideas that spur new ideas that sell products. Examples: "The digital hub," "multimedia," "desktop publishing," movie making, the use of USB, etc.
As I said, Apple and said companies didn't invent or design these ideas, but should be credited with its popularization in the industry, which forms the basis for a spurt of PC sales.
Some problems with his analysis (Score:3, Interesting)
I have watched my 19 year-old daughter and her friends sample countless bands on Napster and Kazaa and, enthusiastic for their music, go out to purchase CDs.
What about MP3 players? Surely piracy ensures one never has to spend a dime on their favorite music. Just because they haven't caught on as much doesn't mean eventually they won't. When was the last time you bought a record or an 8 track cassette?
To truly supplant the existing music distribution system, any replacement must develop its own mechanisms for marketing and recommendation of new music. ... File sharing services rely heavily on that most effective of marketing techniques: word of mouth.
Last I checked, pirates can hear what songs they like on the radio, and the TV, via MTV and VH1, then download them for free. Despite what this article claims, pirates really can get away with music for free and it's only through advertising to those ignorant of how to pirate music, and to honest people, that the industry is, for now, not be seriously hurt.
The current experience of online file sharing services is mediocre at best. Students and others with time on their hands may find them adequate. But they leave much to be desired, with redundant copies of uneven quality, intermittent availability of some works, incorrect identification of artist or song, and many other quality problems.
As the industry improves, so will the solutions of the underground. I remember when you would have to connect every day for a month to a 2400 BBS to download a 4 meg file via Zmodem. Now you're able to go to Kazaa and type in a keyword or two for your favorite song and artist, and even select the bit rate you want, almost every time able to get a high quality copy of every song on a CD. Might have to let the thing download for a bit, but all the MP3's are piled onto your hard drive in an easy, automated process. Especially with broadband. It's going to get even easier in time. Soon we'll have high enough speed connections where instead of a song by song distribution, you just download the entire collection of songs from an artist off Kazaa in one ZIP file.
I'm not proposing solutions. I'm just trying to be more realistic.
What if you CANNOT buy a disk? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't mean "You cannot afford to buy a disk", or "You are unwilling to budget the money to buy a disk", I mean "I have money, but no-one is selling the disk I want"?
Consider this: I got into The KLF some years after they were hot. While you can fairly easily purchase The White Room, Doctoring The Tardis, and Chill Out, you cannot find any of the older KLF albums new. Period. The KLF burned all their older albums as a result of some copyright problems.
OK, so how can I buy that which no longer exists? Now, while I would happily purchase the albums if I could, now I would pretty much be reduced to getting them via a file sharing service (the true irony here would be if The KLF (Kopyright Liberation Front) objected to being traded over a file sharing network.).
Or consider "Song of the South" - You will NEVER see that movie again, because The Mouse is so Politically Correct that they would never air that movie (and I don't see why not - Uncle Remus's tales were NOT racist!) Since there is no profit in keeping the movie preserved, it will in all probability rot away in a vault next to Walt.
Sorry, but I begin to think that copyright should have a clause forcing it to expire if the material is not distributed in a reasonable and non-discriminatory fashion.
Just a little thought-grenade I thought I'd lob into the conversation.
The clue is out there... (Score:5, Insightful)
- "..."Free" is eventually replaced by a higher-quality paid service..."
Yup, they're called CDs.It's possible to purchase MP3s these days, at prices comparable to the per-track cost of a CD. But why? Most people can't discern the difference, but with bloody expensive equipment it is noticable.
Take my recent experience:
- My home theater receiver died recently, and I just got around to shopping for a new one -- the contenders started out with a Sony ES unit, a couple Denon THX-Ultra certified models, and a Pioneer Elite THX receiver.
It was a very profound reminder of why I shouldn't put money straight into MP3s without getting the source material on CD... you're not getting the whole sound. (Heck, even with CDs you aren't... but it's better than MP3.) It's even making me think about SACD (Super Audio CD) and DVD-Audio... and I don't have perfect hearing.Then I made a mistake.
