TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Nobody Asked For A Refrigerator Fee

I live in Stockholm, Sweden. A hundred years ago, one of the largest employers in the city was a company named Stockholm Ice. Their business was as straightforward as it was necessary: help keep perishable food edible for longer by distributing cold in a portable format.

They would cut up large blocks of ice from the frozen lakes in the winter, store them on sawdust in huge barns, cut the blocks into smaller chunks and sell it in the streets. People would buy the ice and keep it with food in special cupboards, so the food would be in cold storage.

(This is why some senior citizens still refer to refrigerators as “ice boxes“.)

When households in Stockholm were electrified in the first half of the last century, these distributors of cold were made obsolete. After all, what they distributed was the ability to keep food cold, and everybody could suddenly do that themselves.

This was a fairly rapid process in the cities. With the availability of the refrigerator from circa 1920, most households had their own refrigerator by the end of the 1930s. One of the city’s largest employers — distributors of cold — had been made totally obsolete by technical development.

There were many personal tragedies in this era as the icemen lost their breadwinning capacity and needed to retrain to get new jobs in a completely new field. The iceman profession had often been tough to begin with, and seeing your industry disintegrate in real-time didn’t make it any easier.

But here are a few things that didn’t happen as the ice distribution industry became obsolete:

No refrigerator owner was sued for making their own cold and ignoring the existing corporate cold distribution chains.

No laws were proposed that would make electricity companies liable in court if the electricity they provided was used in a way that destroyed icemen’s jobs.

Nobody demanded a monthly refrigerator fee from refrigerator owners that would go to the Icemen’s Union.

No lavishly expensive expert panels were held in total consensus about how necessary icemen were for the entire economy.

Rather, the distribution monopoly became obsolete, was ignored, and the economy as a whole benefited by the resulting decentralization.

We’re now seeing a repeat of this scenario, but where the distribution industry — the copyright industry — has the audacity to stand up and demand special laws and say that the economy will collapse without their unnecessary services. But we learn from history, every time, that it is good when an industry becomes obsolete. That means we have learned something important — to do things in a more efficient way. New skills and trades always appear in its wake.

The copyright industry tells us, again and again and again, that if they can’t have their obsolete distribution monopoly enshrined into law with ever-increasing penalties for ignoring it, that no culture will be produced at all. As we have seen, equally time and again, this is hogwash.

What might be true is that the copyright industry can’t produce music to the tune of one million US dollars per track. But you can’t motivate monopoly legislation based on your costs, when others are doing the same thing for much less — practically zero. There has never been as much music available as now, just because all of us love to create. It’s not something we do because of money, it’s because of who we are. We have always created.

What about movies, then? Hundred-million productions? There are examples of garage-produced movies (and one even has beat Casablanca to become the most-seen movie of all time in its native country). But it may be true that the argument is somewhat stronger with the blockbuster-type cinema productions.

I’m going go out on a limb here and say, that even if it is true that movies can’t be made the same way with the Internet and our civil liberties both in existence, then maybe it’s just the natural progression of culture.

I spend quite a bit of time with teenagers through my work with the Pirate Party. One thing that strikes me is that they don’t watch movies, at least nowhere near the quantity I did when I was a teenager. Just like I threw out my TV set 15 years ago, maybe this is just the natural progression of culture. Nobody would be surprised if we moved from monologue-style culture to dialogue- and conversation-type culture at this point in history.

After all, we have previously had operettes, ballets, and concerts as the high points of culture in the past. Even radio theaters (and famous ones). Nobody is particularly concerned that those expressions have had their peak and that society has moved on to new expressions of culture. There is no inherent value in writing today’s forms of culture into law and preventing the changes we’ve always had.

Everywhere I look, I see that the copyright monopolies need to be cut down to allow society to move on from today’s stranglehold on culture and knowledge. Teenagers today typically don’t even see the problem — they take sharing in the connected world so totally for granted, that they discard any signals to the contrary as “old-world nonsense”.

And they certainly don’t ask for a refrigerator fee.

— — —

Rick Falkvinge is a regular columnist on TorrentFreak, sharing his thoughts every other week. He is the founder of the Swedish Pirate Party, a whisky aficionado, and a low-altitude motorcycle pilot. His blog at http://falkvinge.net focuses on information policy.

Follow Rick Falkvinge on Twitter as @Falkvinge and on Facebook as /rickfalkvinge.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Asd

    this is just stupid and has nothing to do with piracy

    • TNSe

      I am sad that you do not realize that this has to do with laws being put in place to save a broken business model.

      • Tosser

        If you still want what the broken model provides… it’s not broken.

        Other models are available. But they won’t succeed if people (I mean YOU) don’t support them!

        • TNSe

          Problem is more in the line of: The broken model cannot supply me with what I want to an acceptable price.

        • TNSe

          Problem is more in the line of: The broken model cannot supply me with what I want to an acceptable price.

        • Anonymous

          They are not available outside of the US.

        • http://otester.myopenid.com/ PiRat

          They just want to control the internet, this is a necessary step on the march to world government, run by the elite.

          They will spend what ever it takes to get it, remember the bankers create money out of thin air (fractional reserve banking).

        • gae

          People still do want what is offered, if anything the number of pirates of music and movies goes to show that people want it more than ever. However that does not mean that success should be guaranteed even if you use a broken model.

          In any other business if you have a great product but market it totally wrong, ignoring what your customers want and instead force them to accept what you offer then failure is almost guaranteed.

        • Guest

          If you still want what the broken model provides… it’s not bro

        • Mail

          Do not want.

        • Guest125

          This is not a matter of mere economics. If the model involves instituting a massive global police state with everyone’s communications centrally monitored for continued enforcement of the idiot laws it depends on, then yes, it is broken. Broken to the point that even if it meant no more professional art (not that it would), it would be time to abandon it.

          There are powerful and evil forces assembled to try to censor the net, whether the excuse is copyright, terrorism, child porn, social cohesion or blasphemy. The words are different, but they are unified in their authoritarianism. And they must not win, for the sake of all humanity.

        • Me

          By that thought, the car manufacturing model is also broken, they can’t supply me with the Porsche I want at an acceptable price. Ice wasn’t an invention or creation therefore that case is not comparable to the film and music industries. It looks good on paper because it would be an absurd situation but it’s a fallacy. And with this I’m not supporting the existing or planed laws against filesharing and copyright, I’m just stating that the arguments have to be well chosen and these weren’t.

        • Austin

          The Sweeds had a choice between Ice and Fridge. They chose fridge because it was less expensive.

          Today we have a choice between MPAA/RIA stuff and independent stuff. But denying copyright laws is not choosing the independent stuff the way the Sweeds chose fridges: you’re trying to get MPAA/RIA stuff for the independent price. If you don’t like what MPAA/RIA produces, then it is your right to not consume it; that’s your choice. But the existence of a substitute for A does not entitle you to A.

          When refrigeration was made available, Sweeds did not have a right to Ice free of cost.

        • Fredrika

          > “If you still want what the broken model provides… it’s not broken.

          They do not sell the content. You can not own the content. You do not pay for the content. The business model in question manufactures, distributes and sells physical copies, so that ownership of those physical copies change hand. Those copies you can manufacture yourself today. Therefore society no longer has any need for that particular business model. It no longer brings any additional value to the table, that is worth any money.

          > “Other models are available. But they won’t succeed if people (I mean YOU) don’t support them!”

          Obviously people will buy things that they feel brings any sort of additional value to the table, that they themselves can not produce. That’s why the content industry currently has higher collected turnovers than ever before, most of it revenues from other business models, than the particular single one of manufacturing, distribution and selling physical copies to consumers.

          There simply doesn’t exist any copyright related problem for society today. The fact that a specific individual business model no longer is needed is not a problem, that’s basic capitalism, that relegates obsolete business models to the past.

          Although this time they don’t accept that, they try to legislate an artificial need for that particular business model, so they can force that business model upon people.

        • dR435t4

          No one wants what the broken model provides BECAUSE its broken. Do you understand what you’re asking?

        • Tosser

          I know it’s a bit late in the day, but I feel some clarification may be in order.

          A quick example: Most people would agree that the stupidly high suggested retail price for Call of Duty was not “acceptable” … and yet Black Ops made $650M in five days.

          Whose fault is that?

          People blame Activision, but why shouldn’t they charge what millions of people are prepared to pay? – That’s capitalism bitches! :P

          People love this stuff and it consistently rates highest on torrent sites (a perfectly level playing field filled with legit “legal” content). They must be doing something right?

    • Anonymous

      You are so god damn illiterate (Asd). Piss off, off of Torrentfreak. Scum.

    • Anonymous

      You are so god damn illiterate (Asd). Piss off, off of Torrentfreak. Scum.

    • DarknezzMadnezz

      Your new job this week will be to re-read this artical 100x’s. Hopefully by the time you finish you will understand how this relates to piracy.

    • Gh

      You are stupid because you didn’t try to read and understand the article properly.

    • omg

      are you blind ? it as all to do with piracy and copyright monopoly !!
      if we go not so far back the same thing happened with many monopoly over fundamental need ! (food/ entertainment/ transportation industry/ travel / communication and so on ! ) its only a normal turning wheel of evolution ….

    • omg

      are you blind ? it as all to do with piracy and copyright monopoly !!
      if we go not so far back the same thing happened with many monopoly over fundamental need ! (food/ entertainment/ transportation industry/ travel / communication and so on ! ) its only a normal turning wheel of evolution ….

    • Noah C.

      You are stupid and this site is not directly about piracy. Rick is simply a great columnist, and this is food for thought. The site is mainly about TORRENT news, and unfortunately, Torrents happen to be in the news of piracy, and that is why this site has so many articles on piracy, although it highlights on Torrents/FileSharing the majority of the time.

    • http://twitter.com/kolby386 Kolby Manning

      I mean, if you can’t read then yeah, it has nothing to do with piracy.

    • None

      Are you serious? Please turn off your internet.

    • Hiddenfire79

      This is awesome, makes complete sense to me. If you other bastards cannot see the logic, then go F yourself.

      • Redbright

        And that answer, Hiddenfire79, shows us exactly why this “logic” makes sense to you.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Kuznar/100001582401831 Michael Kuznar

      You can’t deny that piracy could seriously cripple the entertainment industry though. It’s a different world we live in today. We have yet to see piracy actually effect the industry with its promotions though.

      How to promote your website
      http://www.wsibenefits.com

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Kuznar/100001582401831 Michael Kuznar

      You can’t deny that piracy could seriously cripple the entertainment industry though. It’s a different world we live in today. We have yet to see piracy actually effect the industry with its promotions though.

      How to promote your website
      http://www.wsibenefits.com

    • Annon.

      Agreed! What he is comparing (ice vs. refrigerator) is more like saying that one entertainment industry shouldn’t be able to exclude other entertainment industries that produce the same outcome (we should have multiple movie producers for example). I see a better example for what he’s claiming should be allowed to be that the guys cutting ice are expected to allow other people to come take the ice they cut and sell it to make a profit from their labor or even just allow anyone with an “ice box” to come take the ice the guys cut because they know where it’s stored. Piracy of copyrighted work is stealing someone else’s labor without paying for it – plain and simple. It’s expecting the ice guys to let you profit from their work without compensation. It’s not allowing a refrigerator to run them out of business. If a movie/music/etc producer can do it better/cheaper than the big companies then the big guys should go out of business, But the guys doing the work/creation should still be compensated for their effort and own the rights to their labor products. My 2 cents.

    • Annon.

      Agreed! What he is comparing (ice vs. refrigerator) is more like saying that one entertainment industry shouldn’t be able to exclude other entertainment industries that produce the same outcome (we should have multiple movie producers for example). I see a better example for what he’s claiming should be allowed to be that the guys cutting ice are expected to allow other people to come take the ice they cut and sell it to make a profit from their labor or even just allow anyone with an “ice box” to come take the ice the guys cut because they know where it’s stored. Piracy of copyrighted work is stealing someone else’s labor without paying for it – plain and simple. It’s expecting the ice guys to let you profit from their work without compensation. It’s not allowing a refrigerator to run them out of business. If a movie/music/etc producer can do it better/cheaper than the big companies then the big guys should go out of business, But the guys doing the work/creation should still be compensated for their effort and own the rights to their labor products. My 2 cents.

    • Annon.

      Agreed! What he is comparing (ice vs. refrigerator) is more like saying that one entertainment industry shouldn’t be able to exclude other entertainment industries that produce the same outcome (we should have multiple movie producers for example). I see a better example for what he’s claiming should be allowed to be that the guys cutting ice are expected to allow other people to come take the ice they cut and sell it to make a profit from their labor or even just allow anyone with an “ice box” to come take the ice the guys cut because they know where it’s stored. Piracy of copyrighted work is stealing someone else’s labor without paying for it – plain and simple. It’s expecting the ice guys to let you profit from their work without compensation. It’s not allowing a refrigerator to run them out of business. If a movie/music/etc producer can do it better/cheaper than the big companies then the big guys should go out of business, But the guys doing the work/creation should still be compensated for their effort and own the rights to their labor products. My 2 cents.

    • Annon.

      Agreed! What he is comparing (ice vs. refrigerator) is more like saying that one entertainment industry shouldn’t be able to exclude other entertainment industries that produce the same outcome (we should have multiple movie producers for example). I see a better example for what he’s claiming should be allowed to be that the guys cutting ice are expected to allow other people to come take the ice they cut and sell it to make a profit from their labor or even just allow anyone with an “ice box” to come take the ice the guys cut because they know where it’s stored. Piracy of copyrighted work is stealing someone else’s labor without paying for it – plain and simple. It’s expecting the ice guys to let you profit from their work without compensation. It’s not allowing a refrigerator to run them out of business. If a movie/music/etc producer can do it better/cheaper than the big companies then the big guys should go out of business, But the guys doing the work/creation should still be compensated for their effort and own the rights to their labor products. My 2 cents.

    • Annon.

      Agreed! What he is comparing (ice vs. refrigerator) is more like saying that one entertainment industry shouldn’t be able to exclude other entertainment industries that produce the same outcome (we should have multiple movie producers for example). I see a better example for what he’s claiming should be allowed to be that the guys cutting ice are expected to allow other people to come take the ice they cut and sell it to make a profit from their labor or even just allow anyone with an “ice box” to come take the ice the guys cut because they know where it’s stored. Piracy of copyrighted work is stealing someone else’s labor without paying for it – plain and simple. It’s expecting the ice guys to let you profit from their work without compensation. It’s not allowing a refrigerator to run them out of business. If a movie/music/etc producer can do it better/cheaper than the big companies then the big guys should go out of business, But the guys doing the work/creation should still be compensated for their effort and own the rights to their labor products. My 2 cents.

    • Annon.

      Agreed! What he is comparing (ice vs. refrigerator) is more like saying that one entertainment industry shouldn’t be able to exclude other entertainment industries that produce the same outcome (we should have multiple movie producers for example). I see a better example for what he’s claiming should be allowed to be that the guys cutting ice are expected to allow other people to come take the ice they cut and sell it to make a profit from their labor or even just allow anyone with an “ice box” to come take the ice the guys cut because they know where it’s stored. Piracy of copyrighted work is stealing someone else’s labor without paying for it – plain and simple. It’s expecting the ice guys to let you profit from their work without compensation. It’s not allowing a refrigerator to run them out of business. If a movie/music/etc producer can do it better/cheaper than the big companies then the big guys should go out of business, But the guys doing the work/creation should still be compensated for their effort and own the rights to their labor products. My 2 cents.

    • Annon.

      Agreed! What he is comparing (ice vs. refrigerator) is more like saying that one entertainment industry shouldn’t be able to exclude other entertainment industries that produce the same outcome (we should have multiple movie producers for example). I see a better example for what he’s claiming should be allowed to be that the guys cutting ice are expected to allow other people to come take the ice they cut and sell it to make a profit from their labor or even just allow anyone with an “ice box” to come take the ice the guys cut because they know where it’s stored. Piracy of copyrighted work is stealing someone else’s labor without paying for it – plain and simple. It’s expecting the ice guys to let you profit from their work without compensation. It’s not allowing a refrigerator to run them out of business. If a movie/music/etc producer can do it better/cheaper than the big companies then the big guys should go out of business, But the guys doing the work/creation should still be compensated for their effort and own the rights to their labor products. My 2 cents.

    • Annon.

      Agreed! What he is comparing (ice vs. refrigerator) is more like saying that one entertainment industry shouldn’t be able to exclude other entertainment industries that produce the same outcome (we should have multiple movie producers for example). I see a better example for what he’s claiming should be allowed to be that the guys cutting ice are expected to allow other people to come take the ice they cut and sell it to make a profit from their labor or even just allow anyone with an “ice box” to come take the ice the guys cut because they know where it’s stored. Piracy of copyrighted work is stealing someone else’s labor without paying for it – plain and simple. It’s expecting the ice guys to let you profit from their work without compensation. It’s not allowing a refrigerator to run them out of business. If a movie/music/etc producer can do it better/cheaper than the big companies then the big guys should go out of business, But the guys doing the work/creation should still be compensated for their effort and own the rights to their labor products. My 2 cents.

    • Annon.

      Agreed! What he is comparing (ice vs. refrigerator) is more like saying that one entertainment industry shouldn’t be able to exclude other entertainment industries that produce the same outcome (we should have multiple movie producers for example). I see a better example for what he’s claiming should be allowed to be that the guys cutting ice are expected to allow other people to come take the ice they cut and sell it to make a profit from their labor or even just allow anyone with an “ice box” to come take the ice the guys cut because they know where it’s stored. Piracy of copyrighted work is stealing someone else’s labor without paying for it – plain and simple. It’s expecting the ice guys to let you profit from their work without compensation. It’s not allowing a refrigerator to run them out of business. If a movie/music/etc producer can do it better/cheaper than the big companies then the big guys should go out of business, But the guys doing the work/creation should still be compensated for their effort and own the rights to their labor products. My 2 cents.

    • Hagarthe

      I’m a refrigeration engineer.

      • Just The Facts

        Wow Hagarthe, your so cool!! ;)

        On topic… fantastic article Rick! One of your best to date.

  • http://twitter.com/RySalNH Ryan Salinger

    Very good article. I’ve never really put it in that perspective before.

    • Rick Falkvinge

      Thank you!

      • Anonymous

        Hmmm, IDK, Rick, I sympathize but your analogy rings kinda false. I download as much movies as anyone … whom am I kidding? I download WAAAY more …;) but your analogy stinks.

        1. I think what H’wood is saying “stop stealing our ice to reduce the electricity you use for your refrigerators”

        2. If the business model is so broken, then what piracy advocates always say, that piracy doesn’t hurt Hollywood, cos look at all the billions they make, isn’t true. You can’t have it both ways: either the business model is broken, because piracy hurts the Hollywood model, or it doesn’t in which case the model isn’t broken.

        3. No one forced your farfar to buy icecubes after there were refrigerators. No one forced you now. to buy hwood movies.

        What I can agree upon with you that we might move towards a dialog style of culture, instead of a monolog style. But .. nothing ever fades. There’s still spoken word performances, ballet, talk radio is huge, classic, opera etc.
        So …

  • Pingback: Nobody Asked For A Refrigerator Fee | We R Pirates

  • Tosser

    Rick! I like you, but please stop inventing these rubbish analogies!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002639684444 Ryan Smith

      lol It is cheesy, but you have to admit that the only way to explain these things to people who don’t understand is by using analogies that they do understand.

      Even if it seems like he is talking to children, he is not preaching to the choir here, but instead trying to reach people who are not already familiar with these issues. Which is exactly what needs to happen.

      Now, if we could just get this sort of thing published on Fox News or something…

      • Anonymous

        can’t. owned by Uncle Rupert. (he murdered Uncle Sam)

        EDIT: and hacked our phones

      • Rick Falkvinge

        Hi Ryan,

        You are partially correct. The people here are still more friendly to the next-generation ideals of civil liberties than the people who have only been fed oldmedia stories.

        Some of the people here are indeed the choir, and part of my job is to help them explaining the issues in their turn.

        If you are to build an activist base that changes the world, you must make sure they can answer in a way that makes sense to good and relevant questions.

        Of course, what makes sense depends on the other person in the dialogue. There is no silver bullet, and lots of common sense and Fingerspitzengefühl is necessary.

        Cheers,
        Rick

      • Ven

        But analogies are flawed logic by their very nature. In this case, what we have happening is people choosing to pay for or steal “ice” even though the have the ability to hop on the internet and find free alternatives. These industries churn money and continue to do so by employing the best business and legal minds they can afford, to play those systems as best they can.

        You want the industries gone tomorrow? Stop listening to their music and stop watching their movies. Notice how it has nothing to do with spending, but where you let your interests lie.

        • Anonymous

          The frozen lake = artists.
          The icemen = MPAA.
          Refrigerator = Interwebz.

          See if you have interwebz you can buy straight from the artist. You don’t need the distributors…

        • Plop

          Ven, I think you’ve misunderstood. The article isn’t an analogy about the culture being produced (the ‘ice’ for instance), but about control over the distribution.

          In this scenario the refrigerator is the internet (and I suppose you could say, torrents and file sharing) and the old icemen are the traditional music industry physical product distribution channels.

          So the analogy isn’t perfect, but it does kind of make sense.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PUVBRIS36F5QAWZN4X5MTMNIOU Fukk You

          COPY PASTA

        • Anonymous

          I don’t really like comments like Ven made.
          Analogies work, if they’re analogous enough.

          For starters, it isn’t about the ice, but about the cold it produces. It’s not even about the cold, but about the freshness of food. If I discover a plant whose leaves keeps food fresh for months, the fridge business is dead.

          But … Hwood complains that we steal their ice to achieve food freshness, rather than use the fridge MORE.
          Likewise, if we went and produced BETTER movies than Hwood, they WOULD die a natural death.

          If you can have some machine that puts your words into sound and pictures, THEN it would be good analogy.

          We can’t produce the food freshness with the tools we have. The internet is a better tool for stealing ice, not for producing movies or making content.

      • Anonymous

        ..If you think about it, he’s *really* talking to old folks.

    • Lulz

      It’s hardly rubbish.

  • Zan

    Interesting analogy not stupid at all.

    • Tosser

      It is interesting, but as usual it doesn’t demonstrate what Rick thinks it demonstrates :P

      • Momo

        This is the insight you get when you get your insight from a tosser.

        Tell us, tosser, what does it demonstrate?

        • Zzzz

          He thinks it demonstrates that refrigeration is no longer required.

        • Tosser

          Come on, it’s not rocket science :P

          Empires fall – is that as deep as Rick was getting? That is a fact of history – sometimes it’s good, sometimes it’s detrimental (de-industrialisation of the west: pro or con… no, it isn’t that simple).

          He is right there are some awesome garage-made movies – but how does old media stifle them? BitTorrent is a level playing field and yet the best seeded torrents are the latest Hollywood blockbusters?

          That’s like going to the iceman and saying “get in my fridge”.

          Rick (this article needs to be read in the context of his others) loves to use emotive language about the “copyright monopoly” (booo!). But what exactly do they have a monopoly on?

          We can still laugh and joke and sing, talk to people, meet friends and have ideas. If Rick still had a telly he could have watch Die Hard on it the other day – where is this culture vacuum?

          I am subscribed to a number of free and independent podcasts that showcase new music by up-and-comers. Not a major label in sight, many albums free for download, live performances posted on the facebook page. I’m telling you – The fridge is full, free and awesome!

          But no. I want JayZ and Transformers – those exact blocks of finest lake ice. But the iceman won’t cut it for me.

        • Tosser

          Momo wrote: “This is the insight you get when you get your insight from a tosser.”

          http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=momo

          MOMO : “A generic insult used to describe one who is irritating, annoying, or an idiot.”

          Jus’ sayin’ ;)

        • Momo

          “Empires fall – is that as deep as Rick was getting?”

          I think that’s exactly his point. When it’s time for them to fall, they should be allowed to fall, not have them propped up by the government with more laws.

          “He is right there are some awesome garage-made movies – but how does old media stifle them? BitTorrent is a level playing field and yet the best seeded torrents are the latest Hollywood blockbusters?”

          That’s where you start to misunderstand what this article is about, I think. Of course there’s demand for those movies — but that’s not where the monopoly is. The monopoly handed out by the government is not a creation monopoly but a distribution monopoly. That’s the “ice” the pirates/internet are competing with. That aspect of the article could use some clarification, actually…

          “MOMO : “A generic insult used to describe one who is irritating, annoying, or an idiot.”"

          Why do you think I chose it, tosser? ;)

        • Tosser

          One and the same surely?

          They have a distribution monopoly purely over the creators they finance.

          This notion that “creativity is free” is only half the story – good shit costs money. There are always fixed costs to overcome. We ignore that because this fact because the parasitic fat-cats syphon off phantom losses/profits in a truly corrupt way… but I think the significance of those individuals in the grand scheme of things is over-stated.

          Rightly or wrongly the artists and filmmakers they represent and finance have cast their lot in with big business and fair-as-fair, big business is protecting their interests. They do this by attacking sites that compete with them by making their stuff available for free.

          (I disagree with Rick that a creator (lumping together artists, artisans, tradesmen and by inference the guy who pays for the raw materials) has no rights or say over the use of his work)

          But as far as I know there has been no effort to shut down Vodo or Kickstarter, or to prevent new bands from posting their own music online.

          Where is this oppressive distribution monopoly? I can’t see it.

          There is more free/fair stuff, freely distributed, unchallenged than ever before at any time in history. If the dinosaurs make a move against that, then count me in – I’ll fight it. Right now it is, admittedly imperfect but also quickly changing, the case that the evil conspiratorial monopoly even exists is shaky at best. We have options (people just choose to ignore them).

          (ah, touché :) )

        • Dolph

          ad Tosser: “Where is this oppressive distribution monopoly? I can’t see it.”

          Well, maybe you are not aware of the whole story. in my country, our RIAA equivalent collects money for every blank media (CD, DVD, ..) sold. If you plan public gig, you have to inform them and pay, even if you are the author. If you create new CD, DVD, you have to inform them even if you are author. They collect money for every public broadcast of music, whether author is registered with them or not and whether music in question is free or not. Lately, they tried to extort money from all websites which linked to music (such as youtube videos) but this one failed due to strong public disagreement.

          To conclude, I don’t know if music industry in your country is oppressive distribution monopoly or not. In countries I have information about they are quite busy trying to become one.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          @Tosser

          “If the dinosaurs make a move against that, then count me in – I’ll fight it.”

          See Dolph’s commentary.

          Also there’s any number of real-life examples of IP holders trying to take out the “open” competition. Ranging from the SCO’s attempt to ban open source to (mainly) real effects of copyright and IP law. The big lawsuit(s) against Microsoft when they were trying to run open-source competition browsers off the market took ten years to pull off after god alone knows how many legal twists were pulled by MS.

          Taken a look at how mobile phone purveyors sue one another today and on what grounds, for instance? IP law in general has become a free-for-all brawl where the main aim is to use legislation instead of consumer choice in order to shut down competitors. Even after the supreme court decided the iPhone hack was legal (opening the field for 3rd-party apps) SONY still decided to make a legal heavy-handed move against PS3-owners taking control over their own consoles and running non-proprietary software.

          Where more narrowly copyright is concerned you must have been missing the ongoing debates. It was VERY close to the DMCA in effect putting a ban on open source – something only prevented by the last-ditch safe harbour provisions thrown in by saner minds.

          Most of the above certainly would have impacted, rather severely, the accessibility of that free media you refer to.

          The dinosaurs you refer to have been making moves against that free/fair stuff for the last 50 years, whenever they could and whenever they can. That the free stuff still exists at all is because people in general have already fought back by ignoring what the Triceratops in the corner is saying.

          Like it or not that war is still going on right under your nose – you just aren’t seeing it, thinking you’re sitting in a neutral village safely to the side of the maginot line.

          The problem here is that “reason” isn’t used by the pro-copyright industry. If the distributors allow themselves to be sidelined then they are going out of business. That free/fair stuff you refer to is another competitor they don’t need and they’ve already demonstrated how they want to deal with such.

          That being the case any system open to abuse the way copyright law is needs to go away completely, because any abuse of such a system will become the new standard.

          I’ll even invoke Godwin here: It’s a bit like watching a tinpot dictator nibble away at bits and pieces of surrounding countries while he’s loudly proclaiming his plans for world dominance. Sitting in Belgium won’t do you much good even if you think all he’s obviously after is Poland and France. The only way the threat to your own little patch goes away is if he does.
          And that’s the way the media/software industry acts where copyright law is concerned. There is – literally – no neutral ground.

        • Tosser

          Hmm, a lot of fair points raised. What I wrote was a response to the limited contexts of Rick’s recent TF articles, and I hope I didn’t give the impression that I thought our current imperfect situation was a simple one!

          But again, I have to say – I think the influence of the dinosaurs is overstated. Scary Devil points out occasions where they have tried to impose their will … and failed. Can we take their failure for granted? Unfortunately not, but still they have failed – the iPhone case showed that Apple was required to permit fair use of their products, Microsoft was fined for preventing competition and SCO’s case was rejected.

          I know there are people who oppose open source (is your country on the Special 301 list?) but a DMCA won’t help them. DMCAs will only be upheld if the filer can prove ownership – I’m not familiar with this one, but it sounds fishy…

          I think we agree that any change in this industry must be artist/creator-led (like you say, fighting back by ignoring) – they are the ones who stand to gain from this and their gain is our gain.

          Spread the word and support true independents – I do my best, but I am just one puny human.

          Going back to Dolph – you’re right, we don’t think have a blank media tax here (write to your government about that!) but re: linking music (ie: Youtube).

          Linking is big business, micropayments per click generate billions – it is that simple. I believe that if anyone deserves the money, it’s the people who generated that through their content being used.

          Youtube now has a copyright program where you can claim your share of their earnings by registering your content (sound or visuals), but Google (hint: $8Bn *profit* last year) keeps a cut and some artists/financiers are unhappy with that – which is why WMG pulled all their music a couple of years back.

          I hate it, but as always the story is not quite as cut-and-dry free-speech fair-use as the average TF article portrays it.

          If anyone can explain this through the medium of ice.. I’m all ears :P

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          @Tosser

          “If anyone can explain this through the medium of ice.. I’m all ears :P”

          It’s cool?

          No, seriously…The article Rick presents is trying to put into perspective the way industries change. Imagine for a second if the icemen in the olden days had had the political or financial clout of, say, the 16th century Guild of Stationers?

          Here’s a hint, in order to run an icebox today you’d have to be licensed as the act of cooling food would be under intellectual property licensing rights courtesy of the “Icecutter’s Association of America”. Not because there’d be common sense in such legislation but simply because a vast international industry would take a nose dive into the concrete from the 50th floor if everyone could make their own ice.

