Are we kidding ourselves about piracy?

[HK]

So there's been a lot of news recently about piracy and attempts to crack down on it, including the shut down of the MegaUpload site. And in response, there's been a lot of talk/action about retaliation, including the wikipedia blackout and similar responses from a vast number of other popular sites.


The one thing that stands out to me is how people defend piracy. There was an image posted on my facebook today, circulating among friends, urging people to boycott the entertainment industry until April as a way to protest.


Are we kidding ourselves a little about this issue? I understood the threat of SOPA - it wasn't going to do what it was aiming for, and could have had serious repercussions for a number of different sites that rely on user contributions. It made sense to oppose it. But I see people getting very righteous about piracy in general, as though it's a noble cause to uphold.


I'm not judging because hell, I do it, but I don't understand this subset of people who honestly seem to believe that there's absolutely nothing amiss with the idea. We don't live in a society where anyone can get by giving their creativity away for free. It's a nice gesture when artists do offer something, but it's generally only the already well-known who can afford that. We all need money to get by, so it's not like a lot of people who write or make music or films can just say 'screw the money, it's the principle of the matter that counts!'


So why do people act like free access to someone else's work is a god-given right? Not just reducing the price of entertainment to make it less expensive, but not paying for anything at all.

 

[fallout]

For myself I think that the real issue for a lot of people is that SOPA is about control, and that's what most people are protesting about but as usual the media has portrayed it as defending piracy. I think the message people are trying to send is getting lost in the background, I for one don't agree with piracy but neither do I disagree with some downloading a movie that's been out years and made millions for everyone involved, if the entertainment industry wasn't so greedy and allow people to freely download material that's made millions already piracy wouldn't be so rife, for example Elvis's songs have made a ridiculous amount of money for his estate would it really cost the already super rich family or multi billion pound company who own the rights to release it as a free MP3 if you want the disk then you can buy it. The main problem with SOPA is that it is to open to abuse the language is to vague a bit like the patriot act or the anti terrorism act in the uk. And I don't trust the authorities to apply it properly

 

[Dana]

So there's been a lot of news recently about piracy and attempts to crack down on it, including the shut down of the MegaUpload site. And in response, there's been a lot of talk/action about retaliation, including the wikipedia blackout and similar responses from a vast number of other popular sites.


The one thing that stands out to me is how people defend piracy. There was an image posted on my facebook today, circulating among friends, urging people to boycott the entertainment industry until April as a way to protest.


Are we kidding ourselves a little about this issue? I understood the threat of SOPA - it wasn't going to do what it was aiming for, and could have had serious repercussions for a number of different sites that rely on user contributions. It made sense to oppose it. But I see people getting very righteous about piracy in general, as though it's a noble cause to uphold.


I'm not judging because hell, I do it, but I don't understand this subset of people who honestly seem to believe that there's absolutely nothing amiss with the idea. We don't live in a society where anyone can get by giving their creativity away for free. It's a nice gesture when artists do offer something, but it's generally only the already well-known who can afford that. We all need money to get by, so it's not like a lot of people who write or make music or films can just say 'screw the money, it's the principle of the matter that counts!'


So why do people act like free access to someone else's work is a god-given right? Not just reducing the price of entertainment to make it less expensive, but not paying for anything at all.

I hear you loud and clear. I agree. Everybody wants something for free and nobody wants to pay for anything. It's the younger generation the ones who haven't grown up without digital media that I assume are most this way but this is only an assumption.

 

[CityGirl]

I've not heard piracy being defended. I think there is some complexity regarding the MegaUpload case that goes beyond piracy.

Given that the site was already using US courts to file actions; given that the government had Megaupload e-mails talking about using US lawyers to file cases against other "pirate" sites; given that the site did at least take down content and built an abuse tool; and given that big-name artists support the site, the severity of the government's reaction is surprising.
There's no doubt that the indictment makes Megaupload look bad, though, and we're quite curious to see what comes of the case—especially once the site has a chance to respond.
Law professor James Grimmelmann of New York Law School tells Ars, "If proven at trial, there's easily enough in the indictment to prove criminal copyright infringement many times over. But much of what the indictment details are legitimate business strategies many websites use to increase their traffic and revenues: offering premium subscriptions, running ads, rewarding active users.
"I hope that if this case goes to trial and results in convictions, that the court will be careful in sorting out just what Megaupload did that crossed the line of criminality." http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/why-the-feds-smashed-megaupload.ars

If true, it is interesting that "big name artists" supported Megaupload.