I listened to a mid-level, non-THX McIntosh. [mcintoshlabs.com] (The MHT-100, if you must know. "A/V Receiver" on the drop-down menu.)
Oh. My. God.
I heard things on a CD I didn't know were there -- and yes, the only part of the equation that changed was the receiver. Same speakers, same source, same volume level and EQ (none), same room.
It's a $5000 (US), 92-pound behemoth that looks like it was designed by the same guy who designed the McIntosh 1700 back in the 60s. It's twice the size of anything else, looks ugly... and sounds incredible. I could buy 5 Sonys at that price, yet I'm still having a really hard time justifying the Sony after hearing it.
In my perfect world, the recording industry encourages trading of mid-quality MP3s because they realize it's free advertising, and people will go out and buy CDs knowing they get a higher-quality product and better sound.
But it's not a perfect world, things don't work that way, and we're busy making the lawyers rich.
Lovely.
Equipment quality matters (Score:3, Insightful)
- "Until you can hear the difference on cheap gear, your argument doesn't apply to 99% of the music-listening market."
You are absolutely correct. Not everyone can afford -- or even cares -- about high end gear. I have no argument there.However...
There is a market for perceived quality. These are the people who buy "microcircuit cellphone boosters" (or whatever they're called today), "cellphone radiation shields," and are swayed by late-night infomercials. THIS is your market.
So, allow all MP3s of, say, 96 (64?) Kbit or less to be freely traded; in fact, flood the P2P networks with 'em! People will more readily redistribute them because they aren't a trick (like the repeating loops), and then (instead of spending all the money on lawyers), you advertise how much better the CDs sound.
Alternatively, without the willingness to embrace free distribution, it would behoove the music cartels to emphasize the quality point; perhaps from the angle of "make sure you get the best sound -- rip your own MP3s!" Make people not trust one another (they set a damn good (bad?)example), and make people want to have a 'trusted chain' -- know the source (CD), know the encoder, and then believe your MP3s sound (warmer | sweeter | more... whatever) than bootleg ones.
It's the Microsoft approach -- Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. It preys on basic and well established human nature... it has worked before, why not bend it to a new use?
The one liner that explains all about piracy (Score:4, Interesting)
Answer to this question and you'll find why piracy does exist and how to fight it.
Every time a product price is overcharged because its producer wants to get the highest possible profit from it, someone, somewhere, will start to think on ways to copy that product or to sell fakes.
Things sold at fair prices will never get pirated, period.
Safari is a great idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Online subscription services like Safari keep such publications alive, as developers can browse the selection and see if the book that they want is of any use to them, and keep looking for the help they need until they find the right resource.
I am fully in support of subscription services like safari as a better distribution medium, especially in the tech industry, as a means providing the content and help needed to the development community.
(p.s. the book is Inside ASP.Net, if you're curious)
I always buy CD's (Score:4, Funny)
Blank CD's.
Why I dislike movie and music industry (Score:4, Insightful)
Movie ABC XYZ
$18 DVD
$10 VHS Tape
Album ABC XYZ
$15 CD
$9 Tape
Yes it is cheaper for them to product the CD and DVD. And don't throw me a line about start-up costs and crap like that. They have been charging more for CD than tape since they came out with no justification. IF anything tapes should be more expensive than CD's.
The real issue is "Business Model", not piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
The simple fact is that the Internet has made the current business model of music publishing and distribution obsolete.
That's not to say that we don't need music stores, or that we don't need the RIAA. (Snicker if you like, but they do have a role to play, and it may well be more then the pre/de-emphasis curve for vinyl recording.) It's the business model, plain and simple. They have three prime roles: studio work (recording/mixing, etc), promotion, and distribution.
Studio work is diminishing, because the declining cost of technology brings it to an ever-increasing number of people. Basement and garage studios abound, and it goes uphill from there. Sure there's a lot of drek, but there's some good stuff, too. But this isn't the big issue.