          And the end lesson is the same – when an industry becomes completely divorced from common sense it should face the choice of adapting or dying out. This is what happened in the past when major industries were threatened with extinction. However…today all that matters is that the industry is big enough and you’ll get a bailout in form of ready cash or protective special legislation.

          That the industries affected keep on trying to fight “free” and failing isn’t the problem – the problem is that every time Apple and Samsung butt heads over who has the right to sell a “communications device with monitor shaped like a rectangle with rounded corners” in court that’s a great deal of money and time invested in trying to run competitors off the market using law rather than innovation and marketing.

          You’d think any capitalist society would really rather steer clear of a market run by lawyers rather than consumer choice. And all because the reviews of Samsung’s surfpad were better than those of iPad…

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          @Tosser

          “If anyone can explain this through the medium of ice.. I’m all ears :P”

          It’s cool?

          No, seriously…The article Rick presents is trying to put into perspective the way industries change. Imagine for a second if the icemen in the olden days had had the political or financial clout of, say, the 16th century Guild of Stationers?

          Here’s a hint, in order to run an icebox today you’d have to be licensed as the act of cooling food would be under intellectual property licensing rights courtesy of the “Icecutter’s Association of America”. Not because there’d be common sense in such legislation but simply because a vast international industry would take a nose dive into the concrete from the 50th floor if everyone could make their own ice.

          And the end lesson is the same – when an industry becomes completely divorced from common sense it should face the choice of adapting or dying out. This is what happened in the past when major industries were threatened with extinction. However…today all that matters is that the industry is big enough and you’ll get a bailout in form of ready cash or protective special legislation.

          That the industries affected keep on trying to fight “free” and failing isn’t the problem – the problem is that every time Apple and Samsung butt heads over who has the right to sell a “communications device with monitor shaped like a rectangle with rounded corners” in court that’s a great deal of money and time invested in trying to run competitors off the market using law rather than innovation and marketing.

          You’d think any capitalist society would really rather steer clear of a market run by lawyers rather than consumer choice. And all because the reviews of Samsung’s surfpad were better than those of iPad…

  • http://profiles.google.com/onsamyj Andrew

    There is another good example about land and airplanes.

    • Anonymous

      Free Culture reader, eh?

      • http://gplus.to/onsamyj Andrew

        No, ted.com watcher :) Yet again, there is link in my comment – I underline it manually now.

    • Anonymous

      You mean the one where the planes have to pay to fly through the air of the person who owns the land?

      • http://gplus.to/onsamyj Andrew

        Yes. You can’t see (links must have lines under them, you amateurs!), but there is link in my comment to talk on ted.com.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FCNK7C55CBUYFVSC5LNWKB322E Buglord

    for those few who are unable to see the lines I’ll write it as best I can here:
    fridges using electricity to cool food = computers with internet using electricity to make & distribute any digital product.

    icemen dislikes fridge because it makes them & their jobs useless/worthless = copyright industry dislikes computers with internet, because it breaks their monopoly.

    that’s the best I can do to try make you understand.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FCNK7C55CBUYFVSC5LNWKB322E Buglord

    for those few who are unable to see the lines I’ll write it as best I can here:
    fridges using electricity to cool food = computers with internet using electricity to make & distribute any digital product.

    icemen dislikes fridge because it makes them & their jobs useless/worthless = copyright industry dislikes computers with internet, because it breaks their monopoly.

    that’s the best I can do to try make you understand.

    • Friend of the People

      With the obvious problems that ice is a natural product and cultural products are not, and no one has to think up new designs for ice like they do for cultural products.

      It’s not a good analogy. It serves the purpose of saying what he wants to say, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s severely flawed. However, he said what he wanted, and to be honest, I’m more interested in the second part of the article.

      I really like that he openly acknowledged the major problem people have with piracy; it will decrease the quality and quantity of available culture. He acknowledges that this will happen for movies (although I disagree with him about the frequency that young people see movies, but that’s just my personal experience versus his), and as I can see, it will happen for games as well. The types of culture of that actually cost money to produce will be degraded. You see, that’s the major problem a lot of the anti-pirates have.

      The real kicker to this is that I don’t see these types of culture being replaced by anything worthwhile. The theater was replaced by movies, but what will movies be replaced by? Youtube? I don’t see anything actually replacing the damaged cultures here, because piracy doesn’t allow any new expression not currently allowed. Piracy gives anyone access to the culture currently created, but if some artist decides that they want to release everything they make for free, they already have the right and the infrastructure to do that.

      Also, if you’re actually reading this Rick, I would also like to hear you explain what you means by the term dialogue or conversation-based culture. To be honest, I have no idea what you could possibly mean. I hear that term and think of those interactive plays where the audience tries to find out who the murderer is. (Murder-Theater, or something like that). I suppose the term could also refer to things like chatroulette, but again, I’m not sure. I can has explanation?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002639684444 Ryan Smith

        So you agree, Friend of the people; RIAA, MPAA, IFPI, etc. did not make cultural products and more than the icemen made ice.

        Middlemen can only profit so long as they can maintain their place in the middle.

        • Friend of the People

          Oh sure, they don’t make cultural products. However, organizations like music labels, movie companies and game publishers do serve the important role of making it possible for others to make and market their cultural products. It’s easy to say a musician should make his money from concerts, until you realize that the label’s investment into marketing and expanding the number of people who know about him made it possible for him to put on the large concert. Movies and higher-tier games need investment as well. That’s a service offered by these industries that isn’t replicated by the mechanisms of the general populace.

          Don’t forget, they aren’t just distributors, they’re investors. They specialize in looking for new cultural acts to invest money in. You can’t forget that aspect of their business, or you’ll never understand how to beat them.

          Those aren’t obsolete until someone makes a business that can replace these sources of money and investment. That hasn’t happened yet, at least not on a scale that makes it well known to the artists and the general populace.

        • Anonymous

          @Friend of the People
          Well the creator of a movie can simply offer it for payed download on their own website and for example Netflix. Either taking on a different kind of distributor (Netflix) of cutting out the middle man completely.

          Also i think youtube for example does replace part of the movie entertainment. If you normally watched 3 movies a week, and now you watch 2 movies a week and spend 1 night on youtube.

        • Friend of the People

          It’s not all about distribution, it’s about investment. Publishers and other entities offer investment and marketing. Netflix doesn’t offer that. None of these distribution models offer that. Your model needs to include the making and marketing of the product, not just the distribution.

          There’s also the legitimate problem of companies thinking they can’t make a good profit off of Netflix and company, particularly if they’re going to fulfill other demands (like making movies available for download at the same time as they’re available in theatres).

          That doesn’t change the most important part of this argument; no one has made such a service. Netflix only serves as a distribution model, and since most companies would prefer to distribute movies and the like by themselves, there isn’t a reason for them to go to Netflix. What needs to be done is the creation of a service that artists and moviemakers can VOLUNTARILY join that offers investment and marketing money, and can provide distribution. No one has made that model. No one has tried to make a legal method.

        • Friend of the People

          Also, Youtube already exists. No need to change laws and business to accommodate that (although youtube still needs a change in order to turn a profit). Youtube can exist in its way, and movies can exist in theirs. If we try to force the Youtube model on things that cost money, we’ll get exactly what Rick acknowledged in the article; a decrease in the quality and quantity of whatever we force it on.

        • Danny

          @Friend of the People

          I am still unsure how you are a friend of the people.
          Possibly a friend of the people who work for the mafiaa……

        • Ven

          @Danny

          Ad hominem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

          Feel free to take the time to either refute FotP’s logic or provide more than a poisoned well argument. Better yet, try and find a way to answer his questions and concerns in a way that benefits everyone following the discussion.

        • Friend of the People

          Let it go Ven. I admit it’s a silly name. I mean, I started using it as a joke against a silly person who only posted once or twice. I have nothing against people poking fun at the name.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          @Friend of the People

          “However, organizations like music labels, movie companies and game publishers do serve the important role of making it possible for others to make and market their cultural products.”

          Both roles are redundant. Music creation can – as Rebecca black sadly illustrates – be accomplished by the investment of 2000$ – or be duplicated in comfort in your own home today. Indeed, many of the music world’s greatest hits of all time were more or less simple back-room recordings made in studios less well equipped than today’s modern living room.

          Movie and game companies are in a slightly different seat – unlike the music biz not consisting entirely of surplus baggage – but even here the gap between creator and actual product is lessening. The movie effects produced five-ten years ago are quite possible to pull off by a group of enthusiasts with a good rig so the main problem is finding actors. Star Wars IV was created using nickle-and-dime leftover scrap, a shoestring budget, and using amateur cast. And oddly enough is still a better movie than the later ones carrying bloated budgets while still having the same director and professional actors.

          As for games the ever-increasing plethora of pre-created modules and generic engines puts them in the same category as movies. Given good actors and a decent storyline you can build great games.

          Marketing is a dead issue in the internet age altogether.

          So no, those organizations you describe may have a role in niched expertise – like the crew which helped Rebecca Black create her infamous video, or like a company specializing in effects creation and sampling. But they no longer possess the qualifications to remain on the market at all. Save for one which is ironically enough the main argument we pirates use for “free” stuff being able to generate revenue.

          They have a brand name which sells, despite the fact that their stuff is for all intents and purposes “free” for everyone in real effect. That factor is the only one which today provides their market value.

        • Friend of the People

          “Star Wars IV was created using nickle-and-dime leftover scrap, a shoestring budget, and using amateur cast.”

          You can’t cite on example and call that a reasonable standard for all to work for. Also, note that the budget for that movie was over 11 million dollars. That’s not something that just anyone can replicate. Even with that, look at the special effects again. If a movie came out today with those special effects, it would be laughed at. Moviemakers know that. They know that they have to make the effects look more realistic (or at least more interesting), which costs money. The purpose of investment isn’t dead. Costs to produce most forms of media have been rising, not falling. It’s certainly possible to produce games and movies without investment, but you cut out a huge range of possibilities if you do so.

          Marketing is not dead in the internet age. Companies have never been able to rely off of the internet to do all their marketing. Internet marketing has a few problems. 1. They’re unreliable. There’s no guarantee of anything, no matter the quality of the product. 2. If no marketing money is spent, internet commentators won’t know about it 3. A huge number of people still don’t use the internet to learn anything about movies. Hell, when I want to learn about a movie, I read the paper. When I want to learn about a game, I look at reviews. I don’t look at commentators, because I know about number 4 on this list; commentators are fucking stupid. I’ve seen them hold up shitty games as unfound diamonds. I’ve seen them beating down great games as trash. And there’s the problem; the internet has no accountability, so you never know if the guy giving you gaming advice has an entirely different concept of gaming, if he’s a troll, or if he’s simply missing the front half of his brain. And finally, there’s the simplest answer 5. Marketing actually tells people about the game. It tells people who don’t trust or follow internet commentators about the game or movies existence. It tells people that they

          If marketing was really unnecessary, people wouldn’t spend as much as they do. It’s not like people just want to spend money where they don’t have to. If producing movies and games could be easily done without marketing, don’t you think someone would already be doing that? The reason they don’t is obvious; for anything that costs money, they need to advertise. They make more money from advertising their product then they lose. There are studies that show the gains they can expect to make. There is advertising research that does include free internet marketing as a variable, and no matter how you spin it, advertising makes them money, but in order for it to make them money, they first have to spend money, and in order to spend money, they need to have money.

          These purposes are not obsolete. The internet has not invalidated these purposes, it’s only added a new variable. You overestimate the effect that it has. It’s not a magical fix-all to these problems, it just alleviates a little of the pressure. It gives small developers an opening. It doesn’t have nearly as large an effect on large developers.

          I’m getting tired of this. I’ve learned all I can from this site, and to be honest, I dislike piracy more now then I did when I started posting here. Pirates don’t seem to have any concept of how what they’re demanding will actually effect the production of culture. I’ll direct you to a post from BurpAturD, down at the bottom of this comments section.

          I think I’ll be going now. Any value here is overridden by harm.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          @Friend of the People

          “Pirates don’t seem to have any concept of how what they’re demanding will actually effect the production of culture”

          Yes we do. It’s just that we see a lot of the “culture creation” currently going on as redundant. If the societal paradigm forces a cutback of 50% or more on what currently passes as “culture creation” then that is in no way either a disaster or an empoverishment. Out of every hundred games, music files and movies produced it’s doubtful whether even one will end up being something 99% of the population couldn’t simply live without.

          As for “what we are demanding” it’s a simple issue which has resurfaced many time in history and only ever gone one way so far – that information can not be restricted in distribution. If you want intellectual “property” then there is now as it always has been, just one answer – keep it a secret. If you don’t, all control is gone.

          In an age of mass communication it is not only singularly naíve to imagine that something like copyright will have any effect at all on what individuals choose to do or not. Unlimited filesharing is now the norm and will remain so.

          What you are basically doing is making an argument based on a few relevant facts but with an implied conclusion which can only exist in a paradigm where we do not have access to mass communication – or where people stop being human. You can run “copyright” successfully only in a society where “people” have turned into robots or where respect for the rules is such that you could even successfully implement plan economy, Nietzsches enlightened anarchy or practical communism.

          We don’t live in dreamland or utopia but in the real world. And the real world has empirically and emphatically stated that copyright won’t work any better than it did in times past. Far worse, even.

          You don’t like this? Fine. But stop blaming the messenger.

        • Anonymous

          Now that I’ve read Friend of the People’s neo-feudal arguments, I am square back in the pirates camp’ I represent the majority here:
          No one really thinks the ice analogy is perfect, but that’s not the point.
          The point is distribution and middle manning.
          We don’t need them anymore for distribution, so why should be lick their ass?
          much more important is …. the CREATORS, the ARTISTS, don’t need them anymore!

          It’s not about stealing the creators work, we like the creators. We protest against the huge crap that gets stuck under the studio’s shoes.
          The studios are NOT the creators.
          For that matter, why are producers so important? Because they deliver distribution. Now that is gone, we don’t really need them anymore

          Different cultures assign importance to different roles in filmmaking.
          In the US, the writers are treated like shit, see the last strike.
          In Europe, the writers is one of the most important teammembers
          In future cultures, producers could be no more than effective secretaries.

      • Analogerousanigy

        You might enjoy picking holes in the analogy, but the reality this is analogous of is so flawed as to make proper analogy impossible. If you’d like a better analogy then I’d suggest making that possible by altering the reality..

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

          Some better analogies:

          Horse buggy to car
          James Watt and the steam engine patents
          Thomas Edison and Hollywood

          Fairly enough, the refrigerator example works on various levels. You can discuss how the economy didn’t die because of an outdated belief in only preserving the iceman’s job. The iceman soon changed into the milkman who soon became obsolete (or changed into the ice cream man).

          I believe the main point of this is to show how copyright, patents, or trademarks don’t really help people to thrive. That just comes from hard work.

        • Friend of the People

          Like I said in the post, the analogy served the purpose of getting across what he was trying to say. It did fine in that aspect.

          The important part of the post was the second one.

      • Momo

        “the term dialogue or conversation-based culture”

        Culture is best served cold, huh? You make your piece of crap, over-expensive, mass-appeal blockbuster, stick it in front of everybody and ask them to pay.

        In the past, thousands of people would collaborate to write a story or a song. You wrote something, I took it and changed it, somebody else would take my version and improve it.. ad infinitum. Today, that’s forbidden by law. But, the internet is making mass collaboration possible — and in fact, open source is thriving! Is there any reason culture can’t work the same way again?

        Moreover, who exactly decided that a two-hour blockbuster is the best way to create new culture? Because that’s long enough to watch in one sitting at the cinema and pay premium price for? Because the fancy graphics will get the attention of lots of people? That’s the McDonalds version of culture and has as much cultural value as a Big Mac has nutritious value.

        Wouldn’t it be better if we encouraged all people to learn an art/craft and invited them to apply their knowledge to produce new culture? Perhaps the result won’t be as polished as a Hollywood movie, but the people who contributed will have found pleasure in creating that new culture — the kind of pleasure that no Hollywood movie can provide. Is there any doubt that if we want the betterment of the human kind, this the best way forward?

        Or, we can depend on Hollywood to provide us with sequels of sequels of sequels of superhero blockbusters until the end of time. Perhaps there’s value in that too… somewhere.

        • Friend of the People

          “Today, that’s forbidden by law.”

          Where is it forbidden by law. Where? If someone wants to make something that anyone can contribute to, then they can use Creative Commons or a similar license. You could easily post a song and ask for contributions. There is absolutely nothing forbidding that type collaboration anywhere in the law, and if you think there is, then I directly challenge you to show me it. I want a link or quote showing me exactly where it’s forbidden. The only thing forbidden is doing that to the work of someone who did not consent to it.

          In this society, people could always take joy in creating something. Always. A worker could always come home and carve wood or paint a picture. If they’re good at it, then maybe they can bring it to public attention, but the simple reality is that most people aren’t very good. There are already mechanisms for the people who aren’t very good to present their work (Youtube), but I’d rather leave the real culture to thrive.

          In the theater, we have a saying. There can be many workers, but only one artist. Many people adding many different ideas to a single movie wouldn’t increase its quality, it would just add dissonance. There is a real value in products coming from a limited subset of minds. You can make a work to tell a story, and that story can easily be interrupted by someone adding to your work who doesn’t understand the message you’re trying to get across. Works are hard to improve, but easy to degrade.

          And finally, a question; should artists be forced to open their work for public change if they want to bring their art to the public eye? Because it sounds quite a bit like you’re calling for that.

        • Friend of the People

          “Today, that’s forbidden by law.”

          Where is it forbidden by law. Where? If someone wants to make something that anyone can contribute to, then they can use Creative Commons or a similar license. You could easily post a song and ask for contributions. There is absolutely nothing forbidding that type collaboration anywhere in the law, and if you think there is, then I directly challenge you to show me it. I want a link or quote showing me exactly where it’s forbidden. The only thing forbidden is doing that to the work of someone who did not consent to it.

          In this society, people could always take joy in creating something. Always. A worker could always come home and carve wood or paint a picture. If they’re good at it, then maybe they can bring it to public attention, but the simple reality is that most people aren’t very good. There are already mechanisms for the people who aren’t very good to present their work (Youtube), but I’d rather leave the real culture to thrive.

          In the theater, we have a saying. There can be many workers, but only one artist. Many people adding many different ideas to a single movie wouldn’t increase its quality, it would just add dissonance. There is a real value in products coming from a limited subset of minds. You can make a work to tell a story, and that story can easily be interrupted by someone adding to your work who doesn’t understand the message you’re trying to get across. Works are hard to improve, but easy to degrade.

          And finally, a question; should artists be forced to open their work for public change if they want to bring their art to the public eye? Because it sounds quite a bit like you’re calling for that.

        • Friend of the People

          “Wouldn’t it be better if we encouraged all people to learn an art/craft and invited them to apply their knowledge to produce new culture? Perhaps the result won’t be as polished as a Hollywood movie, but the people who contributed will have found pleasure in creating that new culture — the kind of pleasure that no Hollywood movie can provide. Is there any doubt that if we want the betterment of the human kind, this the best way forward?”

          Yes, there’s doubt. like I said before, anyone can try to make culture if they want, but your model doesn’t seem to account for some people being better at it then other people. It also doesn’t account for people actually consuming culture. Will people actually listen to this music that everyone makes? Will people be enlightened or led to some higher understanding by consuming this culture? Will you have a mechanism for the greatest among us to be given a chance to shine?

          Hollywood produces bad and good movies. You choose to focus on what you dislike in order to justify your argument, but you don’t acknowledge the good produced. And yes, this is a footnote in my argument, so don’t spend your next post critiquing these two sentences.

        • Momo

          “Where is it forbidden by law. Where?”

          Copyright itself is the legal incentive NOT to share. If I write a song, the law actively encourages me to disallow all copying and all modification. So much so, in fact, that copyrights are granted automatically and have to be renounced, instead of the other way round! If this point is not clear to you, “Friend of the People”, this discussion is… pointless.

          “but the simple reality is that most people aren’t very good. There are already mechanisms for the people who aren’t very good to present their work (Youtube), but I’d rather leave the real culture to thrive”

          Why aren’t those people very good, do you think? Is it a failure of education, or are you one of those proud assholes who will claim talented people are only born that way? The fact is, there are many talented people out there who have just not been given an opportunity to participate. How many undiscovered Susan Boyles do you think there may be out there? I say we should be encouraging people not to just consume culture but to also produce it. But that would make people like you less “special”, wouldn’t it? Can your pride take it?

          As for Youtube, there are thousands and thousands of talented people on there. That Justin Bieber started on Youtube doesn’t mean that everyone on there is a lame girlyboy (Bieber is real culture! Really, I tell you!). Heck, I’m certain many of them are more talented than you’ll ever be, but your pride won’t let you admit that. If you swallow your pride for a moment, “Friend of the People”, you may realise what would happen if those people found ways to communicate and organise and create together…

          “There can be many workers, but only one artist. Many people adding many different ideas to a single movie wouldn’t increase its quality, it would just add dissonance. There is a real value in products coming from a limited subset of minds.”

          That means nothing, it’s just something you say out of pride to feel better than the “mere peasants”. Get over yourself. And besides, creation by consensus is totally irrelevant to what I’m saying.

          “should artists be forced to open their work for public change if they want to bring their art to the public eye? Because it sounds quite a bit like you’re calling for that.”

          YES. It’s called the public domain. It’s the only reason why copyright was introduced: to add more stuff to the public domain after a short monopoly for the artist.

        • Momo

          “but your model doesn’t seem to account for some people being better at it then other people.”

          This isn’t my “model”. This is how culture was always produced.

          “It also doesn’t account for people actually consuming culture. Will people actually listen to this music that everyone makes?”

          Given that people kind of liked Homer and Shakespeare, I’d venture to say yes. Do you have any good reasons to think otherwise?

          “Will people be enlightened or led to some higher understanding by consuming this culture?”

          No, but the people producing it will, because it’s fun and educational to write songs and make movies. Isn’t it?

          “Will you have a mechanism for the greatest among us to be given a chance to shine?”

          The mechanism is simple. Make good stuff and people will like it. It’s the same way today, if you don’t account for all the marketing.

          “Hollywood produces bad and good movies. You choose to focus on what you dislike in order to justify your argument, but you don’t acknowledge the good produced.”

          I focus on the stuff that arguably costs more to make — blockbusters — and not on stuff that just anyone could make.

        • Friend of the People

          Let’s start from the top down.

          It’s not illegal Momo. Copyright is assumed, but since an artist can fix that with less than 2 minutes of writing, I’m not seeing that as a serious problem.

          You certainty make a lot of assumptions about me and my “pride”, but since those lead me to make assumptions about you, I suppose I’m not in any particular place to judge.

          To answer you, no, I don’t think most people can make really good art. I think most people don’t have the talent. I certainly don’t. It’s not an attack on their intellect, as you seem to think, it’s just a basic statement. Most people don’t have what it takes to be an artist. People have different talents, and most peoples talents don’t include “artist”. There are many undiscovered artists out there, but I suppose what I don’t understand is how your system will help to differentiate those undiscovered artists from the vast majority who can’t produce anything worthwhile.

          Creation by consensus seemed to be what you were arguing for. If it’s really not, I apologize for my assumption, although that means that it’s a bit unclear to me what you were actually trying to say.

          “YES. It’s called the public domain. It’s the only reason why copyright was introduced: to add more stuff to the public domain after a short monopoly for the artist.”

          I suppose I didn’t phrase the question right. A better way to ask it would be “do you think the work of an artist should immediately enter the public doman?” You seem to understand the purpose of copyright, to increase production of art, so what I don’t really get is how that purpose is invalidated. To be specific, what about that purpose has been made obsolete?

          You can answer however you want, but I don’t think I’m going to respond to you. You don’t seem to be able to discuss things civilly. Respond however you want, but I think this will be the end of our conversation. Have a good day.

        • Momo

          I’m surprised you even replied at all, because it looks like you had nothing new to add. Maybe you just did it out of pride. Enjoy your day.

        • Bruce Almighty

          @Friend of the People

          I got a lot of respect for you since even though you don’t support piracy, you atleast treat people with respect and are willing to take part in a healthy debate without getting down to name calling and personal insults.

          So as a friend, I would just like to say, don’t bother replying to people like Momo who feels like belittling others just to get their point across and if someone doesn’t agree with them they get down to hurling insults and abuse. Just know that not all of us are like that. Many of us who actively support file sharing are also level headed individuals and are willing to listen to opposite points of view as well and you do make some interesting points I admit.

          Have a good day, sir.

      • Agedinsoul

        [i]With the obvious problems that ice is a natural product and cultural products are not, and no one has to think up new designs for ice like they do for cultural products.[/i]

        indeed, no one has to think up new designs for ice like they do for cultural products, but none of these so-called “working thinkers” need to do that on the outside day by day while freezing off their balls…

        correct me if i’m wrong, but you did not seriously imply that the act of “thinking up (goofy) stuff” is harder than physical labor? you think about one thing and then you sit back and enjoy your drinks while the machine is making copies click by click…now excuse me, i need to go make some copies of ice cubes for a refreshing drink [...] – after all, they are already designed

        • Friend of the People

          It’s not harder, it’s different. Physical labor may be hard, but it doesn’t require creativity. No one needs to be creative in order to haul ice or build roads; they only need to follow instructions and do the work. I know it’s hard, but that doesn’t make it creative. Designing a cultural product does require creativity, and it works differently.

          Hope I answered your strawman argument to your satisfaction.

        • Friend of the People

          It’s not harder, it’s different. Physical labor may be hard, but it doesn’t require creativity. No one needs to be creative in order to haul ice or build roads; they only need to follow instructions and do the work. I know it’s hard, but that doesn’t make it creative. Designing a cultural product does require creativity, and it works differently.

          Hope I answered your strawman argument to your satisfaction.

        • Danny

          Friend of the people, I am a design engineer.

          I spend all day being creative and designing things that are successful products in their field. Admittedly they don’t create culture but neither do all these shitty pop songs that are available right now. In our company once a product is out of the door and we have sold several thousand units we don’t expect to continue making money of the old product, we create something new and then sell that instead.

          The problem I think all these big companies are having is that they are making things that are too costly and not being able to recoup their investments from the market, this is obviously bad business and they should go under. People making the culture, (actual musicians not pop singers) will still play and write music even with no money. For example my brother was in a band and they wrote tons of songs but made no real money, they did it because they enjoyed it and enjoyed playing gigs not because it made them rich, they all have real jobs now!

          EDIT:
          Oh and making roads does require creativity! Think civil engineers.

        • Danny

          Friend of the people, I am a design engineer.

          I spend all day being creative and designing things that are successful products in their field. Admittedly they don’t create culture but neither do all these shitty pop songs that are available right now. In our company once a product is out of the door and we have sold several thousand units we don’t expect to continue making money of the old product, we create something new and then sell that instead.

          The problem I think all these big companies are having is that they are making things that are too costly and not being able to recoup their investments from the market, this is obviously bad business and they should go under. People making the culture, (actual musicians not pop singers) will still play and write music even with no money. For example my brother was in a band and they wrote tons of songs but made no real money, they did it because they enjoyed it and enjoyed playing gigs not because it made them rich, they all have real jobs now!

          EDIT:
          Oh and making roads does require creativity! Think civil engineers.

        • Friend of the People

          No, designing roads takes creativity (or being brain-dead, depending on whether you live in my city). Building them takes physical labor, which does not take creativity. It takes hard work and the ability to follow a blueprint.

          The fallacy in your logic is the assumption that people will continue to create at the same rate and quality as they currently do. There will always be creation; that is undisputed. However, the big question is whether or not creation will still happen at the same rate. You talk about music, but you ignore other types of culture. Movies, for example, take money to make. Games take money. There is only so much you can make without that money. These are the things that will be harmed. Music is the easy fix because it costs relatively little to produce and requires few-to-no technical workers.

          It’s never a question of whether or not things will be produced, it’s a question of how much, and at what quality.

          To Agedinsoul…

          Well, that’s a funny happenstance. Kinda misunderstood you. I do promise to be more polite though.

          You’re right that a lot of the prices for entertainment are ripoffs. No dispute there. When you read my posts, know that I have no love or trust for the current companies. I don’t think that they do business very well. However, I don’t think that the pirate model will work any better. I think it will degrade the quality of both entertainment and higher culture. I also don’t like that piracy seems, to me at least, to take the choice for how to do business away from the artists and movie companies. It places the work of various artists up for public download without any consultation from them. If an artist chose to put their own work up, I would have no problem with it. More power to em. However, seeing a pirate put up someone else’s work without their consent seems…. extraordinary disrespectful.

          If I had my way, I’d like to see pirates try a legal method, like starting a distribution/investment business that artists could voluntarily join and that provided all the services pirates routinely ask for. Put the pirate theory of business to the test. It would take a while to start up, but that’s what I like to see.

          As to your final question, I do have family in the entertainment business, namely scriptwriters for TV shows and game developers. They’re the ones who turned me on to this. They’re the ones who got me onto the idea that what pirates do is, at heart, disrespectful. I know they’d love to continue doing what they do for the rest of their lives, but in the end, their work will be determined by whether or not they can support themselves doing it. As my cousin said to me “I can’t make games like I do now as a hobby. I don’t have the time or money”.

        • Danny

          Friend of the People

          There is no fallacy, musicians will play regardless of income, shitty manufactured pop like lady gaga wont but then that’s a good thing! People will still pay to go see bands, pay to stream music, etc. Infact in the UK I think bands are getting much more from gigs these days and music festivals are popping up everywhere!

          People do create films for free, just look at all the amateur film producers on youtube, the films like Star Wreck that was linked to. Youtube is probably one of the biggest examples that kills your idea that great culture has to be funded by money and wrapped in copywrong!

          Also films could and are made for a lot less money than Hollywood spends. The problem they have is that they budget that they can get X amount back and so spend a fortune in the process. Unfortunately the market wont take that for much longer. People want cheaper media the way they want it, I personally like the £3 – £5 DVD bin in Sainsbury’s (supermarket) some great films even newish ones at a reasonable price! I actually spend more on DVDs than I used to because of this.

          Games are the only thing I will pay full price for. You get far more enjoyment from one PS3 game (initial play through maybe 15 hours) than a film (initial play 1.5 hours) so I see it as a wise investment. £40 for a PS3 game and maybe £4 for a DVD seems about right to me!

        • Anonymous

          @friendofpeeps
          Talk about strawmen! You are inserting “creative people” and “quality” as IF that is what we are against.
          That’s NOT it.
          We are against the huge skimming that studios and the marketing apparatus does.

          Please, stop acting like we’re against the artists. We’re against the leeches that are the Studios and the marketing system. If the government insures that the internet remains a level playing field, (which is one thing that the likes of Verizon and Comcast wanna stop), marketing won’t be a problem.