 

[Dana]

I've not heard piracy being defended. I think there is some complexity regarding the MegaUpload case that goes beyond piracy.
If true, it is interesting that "big name artists" supported Megaupload.

It's more about the record companies owning these artists and their property.

 

[HK]

I for one don't agree with piracy but neither do I disagree with some downloading a movie that's been out years and made millions for everyone involved, if the entertainment industry wasn't so greedy and allow people to freely download material that's made millions already piracy wouldn't be so rife...

This is an interesting idea. At what point could we judge that someone has earned 'enough' from their work? Would that be a way to solve some of the issues, by releasing all material freely after a certain amount of income has been made from it?


Bearing in mind that it's all very well using an example like Elvis since he's now dead, but what about artists who are famous and well off, but also very much alive and probably with several decades ahead of them? If you cap someone's right to royalties after they've earned say, a million pounds, what do they then do for the rest of their lives? Should we deem a million (just an example) as 'enough' because it's way more than some people will earn in their entire lives? Is it fair to stop someone's potential income at a certain point if it could completely eclipse an arbitrary allowed number imposed on them? What about rich people who donate their wealth to charities and organisations, and use their earnings to do good in the world? Would we be putting an end to potential altruism?

 

[Zorak]

It's more about the record companies owning these artists and their property.

That's where I have a problem. Record companies have been making obscene amounts of money for decades now, and in turn they've been ripping us, and their clients, off. As a whole, quality of music has degraded to such a point that people don't want to have to pay stupid amounts of money to hear the same records tarted up a bit, or added with crap "bonus tracks" that the artist has no control over.

So yeah, I'll download whatever I want, when I want. If I like it, and it comes in a CD or record form that isn't loaded with fucking bonus tracks, then I'll buy it and support the artist. Point of fact: Internet piracy as caused me to give more, not less, money to record companies and film studios.

 

[satinbutterfly]

Honestly I think we should be focusing on more important issues than trying to control internet piracy. I think we're kidding ourselves if we think it's going to ever be something that can be controlled, just like illegal drugs.

Let the media companies figure out how to protect their products. It's not something the taxpayers should be paying for.

 

[Panacea]

This is an interesting topic and I heard a discussion like it on NPR a while back. I'm not sure exactly, I'm caught between a but of pity for artists and no pity at all for the industry...also, I agree that I don't know if/how/who can say to an artist "you've earned enough". I'm not economist, I'm no political scientist, so I admit to ignorance on some of these issues.

Personally, I'm thrifty. I don't indulge myself in certain things because I can't or don't want to pay for them. I take things like youtube and pirate sites for granted, I do. I watched Dexter for free, I watch movies for free, I pay $1 for rentals like 6 times a year from Red Box, or go to the library for free stuff. I haven't bought an album in years and the last DVD I bought was Inception, for $10, for sentimental reasons and thought THAT was a bit steep.

I think our beliefs exceptions about entertainment have changed a lot, and I do think a lot of artists suffer.

 

[Abcinthia]

That's where I have a problem. Record companies have been making obscene amounts of money for decades now, and in turn they've been ripping us, and their clients, off. As a whole, quality of music has degraded to such a point that people don't want to have to pay stupid amounts of money to hear the same records tarted up a bit, or added with crap "bonus tracks" that the artist has no control over.

So yeah, I'll download whatever I want, when I want. If I like it, and it comes in a CD or record form that isn't loaded with fucking bonus tracks, then I'll buy it and support the artist. Point of fact: Internet piracy as caused me to give more, not less, money to record companies and film studios.

If there's one thing I hate, it's when they re-release a CD with one or two extra bonus tracks about 6-12 months after it was originally released.