Promotion is one big issue. The big labels really work on the STAR. For the most part, they are able to pick a random artist, shove them into airtime with music and videos, and make them a STAR. Then they sit back and harvest cash. The rest of those people who want to make music are a 'cost of doing business' to be minimized, albeit a potential source for the next STAR.
This role is under jeapordy from the Internet and file sharing, because they allow us to make up our own minds. The real effect here would be the diminution of the STAR. Not that we won't have them, but they'll be less significant, and under less control, AND probably more talented.
The other big issue is distribution. Once upon a time, their role was to get music out there. Now their role appears to be preventing music from getting out there. They manufacture scarcity. But that's also not to say that CD stores are obsolete, because they're not. But we/they need to understand the difference between mp3 and CD, and quit pricing the things like platinum.
In a technology-adjusted business model, the RIAA and the major labels still exist. Ironically, they may still make the same profit levels. But they shed most of their control over STARs and airtime, and they have to work harder for a larger range of artists.
I've worked it all out (Score:5, Insightful)
#1 Revenue gained from CD sales from consumers who bought CD after sampling and wouldn't have bought it previously
minus
#2 Revenue lost from consumers who would have bought CD not buying it after sampling it.
minus
#3 Revenue lost from consumers who would have bought the CD and after sampling it decided not to.
If this was a positive value then the record company would be happy, if negative then they will oppose P2P.
Usually the RIAA pushes #2 as their argument and then it's countered with #1 by P2P representatives. I'm pretty sure it's actually #3 that's scaring the industry.
The relationship between their protest therefore directly relates to the number of people disliking their music - louder you hear the artist or label whining the worse their music.
Re:I've worked it all out (Score:3, Insightful)
[...]
Usually the RIAA pushes #2 as their argument and then it's countered with #1 by P2P representatives. I'm pretty sure it's actually #3 that's scaring the industry.
Yes. God forbid that the recording industry (and movie industry for that matter: how many trailers have you seen that completely misrepresent the film being previewed?) actually be required to produce quality material before people would be willing to purchase it.
With copyright granting artists (and, more commonly through contractual law, publishers) governmental monopoly entitlements, there is no free, competative market to insure prices are fair, or that material in demand is even available, much less create an environment in which quality, through competative forces, is improved. The only remaining counterbalance is an informed purchaser, something that requires a person be able to listen to the entire CD, or even sample the entire movie, before paying good money for it.
I didn't go see Star Wars II because I saw it online first
OTOH I saw LOTR FoTR online, and purchased the one and only new (not used) DVD I've bought since beginning my boycott of the movie industry in the wake of the DeCSS debacle. A $50.00 purchase I would never have made had I not seen the movie online first, and been awed by its spectacular beauty.
The cartels need to be forced out of their cartelship, out of their cartel and monopoly mindset, and free market economics need to be returned to the equation. The best way to do this is through aggressive and significant copyright reform, reform which doesn't just reduce the length of copyright terms to a more paletable period, but one which does away with monopoly entitlements altogether, and replaces it with something far more benign (such as a sales tax on works being sold by someone other than the creative artist or their duly appointed publisher, a portion of which
In the meantime we the appreciators of the art are reduced to either buying material blind (and being ripped off as a result more often that not), or violating the law so that we have something resembling a fair chance at making an informed purchase. And no, hearing one or two songs from a twelve-song album on the radio does not constitute a valid or accurate preview of the CD, anymore than a movie trailer gives an accurate perception of a film, as many CDs on my shelf, the other 10 songs, conviniently left unplayed by the radio, of which are crap, attest to.
people would pay for convenience (Score:5, Interesting)
music for it the day before. I used Kazaa to
search and download some christmas songs by
Louis Armstrong, other older Jazz and Barrelhouse artists, and some contemporary ones.
I would have been happy to pay around
I would love to put money in the hands of the artists directly. I contribute to web sites such as dyndns.org , eff, granitecanyon, etc, that provide services, even though it is not required.