          And please try to argue something else than that tired old hack that “government can’t do anything right”. You might have a point if you’re talking bout Repuke governments, but in Europe, japan Canada, goverment is pretty effective. We stopped Microsofts monopoly, all to the benefit of competition, which certain people claim to love until it costs them.

          Also, quality in in the eye of the beholder. I happen to think that Primer is a better quality movie than that cartoon Phantom Menace. And yes, the special effects of Star Wars IV seem more real to me than all that cgi crap.

      • Agedinsoul

        “Hope I answered your strawman argument to your satisfaction.”

        well, the very fact that my opponent’s opinion is far from being in a position where it actually needs to be refuted i’d say; thx for your satisfying answer ;)

        • Friend of the People

          Alright. Thank you for the compliment. I apologize for my rudeness.

        • Agedinsoul

          to Friend of the People

          the beauty of language i guess (some call it fuzziness) i actually meant it as in “my opponent’s position is so ridiculous that one shouldn’t even waste any time trying to refute it”. (i know, i lack linguistic competence;)) However, i kinda like your reaction and would like to bury the hatchet and point to Danny’s comment just above mine…

          I see your [FotP] point but as someone who paid a fortune myself for entertainment i gotta say, after a while you just feel ripped off by the entertainment industry. As i’ve argued before, for instance with TV: we have to pay a TV fee the moment we get broadband Internet access, regardless of whether we have / watch (a) TV. So basically they never feel bad about making us pay for sth that we actually don’t use. Would you pay for a service that you do not use?

          So when I download a movie, for instance, in most cases my TV fee covers it anyway. If it’s not aired on TV then i couldn’t probably watch it anyway. Not gonna buy any movies cause their way too expensive. I know there are tons of other options to pay for movies and digital entertainment, however, why should i pay for a movie after i paid for it at the movies? – just to give an example (btw some countries, e.g. where i live, ask a lot for a movie at the cinema (up to 25$)

          Same goes for radio stations btw – all in the same package.

          To quote from Danny’s comment: “People making the culture, (actual musicians not pop singers) will still play and write music even with no money.”

          I happen to know such people as well, do you? As for the RIAA and MPAA…i just don’t see the point of them being around.

        • Agedinsoul

          to Friend of the People (in reply to post “Well, that’s a funny happenstance. Kinda misunderstood you. I do promise to be more polite though.”)

          i see your point and frankly, i don’t have any problems with it. I think we’re coming from different…shall we call it “backgrounds”? In the end, we can have as many debates over this subject as we want, only time will tell.

          If, through family members, you’re somehow personally connected to the whole thing it makes total sense to me how you argue your point.

          As for myself, ending up with huge collections that i paid way too much for (got most of it when the web wasn’t yet another option) and, to a certain extent still am paying for, there’s also some frustration on my side. Therefore i’m willing to show people how file sharing [or piracy] works so they can try it for themselves. If they choose to do so, it’s their business; if they have a similar approach to yours, totally cool as well. Again, time will tell but seeing people around me (and me being one of them; helping out friends with scripts, for instance) who are constantly working on things for the pleasure of creating and being creative, i’m not too worried about the future of the art of entertainment.

          As for your idea: “I’d like to see pirates try a legal method, like starting a distribution/investment business that artists could voluntarily join and that provided all the services pirates routinely ask for.”

          First of, i’d be on board – sounds like a plan! However, I’m sure there are a lot of people (scratch that: a few, yet very powerful people) out there who try to prevent that from happening; suits? middlemen? I dunno…all these people who got rich in the process of ripping off people for all those years where the web didn’t present itself as an alternative? I dunno…all i can say is that I don’t mind putting them out of business. Collateral damage? Sure, it’s a shame for screenwriters like your family members. But arguing that way isn’t gonna take us far. Personally, some of the things i’m good at (and enjoy a lot) are increasingly being replaced by more and more sophisticated technology [in fact, i needed to change directions as well]…all i can do is try to learn and enjoy sth different; since i do not consider whining about potential things that i could’ve done an option. But again, that’s just one of many approaches we can have – but at the end of the day, this is just talk – which brings me to conclude….

          If you wanna add sth, feel free. Otherwise, this little exchange has been a pleasure; and in the spirit of transparency, there’s no sarcasm or irony this time :)

      • Anonymous

        If you read his analogy it wasn’t about ice per se, but the distribution of cold and how it was produced. In that respect the analogy worked, albeit not perfect. But no analogy is, when one nitpicks, like you did.

        You and most of us don’t see what kind of culture this will be. So what?

        You speak of damaged culture, even though availability of culture and participation in creating culture is at an all time high, because distribution of it is so mind bogglingly much more efficient than it was. Despite many efforts by the currently entrenched middle-men in the creationdistribution of culture.

        The movie industry is growing year by year (gross), the game industry is growing, music is falling. That piracy, or the net is to blame isn’t consistent with actual peer reviewed research. Fingers have been pointed at many new sorts of entertainment-dollars competing for time, like gaming. Others point to the CD, where you packaged a few good songs with a lot of bad ones.(not possible in the world of MP3) Format shifting from cassette LP to CD. Point being, there are lots of reasons for the music industry’s decline.

        “I would also like to hear you explain what you means by the term dialogue or conversation-based culture. ”
        - I can give one good example. The internet. This is conversation-based culture, with a rather large amount of garbage, but many, many gems that would never reach an audience through controlled (often corporate) channels. TV is a great example of the one-way old paradigm.

        Spotify and netflix are also great examples of new distribution model which wouldn’t have come to pass in this amount of time if the media industry weren’t forced by piracy. That piracy in itself has damaged (loss of revenue) these industries is a dubious, unsupported claim at best.

        • Ven

          The music industry is not falling, their profit percentage is. Since they function on investors that is a serious problem for the business, but music is still purchased and consumed more now than ever.

      • Drunkard

        Ice cubes are not a natural product either, i dont see any ice cube laws. Culture is a natural product of human nature, just as making ice cubes. These days you dont need a box of ice cubes you make them yourself in your own home. People selling ice cubes became dinosaurs, just as people selling plastic discs should be dinosaurs today, but they are trying to hold on by laws and imaginary things such as intellectual property and copyright. You can copy millions of ice cubes with refrigirators, millions and thats what they did themselves before everyone got one at home. Imagine how we would live now if that ice industry did what the copyright and recording industries are doing now and prevented people from getting refrigirators at home and forced them to buy ice cubes, that they would not be able to make themselves in any way, shape or form because of crap like “intellectual property” or illegal copying or distribution. Imagine how the world would be if you still got beheaded for copying a text or indeed even owning text or books. We would be in the dark ages still if the systems never changed and that is is the point i saw clearly in this article, things needs to be allowed to change. America hasnt been around very long therefore they do not think like others, they are new and aggressive. France has a history of being against stuff and every country has its own history and personality. US lobbying groups are pushing the stop button with worldwide laws and politics to prevent any kind of change because they are the ice industry. How can you own an idea someone gets every second for example or own a shape someone draws every second without ever seeing that shape, or own a seed. Imagine owning ice cubes, anyone that ever made their own ice cube would be law breakers, thats how it could have been if the old ice industry would have had todays lobby groups thinking. Use your brain and think about history, how we got here and why. America dont realy think that way, as i said their young they dont have much history to learn from other then blood, oil and greed. And it shows politically, where lobby groups can force laws or change onto entire countries. Actually America is a very good analogy to the dark ages and what not to do. Thats not a bash at Americans as a people, but their book owning church that cuts peoples heads off..

      • Anonymous

        Ice is not a natural product *in* *the* *summer*.

      • Scary Devil Monastery

        “I would also like to hear you explain what you means by the term dialogue or conversation-based culture. To be honest, I have no idea what you could possibly mean. I hear that term and think of those interactive plays where the audience tries to find out who the murderer is. (Murder-Theater, or something like that). I suppose the term could also refer to things like chatroulette, but again, I’m not sure. I can has explanation?”

        I don’t know Rick’s definition but aside from interactive plays, consider MMO’s where developers and “GM”‘s interact with the public and change/alter/amend the usual storylines, a bit similar to the way people behave in applications such as “second life”. Likewise I’d advise browsing youtube and check the examples where prior art has influenced subsequent art as a direct result of viewer input.

        Tomorrow’s movies might run more along the lines of multiple-choice mystery/horror/dating games – indeed, such attempts have been and are being made. As technology matures any enthusiast with a powerful rig becomes able to supply their own homegrown “Industrial Light & Magic” brand of special effects to their indie film. Leaving the real task of actual storyline creation to those talented enough to pull it off.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FCNK7C55CBUYFVSC5LNWKB322E Buglord

    for those few who are unable to see the lines I’ll write it as best I can here:
    fridges using electricity to cool food = computers with internet using electricity to make & distribute any digital product.

    icemen dislikes fridge because it makes them & their jobs useless/worthless = copyright industry dislikes computers with internet, because it breaks their monopoly.

    that’s the best I can do to try make you understand.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FCNK7C55CBUYFVSC5LNWKB322E Buglord

    for those few who are unable to see the lines I’ll write it as best I can here:
    fridges using electricity to cool food = computers with internet using electricity to make & distribute any digital product.

    icemen dislikes fridge because it makes them & their jobs useless/worthless = copyright industry dislikes computers with internet, because it breaks their monopoly.

    that’s the best I can do to try make you understand.

  • Guest

    i see here that you havent payed your fridge-tax. and i also see that over there is a plugged in fridge, soo.. yeah, that´s going to cost you man. but we do take WoW-pets, so that´s lucky for you, isint it ?

  • Pingback: Nobody Asked For A Refrigerator Fee | Torrents & File Sharing News

  • Guest

    Your analogy doesn’t quite work when applied to the copyright industry. When the people bought refrigerators, they were MAKING their own cold. In order for your analogy to apply properly, the copyright industry would have to be angry about people creating their own content, and no longer buying the industry-provided content. However, after the flawed analogy, the article picks up and makes some good points.

    • Rick Falkvinge

      Sir, I believe you are confusing the copyright industry with the actual creators of culture. The copyright industry is merely the intermediary middlemen. Those who create do not need this industry any longer any more than we do.

      Still, they have managed to enshrine themselves in law — what we call a “regulatory capture”.

      Cheers,
      Rick

      • Friend of the People

        To a point, the artists still do desire the labels and other parts of the music industry, even if they don’t need them. The labels offer a service; investment and a marketing boost. That allows the musician to start putting on those big concerts that boost their income and make them famous. The copyright industry isn’t obsolete until this service is replicated in a way that doesn’t require the artist to sign on with someone else.

        I don’t think the deal is always equitable for the musician, but then again, that’s the artist’s decision to make, not mine.

        • Paved with gold

          How about by business sense, imagination, investment and hard work the same as any other product attempting to reach its potential audience?

        • Guest123

          Oh, that always can work, but right now, you’re offering musicians a choice between a label, who offers them an opportunity to get on top and make something of themselves, and avoiding the labels and having to work their way up without help, without a guarantee of the same opportunities that the label will offer. People can certainly do it without the labels, but for someone who’s good at music and isn’t good at business (or even for someone who can do both), you’re asking them to cripple themselves. That’s the problem my friend. You offer less and expect them to choose your way.

        • Guest123

          That was to Analogerousanigy, not Friend of the People.

        • Anonymous

          The problem I have with you is that you’re WAAAAY to subservient to the Big Suits in the industry. You see that a lot with Americans, they are mostly inclined to goose step with the “boss”. Not saying that you are one, or are like that.
          That said, yes, there’s value in someone doing all the organising and stuff.
          But why does that need to be in the form of such huge profits to the bosses alone?
          I can co-operative forms of organising, a model where profits are spread more evenly.
          Besides, why does a “boss” need a profit? Why can’t he have a salary, like everyone else?
          The idea that production wouldn’t occur without mega profits is kind of immoral and untrue. Yes, egotism works, sure, but when there’s things like Billionaires, it all becomes a sick game which is SURELY NOT in the best interest of the screen writers.
          Rewarding someone with millions dollars of profits, merely for organising something that a middle level secretary could have done, is odd.
          I am not against profits. I am against MEGA profits

      • Friend of the People

        To a point, the artists still do desire the labels and other parts of the music industry, even if they don’t need them. The labels offer a service; investment and a marketing boost. That allows the musician to start putting on those big concerts that boost their income and make them famous. The copyright industry isn’t obsolete until this service is replicated in a way that doesn’t require the artist to sign on with someone else.

        I don’t think the deal is always equitable for the musician, but then again, that’s the artist’s decision to make, not mine.

    • Rick Falkvinge

      My point is; “their whole business is making copies, but we can do that ourselves.”

      As for the movie business model, your point stands, though. If they can’t find another business model than the copyright industry’s per-copy model, one that preserves both the net and our fundamental rights, then perhaps we’re just moving on.

      • Tosser

        The per-copy model does have it’s merits.

        Think transport – If I board a ferry, I pay for a ticket. The addition of 1 human makes zero appreciable difference to the fuel usage (it could even have sails), and I’m not going to bother the crew either way. But I have made the crossing, I have benefited from it and I have supported the operation.

        I don’t see how asking others to buy the fuel or work as cre for free or relying on a rich benefactor to foot the bill from his own pocket is an improvement. Those who stand to benefit, contribute.

        If they build a train-link, there is still fuel and crew to pay for – and the ferry can’t sue them.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

          But why should the people, at large, pay for a per copy model with tax dollars? Why should the ones criminalized be the ones that would consume media?
          Why are the people given no choice in what can be offered?
          Why does report, after unbiased report show increases in sales, making this per copy model obsolete?

          Though I still believe part of Falkvinge’s article is unclear (“Nobody would be surprised if we moved from monologue-style culture to dialogue- and conversation-type culture at this point in history.” needs a touch up to expand on going from one way dialogue to multifaceted discussion on the effects of culture control, etc.) it’s pretty clear that there isn’t anyone to help the industry make more money by locking up what people can do.

        • Anonymous

          @jay
          “But why should the people, at large, pay for a per copy model with tax dollars?”
          Because having a BBC styled TV licence fee, insures us more quality than all that american commercial crap. British comedy is so much better than all these not funny sitcoms.

          Also, we don’t have to endure brainwashing commercials which makes us feel unhappy about ourselves if we’re not young, pretty, and eat humongous amounts of pizza while swallowing Viagra.

    • wiktor

      Also, Sweden has plenty of ice *occurring naturally*. Even before refrigerators, you could just go and pick up some ice yourself. I would actually not be surprised if in the more northern regions of Sweden, people left their food outside or in a shed during the winter. The ice industry was just making it easier to obtain ice, and while that’s all nice, they’re not *essential*. So’s the copyright/distribution industry – you don’t actually need it. You can go visit your favourite band playing a gig. The industry just brings a little bit of them to your home in the form of a recording… but then everyone else can do it too. Just because Sweden Ice had their monopoly, they couldn’t stop anyone else getting their own ice and selling it.

      • Anonymous

        Except in the summer, maybe… and more southern…

        • wiktor

          Those could be serviced by the Sweden Ice or by the multitude of smaller companies :-)

        • wiktor

          Those could be serviced by the Sweden Ice or by the multitude of smaller companies :-)

        • Anonymous

          @wiktor: that’s the point. Or we just get a fridge, and we don’t have to pay them again. Sweden Ice got obsolete at some point, now the MAFIAA is at the same crossroads – it’s gonna take a few years (or a decade) and they are rendered 100% obsolete.
          if only artists found that out. maybe i just learn to sing very good, write a instant classic song, join the MAFIAA and sabotage them from the inside, and criticizing them during speeches etc and they get annoyed etc.

      • Anonymous

        it wasn’t the physical ice, it was food freshness.
        And now: it’s not about content/artists, it’s about distribution.
        Why should i have to pay for the yacht of some studio boss, his marketing apparatus, and his 3 secretaries?

    • Guest


      For for your analogy to apply properly, the copyright industry would have to be angry about people creating their own content, and no longer buying the industry-provided content. However, after the flawed analogy, the article picks up and makes some good points. show more show less

      In many countries the music and entertainment industry is subsidized by the taxpayers in multiple ways. In most European nations you pay a levy on blank media even if said media is only used for your own production. But at the same time the same copyright lobby has argued that you shouldn’t be permitted to share copyrighted works — even when these are subsidized by the taxpayers.

      Until the welfare state gets out of subsidizing the copyright holders directly or indirectly sharing is a moral right. If the cultural products protected by even retroactively extended copyright is akin to physical property– with the often repeated implication that sharing is similar to physical theft — IP should also be taxed like physical property, or in no way subsidized by the welfare state, or return to the public domain.

      Copyright enforcement gives us the worst from socialism — a noisy class of whiners demanding money — and remember that enforcement of IP against noncommercial infringement costs much — perpetual welfare taxes (blank media levies, Ipod taxes, ISP having to pay for three strikes) and the worst from old protectionist capitalism — laws against DRM-circumvention, legally enforceable restrictions on parallel importation of region locked media etc.

    • Guest


      For for your analogy to apply properly, the copyright industry would have to be angry about people creating their own content, and no longer buying the industry-provided content. However, after the flawed analogy, the article picks up and makes some good points. show more show less

      In many countries the music and entertainment industry is subsidized by the taxpayers in multiple ways. In most European nations you pay a levy on blank media even if said media is only used for your own production. But at the same time the same copyright lobby has argued that you shouldn’t be permitted to share copyrighted works — even when these are subsidized by the taxpayers.

      Until the welfare state gets out of subsidizing the copyright holders directly or indirectly sharing is a moral right. If the cultural products protected by even retroactively extended copyright is akin to physical property– with the often repeated implication that sharing is similar to physical theft — IP should also be taxed like physical property, or in no way subsidized by the welfare state, or return to the public domain.

      Copyright enforcement gives us the worst from socialism — a noisy class of whiners demanding money — and remember that enforcement of IP against noncommercial infringement costs much — perpetual welfare taxes (blank media levies, Ipod taxes, ISP having to pay for three strikes) and the worst from old protectionist capitalism — laws against DRM-circumvention, legally enforceable restrictions on parallel importation of region locked media etc.

      • Friend of the People

        Interesting. There’s a viable argument to be made for sharing having to be allowed if media levies are applied to the populace as a whole. I usually talk about U.S. law, so I wouldn’t have a good opinion on that, other then the obvious one that the argument doesn’t apply to countries without blank media levies.

        • Guest


          Interesting. There’s a viable argument to be made for sharing having to be allowed if media levies are applied to the populace as a whole.

          The problem is that the mafia including many subsidized creators want to have its cake and eat it. The argument you are conceding may be viable is as for now moot since the copyright industry including its drug addicted workers would never accept that either noncommercial sharing should be legalized or all media levies abolished.

          What about other regulatory subsidies favoring the creative industry? The EU has passed a directive forbidding commercial importation of cheaper copyrighted works from other countries.
          A UK company can’t not import legal DVDs from China and resell them cheaper to UK customers. The only reason for that travesty has to do with protecting corrupt icorporations’ “right” to price fixing.
          Also recently a US court gutted the first sale doctrine for imported books.

        • Anonymous

          Well i see many discussions fail because people come with arguments from their own country and then they don’t mention things like the blank media levy they have which makes it work.

        • Friend of the People

          I’m not saying it’s a correct argument, I’m saying it’s a viable one. Subsidization of a product doesn’t mean that that product should be free. I will agree that there’s a discussion worth having about how that subsidization should affect public policy.

        • Anonymous

          We’re not calling them MAFIAA just to be facetious. We’re calling them that, because they operate like Vito Corleone, shaking people down for “protection”. (Yes, and the difference with regular police is that we can vote the police chiefs out of office.)
          The MAFIAA is shaking artists and consumers down for stuff we don’t really need anymore: distribution and marketing.

          Oh and reviewers commentors. No one but you suggested that. Strawman!!!

      • Scary Devil Monastery

        @Friend of the People

        “…other then the obvious one that the argument doesn’t apply to countries without blank media levies.”

        That boils down to the argument on how to prevent globalization of communication as whether you have a national media levy or not, filesharing remains a fact.

        But yes, in any nation where you already have a cultural levy of this kind (which applies to all media storage and radio-capable devices) the moral basis of restricting filesharing is even more shaky.

        Even in the US however, copyright used against noncommercial use is a very shaky construction. And it keeps getting harder to enforce. I just recently noted that modern smartphones can carry a frostwire app for use in filesharing through ad hoc bluetooth networks. I can use mine to log on through my vpn and activate tTorrent. Although the speeds currently blow i can confirm that a year from now, even mobile phone users will be filesharing – through local hotspots or through flat-rate 3G/4G connections, at least in Sweden.

        On the software side it gets even better. Decentralization and client-client encryption/anonymization is nearly complete with working prototypes lying around on sourceforge in a dozen alternatives.

        The end conclusion I come to is that filesharing will remain and continue unhindered and unhampered no matter what legislation gets pushed through as long as there is any motivation at all with consumers to prefer torrent files over legal alternatives.

        Basically this is Occam’s razor at work. The industry needs to adapt and fast. The paradigm has set and there is no way of undiscovering the internet. Unfortunately for them their rabid opposition to viable legal alternatives has so far meant that the window of opportunity has closed.

  • 4Republic

    Very good, and it true! instead of letting us progress to new stage of society, a better one. They put a lock on it and prevent it from happening! and they say why is our generation became violence, stupid, and lazy. Look at what they did, prevent every single chance of knowledge from getting out free to public, only people with money can afford it. So basically those rich people will alway be rich and poor people will alway be poor, no wonder the gap in society is keep getting far apart then instead close together like back in the 1950….

    i guess this is a new type of society social control

    • Anonymous

      it’s not so bleak. you should go to swing states and convince enough people not to vote to redistribute wealth from POOR to RICH.

  • Phariad

    Mr. Falkvinge, I really appreciated your article. I think if pirates in general began advertising the music industry’s activities as “interfering in the markets”, the movement would gain a lot of traction among fiscal conservatives and libertarians, who may not be pirates, but are staunchly against government intervention in the markets. A real solution would be to significantly reduce the amount of time before media enters the public domain (perhaps as low as 10 years), and to force the copyright holders to deal exclusively in civil courts. But that’s just my take.

    • Rick Falkvinge

      Thank you, Phariad. I appreciate your feedback.

      It is always a problem when selecting a tone of voice that you need to make as much sense as possible to a large portion as possible of your audience. What that means in clear text is that you have to tell a different aspect of the story to every audience.

      With a libertarian audience, I say that it’s downright shameful that a link in the value chain that no longer produces any value to the end product is allowed to continue existing through government subsidies, private taxation and encroachment on civil liberties and the free market, and that it should be taken off life support immediately for the benefit of the free market and economy as a whole.

      With a communist audience (yes, I’ve had those too), I say it’s wonderful that the capitalist profiteers have lost the ability to profit off of the cultural workers’ labor, that these capitalists no longer can stomp on the rights of the workers to uphold their profits, and that the cultural workers are now in direct control of the means of production. The laws needs to change to reflect this glorious achievement.

      And I’m saying the exact same thing.

      (Interpolate for every kind of audience in between.)

      Language is an immensely strong social mechanism. If you hear a certain piece of logic expressed in the language of a group you do not identify with, you will disagree with that logic. Conversely, if you hear a piece of logic expressed in your own subgroup’s language, you will have passed the social barrier and start analyzing it on its own merits.

      Cheers,
      Rick

      • Anonymous

        rick, you’re analogy is not flawed, but you should realize that it’s not about the ice nor the cold, it’s about the food freshness they provide.
        Also, what’s flawed in the current model is the uneven spread of wealth: almost everything goes to the studio bosses, not much goes to artists and creators.

        • Anonymous

          “rick, you’re analogy is not flawed, but you should realize that it’s not about the ice nor the cold, it’s about the food freshness they provide.
          Also, what’s flawed in the current model is the uneven spread of wealth: almost everything goes to the studio bosses, not much goes to artists and creators.”

          Rick’s analogy is flawed, because fridge owners used their own water and electricity, their own ice cube models, so this analogy has nothing with movies or music.

          Next, you have no idea how movie distribution works. If all you know is PR statements, then ok, but then don’t pretend you know anything. So tell me, if I wanna make a movie, will Tom Cruise work for free and wait for tickets to be sold? No, every artist is being paid in advance. All creators have already been compensated when the movie hits the screens. There’s only one who hasn’t been and that’s the owner of that content, that’s the one who paid all participants. So, I hope you’ll keep quiet about that part. Lets move on.
          Since I am in movie biz, I can tell you that in my country, those fat greed studios get very little money. 60% of the ticket stays home, the theaters take them. What’s left some 30 to 40% goes to marketing (oh, right, local media lives on it) and materials (damn, local designers and producers go to work). Then I take my fee and what’s left goes to hollywood. Apart for few movies a year, they get almost nothing or absolutely nothing. Happy now? Gonna shut up now? Well, but you should

          You are only talking about current model because you can pirate. I don’t hear you about your ISPs and Mobile service that reaaaaally grab the money, overcharging services ten times. Did you know, that SMS doesn’t cost mobile carrier even a cent? Look into it.

          I can’t reply to your other post, so I’ll just post it in here.

          >>See, that’s where you are wrong. Industry doesn’t care about manufacturing or distribution.
          >BULL crap. This is SUCH a dishonest reply. Industry cares VERY MUCH bout manufacturing or distribution, cos thats where the bulk of their money comes from. They distribute movies via DVDs, and thanks to the amazing laziness of people that don’t wanna download through torrents, they make big bucks.

          So, someone who doesn’t want to break the law is now lazy. I guess you’re such a hardworking man, you get up early and punch those buttons till at least 5Tb has been pirated. You deserve a medal, you know that, right?

          About dishonosty. I would LOOOOOOOOVE for you to come to my company and see the numbers, see the effort people are putting in, how much everything costs and what service we provide to local community.
          I would love to charge for a movie ten times less, or lets say, the price we get when we strip all distribution costs away. That would be fantastic. But you know what? People are not willing to pay even 2€ for a movie to download or stream instantly. Few lazy, as you say, are, but those are very few. And when I saw 2€, they won’t do it for 1€. I guess pirates expect me to pay them 2€, so that they would watch a movie.
          When people got the taste of FREE, they’ll invent every excuse possible, to justify what they are doing.

          >1. You and Friendsofpeeps are married to the idea that only big blockbuster movies are “fantastic” or “quality”. That’s bullcrap.

          Never said that, but what I will say is, that 99% of small movies NEVER make their money back. But how are they then being made, you’ll ask. Because they are being financed with income from BIG movies. Get it? That’s why they are called tentpol movies, cause they cover all small movies from same studio.

          So how many examples like Blairwitch you can count? I’ll tell you one, Paranormal acticity (ten years later) and it was STILL marketed and distributed by the BIG studio.

          2. The movie business has never been more profitable than these days where filesharing is at it’s height.

          Really? That’s interesting. I can remember top actors being paid as much as they are now back in the 80s. You also don’t know the difference between a profit and an income, right? Just so you know, about the cost split i did earlier, the number reported by hollywood is the gross box office. It doesn’t say how much of that money stayed in certain country and how much it actually made to Hollywood.

          >Indeed, this relentless fearmongering about the Death of Industry is both FALSE and deceitful, Above all, shallow! AS IF Transformers, 2012, Harrt Potter are the epitomy of culture and quality! Yah, of the multiplex plastic culture, not a place I choose to frequent.

          Then why do we have this discussion? If you only pirated “small” movies, you know, the GOOD ones, NO ONE would care. Seriously. If you wanna pirate movies that make less than 10% of my income, here, by my guess.

        • Anonymous

          “rick, you’re analogy is not flawed, but you should realize that it’s not about the ice nor the cold, it’s about the food freshness they provide.
          Also, what’s flawed in the current model is the uneven spread of wealth: almost everything goes to the studio bosses, not much goes to artists and creators.”

          Rick’s analogy is flawed, because fridge owners used their own water and electricity, their own ice cube models, so this analogy has nothing with movies or music.

          Next, you have no idea how movie distribution works. If all you know is PR statements, then ok, but then don’t pretend you know anything. So tell me, if I wanna make a movie, will Tom Cruise work for free and wait for tickets to be sold? No, every artist is being paid in advance. All creators have already been compensated when the movie hits the screens. There’s only one who hasn’t been and that’s the owner of that content, that’s the one who paid all participants. So, I hope you’ll keep quiet about that part. Lets move on.
          Since I am in movie biz, I can tell you that in my country, those fat greed studios get very little money. 60% of the ticket stays home, the theaters take them. What’s left some 30 to 40% goes to marketing (oh, right, local media lives on it) and materials (damn, local designers and producers go to work). Then I take my fee and what’s left goes to hollywood. Apart for few movies a year, they get almost nothing or absolutely nothing. Happy now? Gonna shut up now? Well, but you should

          You are only talking about current model because you can pirate. I don’t hear you about your ISPs and Mobile service that reaaaaally grab the money, overcharging services ten times. Did you know, that SMS doesn’t cost mobile carrier even a cent? Look into it.

          I can’t reply to your other post, so I’ll just post it in here.

          >>See, that’s where you are wrong. Industry doesn’t care about manufacturing or distribution.
          >BULL crap. This is SUCH a dishonest reply. Industry cares VERY MUCH bout manufacturing or distribution, cos thats where the bulk of their money comes from. They distribute movies via DVDs, and thanks to the amazing laziness of people that don’t wanna download through torrents, they make big bucks.

          So, someone who doesn’t want to break the law is now lazy. I guess you’re such a hardworking man, you get up early and punch those buttons till at least 5Tb has been pirated. You deserve a medal, you know that, right?

          About dishonosty. I would LOOOOOOOOVE for you to come to my company and see the numbers, see the effort people are putting in, how much everything costs and what service we provide to local community.
          I would love to charge for a movie ten times less, or lets say, the price we get when we strip all distribution costs away. That would be fantastic. But you know what? People are not willing to pay even 2€ for a movie to download or stream instantly. Few lazy, as you say, are, but those are very few. And when I saw 2€, they won’t do it for 1€. I guess pirates expect me to pay them 2€, so that they would watch a movie.
          When people got the taste of FREE, they’ll invent every excuse possible, to justify what they are doing.

          >1. You and Friendsofpeeps are married to the idea that only big blockbuster movies are “fantastic” or “quality”. That’s bullcrap.

          Never said that, but what I will say is, that 99% of small movies NEVER make their money back. But how are they then being made, you’ll ask. Because they are being financed with income from BIG movies. Get it? That’s why they are called tentpol movies, cause they cover all small movies from same studio.

          So how many examples like Blairwitch you can count? I’ll tell you one, Paranormal acticity (ten years later) and it was STILL marketed and distributed by the BIG studio.