Case in point. I bought Between Two Lungs by Florence & The Machine. I downloaded the bonuses tracks when it was re-released and I'm not sorry. I've paid once and I'm not paying £12 again for a couple of extra songs. If they re-release Ceremonials in the summer with a couple of bonus songs, I may download them too (after listening to them first on youtube). I like her. I spend my money on her CDs. But I'm not paying for the same CD twice. The only band I'll buy multiple copies of the same CD for bonus songs is HIM (and even then I do it grudgingly, moaning about daylight robbery).

 

[Kyle B]

It's a balancing game. People who make stuff should have the right to earn money off of things they make.

On the other hand SOPA was terrible and attempted to solve the problem the wrong way.

 

[fallout]

Just to add to the Idea of what I said before, no there should not be a cap on what the artist record label can earn but there should be an expiry date on the digital media content, so for instance the label can released and sold under copyright for as long the world lasts but the digital copy can be freely distributed after a set number of years which is what I have seen done with many books. My earlier example using elvis is still valid as someone rightly pointed out Elvis is dead but his estate which is distributed to his family and subsidiaries is still making a ton of money of releasing old music, fine if people want to purchase it but I dont think it unreasonable for people to be able to have a free digital copy. This would stop one hit wonders from living off of royalties for the rest of there lives but I think it would also fuel creativity and as a whole the entire entertainment industry would benefit. I also believe the same should be done for all software including computer games. I would like to point out that the pharmacutical industry currently does this as they can only patent a drug for a set number of years which is why you are able to buy cheaper drugs after 8 years... why shouldn't other industries be subject to these market conditions.

 

[Panacea]

Good point, fallout

 

[Alien Allen]

Stealing is stealing

No matter how rich the person or entity is you are stealing from

 

[Francis]

So why do people act like free access to someone else's work is a god-given right? Not just reducing the price of entertainment to make it less expensive, but not paying for anything at all.

Because it only applies to certain market segments..

If you invent a new widget to make people's lives better you only get so many years of patent protection and than everyone can copy you.. If you write one song and sell it for $200.00 the Music Label can make billions and never have to give you a dime again.

But that may soon be moot anyway.. Digital Music, Digital Movies Digital Print ( books and news Articles ) will soon replace CD Roms, DVD / Blue Rays and Books and Magazines/ Newspapers if Technology does not find a way to store them legally, they will be pay for hire for every access unless you do pirate them.. The industry creates its own issues and cannot see the problems it self inflicts but even worse it is handing you an inferior product..

Even Steve Jobs hated to listen to music on an iPod that saved his company..

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1048381&c=1

Truth be knows the Music industry would well be served by such a product and have a Napters back up running very low quality files that could be shared just like a Radio so people could test out the songs to see if they are the correct ones, search books and so on..

But the industry is so scared it may lose, pushed by the big wigs that don't understand the new world, that they agree to push new laws forward.

The more you push things underground, the more you create a tax free environment that blossoms..

 

[Francis]

Stealing is stealing

No matter how rich the person or entity is you are stealing from

Yes it is.. And they more you make things illegal, the more you create a sub world that is not taxed..

The more you make things legal, the more you take away the criminal element and keep honest people honest. More criminals reside in places or power then on the streets because they have more protection..

 

[skyblue]

It's more about the record companies owning these artists and their property.

ok dana,you're working hard right now being creative with your designs,designs that you own until paid for..would you like it if,say for instance...someone had a brainstorm and decided to steal one of your designs and market t-shirts with it on?..its the same principle

 

[skyblue]

the real question should be why music companies are churning out so much shit at the moment

 

[BornReady]

I don't think we should put a limit on how much money can be made from a song or movie. However, I would be in favor of making a new song or movie public domain after 20 years.

 

[Francis]

But why 20 years..

Some patents are protected 20 years while others have protection for 14 years ( Design Patent ) and others never end..

The idea of ending a patent protection is to give the person with creative idea competition.. We could decide that those who get patents have these to a never ending length of time and they can than hold consumers to a ransom of products if you so wish to consider.

If patents were only for the protection of those who had creative abilities and not to protect those who gouge consumers all patents would be never ending..

As well some things cannot be patented. Does it make then less creative or less of value ?

http://www.msc.com.my/cyberlaws/ACT 291 - Patents Act 1983 [Reprint - 2001]/a0291s0013.htm

What makes one thing more valuable than an other ?