I think the music publishing industry are a bunch of thugs and parasites, by and large, and they have been crushing the smaller and independent
studios and artists, while calling the public thieves and pirates. They are now petitioning congress to install monitoring in all of our computing equipment.
People, this HAS TO STOP. Right now we fight back
through the EFF, and other public interest groups. Give them money and take the time to write to your congress people, before you are thrown in jail by the record companies.
EBay, etc as the source of observed piracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
RIAA levies (Score:4, Insightful)
If we are [harvard.edu] already paying [neil.eton.ca] for it [boycott-riaa.com], why more anti-piracy legislation?
Get the people [reuters.com] who are SELLING copies [grayzone.com]!
I think the RIAA owes ME money for the CD-Rs that turned into coasters, backups, and frisbees.
Ironically, the RIAA assumes they have the copyright on everything. So if I buy CD-Rs to burn my own music on, I'm still paying them for the *privilege*.
Regarding #3 (Score:4, Interesting)
So I scraped, scrounged, begged, and borrowed, and bought a legitimate copy of the program. It would have been just as easy to keep the hacked copy, but why bother? When I purchased the package, I got the manuals, the knowledge that I'd get a decent price on upgrades (there have been no major upgrades since before I bought the software -- Macromedia seems to have let the software die on the vine).
In the end, though...I did the right thing because...well, it was the right thing to do. Macromedia provided me with a tool that I could use to make some money, and it was only fair that I repaid them for that.
This article is one of the most insightful that I've read on the subject. It's definitely made me think quite a bit...I have a B.A. in creative writing and I know that the stuff that I write is quality material. Like any other writer, I'm having a hard time breaking in... I think I'll take a few of my better works that don't seem to be going anywhere and publish them in PDF and e-Book formats for all to enjoy. And hopefully this will build a little bit of recognition for my work so I can actually start selling to the real publishers out there and then someone else will come along and do the right thing by me as an artist and buy my works off a bookshelf somewhere.
Maybe it's better to have a network of faith than a network of enforced trust.
Re:Piracy is GOOD (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Piracy is GOOD (Score:5, Funny)
Never underestimate the bandwidth of Raiders jacket stuffed full of CDs.
Piracy is Theft (Score:3, Insightful)
Your post is just a rationalization for your own moral weakness.
Re:Piracy is GOOD (Score:3, Insightful)
You can use a serial number from AutoCAD 2.0 to register and use AutoCAD 13. Why? Because the more kids that copy and learn their software, the more demand for site-licenses there will be in the future.
The same philosophy works in the favor of Microsoft who will sell you their MSDN library for $2,000 that includes easily $50,000 to $100,000 worth of software (depending on which level you choose) for use in development. They know that this seeds the growth of companies that then require production licenses for expensive software such as Windows 2000 Server or SQL Server.
Everyone in this thread seems to be agreed that illicit distribution of resources can, in the long run, increase exposure, increase desire, and stir up future business. You can't sell something that nobody knows about.
Re:WRONG!:Piracy is GOOD (Score:3, Insightful)
Then why was Robin Hood a hero? That story illustrates the moral idea of "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor" beautifully. Morals are set by the population that has them, and there are a hell of a lot more poor people than rich people. Besides, I don't see how stealing from rich people is any different than taxing them more, and nearly everyone agrees that rich people should pay more taxes than poor people. (Notice I didn't say a higher percentage, just more.)
Re:WRONG!:Piracy is GOOD (Score:5, Interesting)
Right, the legend of a character we view as being "heroic". What's your point?
Morals are not "set by the population".
Then, how are they set? Why do different nations, states, cities and communities have differing morals? Sounds to me that while it isn't necessarily spoken, the morality is set by the community (or, the population).
Taxes have nothing to do with theft.
They're taking my money without my consent. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.
Morality (Score:3, Insightful)
And in those communities, they ARE acceptable and the right and MORAL thing to do. It sounds as if those morals conflict with yours.
The poster was trying to get this point across: some people have morals that conflict with others. Not everyone will agree with whats right and wrong.