          2. The movie business has never been more profitable than these days where filesharing is at it’s height.

          Really? That’s interesting. I can remember top actors being paid as much as they are now back in the 80s. You also don’t know the difference between a profit and an income, right? Just so you know, about the cost split i did earlier, the number reported by hollywood is the gross box office. It doesn’t say how much of that money stayed in certain country and how much it actually made to Hollywood.

          >Indeed, this relentless fearmongering about the Death of Industry is both FALSE and deceitful, Above all, shallow! AS IF Transformers, 2012, Harrt Potter are the epitomy of culture and quality! Yah, of the multiplex plastic culture, not a place I choose to frequent.

          Then why do we have this discussion? If you only pirated “small” movies, you know, the GOOD ones, NO ONE would care. Seriously. If you wanna pirate movies that make less than 10% of my income, here, by my guess.

  • zero hero

    quiet possibly the worst example I have ever read. Ice is generic. I make ice here you there totaly independant, none are copied. Zero (little pun) link. Yet all are the same. No one invented the stuff.

    My god could you have have come up with a poorer example?

    Im pro sharing btw – just not a head nodding moron

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002639684444 Ryan Smith

      How about if you build a copy of your neighbor’s house using your own labor and lumber?

      Is that any different than building a copy of digital content for personal use?
      You are using your own computer and the internet connection you pay for.

      Is this any different than taking a good look at your neighbor’s house and then building a copy?

      • Cthulhu

        Of course you cannot just built a copy of your neighbors house. (obviously you’ve never built a house before!)
        First you are going to need architectural plans, -signed and stamped by a licensed architect, as well as structural engineering plans -signed and stamped by a licensed engineer, then you use those plans to get a building permit from the inspectors whose job it is to ensure that all newly built structures meet certain minimum levels of safety.
        There’s so much more to building a house then just copying the floor layout… for example: Where are the loads and how are they supported? What should the foundation design be to support the weight of the structure? Is the soil structure where you plan on building your house the same as that of your neighbors? (-once again this is for foundation design). What type of connections should be used? what size joists? Size and placement of beams?..I could go on and on for pages of other details you cannot simply “copy”.

    • Ice ice baby

      Doesn’t that mean you are making derivative works?
      Did you check the license?

      Do you make your ice in any particular shape?
      Do you have a ‘right’ to?

      Do you make your ice from water?
      Do you have that ‘right’?

      Everybody loves to enjoy ice. Copying the shape/content into your own version of the ice in an ice monopoly would surely leave you open to prosecution. Unless you paid the Ice industry of course.

  • D4v3

    Great article there, very pleasant reading, never thought of things that way.

  • Whatever

    amazes me the lengths people will go to justify thievery

    • xxX

      like the labels that rip off the artists time and time again?

    • xxX

      like the labels that rip off the artists time and time again?

    • Jmorse43508

      Amazes me the lengths TROLLS like you will go to to justify defending the MAFIAA’s failed business model.

      • Anonymous

        Based on his comment that would be very little.

        I dont mind opposing views but they should justify their claims.

        At least calling the locals “thieves” is never a good idea and not just because us sharers also tend to buy the most media. Funny how they hate the try before you buy concept.

    • Anonymous

      We are only discussing distribution. Getting the product from A to B. By payed distribution monopoly (paying the middle man on top of the artist) or free distribution over the internet (no DRM + choice in quality and filetype choices). That has nothing to to with paying artist or not.

  • Xxx

    Rick Falkvinge that would be logical but as we known govments don’t operate on logic or reason.

    your perfectly right of course you don’t go further enough to show how damaging their lies are, we see no other industry given the time of day these nobbers have.

    that why the pirate party get my vote reasoned logic.

  • Xxx

    Rick Falkvinge that would be logical but as we known govments don’t operate on logic or reason.

    your perfectly right of course you don’t go further enough to show how damaging their lies are, we see no other industry given the time of day these nobbers have.

    that why the pirate party get my vote reasoned logic.

  • Nelson Mandellar

    None of this is really important. Culture is not advancing or moving forward, it’s degenerating. The bigger issue we have as a species is over-population of this planet. There will eventually be a tipping point where war, famine, disease ect will be common place, not just in Africa.

    This discussion will be obsolete in the near future. Who cares who owns some music or film. Our biggest concern will be where will get our next piece of food from, shelter, water ect…

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sean-Brazell/100002034890242 Sean Brazell

      I hate to break it to you, but humanity is not culturally degenerating – unless you happen to be a republican in the united states. As far as over population goes – technology is evolving FAR faster than our population is expanding.

      But by all means, if you want to run around like a chicken with it’s head cut off, that’s one less moron the rest of us have to deal with!

      • Nelson Mandellar

        So if somebody is dying of starvation you answer is to give them an ipad? Sounds like you’ve got your head buried up your ass, Sean.

    • Anonymous

      I agree btw, people don’t see that helping Africa is helping themselves. Or at least helping their own children. Wealth in Africa means less children (less population explosion on planet) and solutions that work for the overpopulated country will benefit the overpopulated planet in the end.

      And with helping i mean solutions to their problems.

  • Guest123

    So long as we’re talking bad analogies, here’s one of mine; art is like a parking garage. People pay, and get to use the parking garage. That money helps the garage stay open. Piracy is like a guy who notes that the garage is never full and that no one ever checks if the cars have paid. He decides that it won’t hurt anything if he parks there and doesn’t pay. He even justifies it by telling other people about it. And, for a while, the garage does make more money from Mr. Pirate, and all are happy. However, before long, another customer notes that Mr. Pirate isn’t paying, and wonders why he has to pay if Mr. Pirate doesn’t. He decides that he isn’t going to pay either. He doesn’t want to be the bitch in this equation, and after all, the garage can support itself. So, he doesn’t pay. And then another person notices. And another. And the younger generation is brought up knowing that they don’t have to pay. And in the end, the garage is bulldozed for being unprofitable.

    • TNSe

      The garage was never full, and if it had a business model that relied on it always being full, it would have failed, “pirate” parking there or not. I don’t see how your bad analogy is a counter to his “bad” analogy.

      • Guest123

        No, the garage was never full, and didn’t rely on being full. It could have easily survived half full. The problem was that the customers stopped paying.

        • TNSe

          But that is the broken logic copywrongers is going by. That piracy is infectious and will make everyone stop paying. Just go look at the study that showed most Limewire users were the biggest spenders in iTunes. Not only did they park there for free, but they later paid up when they realized they wanted it.

          But no, instead copywrongers wish that the people that make the roads keep track of who is driving in and out of their garage. Just because of their incorrect logic that a copied product equals a lost sale. To make it understandable to your analogy, you could say that the garage has unlimited parking space. So even when people park there for free, it still has more open spots for people who pay.

        • Guest123

          You don’t understand how those studies work; they don’t say that piracy makes people into paying customers, they just say that people who pirate pay more. People who consume more culture pirate, not the other way around. It’s correlation vs causation, and you don’t seem to understand how that works.

          If we go back to the analogy, the number of spaces was never the problem. The problem comes when people make the decision that they don’t have to pay. We can already see that in examples where someone tries to support themselves with a donation model and fails miserably.

          The only reason people pay instead of pirate is convenience, and if piracy is made acceptable, that barrier will disappear.

        • Anonymous

          Bad analogy btw, we are discussing distribution of art. And distribution can be done for free. As in i do not need to send a photographic enlargement from Europe to the US to a client. But i can simply send the digital negative to a print lab in the US. Do i now have to pay a sending tax to the post office for cutting them out?

        • TNSe

          So what you are saying, is that people who park more, pay more. Those who park less pay less.

          Weirdly enough that is acceptable throughout the entire industry, except for copywrongers.

        • Guest123

          No TNSe, you’re still making the same assumption. You’re still assuming that piracy causes higher purchases by an individual, instead of there being a correlation. The point I’m trying to make is that the people who would have already bought more than the become pirates, and piracy does not cause them to purchase any more than they would have, as you seem to interpret the studies as saying it will do. When people who purchase at or below the average become pirates, that won’t cause them to buy more.

          Again, it’s correlation vs. causation, and again, you don’t seem to understand how that applies to these studies.

          @anonymous

          Yeah, like I said, it’s a bad analogy. Not gonna dispute that. Remember though, it’s not all about distribution, it’s about other services that pirates don’t offer, like investment and stuff like that.

        • Guest123

          No TNSe, you’re still making the same assumption. You’re still assuming that piracy causes higher purchases by an individual, instead of there being a correlation. The point I’m trying to make is that the people who would have already bought more than the become pirates, and piracy does not cause them to purchase any more than they would have, as you seem to interpret the studies as saying it will do. When people who purchase at or below the average become pirates, that won’t cause them to buy more.

          Again, it’s correlation vs. causation, and again, you don’t seem to understand how that applies to these studies.

          @anonymous

          Yeah, like I said, it’s a bad analogy. Not gonna dispute that. Remember though, it’s not all about distribution, it’s about other services that pirates don’t offer, like investment and stuff like that.

        • TNSe

          Actually, you are using your interpretation and I am using my interpretation. Thats the thing, both are right. So if both are right, that means that the problem is another place. That is what I am trying to point out, but I don’t think you are trying to understand that.

          People pirate because its simpler, it gives results faster, it gives you the product you want right now. To compare it to your analogy. The legal paying customers would have to drive an extra distance, pay additional fee to get their ticket, and then drive back to park. Meanwhile, the pirate simply drives in and parks.

          This is the part of the business model which is flawed. And that is what Falkvinge wants to show us. The business model is causing additional costs for the customer, and also causes additional hoops for the customers to go through to get the same product the pirate has to use 0 effort to get.

          Ice makers have to go into the lake, dig up the ice, store the ice using inferior methods, cut the ice up, and sell it on the street, at which point the customer has to bring it back home, and use it before it melts.

          versus

          Customer cools his goods at home. Without ever leaving the house.

          What is happening, is that additional laws are being made to preserve a broken business model. A model that apparently makes enough money to hire mass amounts of lawyers for scrap money, just to hurt their most paying customers.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          “The only reason people pay instead of pirate is convenience, and if piracy is made acceptable, that barrier will disappear.”

          I beg to differ. For the most part, pirated products are vastly more convenient already. No DRM, no hassle jumping through hoops finding proper regionalization, no “multiple licenses” etc et ad nauseam.

          The proper way a garage which will never lack parking space (which is where your analogy breaks down completely unless amended) survives is by then adding services such as car cleaning, oil refills, vacuum hoses for interior cleaning, a coffee shop for people just waiting around, and various simple mechanical services. With (to continue and extrapolate the garage-filesharing parallell) zero maintenance cost and only the initial construction to compensate for it would be a miracle if the garage under that paradigm did not turn a healthy profit.

          When you are debating “No paying customers, garage forecloses” you are running the argument of Locke’s madman – you are not using correct premises in your analysis.

    • gae

      Piracy is more like a guy that notices that you can park in the garage for free for as long as you want, any time you like – whilst the owner of the garage is charging everyone else £30 per hour to park there and only allowing you to stay between the hours of 3 and 7 am with a car that has to have a blue paint job and you are also not allowed to park there if there is more than 1 person in your car unless you pay double the ammount for each extra person. oh and if you get a new car then it is no longer possible to park in that garage, you must park in the garage that the maker of your new car specifies and arriving in somebody elses car will get you sued…

      • Guest123

        Not quite that limiting my friend. If you think it is that limiting, start a business that doesn’t have those limits, and get people to join. Kinda says something that no one does.

        Seriously though, is there some reason why piracy has to happen without the consent of the artists? Is it some joke I’m not in on, or is there some reason why no one can start up a voluntary service? It wouldn’t have everything, but it would be a good start.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          “Kinda says something that no one does.”

          Spotify spent years trying to create a model such as that and only succeeded because they started based in Sweden which up to a point had reasonable laws. The same attempts to create “better” services in the US have failed abysmally simply because, to continue the analogy above, as soon as someone starts that sort of service, one presumed stakeholder tacks on the demand for all parking cars to be painted blue, another demands only one person allowed in the vehicle, a third tacks on the premise that the license to park is only valid if you can be proven to only park your car in that garage…and so on.

          In short, the fact that IP generates a monopoly effectively prevents any but the most rudimentary of legal media services to survive – or those already backed by massive fiscal leverage.

          As far as media is concerned we are living in a plan economy. Filesharing is a natural outgrowth of the total absence of a free market for such product distribution.

      • KJV

        Can you please tell me… are you really gay?

    • Danny

      I always try and get free parking in town do you not?
      Parking charges are a rip off these days, in the south east of England anyway.

      The music industries should be bulldozed you are perfectly right!

  • Pingback: Nobody Asked For A Refrigerator Fee

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

    And it’s not a parking garage. At all. Piracy has been about underserved customers who want to consume media and entertainment however they want to.

    Tell me, in the last 5 years, have you heard of a major MPAA bittorrent? Or has it always been about fake media being distributed on bittorrent? Have you heard about the MPAA offering movies on the smartphones? Or have they looked only to the outdated DVD model as streaming becomes mainstream?

    The fact is, every non-industry report says your analogy is just plain wrong. Movies have done better globally, more artists have been formed, and there’s more avenues to choose to be an artist despite your one sided parking garage analogy.

    So to better update this, at first, there was only one parking garage. The charge was pretty high, but the people had to pay for that access to the only place available. However, over time, more parking garages were built at different prices. They had different services and luxuries. Some had valet parking. Others had inside parking. Still others offered small treats to entice more sales.

    The people are used to these choices and make payments based on what’s offered. So the impetus is on the garage owner to upgrade their offering or sell off this model and find one that works.

    • Guest123

      “Piracy has been about underserved customers who want to consume media and entertainment however they want to.”

      See now, I don’t buy that. I don’t buy that it’s about wanting to watch a movie on a smartphone. I don’t buy that it’s about wanting a specific format. It’s about money. That’s the central issue, and always has been. People don’t want to pay as much, or simply don’t want to pay. They want to get what they want for free, and now, they have a method to do so. People are making the logical decision that because they don’t have to pay, they won’t. It’s logical, but shortsighted.

      You also misunderstood the analogy. We’re only in the middle stage of the analogy right now. Profits go up in the short term due to viral marketing, but that works on the assumption that the people the pirate advertises it to will pay. As time goes on, the problems inherent with a model that doesn’t require payment will become more obvious.

      That also doesn’t address why piracy has to force artists into a business model they don’t want to be into. Why can’t someone start a legal and voluntary service that artists could join? If it’s so much better, then you should overtake the MAFIAA within months. It’s kinda telling to me that no entrepreneur sees that as a worthy investment.

      • Guest


        That also doesn’t address why piracy has to force artists into a business model they don’t want to be into. Why can’t someone start a legal and voluntary service that artists could join? If it’s so much better, then you should overtake the MAFIAA within months. It’s kinda telling to me that no entrepreneur sees that as a worthy investment. show more show less
        Flag

        Copyright only exist in order to promote the progress of the arts of science, and logically the degree of state enforcement is entirely dependent on what and how much the taxpayers want.

        If a majority of taxpayers don’t want to pay for the enforcement and the necessary correlary costs i.e third party liability, due process and privacy violations, DRM-circumvention laws, mandatory telco data retention – the copyright holders must either limit enforcing their claims to large commercial copyright infringement or change their business model.

        You might wel not have a natural right to download movies, but neither does the copyright holder have a inherent natural right to demand that the taxpayers pay for enforcing his intellectual property.

        • Friend of the People

          You are correct about the purpose of copyright, but you seem to misunderstand the way the consent of the majority works. If the majority of taxpayers don’t want to pay for enforcement (and it’s oftentimes not taxpayers, but the organizations like the MAFIAA, seeing as this is a civil contract), it’s on them to be willing to fire a politician over it. If they aren’t, then they haven’t opposed it to the degree that a representative democracy requires. Politicains haven’t been fired (at least, not in my country), so that burden on the people to demand change hasn’t been filled.

          Secondly, there is no evidence that that purpose of promoting the progress of the arts and sciences has been made obsolete by any new technologies or methods. It should fall to businesses to make this happen. Businesses should naturally erode the need for copyright by making it possible for the progross to happen at the same rate as now without the need for the copyright restriction. Until that is fulfilled, copyright still has a purpose.

          I’m not justifiying the methods used to enforce copyright, which sometimes do step into the bounds of unusual punishment, but I see no evidence that the standards you apply in your argument are fulfilled.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

        “People don’t want to pay as much, or simply don’t want to pay. ”
        False, or else crowdsourcing projects such as those on Kickstarter, Eventhubs, or even the Humble Indie Bundle would not exist. And yet again, there’s plenty of reports that show that the music industry (which is not the recording industry) continues to make money away from less copyright, not more.

        “People are making the logical decision that because they don’t have to pay, they won’t.”

        People are recognizing an artificial scarcity being taken away. I can find practically any music I want since the internet. I can listen to Turntable, with friends, and find newer music I’ve never heard before. Does this mean you can’t make money on other scarcities? Can you not make money in a concert? Can you not have people pay for CDs *IN* a concert since they’re already a fan? Just a few examples.

        “Profits go up in the short term due to viral marketing, but that works on the assumption that the people the pirate advertises it to will pay. As time goes on, the problems inherent with a model that doesn’t require payment will become more obvious.”

        I don’t know what you’re trying to say. There’s problems with a “pay what you want” model just as there’s problems with the incentivized models I’ve pointed to above. Artists have a choice of how they want people to support them. It’s not copyright and labels, they can choose other ways. I’ll direct you to those. If you want the reports, I can do that as well, but right now I’ll criticize by saying you’re too focused on the ones that won’t pay, not focused enough on the ones that do.

        “That also doesn’t address why piracy has to force artists into a business model they don’t want to be into. ”

        No one is forced into a new business model, but thank you for recognizing this is an economic problem, not a legal problem.

        ” If it’s so much better, then you should overtake the MAFIAA within months”

        I want you to really think about this… The MAFIAA have been around for 80+ years. They’ve continued to block legal services from being offered for the last 10 years. You have the likes of the RIAA, MPAA, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, who clamor to the USTR, Congress, and Justice Department to censor what people can legally do through legal trickery and point at “rogue sites” (which is only an industry term) as the cause of all of their legal problems.

        Now if you have a service that overpays the CEO (look up Mitch Rosen’s salary), is only sustainable by government subsistence, infringes on how you enjoy your entertainment (Napster anyone?), as well as paints you out to be a criminal for using services to hear about new products…

        How could they sustain themselves when they would need to compete?

        “It’s kinda telling to me that no entrepreneur sees that as a worthy investment.”

        They’re kind of busy complaining how PROTECT IP will break the internet. The others are busy making services. Perhaps you should look up Michael Robertson.

        http://www.michaelrobertson.com/archive.php?minute_id=349

        • Friend of the People

          A few things. First, the Humble Indie Bundle had a few extenuating circumstances. It consisted of low cost games, it was for charity, it demanded payment (you couldn’t pay nothing), and it was an event instead of an ordinary occurrence, like the sale of a normal. All of these serve to make it hard to apply their success as a marker for what all businesses should be able to achieve.

          Secondly, you talk about making music in a concert, without acknowledging that most forms of culture don’t have an equivalent to concerts. Movies have theaters, which except for the size of the screen are an inferior experience. Games don’t have any such events, and their only service is multiplayer, which can’t be applied to all games.

          You’re correct that people are making the sensible personal economic decision by not paying for culture. However, that doesn’t mean that their decision comes without consequences, and the primary consequence will be a degradation in the quality and quantity of culture. More people will have access to less and worse culture. I suppose someone could make an argument defending that, but it won’t be me.

          One last thing.

          “They’ve continued to block legal services from being offered for the last 10 years.”

          What exactally have they blocked? I have a few ideas about what you might be trying to say, but I’ll hold my comments until I know for sure.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

          “All of these serve to make it hard to apply their success as a marker for what all businesses should be able to achieve.”

          Taking the HIB model and applying it to all businesses won’t work. There’s a lot more examples, such as the new Korean documentary on why Korean people do so well with studying:

          http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1877491487/documentary-on-korean-education?ref=live

          The models should be able to adapt to the needs of the project, not a one size fits all which is copyright.

          “Secondly, you talk about making music in a concert, without acknowledging that most forms of culture don’t have an equivalent to concerts.”

          Because the ways to make money from games or movies are different. Within a concert, you can buy a CD, T-shirt, or trinkets of your favorite artist. Some artists go the extra mile and make it more entertaining through extra added games (Google “Trent reznor model”) but the fact is, this can work with games and movies as well.

          Valve put together a promotion of games to support not only their smaller companies, but clamor for Portal 2:
          http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/04/why-complaints-about-valves-portal-2-arg-miss-the-point.ars

          With movies, the sky is actually the limit. There is no reason to delay a release of a movie from theater to DVD save a proposed profit motive. It’s been said for a while now that having a DVD available at the movie theater on opening day would increase sales. Currently, none of the major studios want to test out this theory. The size of the screen wouldn’t matter to some people. They like the option of having a movie available for their phone, with a smaller screen but more convenience. Why not provide that?

          ” More people will have access to less and worse culture”

          I’m having trouble seeing how that has actually worked… Here’s Gabriel Iglesias. He does standup:
          http://www.youtube.com/fluffyguy

          You can watch his Youtube of videos, but now that you know he exists, would you not want to see him live? Or share that with a friend? Does that link take away value, or make him less funny? Does somehow finding his DVD on Youtube somehow make it more difficult to find the DVD or does it increase the value of having the DVD for your local friends?

          “What exactally have they blocked? I have a few ideas about what you might be trying to say, but I’ll hold my comments until I know for sure.”

          Napster, iMeem, Grooveshark, Grokster…

          In the US, the recording labels run the show. This is why Spotify in the US is very limited when compared to what it was in Europe. Google Music would have a lot more options, yet it’s also lost a lot in the RIAA’s drive to criminalize filesharing.

          Cyberlockers have to spend time to police infringement, rather than finding new ways to profit. And don’t get me started on Performance Rights Organizations legally extorting small businesses…

        • Ven

          “Can you not make money in a concert? Can you not have people pay for CDs *IN* a concert since they’re already a fan? Just a few examples.”

          Not really. Playing gigs now rarely involves getting paid for a show, and often bands are paying a percentage of their merch sales to the venue. If physical and digital sales were to dry up and live shows were the new cash cow, the venues would up their prices. They would group together and lobby to restrict who could get permits for live shows.

          The “middle-men” are in reality the front men providing multiple services to the largest groups: venues to play for the artists and venues to see artists play for the viewer. Essentially it’s exactly what the labels do now, which is why no matter how the cookie crumbles the fans will be the ones paying, the artists will be the ones being paid poorly, and the entrepreneurs making it all happen will get rich.

        • Ven

          “Can you not make money in a concert? Can you not have people pay for CDs *IN* a concert since they’re already a fan? Just a few examples.”

          Not really. Playing gigs now rarely involves getting paid for a show, and often bands are paying a percentage of their merch sales to the venue. If physical and digital sales were to dry up and live shows were the new cash cow, the venues would up their prices. They would group together and lobby to restrict who could get permits for live shows.

          The “middle-men” are in reality the front men providing multiple services to the largest groups: venues to play for the artists and venues to see artists play for the viewer. Essentially it’s exactly what the labels do now, which is why no matter how the cookie crumbles the fans will be the ones paying, the artists will be the ones being paid poorly, and the entrepreneurs making it all happen will get rich.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

          @Ven
          It should be noted that the point of that paragraph that you’re quoting is to show places that artists can make more money. You can offer CDs, DVDs, your guitar that you’re playing, but the point is you can have your fanbase support you in a number of ways in a concert that don’t rely on copyright.

        • Ven

          @Jay

          I understand the idea, although it is somewhat narrow in scope. First, the easiest way for an artist to make money currently is through copyright. Sure, there are folks like Reznor who spent decades being pumped through the label publicity system and can now make millions in ways that seem creative but really rely on his already overwhelming appeal. Realistically speaking, most new artists who want to make money are going to be supporting copyright.

          Of course, what artists/businessmen want really won’t affect the direction that laws take, so maybe copyright does get wiped off the books and artists now have to do without. It is still unrealistic to think that other revenue streams would go unaffected should copyright be put to death.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

          @Ven
          No… Jamendo, Kickstarter and a number of other avenues of incentivized crowdsourcing have become quite popular. They don’t rely on copyright, they rely on the first rule of economics.

          Copyright doesn’t do anything except act as a retroactive censor. I’m pretty sure as technology becomes more efficient, more people will find alternative methods than using copyright as a crutch.

      • Scary Devil Monastery

        “That also doesn’t address why piracy has to force artists into a business model they don’t want to be into. Why can’t someone start a legal and voluntary service that artists could join? If it’s so much better, then you should overtake the MAFIAA within months. It’s kinda telling to me that no entrepreneur sees that as a worthy investment.”

        If everyone could fly of their own power Airlines would have a tougher job selling tickets. They might not appreciate having to shift their services to heavy cargo and luxury, but that’s the way the altered paradigm – in our case, the internet and mass communication – pans out.

        And here’s news for you. People have been trying to start legal voluntary services such as you describe for years. It’s always failed because – surprise, surprise – every attempt includes the “stakeholders” (i.e. MPAA/RIAA) wanting several times the potential net income for those services along with some very unreasonable restrictions.

        Spotify is a service such as you describe. It’s been struggling for years, not because of lack of subscribers but because the companies allowing artists on it at all are eating mostly all of the profits.

        As long as the stakeholders who right now gain their leverage from copyright exist, we will never see a good legal alternative because it’s hard to persuade any CEO to release his death-grip on his 500% margin from the CD/DVD-sale.

        I don’t see the RIAA/MPAA going bellyup on us any time soon and so it follows that the only viable alternative is to ignore them and keep right on encouraging the general flow of technology as a good legal alternative will never survive. Spotify has now started it’s launch into the US and as a result every term and condition suffered by every user worldwide is that much worse. Conditions I wager will continue to degrade as the Spotify cake is still by far too small to support the gap left by the dropping CD-sales.

  • Pomona

    In my opinion the key is that there are now much more efficient ways of distributing and sharing information than yesterday. (information such as culture, music, knowledge, data, science, information about medicine, farming info…).
    How does it benefit humanity, if “middlemen” can claim to “own” information. Does’nt it benefit humanity more if information is shared as much as possible?
    Does humanity gain more if Information is “processed” in specific directions by an owner?
    Or does humanity gain more if Information is shared and processed by the swarm, in any directions?
    Is it bad if an Owner limits the use of information?
    Is it bad if a Swarm “over-use” information, kind of “water it out”?
    Not sure what I want to say here. But it think that the old days are gone, and the key is that there are now much more efficient ways for humanity to use knowledge and information.

  • Guest

    If you still want what the broken model provides… it’s not broken.

    Sure it it is broken, if the only way you can keep it feasable is imposing the enforcement costs on society and innocent thrid parties.
    If all communications providers by law are mandated to spy on their users, and disconnect them based on less than clear and convincing evidence, your business model is essentially an extortion racket.
    But I agree with you up to a point. The business model may be viable, but let the parties with the direct economic interest pay for its enforcement.

  • Prerok

    I am amazed the author of this article knows how to use the keyboard or has the audacity to write something so irrelevant with the copyright law in tries to sell it as an eye-opener. Dude, are you kidding me? Are you seriously, absolutely seriously comparing fridge with copyright? omg.
    There are like hundreds of same analogies that don’t have to go back 100 years to prove the same thing, but they still don’t have anything to do with the copyright.
    Has anyone complained that the snail mail lost market to email? Postacards to mms? wtf? This is the argument?
    It’s not about the means of distribution. You were never buying VHS tapes or CDs or DVDs. You (well, obviously not you) were buying CONTENT. The price consisted of production, distribution AND content value. How much did a song cost on first CDs in the 80s if you divided the price with the number of songs on it? What is the price of one song today on, say, itunes? It’s unbelievable that you keep looking for means to reduce the content to the distribution.
    Of course ice cubes went out of biz, so did horse shoes.
    Of course, to an inferior mind it’s easier to relate to an object of purchase, be it a hamburger or a DVD, it’s all the same to him. But since he can copy a DVD then this immediatelly means it should be given to him for free.
    Don’t you think it’s time to grow up and understand that there are people behind production and distribution content and that their work should be paid just like your parents’ so they could pay your bills.

    • Fredrika

      > “You were never buying VHS tapes or CDs or DVDs.”

      Actually, yes, you were. Consumer legislations are crystal clear on that point, that it was the physical goods that you purchased, which you thereafter owned.

      > “You (well, obviously not you) were buying CONTENT.”

      The content is made up of intellectual works, which in turn can never be bought. Look it up in a dictionary or current legislation, and you’ll will find this to be a fact.

      > “The price consisted of production, distribution AND content value.”

      The price consisted of the amount the seller demanded for the physical copy. That’s it. Actual legislation is extremely clear on that point. How those money thereafter was split up between other parties, and for what different costs, was never something that the customer had any insight to, or responsibility for.

      > “It’s unbelievable that you keep looking for means to reduce the content to the distribution.”

      He is not? It’s you who confuse physical copies, and the distribution of those, with content. The consumers have always paid for the physical copies, and therefore the middlemen could turn manufacturing and distribution of physical copies into a working and sought after business model.

      Today consumers can manufacture and distribute those physical copies themselves at zero cost. Therefore the business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies no longer brings any needed value to the table.

      > “But since he can copy a DVD then this immediatelly means it should be given to him for free.”

      No one has ever made such claim. Nothing is given to filesharer’s? They manufacture their own physical copies that they freely share among themselves. They do not demand any other party should to do that for them. The cost for this distribution and manufacturing is free, and that price is not up for discussion, since it can never be anything other than free. When you manufacture something on your own, it is not given to you.

      > “..there are people behind production and distribution content and that their work should be paid..”

      If anyone has been hired by someone to perform a contracted worktask in return for salary, they should turn to their employer for the payment. That is not a copyright related problem.

      If someone has voluntarily of their own free will provided work, with the hope of making money from use of their work, they alone have an own responsibility of trying to use their work in a functioning business model, that they can profit from. That is not the consumers, the filesharer’s, or the legislators responsibility. If they can’t come up with such a functioning and sought after business model, that generate any sales of a product or service, they obviously have no right to monetary reward, and should not get paid.

      Was there something else you’ve misunderstood?

      • Prerok

        >Today consumers can manufacture and distribute those physical copies themselves at zero cost. Therefore the business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies no longer brings any needed value to the table.

        Oh, really? So the value of the content is zero simply because it can be copied? Is that what you are trying to say?
        No one says that the old business model should stay in place, with the technology advancement, that’s a given. But to confuse the ability of copying with something else is astounding.

        >> “But since he can copy a DVD then this immediatelly means it should be given to him for free.”

        >No one has ever made such claim. Nothing is given to filesharer’s? They manufacture their own physical copies that they freely share among themselves. They do not demand any other party should to do that for them. The cost for this distribution and manufacturing is free, and that price is not up for discussion, since it can never be anything other than free. When you manufacture something on your own, it is not given to you.

        It wasn’t the point that DVD should be given, but that someone is immediatelly entitled to copy it simply because he can. Can’t you understand that the ability to produce physical media that holds the copyrighted material means nothing. No one is debating this.
        If you trully want to produce something on your own, then make a whole song yourself. Shoot your own movie and share it with whomever you want. Obviously the biggest obsticle was distribution.

        >> “..there are people behind production and distribution content and that their work should be paid..”

        >If anyone has been hired by someone to perform a contracted worktask in return for salary, they should turn to their employer for the payment. That is not a copyright related problem.

        >If someone has voluntarily of their own free will provided work, with the hope of making money from use of their… show more

        Really? Seriously… really? If I go to studio with the material I have been working on for years, pay the studio, record my own songs and then some punk that doesn’t believe in copyright simply copies everything I recorded and “shares” it online, that’s it? I should obviously be happy cause my music will be heard and that’s what OTHERS are telling me is enough.

        What is someone is not willing to share their work? What is someone doesn’t want his work to be copied or distributed in any way? Then what?

        You are willing to tell others how to change their business to best accomodate you and when they do, you find another way of finding excuses.

        If I don’t like a product, I don’t buy it and I don’t use it. You’re not willing to pay for a movie, then don’t, but don’t watch it. Watch something from under creative commons.

        Or to use your analogy. If there is a concert and you are not willing to pay for the ticket. If there is still some room in the auditorium, they should let you in for free.

        Or, if you’re used to order a pizza from across the town and pay $10. The moment you get a car and can drive to that pizzeria, you should get free pizza, because you drove to that place yourself? You don’t think it should be maybe a dollar cheaper and that’s it?

        If you want to use the law when it comes to DVDs then follow the law when it comes to copyright as well.

        I have no problem with changing the law and saying that everything that can be copied can be shared. That’s completely fine. Lets make it clear to all content makers that that’s what they will face legally in the future.
        You can’t expect someone to invest 150mio dollars in a movie and then tell them to change their business model, because you’re going to watch their movie for free.
        May I ask in which case you are willing to pay for music, movie or software?
        I know, if you trully like something you’ll buy it later, or go to the concert (even if they may had an accident and are not able to perform…) or whateva.

        Creating content IS work. Many times it takes more heart, more sweat and far more knowledge to produce it than any downloader is ever willing to put in their work. That work should be compensated and there is no business model where a $100mio product will repay itself (even without profit) by any of the free models out there.

      • Prerok

        >Today consumers can manufacture and distribute those physical copies themselves at zero cost. Therefore the business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies no longer brings any needed value to the table.

        Oh, really? So the value of the content is zero simply because it can be copied? Is that what you are trying to say?
        No one says that the old business model should stay in place, with the technology advancement, that’s a given. But to confuse the ability of copying with something else is astounding.

        >> “But since he can copy a DVD then this immediatelly means it should be given to him for free.”

        >No one has ever made such claim. Nothing is given to filesharer’s? They manufacture their own physical copies that they freely share among themselves. They do not demand any other party should to do that for them. The cost for this distribution and manufacturing is free, and that price is not up for discussion, since it can never be anything other than free. When you manufacture something on your own, it is not given to you.

        It wasn’t the point that DVD should be given, but that someone is immediatelly entitled to copy it simply because he can. Can’t you understand that the ability to produce physical media that holds the copyrighted material means nothing. No one is debating this.
        If you trully want to produce something on your own, then make a whole song yourself. Shoot your own movie and share it with whomever you want. Obviously the biggest obsticle was distribution.

        >> “..there are people behind production and distribution content and that their work should be paid..”

        >If anyone has been hired by someone to perform a contracted worktask in return for salary, they should turn to their employer for the payment. That is not a copyright related problem.

        >If someone has voluntarily of their own free will provided work, with the hope of making money from use of their… show more

        Really? Seriously… really? If I go to studio with the material I have been working on for years, pay the studio, record my own songs and then some punk that doesn’t believe in copyright simply copies everything I recorded and “shares” it online, that’s it? I should obviously be happy cause my music will be heard and that’s what OTHERS are telling me is enough.

        What is someone is not willing to share their work? What is someone doesn’t want his work to be copied or distributed in any way? Then what?

        You are willing to tell others how to change their business to best accomodate you and when they do, you find another way of finding excuses.

        If I don’t like a product, I don’t buy it and I don’t use it. You’re not willing to pay for a movie, then don’t, but don’t watch it. Watch something from under creative commons.

        Or to use your analogy. If there is a concert and you are not willing to pay for the ticket. If there is still some room in the auditorium, they should let you in for free.

        Or, if you’re used to order a pizza from across the town and pay $10. The moment you get a car and can drive to that pizzeria, you should get free pizza, because you drove to that place yourself? You don’t think it should be maybe a dollar cheaper and that’s it?

        If you want to use the law when it comes to DVDs then follow the law when it comes to copyright as well.

        I have no problem with changing the law and saying that everything that can be copied can be shared. That’s completely fine. Lets make it clear to all content makers that that’s what they will face legally in the future.
        You can’t expect someone to invest 150mio dollars in a movie and then tell them to change their business model, because you’re going to watch their movie for free.
        May I ask in which case you are willing to pay for music, movie or software?
        I know, if you trully like something you’ll buy it later, or go to the concert (even if they may had an accident and are not able to perform…) or whateva.

        Creating content IS work. Many times it takes more heart, more sweat and far more knowledge to produce it than any downloader is ever willing to put in their work. That work should be compensated and there is no business model where a $100mio product will repay itself (even without profit) by any of the free models out there.

      • Prerok

        >Today consumers can manufacture and distribute those physical copies themselves at zero cost. Therefore the business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies no longer brings any needed value to the table.

        Oh, really? So the value of the content is zero simply because it can be copied? Is that what you are trying to say?
        No one says that the old business model should stay in place, with the technology advancement, that’s a given. But to confuse the ability of copying with something else is astounding.

        >> “But since he can copy a DVD then this immediatelly means it should be given to him for free.”

        >No one has ever made such claim. Nothing is given to filesharer’s? They manufacture their own physical copies that they freely share among themselves. They do not demand any other party should to do that for them. The cost for this distribution and manufacturing is free, and that price is not up for discussion, since it can never be anything other than free. When you manufacture something on your own, it is not given to you.

        It wasn’t the point that DVD should be given, but that someone is immediatelly entitled to copy it simply because he can. Can’t you understand that the ability to produce physical media that holds the copyrighted material means nothing. No one is debating this.
        If you trully want to produce something on your own, then make a whole song yourself. Shoot your own movie and share it with whomever you want. Obviously the biggest obsticle was distribution.

        >> “..there are people behind production and distribution content and that their work should be paid..”

        >If anyone has been hired by someone to perform a contracted worktask in return for salary, they should turn to their employer for the payment. That is not a copyright related problem.

        >If someone has voluntarily of their own free will provided work, with the hope of making money from use of their… show more

        Really? Seriously… really? If I go to studio with the material I have been working on for years, pay the studio, record my own songs and then some punk that doesn’t believe in copyright simply copies everything I recorded and “shares” it online, that’s it? I should obviously be happy cause my music will be heard and that’s what OTHERS are telling me is enough.

        What is someone is not willing to share their work? What is someone doesn’t want his work to be copied or distributed in any way? Then what?

        You are willing to tell others how to change their business to best accomodate you and when they do, you find another way of finding excuses.

        If I don’t like a product, I don’t buy it and I don’t use it. You’re not willing to pay for a movie, then don’t, but don’t watch it. Watch something from under creative commons.

        Or to use your analogy. If there is a concert and you are not willing to pay for the ticket. If there is still some room in the auditorium, they should let you in for free.

        Or, if you’re used to order a pizza from across the town and pay $10. The moment you get a car and can drive to that pizzeria, you should get free pizza, because you drove to that place yourself? You don’t think it should be maybe a dollar cheaper and that’s it?

        If you want to use the law when it comes to DVDs then follow the law when it comes to copyright as well.

        I have no problem with changing the law and saying that everything that can be copied can be shared. That’s completely fine. Lets make it clear to all content makers that that’s what they will face legally in the future.
        You can’t expect someone to invest 150mio dollars in a movie and then tell them to change their business model, because you’re going to watch their movie for free.
        May I ask in which case you are willing to pay for music, movie or software?
        I know, if you trully like something you’ll buy it later, or go to the concert (even if they may had an accident and are not able to perform…) or whateva.

        Creating content IS work. Many times it takes more heart, more sweat and far more knowledge to produce it than any downloader is ever willing to put in their work. That work should be compensated and there is no business model where a $100mio product will repay itself (even without profit) by any of the free models out there.

        • Fredrika

          > “So the value of the content is zero simply because it can be copied?”

          No, i have never discussed the value of the content? Are you having a hard time separating the content from the physical copy?

          > “But to confuse the ability of copying with something else is astounding.”

          I’m not responsibly for any such confusion, nor is Rick. The only one who confuses copying with something else is you.

          > “It wasn’t the point that DVD should be given, but that someone is immediatelly entitled to copy it simply because he can.”

          No pirate has ever argued that he is entitled to a copy, since society doesn’t work in that order, that everything is forbidden, until you are entitled to it?

          The starting point is that people, if they wish, can manufacture copies, and distribute those. Then prohibition possibly appears in the copyright legislation, and forbids people to manufacture and distribute copies.

          The only thing that should be justified is that prohibition. People should never have to justify why they shouldn’t be hindered by prohibition, or in this case, have to be entitled to a copy. Your rhetoric reverses the order of society, and is therefore a dishonest argument and a logical fallacy.

          > “Can’t you understand that the ability to produce physical media that holds the copyrighted material means nothing. No one is debating this.”

          Ooh, it definitely means something. It means that there is no longer any need for the business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies, since the consumers can perform that work themselves. So the distribution industry is upset about this fact, and demand that their monopoly and business model of manufacturing and distribution should be protected even more, despite that it isn’t needed any more. That’s is the only thing that the filesharing debate, and this article, is about.

          > “If I go to studio with the material I have been working on for years, pay the studio, record my own songs and then some punk that doesn’t believe in copyright simply copies everything I recorded and “shares” it online, that’s it? I should obviously be happy cause my music will be heard and that’s what OTHERS are telling me is enough.”

          It is not the consumers copies you have produced. It’s the content. If you wish to make money from your content, you have the possibility to use that content in a number of current available business models, or future ones not yet invented. For such a business venture to succeed and produce revenues is the entrepreneurs own responsibility. Trying to get revenues from the particular business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies however is not a very smart one to invest in, since the public can perform that task themselves, as we’ve previously established.

          Obviously people aren’t gonna be that interested in paying for a business model that charges money for a work that they can produce themselves, free of charge.

          > “What is someone is not willing to share their work? What is someone doesn’t want his work to be copied or distributed in any way? Then what?”

          Then he obviously shouldn’t publish the work in the first place? If he chooses to do so, society does with it as they see fit, whether that constitutes making it freely available through libraries, without asking the authors permission, or distribute it through non-profit filesharing. This is not something that the author does, it is the public that does it.

          > “You are willing to tell others how to change their business to best accomodate you..”

          I’m not telling anyone what to do. They decides themselves what they do.

          > ..and when they do, you find another way of finding excuses.”

          I have no need to find excuses?

          > “You’re not willing to pay for a movie, then don’t, but don’t watch it.”

          Let me rewrite that for you: People are not willing to pay for manufacturing and distributing of physical copies, since they can produce perform those tasks themselves. People have never paid for the movie, which i explained to you in the beginning of my previous comment.

          > “Or to use your analogy. If there is a concert and you are not willing to pay for the ticket. If there is still some room in the auditorium, they should let you in for free.”

          That is not my analogy?

          > “Lets make it clear to all content makers that that’s what they will face legally in the future.”

          All content makers are well aware of the fact that copyright legislation can change any second, retroactively, and that their copyright monopoly can be taken away from them any second the public deems that society no longer needs it.

          > “You can’t expect someone to invest 150mio dollars in a movie and then tell them to change their business model, because you’re going to watch their movie for free.”

          I have never expected such.

          > “May I ask in which case you are willing to pay for music, movie or software?”

          People have never paid for such, and they obviously never will? People pay for physical goods, or services.

          > “I know, if you trully like something you’ll buy it later, or go to the concert (even if they may had an accident and are not able to perform…) or whateva.”

          As i’ve explained several times now, people will pay for goods or services that they feel offer a value to them. Paying for something that you yourself can produce obviously doesn’t hold such value on a free market. This primarily relates to the specific singular business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies.

          > “That work should be compensated”

          Copyright has never been about compensating work out of principle. Your personal subjective opinion that such work should be compensated has no relevance in a copyright related discussion.

          > “..and there is no business model where a $100mio product will repay itself (even without profit) by any of the free models out there.”

          That is correct, therefore creators and entrepreneurs who try to make profit from the use of an intellectual work really should stop trying to make profit from the specific singular business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies.

      • Prerok

        unfortunatelly this is the only way to reply.

        @Fredrika

        > “So the value of the content is zero simply because it can be copied?”

        No, i have never discussed the value of the content? Are you having a hard time separating the content from the physical copy?

        >> “Can’t you understand that the ability to produce physical media that holds the copyrighted material means nothing. No one is debating this.”

        >Ooh, it definitely means something. It means that there is no longer any need for the business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies, since the consumers can perform that work themselves. So the distribution industry is upset about this fact, and demand that their monopoly and business model of manufacturing and distribution should be protected even more, despite that it isn’t needed any more. That’s is the only thing that the filesharing debate, and this article, is about.

        See, that’s where you are wrong. Industry doesn’t care about manufacturing or distribution. If it’s possible to sell the content directly, they will do so.
        All that industry wants is that usage is paid. If you’re thinking of the content solely through a product or service then the content has no value for you and therefore I understand your point.
        There is no content property. If you are willing to produce it, you share it for free by definition. That’s fantastic. We won’t have fantastic movies in the future anymore, but we’ll have delighfull conversations, cause, after all, that’s all that some need.

        >> “If I go to studio with the material I have been working on for years, pay the studio, record my own songs and then some punk that doesn’t believe in copyright simply copies everything I recorded and “shares” it online, that’s it? I should obviously be happy cause my music will be heard and that’s what OTHERS are telling me is enough.”

        >It is not the consumers copies you have produced. It’s the content. If you wish to make money from your content, you have the possibility to use that content in a number of current available business models, or future ones not yet invented.

        What if I DON’T want to publish my content? What if I don’t want to make money with it? What if my recordings in the studio were never meant to go public? How will you decide what’s my private material and what’s not?

        So this is now the norm? This means I can take pictures of my children, but because someone managed to break into my computer, they are now free to be copied simply because the technology allows it?

        This means anyone can copy whatever content you have on your PC and share it to the world?

        Btw, do you differ profit from income?

        • Fredrika

          > “unfortunatelly this is the only way to reply.”

          No it is not, you can post your answer in its correct location through the Disqus Dashboard.

          > “See, that’s where you are wrong. Industry doesn’t care about manufacturing or distribution.”

          They care very much about people’s own non-profit manufacturing and distribution, so much that they wish for the economical parts of their copyright monopoly to be enforced much harsher then ever before, cutting into hundreds of millions of peoples own private communication.

          > “If it’s possible to sell the content directly, they will do so.”

          It’s not possible to sell content. This was explained to you in my previous comment. It possible to sell goods or access to services.

          > “All that industry wants is that usage is paid.”

          They have never before been paid for consumer usage, and they never will be. Secondly, what the industry wants is irrelevant. The mere fact that you want money does not entitle you to getting paid. To be entitled to get paid you must sell a goods or service that someone feels is worth the money you are asking for.

          > “If you’re thinking of the content solely through a product or service then the content has no value for you and therefore I understand your point.”

          I have never argued that the content has no value. The content obviously has value, that what makes it possible to use the content in conjunction with different business models that are built up around the usage of the content, in some way.

          However, the goods or service you try to sell, must add some additional value, that the consumer can’t add themselves, as in the case with manufacturing and distribution of physical copies. There is only one single business model that use intellectual content that has that problem today, that’s the single business model of manufacturing, distribution and selling physical copies.

          > “We won’t have fantastic movies in the future anymore”

          Your irrelevant doomsday scenarios has no relevance to the topic of the discussion, and they have no support in reality and the movie industry’s record turnovers, that in no way stand or fall with a direct correlation to the most likely future end of the particular single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies to consumers.

          > “What if I DON’T want to publish my content? What if I don’t want to make money with it?”

          Then don’t do so. However, that is not relevant to the topic of this discussion, and the fact that the particular single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies to consumers, is no longer needed.

          > “What if my recordings in the studio were never meant to go public?”

          If your original recordings are stolen from you, that’s a matter of property theft, or data intrusion. That’s not a copyright related matter, and that is not relevant to the topic of this discussion, and the fact that the particular single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies to consumers, is no longer needed.

          > “How will you decide what’s my private material and what’s not?”

          Once a piece of information is made publicly available, it’s publicly available, regardless of who published it. That side discussion however is not relevant to the topic of this discussion, and the fact that the particular single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies to consumers, is no longer needed.

          > “So this is now the norm? This means I can take pictures of my children, but because someone managed to break into my computer, they are now free to be copied simply because the technology allows it?”

          That off topic question, and a possibly answer to it, is not relevant to the topic of this discussion, and the fact that the particular single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies to consumers, is no longer needed.

          > “This means anyone can copy whatever content you have on your PC and share it to the world?”

          That fact, that it can be done, is not copyright related and it is not relevant to the topic of this discussion, and the fact that the particular single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies to consumers, is no longer needed.

        • Prerok

          @Fredrika

          >> “unfortunatelly this is the only way to reply.”

          >No it is not, you can post your answer in its correct location through the Disqus Dashboard.

          Well, I am obviosly missing something, because this is the only place I can post, I can’t reply to yours, it only lets me like it.

          1) I can tell you directly that every content owner will tell you he has no need in making money on producing physical copies that have copyrighted material on it. Every owner would gladly transfer that distribution and production price back to buyer and thus reducing the price of his content. YES, I know what you wrote several times, you can’t buy the content, but you do buy the experience.

          2) The root of this whole argument for you is that there is no need for manufacturing…. Guess what, creating something IS manufacturing. No matter on what media it is. If you want to manufacture, distribute yourself, then do it. Make your own movie or music and share it any way you please. No one will bother you, but you let content owner to control it anyway he pleases him as well. Just because we live in a digital age and something doesn’t have the need to be connected to some predetermined physical form, that doesn’t mean that some creation is immediatelly public domain after publishing on one type of physical media. You are not manufacturing anything. You can manufacture a dvd, you can send it to your friends, but you are not manufacturing content yourself no matter what you think you are doing. Downloading a movie and burning it on dvd is not manufacturing. You are only producing a copy.

          Copyright has it’s purpuse no matter how you feel about it.
          If I am designing a building and someone breaks into my PC and steals all plans and then sells them, how am I going to be compensated for my work, if there is no copyright? What will protect me and my work? Lets say there’s a tender and someone enters it with my work at half the price. Everything fair? After all, why would he pay for my plans since he only copied it, pardon, he manufactured it himself.

          How about copying software where it says it’s illegal to modify it and yet you do it in order to be able to share it with others. Those using illegal copy that they got for free are now being able to offer services that depend on using that software for a much lower price than those that had to buy it. Fantastic world, isn’t it. Everything would be cheaper, except guys that actually do produce anything valuable, would rather go do something that will actually be paid. In other words, there will be no need for inovation at all. If that’s how you want to live, that’s fine, there are still Amish areas in the world. But don’t drag everyone else into this.

        • Anonymous

          >>See, that’s where you are wrong. Industry doesn’t care about manufacturing or distribution.
          BULL crap. This is SUCH a dishonest reply. Industry cares VERY MUCH bout manufacturing or distribution, cos thats where the bulk of their money comes from. They distribute movies via DVDs, and thanks to the amazing laziness of people that don’t wanna download through torrents, they make big bucks.

          >>If you are willing to produce it, you share it for free by definition. That’s fantastic. We won’t have fantastic movies in the future anymore, but we’ll have delighfull conversations, cause, after all, that’s all that some need.
          Man, what a whiny whine! can you stop that boohooing?
          This is all quite irrelevant because it’s FALSE.
          1. You and Friendsofpeeps are married to the idea that only big blockbuster movies are “fantastic” or “quality”. That’s bullcrap. Many really good movies are cheap indie movies. Let’s take Clerks and Blair Witch. Both made for 50.000,- USD and both very good. Yes I know Blair Witch is hated a lot, but as a movie, it was groundbreaking, the acting was good, the suspense etc.
          2. The movie business has never been more profitable than these days where filesharing is at it’s height. MORE concentration of wealth (what these draconian, fascist, anti-freedom laws will lead to) is EXACTLY what this world doesn’t need.
          Too much concentration of wealth, will bring just more financial crisises just like the last one did.

          Indeed, this relentless fearmongering about the Death of Industry is both FALSE and deceitful, Above all, shallow! AS IF Transformers, 2012, Harrt Potter are the epitomy of culture and quality! Yah, of the multiplex plastic culture, not a place I choose to frequent.

          And no, it’s not fearmongering about the financial crisis, if it ALREADY happened….

    • Guest

      horse shoe producers might be surprised to find out that theywent out of biz … been awake long?

      • Prerok

        lol, read everything I wrote. Horse shoe argument? lol. Postcards and snail mail are out of biz and that’s fine. That’s not a problem here. problem is that someone tries to show that by copyright means nothing.
        When someone breaks into a software to make it avaliable for copying, that’s just what one can do a computer. So if someone has the tool to open the doors of your house while you’re on holiday, that’s just fine. He didn’t do anything.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          “When someone breaks into a software to make it avaliable for copying, that’s just what one can do a computer. So if someone has the tool to open the doors of your house while you’re on holiday, that’s just fine. He didn’t do anything.”

          If I install a piece of software on my computer then in essence I can do whatever the hell I wish to it. If you want to discuss lend-lease and other forms of agreements where you are entitled to prevent me from tampering with your property which i make use of then feel free. But that’s not what this debate is about, is it?

          And for that matter, breaking DRM on software is akin to tweaking your car engine. It now runs faster and on less fuels. And suddenly it may break the speed limit should you choose to make it do so.

          But it isn’t illegal. What tweaking the software (or your car, for that matter) is void the warranty and nothing else. You make your own modifications, you shoulder the responsibility for what those modifications do. That’s it.

          And no, copyright does mean nothing. It has no basis in either common sense, nor is it grounded in market economy, or in it’s current incarnation, basic democracy. It’s legislation every bit as valid as that old southern-state law which states that it is illegal to string both male and female underwear up to dry on the same clothesline.

          What copyright actually says is that it restricts what actions I may take with my own physical property, even when the only exchange made is of information. And that is completely unacceptable.

  • GUEST

    There is one problem and one problem only. The entertainment industry problem is part of it.

    Big corporations and banks are now parasites of our soicety and have taken over governments world wide.

    The solution is simple: LET’S KILL THEM ALL!

    • Friend of the People

      I love this guy. Always a hoot to read.

      • Anonymous

        But, he’s got a point. The whole distribution model that you so vigorously defend, is a parasite, now that we’ve got other means of distribution.

        Also, insinuating that this guy shouldn’t be taken seriously, dissing him as a “hoot to read” is not, in itself a valid argument. Care to make one?

  • GUEST

    There is one problem and one problem only. The entertainment industry problem is part of it.

    Big corporations and banks are now parasites of our soicety and have taken over governments world wide.

    The solution is simple: LET’S KILL THEM ALL!

  • Blaž Luin

    @prerok: Unfortunately current business model is such that copyright industry is able to gain unlimited ammount of money by selling ‘content’ which they never run out of as they sell something over and over again… Idea of selling one thing several million times without investing into item production cost seems a bit obsolete, don’t you think?

    Besides it is amazing how many people still buy products from an industry that ran out of ideas long ago.

    • Prerok

      @Blaž: Unfortunately current business model is such that copyright industry is able to gain unlimited ammount of money by selling ‘content’ which they never run out of as they sell something over and over again… Idea of selling one thing several million times without investing into item production cost seems a bit obsolete, don’t you think?

      Mkey, so someone performing same theatrical play is stealing money from anyone that has come to the play for the second time? Is making money a problem? Doesn’t free market settles this? Is there nothing new and better that they are being able to sell one thing over and over? Would you be willing to say what’s the limit? Would you say, oh, Avatar crossed one billion at the theaters, from now on it should be free?
      Which industry is actually gaining unlimited ammount of money? Seriously? Who’s really making all that money? Can you make a production/distribution split and show me? Cause I can and you wouldn’t like it, if you saw it.

      By your analogy, if someone wrote a book and got $2 from $10 retail price, after he sold, for example, 100k books, from that point on, books should only cost $8, for what’s distribution work, but author shouldn’t be compansated anymore. Is that your point?

      Don’t you think that by definition when something becomes cheaper to produce, there’s immediatelly more competition?

      >Besides it is amazing how many people still buy products from an industry that ran out of ideas long ago.

      Well, that’s from your point of view. Would you be will to consider that there is another POV? Maybe this one: it’s amazing how many people are still violating copyright law and aren’t will to pay even for these movies, that are clearly loved by so many that were willing to pay for the tickets to see them, sometimes even more than once for one movie.
      And the industry hasn’t run out of the ideas. What you see is just catering product to the target group that is still willing to pay for the tickets. Just ten years ago we had far more dramas in the cinemas. Now there’s hardly any. Why? Do you think that someone who’s branded as greedy has an agendy to stupidify art form? If dramas made more movie than stupid comedies, what do you think they would invest their money in?

      And to conclude. If you are in this debate and say that the industry (and I’ll presume here Hollywood) has run out of ideas. Does that mean you are willing to waste your time downloading AND watching some generic repetitive trash?

      • Scary Devil Monastery

        “Mkey, so someone performing same theatrical play is stealing money from anyone that has come to the play for the second time?”

        No, at this time what you pay for is a service. And for as long as “Avatar” is better to see in a movie than in a home cinema, Avatar will continue selling tickets. As long as it’s more enjoyable to watch “Starlight Express” on broadway than on your home set they will keep on selling tickets.

        Which is more or less the main part of your argument already sunk right there.

        People are already willing to pay more for live performances than for digital copies, and strangely enough the most fervent live-attendees happen to be pirates, because they are also the most eager enthusiasts.

        A mere copy on digital goods or even of a live performance has no intrinsic value in itself. What it cost to produce is in effect egal. If someone can and will distribute a self-made copy at no cost then odds are enough people will do so to render the supply infinite, reducing the cost of said copy to 0.

        Those are the market rules in their most fundamental form. Rules because that’s the way humanity works. When you successfully change that, you could also run Nietzsches enlightened anarchy or Marx theorethical communism on a large scale and it would work.

        You can earn money in services, even if the only thing said service does is index songs for you (like spotify does), but the intrinsic value of a copy of data which is infinitely reproducible and accessible will still remain 0.

        Leaving artificial scarcity as a price fixer as the only viable way to make money of said copy itself. Again not a good market tactic.

        • Anonymous

          >>Mkey, so someone performing same theatrical play is stealing money from anyone that has come to the play for the second time?”

          >No, at this time what you pay for is a service. And for as long as “Avatar” is better to see in a movie than in a home cinema, Avatar will continue selling tickets. As long as it’s more enjoyable to watch “Starlight Express” on broadway than on your home set they will keep on selling tickets.

          >Which is more or less the main part of your argument already sunk right there.

          That’s because YOU experience service only if someone is physicaly present. Strangly you don’t expect cast from Avatar to run up and down the theater to make you feel you’re not getting ripped off. How come movie playing in theater is a service and one on VOD or anywhere else is not?
          Do you pay for VOD as much as in theater? No, of course not, because the cost are lower and that’s even though there could be 10 or more people watching same copy at the same time. So now you believe just because you found a copy on the net and copied it without owners permission, you’re not getting a service? Of course you are, just like in any other form. It just cost less for distribution, but there’s always production cost behind it and the more that product, no matter in what form a movie is, the more income it deserves and the more it rewards the creators and investors.

          >People are already willing to pay more for live performances than for digital copies, and strangely enough the most fervent live-attendees happen to be pirates, because they are also the most eager enthusiasts.

          hahaha. Yes, how would that be, actually? If everyone is downloading, then how can you separate pirates from anyone else? If someone is not interested in, lets say Lady Gaga, he’s not even going to download it. So you only have to look at all Gaga fans. I’ll bet you anything that vast majority of people that likes and listens to her music at home, are also pirates. Thus saying pirates are more likely to buy her tickets is just silly. Of course they are.
          And the idea that people are more willing to pay for live performances, well, duuuh. If they are used to download everything possible, then copy on the disk has no value and thus they are not willing to pay for it, since it’s “free” anyway. Of course when you compare that willingness to pay for life performance, the latter will win.
          Do you actually think about what you are writing?

          >A mere copy on digital goods or even of a live performance has no intrinsic value in itself. What it cost to produce is in effect egal. If someone can and will distribute a self-made copy at no cost then odds are enough people will do so to render the supply infinite, reducing the cost of said copy to 0.

          Well, that’s your way of looking at it, because you’re willing to think about only the end part where you do something not allowed by owner and you think that obviously music itself is for free and all the hard work is actually copying it. But now that you have mastered the invention of copying music, now every copy should be for free.
          Actually, every single copy has a value, it always does and it’s directly correlated to how badly you want it. That’s the free market and that’s the freedom of choice. That’s the freedom of owner. To market it’s creation. What you are trying to impose is a facism over creators and owners of copyrighted work, not to mention, break the existing law anyway. If you are in such vast majority, change the dumb law, make everything legal and that’s it. You will hear no argument from me at all. Lets just know what’s legal and what’s not, let us know before there’s a 100m+ investment into a product, that it won’t be protected by any law. You will see that studios will adapt. Maybe productions will cost 2mio from then on, maybe production value might look what you see on tv right now and that’s it. If people are not willing to pay for it, why produce it. You have to understand that what you are debating is your side of the moral issue, not legal. Legal is very clear.

          >Those are the market rules in their most fundamental form. Rules because that’s the way humanity works. When you successfully change that, you could also run Nietzsches enlightened anarchy or Marx theorethical communism on a large scale and it would work.