Re:Perhaps moral HAS to change... (Score:3, Insightful)
well, kinda. in the UK a cort case in the 70's explicitly defined copyright infringement wasn't theft and threw a case out of court for it yet all the big companies keep saying it "copyright infringement is theft" "NO, IT's NOT"
I actually complained to the UK radio advertising authority once about a BSA ad saying that computer piracy is theft. the radio advertising authority completely didn;t want to know. they didn't give a shit
dave
PS. the case in questoin was oxford vs moss (iirc) a case where an oxford university student walked into the staffroom when it was quiet, photocopied an exam paper and walked out with the copy. oxford university accused hi oftheft and took him to court. the judges asked OU what they had actually lost, what was actually missing. when OU had to concede that nothing had actually been stolen the judge threw it out
Re:That's great! (Score:5, Insightful)
We operate a radical new "book-sharing" policy in my company. We buy one copy of a book, and place it on a common resouce known as the bookshelf, and then anyone in the company can use that book, often more than one person at once by the methods of "looking over someone's shoulder" or "reading aloud".
Does that mean we are illegally pirating books?
Re:Progressives (Score:4, Offtopic)
If you look through history you'll find this same retarded right-winger argument at every milestone. For one thing, homosexuals are NOT equal in the eyes of the law and even those who are "equal" are subject to the law's interpretation and enforcement, which is often less than ideal.
If people are poor (at least in America) it's their own damn fault. They should work harder and get educations, not look for government handouts.
So poor people should just go out and get a job? Are you hiring? wake up, our economy is far from perfect. Every time a manufacturing plant moves to Mexico, a city is destroyed. Thank god for NAFTA and unregulated trade, eh? You propose we don't need any progressive reforms? Tell that to the people writing software for FREE because there's no other way to compete with Microsoft.
Socialism just doesn't work, look at history.
Uh... you mean communism? Yeah, that didn't go so well, but communism isn't the ultimate goal of social reforms. If you look at history, you'll find that a simplistic black and white approach never works, whether it's to the left or the right.
Re:Progressives (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't let the term 'New Labour' fool you - with a few exceptions (Brown at the treasury is the most significant, and unfortunately is showing signs both of reverting to the traditional 'throw tax revenues at state-provided services' mindset of earlier Labour governments, and of preparing a bid to supercede Blair) few of the current bunch would recognise socialism even if it came up to them and bit them on the knee.
Re:Comparison to Insurance Fraud? (Score:5, Insightful)
Insurance fraud means that the insurance company is actually PAYING OUT money where they shouldn't have to. There is, in other words, an actual cost to the insurance company.
Piracy on the other hand, means that someone makes a copy of something, an action that doesn't cost the producer of the original anything.
Now, if you had a painting for sale and I took it from you, that's theft. That's comparable to insurance fraud, because I actually take something of value from you. If I instead photograph that painting, I might be violating copyright law, but you still have the painting and you're still able to sell it, hence no theft. Of course, there might be the issue of indirect costs if I print large number of copies of your painting, so that people will buy those instead, but that's a completely different thing.
Re: Comparison to Insurance Fraud? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Piracy" more closely resembles passing tapes or photocopying. It distributes the core content to a wider audience. Some people even argue that it helps boost sales as a form of free advertising.
As for the software industry, there is a working model called shareware. You'll never get rich by writing shareware, but the real purpose is to get a product out that would otherwise never reach its intended audience. Good shareware authors get noticed by bigger houses, and can even win jobs or contracts. Even Apple has bought out shareware applications and added them to their own software!
The other reason why people buy software in stores, even when a downloadable version is available, is the things like the install CD in case anything "goes South", the physical handbooks, and the simple feeling of holding the darn thing in your hands. It's the whole "added value" thingy.
So really, IMO the real victims of unauthorised copying are the artists and writers who make the packaging and internal goodis, since you never see their work.
Re:Metaphor Faux Pas (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Metaphor Faux Pas (Score:3, Interesting)
The typical dude that can afford a computer, with high-speed connection to make File-Sharing easy would be considered fairly wealthy.