          Sorry, I have to apologise here, cause I just have to call you an idiot. But let me explain, so you’ll understand. You obviously never lived in a country that communism and Max as an idol, I have. I know how these things work and I know what idealism is and how quickly it turns into grab all ism. Even in the golden days of social realism (far from being communism), it was clear there will never be equality, it’s always about who has the power, he has all. You could be this great author, inventor, but in the name of social equality, they took everything from you for the name of greater good, to spread the wealth. And you could say, if you are a firm communist, I guess one could sacrifice for the better of fellow man. But it didn’t work. In the end common man had nothing no matter how much he made and the top officials had everything. So shut your fucking mouth about communism and go live in north korea, if you want to. We have laws now.
          ok, back to civil debate.

          >You can earn money in services, even if the only thing said service does is index songs for you (like spotify does), but the intrinsic value of a copy of data which is infinitely reproducible and accessible will still remain 0.

          Yes, though someone does pay electricity, internet connection, bla bla. Nothing is for free, you only choose to believe so.

          >Leaving artificial scarcity as a price fixer as the only viable way to make money of said copy itself. Again not a good market tactic.

          See, that’s where you are fundamentally wrong. Why did we get android? Linux? How on earth could they come out, if we have laws that protect copyright and you can make so much money writing software? Oh, it was the free market that evolved. Why don’t you stop giving advices how to run their business to all copyright owners. Simply don’t use their product. If you won’t watch new movie for two years, things will change by themselves. By illegally copying so much of new stuff, you’re only signaling to hwood that their stuff so still very much desired. Thus they will only produce more and more, but of course, will also try to protect their investment by following the law.
          Leave the market to its freedom and it will sort itself out.

          But if you want copyrighted conted binded into a service or a product, then you’ll get apple system, which I believe is repulsive. You will actually lose your freedom of choosing. But suit yourself. Lets have every business model apple model and I just hope I won’t have to hear your whining then.

      • Fredrika

        > “So now you believe just because you found a copy on the net and copied it without owners permission, you’re not getting a service?”

        Ooh there’s a service all right, and the one that offers that service is the other filesharer that’s making the copy available. That service is being offered free of charge.

        > “Of course you are, just like in any other form. It just cost less for distribution, but there’s always production cost behind it”

        You should really stop confusing the cost of production for the work, and the cost of distribution the goods. Those are two separate things. The fact that there is a cost for production of the work is irrelevant because the consumer has never paid for that. He pays for the service or the goods. Nothing else. If the service or the goods is offered for free, which it is today through filesharing, then there’s nothing to pay for.

        This is why society no longer has any demand for the business model of manufacturing, distribution and selling copies.

        If you as a creator wish to make money from your intellectual work, you’ll simply have to use it in another business model, that is built up around the use the work in some way, other then the single business model of manufacturing, distribution and selling copies.

        Copyright is not, and has never been, about privileging the author with the right to force a particular business model on the market, that society doesn’t want or need.

        > “.and the more that product, no matter in what form a movie is, the more income it deserves and the more it rewards the creators and investors.”

        Deserves? If the creator fails to sell any goods or services, he deserves no monetary reward whatsoever, regardless of how many people that have enjoyed his work. If he fails to sell anything, he’s a failed entrepreneur, and failed entrepreneurs deserves no money on a free market.

        > “Actually, every single copy has a value, it always does and it’s directly correlated to how badly you want it. That’s the free market and that’s the freedom of choice. That’s the freedom of owner. To market it’s creation. What you are trying to impose is a facism over creators and owners of copyrighted work..”

        Are you a bit confused? On a free market the copyright holder does not have a monopoly on manufacturing copies of his intellectual work? On a free market anyone is allowed to manufacture copies of the authors intellectual work.

        Being against the copyright monopoly and for a free market is obviously not fascism? Arguing that the creator must be privileged with a monopoly, that performs intrusions into other peoples property, out of principle, or just because he wants to make money, or that he should be rewarded with other peoples money, despite failing to sell anything, that is fascism.

        > “Lets just know what’s legal and what’s not, let us know before there’s a 100m+ investment into a product, that it won’t be protected by any law.”

        You already know that, as i pointed out to you the other day. You already know, that the copyright monopoly can be dismantled the same day that the 100 million dollar production is over, and then you will have no monopoly over your 100 million production? This has always been the case? The fact that you have a copyright monopoly the day you start production, is no guarantee that you will have that monopoly the day the production is over.

        Creators have always produced, despite this well known fact.

        What you seem to want is some sort of guarantee, that you will be able to recoup your invested money, before you start producing. Obviously you will never have any such guarantee on a free market? Only in a communism will such guarantee be available. Is that what you are asking for?

        • Anonymous

          >> “So now you believe just because you found a copy on the net and copied it without owners permission, you’re not getting a service?”

          >Ooh there’s a service all right, and the one that offers that service is the other filesharer that’s making the copy available. That service is being offered free of charge.

          lol, of course it was, because he didn’t add value to the content. Everyone is generous with the stuff he didn’t pay for. Do you see peope offering sharing their 40k€ cars in their down time? Of course not. How about letting homeless people stay in their house while they are on a vacation? Most certainly not. The idea of altruism in filesharing is BS.

          >> “Of course you are, just like in any other form. It just cost less for distribution, but there’s always production cost behind it”

          >You should really stop confusing the cost of production for the work, and the cost of distribution the goods. Those are two separate things. The fact that there is a cost for production of the work is irrelevant because the consumer has never paid for that. He pays for the service or the goods. Nothing else. If the service or the goods is offered for free, which it is today through filesharing, then there’s nothing to pay for.

          Oh, where’s that copy paste sentence? Lost? If you believe that some movie you get online is only worth as a service, then fine. Go against the law, download it and feel you’re not ripping off anyone. You will only get content owners moving their content in so called services you won’t be able to copy. I hope that will satisfy your need for separation of content and service. Of course, you’ll then pay premium price like you do with apple, but hey, I’m sure I’ll be able to call you to pay for the difference in price. What? I won’t, oh…

          I am not confusing anything. If you wanna be fed, so that you are no longer hungry and pay for pizza with delivery and one day your neighbour brings you pizza, you will still pay for pizza, but won’t pay for delivery. Somehow you believe that, if that pizza could be turned into stream of data, then there’s no point in paying for the pizza, because the copying doesn’t cost anything. You won’t be hungry any more and that’s all that matters. The one who will make that data sequence, before the start of copying, might actually go hungry, but who cares about the slaves, right?
          Of course, the FACT that law still protects the CREATOR with copyright is something that you’re not concern about. Rather than changing the law or feeding from copies from creators that don’t mind their work being copied, that’s absolutely out of the question. Probably mostly because what is shared for free, is mostly shitty anyway.

          >This is why society no longer has any demand for the business model of manufacturing, distribution and selling copies.

          True, that’s why apple said go fuck yourself to everyone and closed their business model. How about freedom there, eh?

          >If you as a creator wish to make money from your intellectual work, you’ll simply have to use it in another business model, that is built up around the use the work in some way, other then the single business model of manufacturing, distribution and selling copies.

          hahahahahahahaha
          I’ll take it you’re one of the creators and live through such business model. Congrats, I bow to you.

          >Copyright is not, and has never been, about privileging the author with the right to force a particular business model on the market, that society doesn’t want or need.

          How about enlighing everyone about the point of copyright then?
          No one is forcing particular business model, but also no one is letting people have stuff for free. But, I know, you said before, you don’t care about what creators think, wish or want. It’s about what you want, even though you’re not the one who created particular content. You need it so badly that laws don’t apply anymore.

          > “.and the more that product, no matter in what form a movie is, the more income it deserves and the more it rewards the creators and investors.”

          Deserves? If the creator fails to sell any goods or services, he deserves no monetary reward whatsoever, regardless of how many people that have enjoyed his work. If he fails to sell anything, he’s a failed entrepreneur, and failed entrepreneurs deserves no money on a free market.

          No matter what the law says? So someone who follows the LAW is a failed business man even though the core of his business is being attacked by those not following the law? That’s like saying one driver who’s limited by 30mph is slower than the one who doesn’t care about the speed limit and goes over 100mph.

          >> “Actually, every single copy has a value, it always does and it’s directly correlated to how badly you want it. That’s the free market and that’s the freedom of choice. That’s the freedom of owner. To market it’s creation. What you are trying to impose is a facism over creators and owners of copyrighted work..”

          >Are you a bit confused? On a free market the copyright holder does not have a monopoly on manufacturing copies of his intellectual work? On a free market anyone is allowed to manufacture copies of the authors intellectual work.

          Yea, but also PAY for the usage of HIS work. Be it for every usage, be it on a time bases or flat fee, pay once and use it how many times you want.
          Wanny copy? Do it, who cares. Wanna use it? Pay for it.
          You have a fridge now and wanna make ice cubes? You’re free to do it. Make as many ice cubes as you want. Oh, you want my water? Sorry, PAY.
          Don’t forget that the free market follows LAW.

          >Being against the copyright monopoly and for a free market is obviously not fascism? Arguing that the creator must be privileged with a monopoly, that performs intrusions into other peoples property, out of principle, or just because he wants to make money, or that he should be rewarded with other peoples money, despite failing to sell anything, that is fascism.

          hahahaha. Someone creates something, gets money from others for it, that’s fascism? Oh my. What country are you from?
          I am all for changing the copyright law, because the timing is really ridiculous, I agree on that. But forcing someone who’s clearly following the law that was in place in the time of creation into something he doesn’t want or wasn’t expecting it, that’s fascism. If you wanna fight evil corporations, than do it by protecting free forrest access, rivers, sea, rainfall. Demanding that creation of some person should be equally avaliable to you as the sunrays is idiotic.
          Wanna read ancient greek mythology? Go read it, no one cares. Wanna use a product made by someone alive? Pay for it.

          >> “Lets just know what’s legal and what’s not, let us know before there’s a 100m+ investment into a product, that it won’t be protected by any law.”

          >You already know that, as i pointed out to you the other day. You already know, that the copyright monopoly can be dismantled the same day that the 100 million dollar production is over, and then you will have no monopoly over your 100 million production? This has always been the case? The fact that you have a copyright monopoly the day you start production, is no guarantee that you will have that monopoly the day the production is over.

          No problem, but the law still hasn’t changed, so lets end debate on this subject. Write about it when it ends.

          >Creators have always produced, despite this well known fact.

          True, but were always respected. What you wanna do is tell them they have no control over their work, at all. Simply because we moved in a tech age where copying is easier (since nothing is for free, seriously, unless you get all equipment and energy plus internet for free as well), that doesn’t change anything but the price of distribution. Don’t wanna pay for distribution? Fine, you don’t have to, you can download stuff from my site and I’ll give it to you for free, if I want to. But don’t force me in a state where people HAVE to be able to use my creation for free.

          >What you seem to want is some sort of guarantee, that you will be able to recoup your invested money, before you start producing. Obviously you will never have any such guarantee on a free market? Only in a communism will such guarantee be available. Is that what you are asking for?

          Actually, I don’t want or need a guarantee. I lived in a communism and I know how things work. What I wanna have is a CHANCE to compete in a market that has same law for everyone. If I record a song, let me compete with other authors that offer their songs for free (I don’t care how they will make money). That’s all I need, a chance. Fact is, most movies don’t make money back, EVER. That’s a fact. It’s few movies a year (for every studio) that pay for every other movie made. That goes for various developments that are never brought to big screen. It’s the same as in pharmacy. They have the copyright law for few years and then you can copy their work. You can analyse their product, use same ingredients and then make your version. That’s it.
          If you wanna tell someone in advance, he’s not even going to have a chance to compete under the same rules, then why bother. I’ll create something in my spare time when I have the time, if I have the time… and will.

          Have you noticed how people say music today is shit? Um, I wonder why. I’ll tell you why. When I was a kid, everyone was in some garage band. Everyone tried, because to become a rock star, had some, as you say, guarantee you’ll be rich, Everyone knew that’s not the case, but at least you’d be famous and had the chance to become rich, if you’re good. Well, of course not everyone became a star, but because the pool of talent was hude, the selection was fantastic and you got great bands competing on a free market. Today talented and smart youngsters go to the stock market, no matter how talented as musicians they are. Now what do you have today? Famous people being famous because they are famous, without any talent. I guess that’s what you want. A product with nothing worth copyrighting. That’s Paris Hilton for ya.
          Bands in the 80s were inspiring, had social relevance (read the lyrics), made everyone better. And what do we have today? Meaningless and shitty music. Check top 40 charts from 1985 and 2011. It’s absolutely comical.
          But, movies are following music’s footsteps. So don’t worry. Soon you’ll get your no copyright world, because no one will bother to make the extra effort to create something great. They will produce just shit that can be profitable despite the no copyright world.
          I personally believe our world will be poorer for it. When music was great, even if I didn’t have the money to buy the albums, I still got to hear it on radio. Now even if I have the money to buy some quality new music, there’s very little of it. It pretty much goes the same for other work of art as well.
          What you are aiming for, no matter if you realise it or not, is cultural communism. I prefer libertarian approach, but if there will be more of you than us, then so be it. Just change the law and end it. Lets all go to stock market. No one producing anything new any more, just copy paste it like the wall street.

        • Fredrika

          > “of course it was, because he didn’t add value to the content.”

          He added value to the content? The added the value of distribution, free of charge.

          > “Everyone is generous with the stuff he didn’t pay for.”

          Stuff? He is offering distribution, and information of how to manufacture a copy of his own copy, that he owns. The cost for distributing and copying is zero. The cost can not be any other than free. There’s nothing else to pay for.

          > “If you believe that some movie you get online is only worth as a service, then fine. Go against the law, download it and feel you’re not ripping off anyone.”

          I have never felt that i’ve ripped someone of, when i free of charged and in a non-profit manner has accessed content, whether it’s through a library, home copying, or filesharing?

          Whether or not any of those methods currently is illegal is irrelevant to whether i feel that it constitutes ripping someone off.

          > “You will only get content owners moving their content in so called services you won’t be able to copy.”

          They are obviously entitled to offer whatever services they feel fit. However, i have yet to hear of a service that’s impossible manufacture copies of.

          > “I hope that will satisfy your need for separation of content and service.”

          I have no need for such separation? I only pointed out the fundamental fact that it does indeed exist, and that it is never the content you buy.

          > “Of course, you’ll then pay premium price like you do with apple, but hey, I’m sure I’ll be able to call you to pay for the difference in price.”

          Since you seem to argue from a scared creators point of view, and wishes to make money, and since Apple is the most valuable company on the planet, wouldn’t that be good for you, if you manage to use your work in a business model similar to Apple’s, whatever you now mean with that. Are you arguing against the most profitable company in the world, at the same time as you wish to make money?

          > “I am not confusing anything.”

          You frequently confuse the cost of producing the content, with the cost of manufacturing and distributing copies.

          > “Somehow you believe that, if that pizza could be turned into stream of data, then there’s no point in paying for the pizza, because the copying doesn’t cost anything.”

          You can not buy content. You can only buy goods or services, in this case the copy. If you no longer desire to buy the copy, there’s nothing to pay for, in regards to the copy.

          > “The one who will make that data sequence, before the start of copying, might actually go hungry, but who cares about the slaves, right?”

          He is not a slave. No one has forced him to create the content. No one has forced him to be a failed entrepreneur that has failed getting revenues from whichever business model he has chosen to use his work in.

          If he uses his content in business models that adds some additional value, that people desire and are willing to pay for, he’s a successful entrepreneur, he will get revenues and he will not go hungry.

          If he uses his content in business models that doesn’t add any additional value, that people desire and are willing to pay for, he’s a failed entrepreneur, he will get no revenues, and he will go hungry.

          This is good. This is capitalism. Failed entrepreneurs should not be rewarded on a free market.

          The responsibility for him to succeed lies on him alone. No other party has any responsibility for that.

          > “Of course, the FACT that law still protects the CREATOR with copyright is something that you’re not concern about.”

          What the law currently says is not an argument in either direction. Pointing to what the law currently says, as if that was some sort or argument, is circular reasoning, and therefore a logical fallacy.

          > “I’ll take it you’re one of the creators and live through such business model.”

          The majority and a rising percentage of the revenues in the content industry’s growing record turnovers, is collected from other business models than the single business model of manufacturing, distribution and selling copies.

          > “How about enlighing everyone about the point of copyright then?”

          Everyone? Everyone already know this, except you it seems? Copyright is a concept that is used to benefit the public, through culturally maximising society. That is the only goal of copyright as a concept. The beneficiary is the public.

          > “No one is forcing particular business model”

          Oh yes they are. They are trying to force their business models on the consumer, regarding how consumers must achieve access to the content in their homes, and paying for it.

          The consumers don’t need such business models, since accessing content in their homes is something they can achieve on their own, through filesharing.

          > “but also no one is letting people have stuff for free.”

          Have stuff for free? If people manufacture their own copies with their own physical property, they’re not having any stuff or getting anything that’s isn’t already theirs. There’s nothing to pay for? The price can not be any other than free.

          > “you don’t care about what creators think, wish or want.”

          I have never said such thing. What i do say, is the fact that they think, wish or want something, is not the same thing as that they have a right to demand anything. Definitely not a monopoly that performs intrusion into other peoples property.

          >>> “.and the more that product, no matter in what form a movie is, the more income it deserves and the more it rewards the creators and investors.”

          >> “Deserves? If the creator fails to sell any goods or services, he deserves no monetary reward whatsoever, regardless of how many people that have enjoyed his work. If he fails to sell anything, he’s a failed entrepreneur, and failed entrepreneurs deserves no money on a free market.

          > “No matter what the law says?”

          The law does not stipulate that someone who doesn’t sell anything, still deserves money.

          > “So someone who follows the LAW is a failed business man even though the core of his business is being attacked by those not following the law?”

          No, he’s failed business man if he fails to sell anything. The fact the single business model of manufacturing, distribution and selling copies, is no longer needed, is not the same thing as that someone is attacking anyone’s business. It simply means that his choice of business has gone out of style. Which was what this article was all about.

          What the law says does not change the fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distribution and selling copies, has gone out of style.

          > “Yea, but also PAY for the usage of HIS work. Be it for every usage, be it on a time bases or flat fee, pay once and use it how many times you want.”

          On a free market you do not have to pay anyone else, for a work that you alone provide.

          > “Don’t forget that the free market follows LAW.”

          The free market follows the rules of the free market, regardless of what the law says. The market that the content industry operates on, is not a free market, because of the copyright monopoly.

          > “Someone creates something, gets money from others for it, that’s fascism?”

          Of course it’s fascism if an entrepreneur demands money from everyone else, without selling anything?

          > “What country are you from?”

          A country where entrepreneurs only get money if they sell something.

          > “But forcing someone who’s clearly following the law that was in place in the time of creation into something he doesn’t want or wasn’t expecting it, that’s fascism.”

          No one is being forced into anything. Creators have a free choice of what business models they wish to try to get revenues from. The fact that society changes in a way you do not wish, or was expecting, does not mean that you have been forced into anything.

          > “Demanding that creation of some person should be equally avaliable to you as the sunrays is idiotic.”

          I’m not demanding anything. Entrepreneurs are free to do whatever they wish. I do not demand that they should do things in a particular way. It’s they who demand a monopoly, and the upholding of that monopoly, even though it’s impossible. Their demands are simply not realistic.

          > “Wanna use a product made by someone alive? Pay for it.”

          Absolutely. But if i manufacture the product, or the copy, myself, then there’s nothing to pay for.

          > “No problem, but the law still hasn’t changed, so lets end debate on this subject. Write about it when it ends.”

          Are you having a hard time following the thread? You asked about being informed about it before your creation started. You have always been well aware of the fact that you will never be informed about that before. What the law says before you start creating, might not be the same as afterwards.

          What the law currently says, does not change the fact that you asked for premisses you’re already aware of.

          > “What you wanna do is tell them they have no control over their work, at all.”

          I have never proposed such changes.

          > “Simply because we moved in a tech age where copying is easier, that doesn’t change anything but the price of distribution.”

          It changes the fact that the particular single business model of manufacturing, distribution and selling copies, is no longer needed. This is an indisputable fact.

          > “But don’t force me in a state where people HAVE to be able to use my creation for free.”

          That is the natural state of order. That people with their own physical property can manufacture and distribute their own copies.

          It’s it’s actually you who try to force an artificial state on order, where people should have their property rights intruded to by a monopoly.

          Last time i checked a growing number of several hundreds of millions of people don’t give a damn about what you try to force upon them, and the intrusion you wish your monopoly to perform on their property.

          And they have taken technical precautions to guarantee that you never again will be able to force that upon them. Well i guess that’s what you get when you try to force unjust things upon people.

          > “What I wanna have is a CHANCE to compete in a market that has same law for everyone.”

          No, you want to operate on a market that provides you with a legislative monopoly. That is the exact opposite of what you wrote above.

          > “That’s all I need, a chance.”

          You do not need a monopoly to have that chance.

          > “What you are aiming for, no matter if you realise it or not, is cultural communism.”

          I aim for a society where the human rights of privacy and anonymity are uphold, and where copyright holders demands are not more important than the right to privacy and anonymity. If the result of that is cultural communism, that’s still secondary.

          Naturally a copyright monopoly, that no one can produce any sort of evidence that it’s even needed, isn’t more important than people’s right to anonymity, privacy, and due justice.

          > “I prefer libertarian approach”

          You prefer a monopoly and the privilege to perform intrusion into peoples property and private life. There’s absolutely nothing libertarian about that.

          > “Just change the law and end it.”

          End it? What the copyright law doesn’t mean anything when it comes to filesharing? It’s already over. Really? :)

        • Anonymous

          You so far haven’t understood anything I wrote. What’s scary is that you seriously don’t have any idea about business numbers in entertainment industry. So please please please stop using them in any argument anywhere. If you want real numbers from the movie industry, I’ll givem them to you, but be quiet about this before you get them.

          You also do not understand how free market works and what’s the role of law in the free market. Laws make free market work, they make competition battle it out.

          >> “So someone who follows the LAW is a failed business man even though the core of his business is being attacked by those not following the law?”

          >No, he’s failed business man if he fails to sell anything. The fact the single business model of manufacturing, distribution and selling copies, is no longer needed, is not the same thing as that someone is attacking anyone’s business. It simply means that his choice of business has gone out of style. Which was what this article was all about.

          Oh, really? I believe people created their own ice from their own water and in their
          own shape or form. They did not go to old ice sellers and copy those, did they?
          Have I missed something? What I believe (contrary to you) is that those people created their own music, their own movies. But, of course, you wanna somehow skip that part.

          So tell me, if you are being able to copy microsofts windows, you can use it and don’t feel the need to pay for anything, since you are being able to copy it by yourself?

          But ok. Please answer me this then. Can I copy your genes and use it any way I want?
          Let me remind you, it would only be a copy of your genes, pure information.
          Can I copy any picture you ever made and use it however I want? Be it for advertising, sell copies,…

        • Fredrika

          > “You so far haven’t understood anything I wrote.”

          That’s an empty and irrelevant accusation, since you don’t point to what i haven’t understood, and which parts of what i wrote that led you to that conclusion. Had you pointed those things out, i could have explained to you what you have misunderstood of what i wrote, and help you understand what it actually meant.

          However, no, i haven’t, i understand you just fine, it’s just that most of what you write is simply irrelevant argument’s, and absolutely nothing of what you write changes any of the facts that lie on the table, regarding the fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, no longer is needed by society, or the fact that the non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly are unjust, and that hundreds of millions of filesharer’s therefore simply don’t care about it, and that technology has made it impossible to stop filesharing that takes place in private communication. These are facts, and nothing of you write changes any of those.

          > “What’s scary is that you seriously don’t have any idea about business numbers in entertainment industry. So please please please stop using them in any argument anywhere. If you want real numbers from the movie industry, I’ll givem them to you, but be quiet about this before you get them.”

          I know for a fact that the movie industry currently has higher turnovers than ever before. And that the majority of those turnovers are revenues from other business models than the single one of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies to consumers. Those two numbers can be easily found in the movie industries own reports. Do you deny these two claims?

          > “You also do not understand how free market works and what’s the role of law in the free market. Laws make free market work, they make competition battle it out.”

          On a free market no one has a monopoly on anything. Everyone competes on the exact same terms. Anyone can with their own physical property manufacture copies of any intellectual work they wish, and sell it. The one who created the intellectual work has no legislative advantage from creating it, through a legislative monopoly. That would be a free market. Since the copyright monopoly does exist, and provides the author with a legislative advantage over everyone else, the market that is built up around business models that use intellectual works, is never a free market.

          > “Have I missed something? What I believe (contrary to you) is that those people created their own music, their own movies. But, of course, you wanna somehow skip that part.”

          No, they manufactured their own copies, with their own physical property. They own every piece of physical property involved. The fact that certain manufacturing is very easy due to technology does not change the fact who owns every single piece of physical property involved in the process.

          The fact that someone else created the intellectual work initially does not change the facts about who owns all the physical property involved.

          The fact that someone else created the intellectual work initially does not change the facts that the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, is no longer needed.

          > “So tell me, if you are being able to copy microsofts windows, you can use it and don’t feel the need to pay for anything, since you are being able to copy it by yourself?”

          Obviously you can not pay for anything that is free. The price for manufacturing your own copy, through filesharing, is free. That’s the only price possible for that work. You yourself performed that work. You can not pay yourself. There’s nothing to pay for.

          > “Please answer me this then. Can I copy your genes and use it any way I want?
          Let me remind you, it would only be a copy of your genes, pure information.”

          I don’t know. Can you? The answer to that question still doesn’t change the fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, is no longer needed.

          However, regarding the point you unsuccessfully tried to prove. It is not the fact that intellectual works is information, or the mere fact that it can be copied, that is why the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, no longer is needed.

          It is not the fact that intellectual works are made up of information, or the mere fact that it can be copied, that explains why hundreds of millions of people feel that parts of the copyright monopoly is unjust, and therefore something you don’t have to care about.

          The single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, is no longer needed, since it does not add any additional value.

          Hundreds of millions of people feel that the non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly is unjust, and it’s therefore something you don’t have to care about, and the reason for that is because it is simply made up of illegitimate legislation, that no one can produce any sort of evidence that it is actually needed to help the goal of copyright.

          Remember, the copyright monopoly performs an intrusion into peoples own physical property, that they own. If you would manage to copy genes, you would perform no intrusion into other people’s physical property.

          > “Can I copy any picture you ever made and use it however I want? Be it for advertising, sell copies,…”

          The filesharing debate is about non-profit use. If someone publishes a picture, you obviously can copy it, and use it. As long as it is for non-profit use, i don’t think any pirate will have any problem with it.

          But let’s also remember that the filesharing debate is only relevant to the economical parts of copyright, the monopoly over manufacturing and distribution, but not the moral parts, regarding attribution, and in what context and public event’s you use a intellectual work. Pirates generally feel that the moral parts of copyright is something good.

        • Anonymous

          That’s an empty and irrelevant accusation, since you don’t point to what i haven’t understood, and which parts of what i wrote that led you to that conclusion. Had you pointed those things out, i could have explained to you what you have misunderstood of what i wrote, and help you understand what it actually meant.

          However, no, i haven’t, i understand you just fine.

          Sorry, every subsequent post you write, the more absurd you sound.
          You lost absolutely all credibility with praising apple. You won’t pay for microsoft windows,
          because they are kind enough to sell you a copy of it that you can use on a machine of your choosing.
          You stand behind fascist company that intrudes on your privacy in every way possible.

          You believe what free market should be, thus proclaiming there is no free market on this planet right now. That’s all that I needed to know about your business credentials.

          You list PR statements from entertainment companies while you don’t know a single number.
          Tell me where are those record revenues coming from in movie business, if there’s no need for single model. Copy/paste…?
          Where are they making more? Show me numbers. I seriously wish you would stop talking about something you don’t know anything about. I deal with these REAL numbers on a daily basis. Ok?

          >I know for a fact that the movie industry currently has higher turnovers than ever before.

          No you don’t, stop it. Just admit you don’t and be over it.

          >> “Please answer me this then. Can I copy your genes and use it any way I want?
          Let me remind you, it would only be a copy of your genes, pure information.”

          >I don’t know. Can you? The answer to that question still doesn’t change the fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, is no longer needed.

          Thank you. By your analogy, something that has been manifested from abstract world into phyisical, it has been by that mean published, thus a public good.
          You leave parts of skin, hair, saliva and all kind of other gene footprints behind you all the time. Yes, your genes can be copied, pardon, they can »manufacture« a copy of you or any part, for that matter.
          Thank you for publicly clearing this part out. You know, if one CAN make a copy, it’s immediatelly followed by may make a copy.

          >Hundreds of millions of people feel that the non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly is unjust

          Oh, here we have to be emphatic how they feel.
          To go back to the article in question. No one questions your ability to make ice. Make it from your water from your model. People in article didn’t copy ice cubes that were sold before. They made their own. You can make your own music and no, you are not manufacturing your own music that is identical to some other music (like you wrote in some other post). You are just copying what someone else made. You are not adding value to the original work, thus your work is irrerelevant and it is up to the law to decide whether you are free to make copies of other people’s work. There is no monopoly over the creation of ice cubes. Make as many of them as you want to.

        • Fredrika

          > “You lost absolutely all credibility with praising apple.”

          I have not praised Apple? I simply pointed out the fact that they make a lot of money, and since that seems to be your desire, as a creator, i find it hard to understand how you can criticize Apples business model, since that seems to be working for them.

          > “You won’t pay for microsoft windows, because they are kind enough to sell you a copy of it that you can use on a machine of your choosing.”

          I have never said that? Please read what i wrote again. I said that i can’t pay myself, for manufacturing a copy. There’s nothing to pay for in that scenario.

          > “You stand behind fascist company that intrudes on your privacy in every way possible.”

          I have not stood behind any company in any of my comments?

          > “You believe what free market should be, thus proclaiming there is no free market on this planet right now.

          No, i pointed out the fact that on a free market no business owner is privileged with a legislative advantage over others, as they in fact are with the copyright monopoly.

          > “You list PR statements from entertainment companies while you don’t know a single number.”

          Are you saying that the movie industry is lying when they are saying that they are making more money then ever before, and that their combined turnovers are bigger then ever before? Well if you have numbers that supports this claim of yours, please put them forward.

          > “Tell me where are those record revenues coming from in movie business, if there’s no need for single model.”

          From all available different business models that are built up around the use of intellectual works, of course?

          > “By your analogy, something that has been manifested from abstract world into phyisical, it has been by that mean published, thus a public good.”

          Exactly what part of what i have written, have you interpreted in that way? Please point this out now, and i’ll explain to you what you’ve misunderstood, and how you should properly read what i actually wrote according to correct English.

          > “Yes, your genes can be copied, pardon, they can »manufacture« a copy of you or any part, for that matter.
          Thank you for publicly clearing this part out.”

          It was actually you who just cleared it out? However, what particular business model is it, that you feel has gone out of style, due to this fact?

          And as i said, it is not the fact that intellectual works is information, or the mere fact that it can be copied, that is why the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, no longer is needed.

          > “You know, if one CAN make a copy, it’s immediatelly followed by may make a copy.”

          I have never argued in that manner, nor would i ever, since such backwards arguing reverses the order of society, and in which direction legislation affect people.

          But just to be clear, it is not the fact that youcan make a copy, that makes it ok to make a copy.

          Society works the other way around. People do not need permission to do things. The natural state of order is that if you with the physical objects you have in front of yourself, can do it, than you can do it for whatever reason you wish.

          Later the unnatural state of order possibly arrives through legislation which forbids some actions.

          But the fact that prohibition arrives in legislation does not make it ok, or not ok. Legislation only says what’s illegal. Legal and illegal is not the same thing as morally ok and not ok.

          > “Oh, here we have to be emphatic how they feel.”

          No you don’t. It’s simply a fact that people do not follow illegitimate prohibitions, never have and never will.

          As i said, it is not the fact that intellectual works are made up of information, or the mere fact .. that it can be copied, that explains why hundreds of millions of people feel that non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly is unjust, and therefore something they simply don’t care about.

          > “You can make your own music and no, you are not manufacturing your own music that is identical to some other music (like you wrote in some other post). You are just copying what someone else made.”

          Yes, and copying, through whatever means, method or technology, is to manufacture something that is identical to something else. Manufacturing something yourself. The fact that it is identical to something else does not change the physical fact that you made it.

          > “You are not adding value to the original work, thus your work is irrerelevant”

          When you manufacture a copy you add the value of making a physical copy that you can use. This has value to people, that’s why they do it.

          That’s the same value that the business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies add. But at a lower price, i.e. free.

          > ..and it is up to the law to decide whether you are free to make copies of other people’s work.”

          The fact that the law tells you what actions that are forbidden, does not change the fact that the particular business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies is no longer needed.

          The article is about the fact that some don’t accept this, but instead try with legislation to force people to need something that they simply don’t need any more.

          > “There is no monopoly over the creation of ice cubes. Make as many of them as you want to.”

          That’s correct, and that’s the difference between the business model of deliviering ice, and the business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies, that this article points out.

          One industry accepted the free market, the latter demands a monopoly to keep their meaningless business model alive, despite people not needing it any more.

      • Anonymous

        >Doesn’t free market settles this?
        “free market” is as fake as “trickle down” and “government can’t get anything right.
        http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=7&p=4
        http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=7&p=1
        http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=7&p=2
        http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=7&p=3

        you mean, i take it with free market, the invisible hand, that everything will sort it self out. This is such a tempting lie! Markets are always distorted, by big players and the lack of regulations. Without rules, it’s the law of the jungle, which dictate that the strong will trample the weak. A seemingly stable society, and therefor not one I’d wish to live in.

        Let’s take US defense. A market which is heavily distorted by the military industrial complex. It’s product, nominally, is security. What would happen, if all citizens could buy security at will? If they themselves could decide how much they’d put in the federal kitty, to buy big fat guns? Right: NO-ONE would pay up!!! I digress, sorry

        The concept of the :free market” is false. Because there are in every market that distort it immensely, in favor of inequality and the most powerful parties.

  • https://thepiratebay.org/user/manOtor/ manOtor

    Thank you Rick Falkvinge, as always a good read :)!

    For those having difficulties with the term analogy have a look here ;)…

    An analogy never can be 100% accurate. However it is not meant to be.
    You use it to bring across a certain point of view by explaining the similarities you need to backup your theory.
    It is also typical, that if people don’t like where the analogy is going, their first reaction is to point out the supposed flaws by widening or moving the spotlight.
    It’s almost always backfiring, because it only makes them look like they didn’t have the intellect to grasp what the original analogy-maker wanted to point out.

    Cheers

    • Rick Falkvinge

      Thanks manOtor, I’ll have that explanation at hand whenever somebody digs deep to find flaws in analogues.

      Cheers,
      Rick

    • Ven

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy#Rhetoric

      Note what it says about weak analogies and recognize how analogy is not considered an acceptable form of logical argument. In the absence of a strictly logical argument, an analogy is not an acceptable substitute.

      • Ven

        That is to say, a philosophical analogy is always a weak analogy if presented on it’s own.

      • Anonymous

        duh. Analogies are perfectly acceptable, as long as they’re applicable. also, who decides if there’s an “absence of a strictly logical argument” here? You?
        Pray tell why the analogy isn’t good.

      • Anonymous

        duh. Analogies are perfectly acceptable, as long as they’re applicable. also, who decides if there’s an “absence of a strictly logical argument” here? You?
        Pray tell why the analogy isn’t good.

  • Guest


    You are correct about the purpose of copyright, but you seem to misunderstand the way the consent of the majority works. If the majority of taxpayers don’t want to pay for enforcement (and it’s oftentimes not taxpayers, but the organizations like the MAFIAA, seeing as this is a civil contract), it’s on them to be willing to fire a politician over it. If they aren’t, then they haven’t opposed it to the degree that a representative democracy requires. Politicains haven’t been fired (at least, not in my country), so that burden on the people to demand change hasn’t been filled.

    Why should the burden be on the people and not on the mafia to justify encroachment on civil liberties paid for by the taxpayers?

    if the main argument for viability of copyright and its attended enforcement costs is that people have not rebelled sufficiently to make the enforcement unviable, pirates should just work harder to destroy and cripple IP enforcement by what could be called peaceful asymmetric warfare.

    Firing a corrupt and bought politician is pretty much impossible. First, many draconian copyright laws are passed – not by open debate – but by policy laundering – international organizations working in secret – and national parliaments passing the laws in order to comply with international obligation.

  • Pingback: Nobody Asked For A Refrigerator Fee | Links Daily

  • Pingback: What Do Refrigerators Have To Do With Torrenting? | 404 Tech Support

  • EdFreeStone

    That was interesting until the writer compared the ice industry to the “copyright industry”. I was wondering what an article that I was starting to think was going to be about some advancement in “green” technology, or something else new that is supplanting an older technology, was doing on TorrentFreak.

    There is no “copyright industry” of the nature the writer describes and the comparison is not appropriate even if there was. Copyrights serve a completely logical purpose and there is no logical argument against them. If someone creates something completely on their own, like a song or poem or even a painting, that is theirs and of course they should have control of how their words or images are used and be able to profit from it as best they can, should they desire to.

    The writer of that article is mislabeling what he calls an “obsolete distribution monopoly” as the “copyright industry.” He may have a point that the old way of distributing creative content, primarily music, is outdated, but that in no way negates the owners of copyrights of their rights to distribute their output as they see fit.

    The real question is what to do about the obvious desire to get around the “for pay” distribution system and the ease of doing so. In my opinion, that is where a “personal use” standard should come into play. No one went after a kid who recorded something off the radio on a tape deck in the ’70s or ’80s. It is only because of the increased volume & the improved quality that the music industry has begun to try to do something about what amounts to the same thing. But such a crackdown on individuals only serves to turn people against what seems like corporate greed when they go after such “small potatoes.”

    Of course, that is not what TorrentFreak and sites like them are. They are the distribution system that the corporate copyright holders should have set-up in the first place. And that is why they would be better-off working with them. By allowing samples of various bands to be distributed on these sites, they can grow the audience. And by working with the sites, they can control how much is given-away so that there is still product out there to buy. SoundCloud seems to be doing this, though I do not know the specifics of any arraignments they may have with record labels.

    Of course, this writer also ignores one other fact – Copyrights do expire. And unless someone who cares is around to renew that copyright, the material goes into the public domain. There are plenty of songs that happens to. And sometimes it doesn’t happen with the specific ones we all want. But that doesn’t make whining about not being able to set-up your own system to distribute material owned by someone else sound any less whiny.

    And if this writer really wants to make a point about the “copyright industry” being “obsolete”, maybe he should go on TV and sing “Happy Birthday” all the way through. I hear the ladies who own that copyright are real pitbulls about protecting it, so the resulting court case should get lots of publicity for “the cause.”

    • Rick Falkvinge

      Dear EdFreeStone,

      Copyrights serve a completely logical purpose and there is no logical argument against them.

      While this kind of denial is amusing, it is also part of why the pirates are winning the debate every time around.

      The copyright industry refuses to acknowledge that there even exists a problem, whereas the rest of the world keeps ignoring their monopoly.

      In Sweden and elsewhere, they have even stopped taking public debates with us. They are now on a crusade to win the hearts and minds of the public by not appearing at all.

      Cheers,
      Rick

      • Prerok

        >>Copyrights serve a completely logical purpose and there is no logical argument against them.

        >While this kind of denial is amusing, it is also part of why the pirates are winning the debate every time around.

        What debate has been won? Where and when? I only heard about the debates in court and piratebay lost. Or have I missunderstood something?

        >The copyright industry refuses to acknowledge that there even exists a problem, whereas the rest of the world keeps ignoring their monopoly.

        Actually, why should there be a problem? Yes, there’s a massive copyright violation going on all the time, but what is the problem? Oh, that one should be allowed to make copies of a copyrighted material and never pay a cent? Well, I want many things in my life as well, but can’t afford them (yet). So I guess I should spend less time using downloaded content and focus on work.

        And what monopoly is there? Someone made a movie about Robin Hood with Russel Crowe? Well, if I’m not mistaken, you are absolutely free to make your own movie about Robin Hood. So can you please explain this monopoly? Is it now forbidden to make movies in Sweden? Or are you not allowed to make your own DVDs with your own content? Has that been monopolised?

        >In Sweden and elsewhere, they have even stopped taking public debates with us. They are now on a crusade to win the hearts and minds of the public by not appearing at all.

        If you’re using ice boxes as a proper analogy, who can blame them…

        I would love a public debate in my country. It would be great if the public could hear both sides.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          “I would love a public debate in my country. It would be great if the public could hear both sides.”

          In any attempt made so far in any country the public has always come down very hard on the pirate side of things. Simply because the common people do have a strict problem about anyone who says “Look, you aren’t allowed to make a copy of that disc you thought you bought, because we insist that we still own it. Oh, and if you let too many people listen to it we’ll charge you a performance fee…”.

          Something which ironically enough has made headlines here and there when some local national Ifpi insists, for instance, that cab and truck drivers have to pay a performance license in order to listen to radio in their vehicles (workplaces), or that office workers are in violation of ToS if they play spotify lists at an office party.

          And it doesn’t get better for your side when the artists themselves are split on the issue.

    • Guest

      There is no “copyright industry” of the nature the writer describes and the comparison is not appropriate even if there was. Copyrights serve a completely logical purpose and there is no logical argument against them. If someone creates something completely on their own, like a song or poem or even a painting, that is theirs and of course they should have control of how their words or images are used and be able to profit from it as best they can, should they desire to.

      Yes, very reasonable as long as they themselves pay for overreaching enforcement. Enforcing copyright law against noncommercial sharing is unacceptable and is only a viable business insofar as the copyright holder can get away with forcing the enforcement costs onto society as whole.

      Let me repeat, whether one believes that the copyright holder has a right to profit from his legally cognizable work in no way justify imposing the enforcement costs on innocent noninfringing third parties.
      If you believe that Disney should retain copyright 90- years and counting, it’s only reasonable that copyright should either be taxed as other real property, or only enforced at the expense of the direct benefactor, or shortened to a very short time.

      All the BS about copyright being property should lead to the enforcement being paid entirely by the commercial benefactor.

      If copyright is to be retained at all, its enforcement should be self-sustaining. If the enforcement is too expensive for the rights holders, bad luck. They don’t have any inherent natural right to state enforcement or coersive laws beyond remedies for breach of contract — against – and only against the entity guilty of direct infringement.

      • Ven

        Copyright is taxed, both in sales and later on as income tax earned from royalties.

        The government in the USA (and elsewhere) believes that copyright enforcement benefits the economy. Until someone can present research that shows otherwise, they will continue to fund enforcement. All of the banter back and forth is going to be useless if new evidence is never brought to the table.

        • Guest


          Copyright is taxed, both in sales and later on as income tax earned from royalties.

          No, copyright is not taxed as real property. You don’t pay an annual tax based on the estimated worth of your IP but only on royalties. If copyright is to be regarded as equal with property, all taxes and fees applicable to real property should also apply to intellectual property.

          If I claim that my copyright is worth 10 million, logically I should be in the same shoes as an owner of real property of the same worth.


          The government in the USA (and elsewhere) believes that copyright enforcement benefits the economy. Until someone can present research that shows otherwise, they will continue to fund enforcement. All of the banter back and forth is going to be useless if new evidence is never brought to the table.

          So you admit that expanded IP enforcement is based on faith, but the burden shouldn’t be on the government to justify harsher enforcement bbut on the people to rebut any presumption of greater IP enforcement equals good for society.

          Completely insane. In no other policy area is there such a reverse presumption against limited government.

          Sir, you have just unwittingly stated the libertarian case against IP enforcement.

        • Ven

          @Guest

          You are confusing personal property with land. I don’t pay taxes on my belongings, only on my income. Property taxes (for owning land) are paid generally to support local community spending for things like roads, sewage and water, schools, and other stuff, and have nothing to do with charging us simply because we have something.

          “So you admit that expanded IP enforcement is based on faith, but the burden shouldn’t be on the government to justify harsher enforcement bbut on the people to rebut any presumption of greater IP enforcement equals good for society.”

          It’s sad but true in the United States that the courts decide what is good for citizens far more than our politicians do. A real issue with the checks and balances is that they take time to come to a resolution.

          And notice that I said fund enforcement. The way to ride the line between enforcement and limiting freedoms may never be perfectly clear, but until there is widely accepted evidence that piracy is not hurting the economy, our government is going to pour money into fighting that piracy.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

          There’s been PLENTY of evidence suggesting copyright enforcement doesn’t work.

          “Media Piracy in Emerging Economies”

          The GAO report on Piracy already tells how no one is fooled by counterfeit goods. Michael D. Smith on Youtube explains how less legal alternatives lead to more piracy.

          You really can’t ask for more research since most of it has come to the same conclusion that *less* copyright enforcement leads to *more* economic benefits.

      • Ven

        Copyright is taxed, both in sales and later on as income tax earned from royalties.

        The government in the USA (and elsewhere) believes that copyright enforcement benefits the economy. Until someone can present research that shows otherwise, they will continue to fund enforcement. All of the banter back and forth is going to be useless if new evidence is never brought to the table.

    • http://tinyurl.com/ANoiXioNA-personal-info ANoiXioNA

      go on TV and sing “Happy Birthday” all the way through.

      That is the POINT….. ONE INSTANCE ( of MANY ) WHY copyright is absurd….
      Surely singing Happy Birthday is culture……. yea ?
      Now … Law should exist to limit a persons freedom to sing Happy Birthday ?

      Of course, this writer also ignores one other fact – Copyrights do expire.

      do they ?…. cough*** cough** Happy Birthday to you …..Expired ?
      1935 copyright registration….

      The Majority of works Disappear FOREVER before copyright expires…..

  • Pokerdude2005

    Wow, that article was just fucking lame…Ice was never given copyright protection you fucking numb nut!

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

      wow… You don’t understand the point of analogies?

      That’s truly disappointing pokerdude…

    • Anonymous

      man’s got a point.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002639684444 Ryan Smith

    To those who read the above article and still feel they are owed something,

    Here is a recent quote from Mike Masnick.

    “I put ‘labor and time and money’ into Techdirt, and then it’s my job to figure out how to make a living out of it. It does me no good to sit around and say ‘but I worked hard — now pay me.’”

    Now here’s one from me, your average, unabashed non-commercial file-sharer.

    As a copyright holder you are presented with a problem. How do you profit from content which myself and hundreds of millions like myself are going to continue to download and share with each other?

    Political or moral opinion, what you think is fair, IP law… none of these things change the fact that we simply don’t need your services to access content.

    Here is my challenge to you. What professional distribution services do you offer us that is an improvement over what we do ourselves for free?

    Until you are prepared to come back with an offer of better access to content selection, quality, speed, security, user-friendly interfaces, etc., then we the consumers will continue to rely on the only viable, economical alternative that currently exists. Until you are prepared to make these offers as a distributor you are entitled to nothing.

    I am prepared to license my brand new business model to anyone who wants to use it for $1 billion. Otherwise, figure it out for yourself. LOL

  • Guest

    It’s simply not reality that copyright protection expire automatically.
    Both the US and EU have extended copyright retroactively to works already fallen in the public domain. Such a policy blatantly violates the social contract by retrospectively upsetting the balance bbetween property rights and people’s right to enjoy the public domain.

    Of course the copyright maximalists argue that the public domain is no right, and that the government may change the bargain at any time even on retroactive terms detrimental to the people.

    This only proves that copyright is evil and can’t be reformed. There is no compromise or middle ground.

    Either the copyright holders – whose only privilege is often an accident of bloodlines – retain all power or they don’t

    Just because the creator f-cked a woman – don’t give his children or grandchildren any inherent right to sue others for sharing.

  • Anonymous

    Copyright is not an industry. I’d like to think that torrentfreak knows this, but I am not sure you are smart enough to realize that.

    There will NEVER be a business plan that allows anyone to buy one copy and then distribute copies of it for free. Because that is not a business.

  • Guest


    There will NEVER be a business plan that allows anyone to buy one copy and then distribute copies of it for free. Because that is not a business.

    There will never be a business model sustaining effective enforcement against milions of noncommercial infringers – only draconian laws seldo´mly enforced by the government. Any business attempting to enforce copyright against private noncommercial sharing is suicidal or must depend on the nanny state for reinforcement.

    Fortunately the file sharing learning curve
    is rapidly improving. LAN parties, VPNs, tunnelling, lending friends’ and neighbors’ WIFI under a cloak of plausible deniability, local dropboxes and log obfuscation is always going to catch up with the harshest police state.

    Copyright can’t exist forever against the will of the majority – and even a determined minority with minimal technical skills could change the economic calculus behind IP enforcement in ways the copyright maximalists wouldn’t like.

    IP defenders often smuggle draconian policy proposals into the debate by warning against child pornography.

    What if we turn around the argument against stronger IP enforcement? Harsher enforcement of IP and data retention only lead to resources being diverted from prosecution of child pornography, hacking, fishing and real tangible economic crimes.

    Even if IP enforcement is legitimate, there are more important crimes against life and limb.
    Prosecution and investigation of noncommercial copyright infringement is simply unimportant, and should only be done when the rights holder is willing to pay all third parties expenses.

  • http://www.facebook.com/eric.boehm Jack Murdock

    Rick failed to realize a few things
    1. You do pay a “fee” for a refrigerator. When you go to the store, you need to pay the cashier before they give it to you. You also pay for the electricity.

    2. Ice is ice. Whether it’s exacted from a lake manually or created using new technology, it is still ice. It is hardly the same as a creative work, which someone has invested millions of dollars and months of their time in. All ice is identical. No one looks back fondly on old ice the way they do with classic movies such as Friday the 13th or The Shining. Ice cannot make you feel anything beyond the fact whatever you are drinking is now cold. Ice cannot connect you with you. The fact that rick is equating automatic production of ice (your fridge produces ice with little investment of effort on your part) here with all the time spent and creative effort in creating something like a film or a record merely serves to show how little appreciation he has for the hard working (and often brilliant) creators.

    Everyone one of his articles seems to neglect the fact the artists are a business too. They need a way to make money off their work and handing out everything for free is not a business plan at all.

    The phrase”copyright monopoly” is just dripping with arrogance and self righteousness in my opinion. It seems to be implying that the creators of a something aren’t worthy of all the credit and profits from their own work that they invested their souls in. Of course they deserve to have complete control over the work, because it’s was their hard work that went into creating it. This isn’t anything very complicated. Why should someone who had no hand in it’s creation get the slightest bit of credit for it?

    • JackMurdockSucks

      “The phrase”copyright monopoly” is just dripping with arrogance and self righteousness in my opinion. It seems to be implying that the creators of a something aren’t worthy of all the credit and profits from their own work that they invested their souls in. Of course they deserve to have complete control over the work, because it’s was their hard work that went into creating it. This isn’t anything very complicated. Why should someone who had no hand in it’s creation get the slightest bit of credit for it? ”

      Oh STFU you JackOff. You of all people should not discuss what phrase or terms drip with arrogance and self righteousness. You! You call people thieves, you assume everyone on here steals, etc. And you take from anything anyone says that they feel entitled to steal. Someone can write “I saw a painting the other day at the museum, they were having free admission, so I decided to go in, and the painting blew my mind, it was beautiful.” Jack’s take from that, “You just steal everything don’t you, you goddamn thief.” I dare you to say otherwise. Or better said, you will say that you don’t do that, but proof is in your comment history. And people here know you well enough to know it’s true.

      And as someone else on here already pointed out, JUST BECAUSE YOU CREATE DOES NOT ENTITLE YOU TO ASSUME YOU’LL MAKE MONEY. Yes, you may make money off something you create. YOU MAY. That does not mean you will. There’s no guarantee. Which is something you’re overlooking. As per your quote above, you’re saying “they made, they get paid”. There’s no middle ground there. You’re saying if I write a song right now, I am entitled to $1 million automatically. Just because. That’s wrong. And that’s a big assumption on your part and anyone else’s who’s under that impression.

      As for the rest of that one quoted piece. You’re right, why should someone who had no hand in it’s creation get the slightest bit of credit? Why should people who don’t create anything profit off the work of those who do? They shouldn’t. That’s what I’m understanding. Is that what you’re saying though? Because if that is the case, why are these middle men/suits/etc getting to profit off the work of others? Why is it they’re the ones fighting hardest to preserve the old ways? So they can keep making money off the work of others, while doing no actual creating themselves, that’s why. That you support. That’s what I’m inferring from your various whatevers (I’d call them “rants” but that’d do the term “rants” a grave injustice to be used in conjunction with what you spew out).

    • Guest103

      Their work is their copy. That’s the physical thing produced. Copyright monopoly applies to other copies after publication (release of a copy).

      If you don’t want something copied, don’t release a copy.

      If I make a copy, they didn’t labor to produce it. This is a matter of basic physics of the universe.

    • Louigi Verona

      “1. You do pay a “fee” for a refrigerator. When you go to the store, you need to pay the cashier before they give it to you. You also pay for the electricity.”

      This is incorrect. This is not a “fee”, this is a price for the refrigerator. Rick was talking about a fee to another organization.

      “Of course they deserve to have complete control over the work, because it’s was their hard work that went into creating it.”

      If a person wrote a book and now doesn’t allow anyone to do anything with it – what is the use of his book? Some of us believe that culture is not something you should admire from a distance. I will admire an author who has gifted the world his talent, not the one who is sells it on his terms, looking over my shoulder at what I do with it. This is the creepy feeling I get when I think of Harry Potter books.
      Total control over a book that became part of our culture is way too much power – no government in the world has that kind of power.

      So no, nobody deserves control over their work after it was released. They only deserve that their name is on the work – and this is what really happens in our world.

  • MRK2

    Music doesn’t create itself, its created by ARTISTS. And ARTISTS are the main beneficiary of copy-write compensation. This refrigerator argument ridiculous. If the analogy was used correctly, then others would be able to create their own music like electricity allowed for people to make their own refrigerators, NOT the distribution of air, but the ability to create it yourself. and everyone doesn’t have talent, its not the job of the musician to slave away to create for free so others can be entertained. if someone figured out how to circumvent you wages while you still had to do a full days work, maybe you would get it. duh

    • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

      You miss the fact that the RECORDING COMPANIES are paying artists literally pennies on the dollar (sometimes only a penny) on the 20 dollar sale of a CD.

      • MRK2

        the bigger fact than that is that everyone wants it all for free and the artist would get LESS than pennies on the dollar, I am all for eliminating the middle man but the majority is for eliminating having to compensate the artist PERIOD. that is just wrong

  • MRK2

    Music doesn’t create itself, its created by ARTISTS. And ARTISTS are the main beneficiary of copy-write compensation. This refrigerator argument ridiculous. If the analogy was used correctly, then others would be able to create their own music like electricity allowed for people to make their own refrigerators, NOT the distribution of air, but the ability to create it yourself. and everyone doesn’t have talent, its not the job of the musician to slave away to create for free so others can be entertained. if someone figured out how to circumvent you wages while you still had to do a full days work, maybe you would get it. duh

  • Guest


    its not the job of the musician to slave away to create for free so others can be entertained.

    It’s not the job of the taxpayer to fund dopeheads calling themselves creators or their litigation happy descendants.

    There is no free entertainment, very well, but neither is there free enforcement. The taxpayers paying for the police, courts and the subsidizing of the creative industries and the draconian laws regulating internet service providers have no natural obligation to fund enforcement of IP 90+ years after the death of the
    creator.

    Arguments in support of state subsidized enforcement in all but the most egregious commercial exploitation cases is not respecting property rights but a call for socialist welfare — with the important caveat that the taxpayers unlike in an official socialist system get nothing in return.

    I will begin to respect the creators moral outrage when they cease to rely on handouts from the welfare state and pay all expenses rising from enforcement of their copyrights.

    Until then, I’ll keep sharing.

    • MRK2

      What do you do for income? What if someone stole your paycheck each week? what if someone broke into your house and stole your money? if you would be fine with that, then you have a point, otherwise you are a hypocrite. You would certainly not be against ‘free enforcement’ then. There is not an army of ‘enforcers’

      • Guest

        What if someone stole your paycheck each week? what if someone broke into your house and stole your money? if you would be fine with that, then you have a point, otherwise you are a hypocrite.

        You well know that breaking into physical property is a criminal offense, whereas violating intellectual property is a civil matter – a wrong between two private parties – at least when there is no commercial element to the act.

        I simply don’t think that it’s the business of the state to streamline enforcement of civil intellectual property claims against noncommercial copying.

        Stealing physical property deprives the lawful owner of something to the effect that he no longer can dispose of it, whereas copying only threatens the rights holder’s commercial interest.

        If you want to make the argument that noncommercial copying from society’s point of view is equivalent with physical theft, and merits similar investigation and punishment, let me tell you a secret, even small offenses against physical property are rarely prosecuted and punished with the same vigor as intellectual property crimes. There is no argument that stealing a physical cd from a shop should result in a two million fine, or that people accused of stealing should be presumed guilty and pay for appealing their convictions, or that evidence collected by private investigators should be presumed true.

        If you want to treat IP infringement similar to criminal matters, give all accused infringers the same procedural protections as the defendants in criminal cases.

        But that’s likely not what you want. Your side plays a dishonest double game – calling IP infringement theft but suddently claims that evidence in civil copyright cases is good enough because the matter is civil.

    • MRK2

      What do you do for income? What if someone stole your paycheck each week? what if someone broke into your house and stole your money? if you would be fine with that, then you have a point, otherwise you are a hypocrite. You would certainly not be against ‘free enforcement’ then. There is not an army of ‘enforcers’

  • http://artists-bill-of-rights.org Gordon

    The argument presented in this article is intellectually defective. Ice cubes were no longer bought because they were not wanted. Creative works by talented artists are in as much demand as ever. The problem is that there are people who think they are entitled to creative works for free. They are not.

    If an artist can’t sell his work because of lack of talent, or poor business skills, he won’t survive for long as an artist. This is fair. What is not fair, and is in fact immoral, is to take creative works you like without paying for them. If you like them, pay for them, if you can’t afford them, save up.

    Another point often made in attacking copyright is that it is a ‘privileged monopoly’. This is an argument founded on an inability to understand the scope of copyright. Copyright is NOT a privileged monopoly, it is a moral human right granted to every person on the planet. All human beings are creative and copyright allows everyone to benefit from the fruits of their creativity. Copyright is an individual human right enshrined in article 27 of the UN Human Rights act of 1948.

    I say to anyone reading this, respect the creativity of your fellow human beings, it is right that you should do so, respect their exclusive right to make a living from their creativity, be creative yourself, enrich our culture and enjoy the benefits of copyright granted to you.

    • Anonymous

      You can’t read. It’s about the distribution of ice, they did not make ice, they got their ice from a lake, just moving it around. It’s been explained enough times now.

    • Fredrika

      > “Another point often made in attacking copyright is that it is a ‘privileged monopoly’. This is an argument founded on an inability to understand the scope of copyright. Copyright is NOT a privileged monopoly, it is a moral human right granted to every person on the planet. All human beings are creative and copyright allows everyone to benefit from the fruits of their creativity. Copyright is an individual human right enshrined in article 27 of the UN Human Rights act of 1948.”

      Most definitely not!? You have completely misread what 27.2 actually says. It says:

      “Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interestsresulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.”

      First of all it obviously does not say that the author has any right to be privileged with a copyright monopoly. The moral and material interests only excist, if society priviliges the author with a copyright monopoly in the first place.

      So it says that if society feels that he should be privileged with such a monopoly, then he has the right to protection of it. To be privileged with the monopoly itself, which is a sellable goods, is obviously never a right.

      Thirdly, it clearly says that the author has that right to protection, not a later party that has purchased the copyright monopoly from the author.

      Fourth, the rules for the human rights is that one right can not conflict with another. Therefore the protection of these eventual privileged interests resulting from a creation, can not intrude into peoples human right to private communication, and right to anonymity.

      It’s painfully obvious the the only person who displays an inability to understand the scope of copyright, is you. You don’t know the first thing about what copyright on a conceptual level is about, why we have it and who’s it’s suppose to benefit, or the human rights.

      To argue that it’s is a human right to out of principle be privileged with a economical legislative monopoly, that only exists through performing an intrusion into others peoples property and communication, well that comes really close to fascism.

      • Anonymous

        You know what my favorite part was? Where he tried quoting something and then using it as proof in regards to what he saying. Without actually realizing that when you present something like that, people are going to double check your evidence to make sure you aren’t misstating things or lying. Which is what you, Frederika, did. And then you went on to quote it much more properly then Gordon did and then explain it in a more detailed way. Basically, you just slapped Gordon down and did so using his own “proof”. Bravo.

        @ Gordon

        “I say to anyone reading this, respect the creativity of your fellow human beings, it is right that you should do so, respect their exclusive right to make a living from their creativity, be creative yourself, enrich our culture and enjoy the benefits of copyright granted to you. ”

        It may be right that we do so, but it is not mandatory. At least not yet. I don’t have to respect anyone or anything. There may be laws that punish me for refusing to do so, or better said for doing something that is contrary to respecting someone or something (like physically harming someone or destroying property), but that’s not the same thing as saying I have to respect them. And “right” is in the eye of the beholder. What’s right in your opinion may not be right in mine, and vice versa. Don’t try and bring morals or anything like that into this. Because your morals aren’t mine, and mine aren’t Frederika’s, and Frederika’s aren’t Rick’s, and so on and so forth. And no, I’m not in for or against file sharing or any other thing. I let my own morals and ethics guide me in regards to most things I do, which don’t always go with what’s legally acceptable or morally acceptable. I decide for myself. What I feel applies to me, I believe others do. Each can decide for himself or herself what to do or not do. And I won’t judge them for that or try and guilt them into doing what I do or do not do. Or preach to them and try and force my beliefs on them. Which appears to be what you and too many people on here are trying to do. And by “too many” I mean people who are strictly anti-file sharing and pro-copyright. There are some who argue points and discuss them well, and that’s something I respect and admire. But throwing guilt around and accusing people of being thieves and whatnot isn’t going to make anyone want to listen to you, much less think that you’re right. (And I’m not saying you did that, or do that. But some do.) Just my two cents on the matter.