The poor can't really afford this.
File-sharing is more enjoyed buy upper-middle class that working class.
Heck, I have a very wealthy friend that uses file-sharing. We're always talking about it, and how he doesn't buy CD's anymore, why bother?
So, with that argument, the poor have to buy the more expensive CD's while the rich just download them.
Think.. A $45/month Cable Modem connectin pays for itself, if you download a few CD's worth of MP3's per month.
Obscurity is a far greater threat (Score:3, Informative)
Q. Has it sold enough copies to cover the advance royalties?
A. No.
Q. Is it still selling?
A. No.
Q. Will it ever sell more copies?
A. No
Q. Is the content useful?
A. Yes
Q. Will the content ever be released as "open source"?
A. No
Q. Why?
A. Because so long as its "in print" the rights will never be given back to me the author, hence I can never place it in "open source". Even if the book eventually comes out "of print", I would still have to negotiate with the publishers to reclaim my rights.
Q. Has this suppressed creativity?
A. Yes, unfortuantely, I can not write a competing book for another publisher. And I wouldn't want to write for the same publisher. A book proposal for O'Reilly had to be canned as a result
Q. Did I make any money or this adventure?
A. Some, but not enough to cover anywhere near the effort put into writing the book. but thats not the point. The point wasn't to give up my day job, but instead to get into print and be read by as many people as possible.
Q. Have I learnt any lessons?
A. Yes. My web-site which is done for free, read by many more people for free is more successful than the book, and actually over a longer period has earnt more money in advertising - even during the current advertising slump.
ps I do wish my company would get a clue, but a 100k+ employer generally has more problems to worry about than just getting a clue about p2p
Re:And the Mob calls thier fees "insurance" (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, sharing music with friends is not illegal everywhere in the world. If I'm not mistaken, you can just give a copy of a CD to a friend in Norway (or was it one of the other scandinavian countries?). The fact that this practice happens to be illegal in the US today doesn't mean that we should all just agree. There are some very good reasons to allow this and I don't see it as particularly unethical. I believe that even with P2P there is enough money to be made, so why should we disallow sampling? Two arguments which are made by the RIAA are that:
- They might earn less and need that money to boost new artists.
- Artists will go broke when they P2P is not stopped.
Both arguments can be struck down by claiming that P2P is a very good way for (talented) artists to reach a larger audience and that it certainly doesn't hurt the financial status of the artists who aren't already rich and famous. The risk that it might perhaps, depending on whose figures you believe, have some small impact on the enormous income of popular artists seems to be a fairly small price to pay for the advantages that free (non-profit) file sharing brings. Remember that the protection of Intellectual Property is a man-made invention that is fairly young. The exchange of goods (later with the help of money) has been done since the dawn of time. At that time, nobody thought of protecting their drawings, words or inventions. The Bible was not protected by copyright and the wheel could be freely used. Only a few centuries ago the western world has created laws that give some extra rights to creators so they would create more works. The rights were never inalienable, our society grants them if we see them as being beneficial (assuming we have a well functioning democracy). There is no reason why society should spend it's resources to enforce a law which does more damage than good. IMHO the recent changes (DRM, DCMA, copyright extensions) are doing far more damage than good. Unfortunately it seems that most people are not educated well by the media (one requirement for a strong democracy), nor do most politicians listen to citizens (bribing politicians is legal in the US, strangely enough & there essentially is a weak two party system), so the laws are wrong and do substantial damage (and it is getting worse).
Going along with the RIAA/MPAA only means that my rights will be taken away. So, while it is sad for artists, I will not buy any of their stuff if the money will be used to oppress me. Call me a thief/pirate/terrorist if you want, but I _am_ willing to pay for a fair deal. A deal in which I am the consumer and the producer/distributor gives me what I want. Too bad that just doesn't happen. Most distributors want to treat me as a pirate. Ok, then I'll be one.
Re:What I wonder about... (Score:3, Informative)