      • Prerok

        Copying a movie is not comparable to any ice box or any other similar comparison. Every person with a fridge in that story created his own ice out of different water with different structure. No one reproduced the same exact ice as it has been sold before. And even if they had, there wouldn’t be a problem, because that ice has been chopped off in the nature.
        One is free to reproduce any movie or song on his own. You have all the tools, not just a fridge, but cameras, mikes, computers… You can make your own Titanic movie. Is anyone stopping you over the copyright?

        That’s why copyright is needed in digital age more than before, because that’s the only insurance author has.

        Now, if you are saying it’s up to the society to decide how his work will be used, is that considered a democracy? Is it because the majority decides they can overpower the few?

        You know what? You might be shocked if there were a referendum on this subject. You may believe that a vast majority is against copyrights (because it will be explained to them on a principle of free movies, music and software), but are you sure that’s what majority of voters want (once they are explained their son’s work is worth nothing becaise everyone just copies it).

        Simply because some work can be digitised and copied in form of zeros and ones, that doesn’t mean we have to discriminate that kind of work.

        In the future it will be possible to change everything into information, because that’s what everything is anyway. And you will be able to go in the nature and scan bluberries and recreate one at home. I suppose there will be online library of all sorts of bluberries already. I have a feeling, if there was some scientist creating his own fruit that looked like any other bluberry and wanted to keep it for himself, you’ll be the one expecting that his fruit is immediatelly avaliable for reproduction.

        You don’t have to answer any of the questions, if you only answer this one:
        If I scanned your house keys from the far and post online all data that is needed to reproduce one, would I be breaking any laws?

      • Prerok

        Copying a movie is not comparable to any ice box or any other similar comparison. Every person with a fridge in that story created his own ice out of different water with different structure. No one reproduced the same exact ice as it has been sold before. And even if they had, there wouldn’t be a problem, because that ice has been chopped off in the nature.
        One is free to reproduce any movie or song on his own. You have all the tools, not just a fridge, but cameras, mikes, computers… You can make your own Titanic movie. Is anyone stopping you over the copyright?

        That’s why copyright is needed in digital age more than before, because that’s the only insurance author has.

        Now, if you are saying it’s up to the society to decide how his work will be used, is that considered a democracy? Is it because the majority decides they can overpower the few?

        You know what? You might be shocked if there were a referendum on this subject. You may believe that a vast majority is against copyrights (because it will be explained to them on a principle of free movies, music and software), but are you sure that’s what majority of voters want (once they are explained their son’s work is worth nothing becaise everyone just copies it).

        Simply because some work can be digitised and copied in form of zeros and ones, that doesn’t mean we have to discriminate that kind of work.

        In the future it will be possible to change everything into information, because that’s what everything is anyway. And you will be able to go in the nature and scan bluberries and recreate one at home. I suppose there will be online library of all sorts of bluberries already. I have a feeling, if there was some scientist creating his own fruit that looked like any other bluberry and wanted to keep it for himself, you’ll be the one expecting that his fruit is immediatelly avaliable for reproduction.

        You don’t have to answer any of the questions, if you only answer this one:
        If I scanned your house keys from the far and post online all data that is needed to reproduce one, would I be breaking any laws?

        • Fredrika

          > “..

          That’s why copyright is needed in digital age more than before, because that’s the only insurance author has.”

          That’s why? You didn’t put forward any evidence in your text, that proves that the copyright monopoly needs to control non-profit manufacturing and distribution, or that that single particular business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies is needed by society, for intellectual works to able to be created?

          And insurance? Copyright has never been any sort of insurance that will guarantee that the creator will get any money back from his work? There has always been creators and entrepreneurs that have failed to capitalize on their work, and that will always be the case whether society has copyright or not. Such failure is not a copyright related issue.

          > “Now, if you are saying it’s up to the society to decide how his work will be used, is that considered a democracy?”

          Whether it’s considered a democracy or not by you or others does not change the fact that that’s how it works, and always has? Nor or does it change the fact that the single particular business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies, is no longer needed?

          > “You may believe that a vast majority is against copyrights (because it will be explained to them on a principle of free movies, music and software), but are you sure that’s what majority of voters want (once they are explained their son’s work is worth nothing becaise everyone just copies it).”

          I have never made any such statements, that his work is worth nothing, because everyone just copies it? Are you having a really hard time reading what i actually write?

          I have said, that the work of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies has no value, since the consumer can perform that job himself, free of charge. That is not the same thing as that the content or the work put in to create it, has no value. I clearly stated that it does have value, and that’s why it’s fully possible to use the result, the intellectual work, in a large number of different business models, that are built up around the use of that work.

          The single particular business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies however, is obviously not needed any more.

          > “Simply because some work can be digitised and copied in form of zeros and ones, that doesn’t mean we have to discriminate that kind of work.”

          Nor have i ever made such claim. And again you confuse the content and the work, with the physical copies. The fact that the single particular business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies no longer is needed, is not discriminating of the work of creating content.

          > “In the future it will be possible to..”

          Your own predictions of the future does not change the fact that the single particular business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies is no longer needed.

          > “If I scanned your house keys from the far and post online all data that is needed to reproduce one, would I be breaking any laws?”

          Whether or not that would be in violation with any law depends on the laws in the country which you currently resides? In either way, that is not any kind of argument that changes the fact that the single particular business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies, is no longer needed.

        • Prerok

          @Fredrika

          Again, I can’t reply to your comment, I can only post this in a reply to mine.

          >>That’s why copyright is needed in digital age more than before, because that’s the only insurance author has.”

          >That’s why? You didn’t put forward any evidence in your text, that proves that the copyright monopoly needs to control non-profit manufacturing and distribution, or that that single particular business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies is needed by society, for intellectual works to able to be created?

          I can give you a very simple example.
          Big greedy monopolistic studio creates an animation, Shrek, if you will. Hundreds of thousands kids in my country would like to watch it dubbed in local language. I have to buy the rights to actually do it locally. I have to pay actors, director, studio and everyone else involved in the dubbing.
          Now, because you have the idea that copying is manufacturing your own goods, I can only sell one DVD and then it’s over. Everyone can copy it from that first buyer or in many cases, from the thief that took it out of studio without permission.

          This is why copyright is needed, it’s the only way to recoup expenses. Remember, this doesn’t even have to be about the profit, it’s simply about providing a service.

          However, since you still really firmly believe that you are actually manufacting something (even though you didn’t), what do you think will happen due to piracy? I am not some big studio that can afford beaing stolen from. I am not a billionare turned samaritan that gives stuff for free. I have to work every day, hard, to produce that kind of content. But if I spent so much money and I don’t have the copyright, I will not localise any animation, ever. Do you think others will do it? No, they saw me lost all my money, so what would they repeat that mistake. Will the kids still get their animation localised? No. Will those actors still get dubbing jobs? No, they won’t. And remember, there is no need for me to make money out of dvd manufacturing. If I had to sell dvds for a dollar more because of that, I’d rather let people download it at the lower price.
          However, no matter what kind of streaming service I provide, I will never recover my costs, because, if someone is copying my work and shares it for free, then I can’t compete with free.
          There is completely legal way of getting all the stuff that you want. If you don’t want to buy dubbed movie on DVD, VOD or in theater, if you wait for a year, it will be aired for free on TV. This is where I would consider my work to be in a semi public domain. I had my chance to make money with the work I produced, if I covered my expenses, I will try to do it again. (not even getting a profit out of it, mind you). But if I am not allowed to control my content from the start, then what’s the point in inventing anything.

        • Fredrika

          > “Well, I am obviosly missing something, because this is the only place I can post, I can’t reply to yours, it only lets me like it.”

          I told you, reply in the Disqus Dashboard, not on this page. Secondly, your last answer wasn’t even posted as a reply to me, but to yourself?

          > “Every owner would gladly transfer that distribution and production price back to buyer and thus reducing the price of his content.”

          Since the content is never what is sold, there’s obviously no price for it. Why are you coming up with new false claims, that already has been refuted in previous comments?

          > “..but you do buy the experience.”

          No, you most certainly do not? Again for the what, the fifth time, you put this false claim forward? You buy the physical goods, when it comes to copies. That’s it.

          > “The root of this whole argument for you is that there is no need for manufacturing….”

          No, that is not the root for any argument i’ve put forward. The fact that society no longer needs the particular business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, is not why you do not buy the content or the experience.

          > “Guess what, creating something IS manufacturing.”

          Yes, and obviously people no longer need anyone to manufacture the physical copies for them, since they can do that themselves. Are you still having a problem separating the creation of the content, with the manufacturing of the copies?

          > “..but you let content owner to control it anyway he pleases him as well.”

          Because you say so? Because he wishes it, to make money from a business model that is no longer needed? Obviously the creator shouldn’t be privileged with a monopoly that performs intrusion into peoples own property, just because he wishes it, or because he wishes to force a particular business model upon people, a business model that is no longer needed.

          > Just because we live in a digital age and something doesn’t have the need to be connected to some predetermined physical form, that doesn’t mean that some creation is immediatelly public domain after publishing on one type of physical media.”

          I have never made such a ridiculous claim. Nor would i ever, since such a backwards claim again would reverse the order of society, as if everything was forbidden, until you can justify that it for some reason shouldn’t be. Society simply doesn’t work in that order.

          > “You are not manufacturing anything. You can manufacture a dvd, you can send it to your friends, but you are not manufacturing content yourself no matter what you think you are doing. Downloading a movie and burning it on dvd is not manufacturing. You are only producing a copy.”

          I have never claimed otherwise? And as you know, the business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies is no longer needed, since the consumers can perform that job themselves.

          > “Copyright has it’s purpuse no matter how you feel about it.”

          I have never claimed that copyright doesn’t have a purpose, or that i feel something about it? The fact that copyright has a purpose does not change the fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distribution and selling physical copies no longer is needed.

          > “If I am designing a building and someone breaks into my PC and steals all plans and then sells them, how am I going to be compensated for my work, if there is no copyright?”

          Copyright isn’t about compensating you for your work, and still, that off topic question, or the rest of your rant, still doesn’t change the fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distribution and selling physical copies no longer is needed.

          > “Everything would be cheaper, except guys that actually do produce anything valuable, would rather go do something that will actually be paid.”

          If you create to make money, you should obviously try to make money from a business model that actually works and that is needed, that’s the only way you will make any money. But that does not change the fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distribution and selling physical copies no longer is needed.

          > “In other words, there will be no need for inovation at all.”

          Society’s need for innovation is obviously not connected with an absolute correlation to the existence of the single business model of manufacturing, distribution and selling physical copies, or the fact that that business model no longer is needed.

          > “But don’t drag everyone else into this.”

          I’m not dragging anyone into anything, by stating the fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distribution and selling physical copies no longer is needed.

          > “Now, because you have the idea that copying is manufacturing your own goods..

          It’s not an idea? It’s a physical and scientific fact? Copying is the act of manufacturing a new physical copy, identical to the first one, with your own physical property.

          > “This is why copyright is needed, it’s the only way to recoup expenses.”

          No? The fact that you might not be able to recoup your expenses from the particular single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling physical copies, does not equate that it’s impossible to recoup those expenses through other business models.

          > “what do you think will happen due to piracy?”

          Entrepreneurs always have a sole responsibility to find ways to get revenues, from working and sought after business models, that the public sees a need for, and feels is worth the money. Copyright or piracy doesn’t change that fact.

          > “But if I spent so much money and I don’t have the copyright”

          The fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distribution and selling physical copies no longer is needed, does not equate that you no longer have the copyright to your works.

          > “However, no matter what kind of streaming service I provide, I will never recover my costs, because, if someone is copying my work and shares it for free, then I can’t compete with free.”

          It’s fully possible to compete with the fact that people can manufacture and distribute their own copies for free. There is already several functioning business models built up around the use of intellectual works, that perform that exact task.

          > “There is completely legal way of getting all the stuff that you want. If you don’t want to buy dubbed movie on DVD, VOD or in theater, if you wait for a year, it will be aired for free on TV. This is where I would consider my work to be in a semi public domain.”

          That possibility, or your opinion on the matter, does not change the fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distribution and selling physical copies no longer is needed.

          > “But if I am not allowed to control my content from the start, then what’s the point in inventing anything.”

          The fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distribution and selling physical copies no longer is needed, does not equate that you’re not allowed to control your content.

  • http://artists-bill-of-rights.org Gordon

    The argument presented in this article is intellectually defective. Ice cubes were no longer bought because they were not wanted. Creative works by talented artists are in as much demand as ever. The problem is that there are people who think they are entitled to creative works for free. They are not.

    If an artist can’t sell his work because of lack of talent, or poor business skills, he won’t survive for long as an artist. This is fair. What is not fair, and is in fact immoral, is to take creative works you like without paying for them. If you like them, pay for them, if you can’t afford them, save up.

    Another point often made in attacking copyright is that it is a ‘privileged monopoly’. This is an argument founded on an inability to understand the scope of copyright. Copyright is NOT a privileged monopoly, it is a moral human right granted to every person on the planet. All human beings are creative and copyright allows everyone to benefit from the fruits of their creativity. Copyright is an individual human right enshrined in article 27 of the UN Human Rights act of 1948.

    I say to anyone reading this, respect the creativity of your fellow human beings, it is right that you should do so, respect their exclusive right to make a living from their creativity, be creative yourself, enrich our culture and enjoy the benefits of copyright granted to you.

  • John Mateyko

    Great article!

  • guest


    Another point often made in attacking copyright is that it is a ‘privileged monopoly’. This is an argument founded on an inability to understand the scope of copyright. Copyright is NOT a privileged monopoly, it is a moral human right granted to every person on the planet.

    Not at all. Copyright’s only constitutional justification is promoting the progress of arts and science by granting the creators exclusive rights for a limited time.

    If copyright is a moral human right, I suppose that you object to that copyright expires after 90 years.

    I really can’t reconcile the claim that copyright is a human right with the state having the power to take the right away after a limited time. How can that be? Either copyright is a moral human rights in which case it logically should last forever — giving the creator’s descendants exclusivity rights in perpetuity – or if copyright can be cut off by a law making it expire after 90 years – the cut off date could as well be 5, 10 or 20 years.

    Why isn’t it immoral to retroactively extend copyright thereby depriving people of the public domain?

    Copyright is only touted as a moral human right, when its opponents seek to limit or roll it back. I have never met a copyright maximalist decrying the theft from the public domain in the retroactive extension of copyright terms.

    The logical conclusion to your claim is that all classical works including the Koran, The Bible and The Federalist Papers belong to someone – either a corporation or the descendants of the creators.

  • Indy

    Just wanted to comment that my kids are 8/10 and they have zero interest in feature-length movies. Perhaps that is a product of youtube, perhaps its a product of I simply won’t pay $10/movie for the rest of my life, but the fact is there is now at least several generations that refuse to go to a theater and see movies in that format anymore.

    • Prerok

      Isn’t that perfect? Now, if you can convince them that they don’t need to listen to copyrighted music or use copyrighted software, you’re golden. No agency can reach you.

  • Pingback: Nobody Asked For A Refrigerator Fee | TorrentFreak | NotSoCrazyNews BETA

  • http://gondwanaland.com/mlog mlinksva

    I was expecting a humorous rant against a levy on internet-enabled (ie copying-capble) refrigerators, but this was a most excellent article anyway.

  • Foff

    Great article. What everybody has missed is the fact that is the artificial argument that copyright has anything to do with creativity. It does not! Take away all copyright what will happen? Music will stop? Hollywood will instantly go out of business?

    I think without copyright creativity would explode. Anyone could make their own Harry Potter Universe. Instead of 7 books there would be 7000. I think if anything copyright stifles creativity. Look at youtube at one time we had tons of people having fun creating music videos to their favorite songs now all have is vevo.

    As with any product if the original is good enough it will make money. People pay premiums for name name brand products. Entertainment is no different people will pay for a good product. It does not need 90 years of protection to make money.

    • BurpAturD

      What YOU seem to have missed, el genioso, is that you are ALREADY free to create whatever the fuck you like, be it music or film or literature. Buy a home studio, get typing on that keyboard, shit even film something using your mobile phone camera (after all a TRUE artist doesn’t need expensive equipment right?).

      The truth is people are already doing this and the vast, vast VAAAST majority of it is total shit. Awful, awful, eye-gougingly bad self indulgent shite devoid of any real worth. Because no one thinks of creative products as having any (worth), because so many people are not-fucking-paying-for-them nowadays, they think that if they tunelessly vomit out some cack handed lyrics into a webcam and put it on the internets then they are an artist. Rebecca Black’s due-paying to the music scene probably lasted all of about 45 minutes during which she figured out what order the days of the week go in. I think we can all agree that fuck, did it show.

      But hey, it’s all information right? So what’s it fucking worth anyway? So why bother even making an effort to create our own universes, characters, ideas, songs, stories or whatever anymore?! Let’s stand on the shoulders of people from a time when creativity was rewarded and tweak it to satisfy our own indulgences. Why the fuck should we care that we’re bastardising the work of others, we have no concept of inherent value. Let’s take all the checks and balances out of the system, along with all the quality control, the creative nurturing and all the investment while we’re at it by bringing down the nasty evil corporations. Shit, the job centers will be a lot fuller with all those MAFIAA bastards getting made redundant and the greedy fat cat sound engineers getting kicked out of their gold-plated basement suites but at least there’ll be 7000 new Harry Potter stories available for Kindle on a daily basis and a never ending YouTube feed of acoustic ‘Use Somebody’ covers and try-hard Emo garage bands for us to enjoy. Jesus, try and imagine that reality without feeling like you’re going to burp a turd.

      THAT is where we are headed. That is what you are going to get if you insist on putting film studios and publishing and record companies out of business. Never ending YouTube covers and Harry Potter fan fiction. Creativity CANNOT flourish in an environment without some form of creative elitism, even if there was an explosion in devent works it would be buried beneath the landslide of insipid afterbirth that would inevitably accompany it. Have you ever tried to find diamonds in a reservoir of dog shit? I can’t imagine it’s easy, or fun.

      (As a little asode – I’ll leave films out of it actually, because I do think that some tremendous work is done in the indie film scene with very little to no ‘industry’ support, but I don’t want blockbusters to go away either and they take -serious- industry investment to get made. Reckon the Dark Knight would have gone into production if the budget depended on BitCoin donations?)

      FOFF – or anyone else, for that matter – don’t even bother replying. I cannot debate with anyone on here. I just wanted to stand here and shout about this so that one day, when all you selfish greedy tits have fucked everything into a cocked hat, I’ll be able to come back and say I told you so. And damn, it will make me feel good.

      Rick – laughable article as always, I know five year-olds who like to eat crayons who have a better grasp on logic than you do. Also, I feel someone should tell you that writing things in bold does not make you right. Keep ‘em coming and stay off those meds buddy, you’re comedy gold.

      *AAaaaand unclench*

    • Ven

      http://www.harrypotterfanfiction.com/

      Now don’t quote me because I haven’t read every last one, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that most of them suck. Few if any are written at the level of Rowling’s novels.

      Creativity is free to explode now. And it does. However, there are those talented individuals who use the publicity, production, and distribution models in place to make sure their works touch far more people than they would otherwise.

      Just think about the loss fiction would have suffered if someone like Tolkien or Asimov simply uploaded their works onto blogs. Sure, there is a chance that they may be noticed, but there is a far better chance that one of a million other self-centered “writers” would spew so much garbage that brilliance would simply go unnoticed.

  • Foff

    Great article. What everybody has missed is the fact that is the artificial argument that copyright has anything to do with creativity. It does not! Take away all copyright what will happen? Music will stop? Hollywood will instantly go out of business?

    I think without copyright creativity would explode. Anyone could make their own Harry Potter Universe. Instead of 7 books there would be 7000. I think if anything copyright stifles creativity. Look at youtube at one time we had tons of people having fun creating music videos to their favorite songs now all have is vevo.

    As with any product if the original is good enough it will make money. People pay premiums for name name brand products. Entertainment is no different people will pay for a good product. It does not need 90 years of protection to make money.

  • Pingback: Nobody Asked For A Refrigerator Fee | TorrentFreak | Private inforation Network

  • Pingback: Column: Nobody Asked For A Refrigerator Fee - Falkvinge on Infopolicy

  • Anon

    Just another specious Falkvinge “argument” that ignores the real point and damages piracy’s chance at legality someday. No wonder copyright reduction isn’t under serious discussion by the legislators.

    Closer to a truth would be if the ice makers created and developed a particular kind of ice that was the direct product of their vision, labor and their significant money investment, then they protected their unique product legally and offered it for licence.

    Then, with all kinds of other free ice legitimately available, their “customers” find a technical way to hide and make unlawful free copies of this particular ice product, thereby capitalizing and benefitting from the icemakers investments without repaying for the developmental costs if they take and enjoy the benefits of this particular ice.

    It does my heart good to see a so-called leader of the pirate movement resort to such bs sophism and outright falsehoods that he actually damages his own cause and voice.

    Hilarious.

    • AnonSucks

      “No wonder copyright reduction isn’t under serious discussion by legislators.”

      Actually, the reason it ISN’T under any discussion whatsoever (much less a serious one) by legislators is because the people who have a vested interest in it (the corporations and various studios/labels/whatnot) ARE NOT interested in reducing the length of copyright. It’s not in their best interest to reduce it. And since they lobby to have laws changed to suit their best interest, it’s obviously not going to be put up for discussion by legislators. Or better said, legislators won’t discuss it til the corporations (or “those who give them campaign contributions”, for the laymen) want it discussed.

      “It does my heart good to see a so-called leader of the pirate movement resort to such bs sophism and outright falsehoods that he actually damages his own cause and voice.

      Hilarious”

      It does my heart even more good to see that if you’re so in the right, and pirates are so off the mark (as in Rick’s arguments) and all that stuff, that you even feel the need to come on here and comment at all. If I’m right about something I don’t even bother mentioning it. I’m right, that’s it. End of story. If however, I am in doubt about my being correct, or worried that I might be wrong, or some kind of variation thereof, I will make it a point to keep arguing or trying to put on a brave carefree front. When in reality I’m as nervous as a 17 year old girl who’s period is a week late. Me thinks doth thou “not” protest (although one can see you clearly are protesting) because you’re worried. You see that some can argue a point in a much better way than you and are gaining a following and that scares you. Change always takes time, it’s never an overnight thing. And this change has been a long time coming. What scares people like you isn’t that you think you’re the majority. If anything it’s evenly divided. Half and half, between those who don’t want change and those who do. What scares you is recent measures enacted or soon to be enacted by people on your side of the debate. Why? Because those measures aren’t known about by those who aren’t part of the debate (i.e. the Average Person, which most people fall under). But when they find out about them, when explained in a reasonable and easy to understand manner, by guy’s like Rick, they won’t just say “eh, let’s go with those things” and side with the pro-copyright/anti-piracy crowd. They’ll say “WTF?!” And definitely not approve. That scares you. That is what I find hilarious. That you claim to not be worried and boasting, but that’s a flat out lie. Just wait. The last laugh won’t be had by you. It’ll be had at your expense however. But the only thing you’ll be doing at the end is b*tching even more, calling people thieves, and saying everyone who doesn’t agree with you will “rue the day”. Something like that.

      “The storm had now definitely abated, and what thunder there was now grumbled over more distant hills, like a man saying “And another thing…” twenty minutes after admitting he’s lost the argument.”

      I can’t wait to here your “And another thing…” There’s always “and another thing” with guys like you.

    • AnonSucks

      “No wonder copyright reduction isn’t under serious discussion by legislators.”

      Actually, the reason it ISN’T under any discussion whatsoever (much less a serious one) by legislators is because the people who have a vested interest in it (the corporations and various studios/labels/whatnot) ARE NOT interested in reducing the length of copyright. It’s not in their best interest to reduce it. And since they lobby to have laws changed to suit their best interest, it’s obviously not going to be put up for discussion by legislators. Or better said, legislators won’t discuss it til the corporations (or “those who give them campaign contributions”, for the laymen) want it discussed.

      “It does my heart good to see a so-called leader of the pirate movement resort to such bs sophism and outright falsehoods that he actually damages his own cause and voice.

      Hilarious”

      It does my heart even more good to see that if you’re so in the right, and pirates are so off the mark (as in Rick’s arguments) and all that stuff, that you even feel the need to come on here and comment at all. If I’m right about something I don’t even bother mentioning it. I’m right, that’s it. End of story. If however, I am in doubt about my being correct, or worried that I might be wrong, or some kind of variation thereof, I will make it a point to keep arguing or trying to put on a brave carefree front. When in reality I’m as nervous as a 17 year old girl who’s period is a week late. Me thinks doth thou “not” protest (although one can see you clearly are protesting) because you’re worried. You see that some can argue a point in a much better way than you and are gaining a following and that scares you. Change always takes time, it’s never an overnight thing. And this change has been a long time coming. What scares people like you isn’t that you think you’re the majority. If anything it’s evenly divided. Half and half, between those who don’t want change and those who do. What scares you is recent measures enacted or soon to be enacted by people on your side of the debate. Why? Because those measures aren’t known about by those who aren’t part of the debate (i.e. the Average Person, which most people fall under). But when they find out about them, when explained in a reasonable and easy to understand manner, by guy’s like Rick, they won’t just say “eh, let’s go with those things” and side with the pro-copyright/anti-piracy crowd. They’ll say “WTF?!” And definitely not approve. That scares you. That is what I find hilarious. That you claim to not be worried and boasting, but that’s a flat out lie. Just wait. The last laugh won’t be had by you. It’ll be had at your expense however. But the only thing you’ll be doing at the end is b*tching even more, calling people thieves, and saying everyone who doesn’t agree with you will “rue the day”. Something like that.

      “The storm had now definitely abated, and what thunder there was now grumbled over more distant hills, like a man saying “And another thing…” twenty minutes after admitting he’s lost the argument.”

      I can’t wait to here your “And another thing…” There’s always “and another thing” with guys like you.

      • Anonymous

        “Actually, the reason it ISN’T under any discussion whatsoever (much less a serious one) by legislators is because the people who have a vested interest in it (the corporations and various studios/labels/whatnot) ARE NOT interested in reducing the length of copyright. ”

        Ok, is that the real problem? Lenght? It’s been argued on this site to the point of madness that there shouldn’t be copyright at all. So if the greed biz shortened that lenght, what would be the right time? For a song, movie, software, books,…?

        I agree, current lenght is idiotic. For, lets say books, since there is mostly only one author, they should last him till the end of his life or if he died with young children, then they should inherit the rights untill they are 18 or 21. Fair?

        How about movies? If the lenght is the problem, why are there cam versions online? Why are there music albums that haven’t been even released, but were stolen from the studio?

        Every pirate will find his rationale for downloading no matter what the owner of copyright does. If everyone started offering stuff for free, there would still be people complaining it’s not enough. For some people it never can be.

        • AnonSucks

          I can’t give a right time, that’s not for me to decide. What would be fair though IMO, say the life of the creator. NOTE: CREATOR. Not the publisher. Not the label. Not the studio. The actual creator. For books, the author’s lifespan would be fine. For music the life of the actual writer of the music (be it the lyrics and song). Or if it’s a group, til the band dissolves (from it’s original incarnation at the time of creation) +20 years (for those bands that tend to burn out quick). For a movie, whoever writes the script get’s it for their lifetime. That seems fair. But for a corporation (a label, studio, publisher, etc) to get lengths changed to suit their needs, which at the moment is what over 90+ years. Come on. Things that SHOULD be in the public domain at the moment never will be. Mickey Mouse being one of the easiest things to point to in that regards.

          I did miss what you said. So after reading the rest, fair enough. Life for the original creator and when they die, their children get it til they reach the age of 18. I’d even say maybe 21. That’s reasonable. But ONLY for the creator.

          A lot of people’s problem is the creators aren’t the ones with the copyrights. It’s corporations, who then have laws changed so they can keep receiving the benefit of the work of others. That’s not very fair. Nor moral. A lot of anti-pirates/pro-copyright people love to throw morals into the various discussions. So let’s do that. What’s the main argument they use against piracy? “You’re getting something that someone else worked for.” Basically, someone did all the work and others are benefiting from it. So why then is it okay when corporations do the same thing? From a moral perspective. Leave money out of this (as in, they helped them get noticed or blah blah blah). They’re profiting off the work of someone else. For life and an additional 90+ years (to change, for the longer, as they deem fit). That’s not right.

          I’m not here to discuss why there are cam versions out. Or why the same reason for albums. You want to know why there’s copies of albums out before they’re released. Look at the studios/labels. Don’t blame file-sharers. Leaks can’t happen without someone intentionally leaking it. I mean the same applies to screeners of movies. So look at who controls the original copies before they’re officially released. You want to point fingers, point them at the right place. As for downloading, like I said, not my concern. Anon up there brought up copyright, I responded in turn. Let’s not turn this into a downloading discussion. There’s enough of that. And I don’t want to get into an argument with you. I’m trying to be civil here and discuss things reasonably without going off topic.

          I mean look at that last paragraph you wrote. You’re already pointing the topic to something else and saying “give it to ‘em free and they’ll still complain”. I could easily say the same but in regards to corporations. Let them have copyright for an additional 50 years (bring the total up to life +140 more years) and they’d still say it’s not enough. I could come up with a great business model for the digital age and hand it over to the various industries that would actually compete with file sharing (as in be so much better and easier an option, that people would choose my business model over the free alternative) and they’d still say it’s not enough. Can you say I’m wrong? No. Not if you answer honestly. The same way I can’t say you’re wrong. The truth is, at the end of the day, doesn’t matter what you do in regards to anything, someone is still always going to b*tch. If we eradicated piracy today, the industries would find something else to blame their problems on. Rather than admit their own shortcomings. You know it, I know it. Any reasonable person knows it. And vice versa. If things were completely free (no industry around), people would still b*tch. Well, it’s not up to MY standards they’d say. Or something else. It’s just how people are. But like I said, I don’t want to get into that with you. I wouldn’t mind. But not if you aren’t willing to look at it reasonably, which I’m not saying you aren’t. I’m just saying on here, no one really wants to look at anything from someone else’s point of view.

        • Anonymous

          Here’s the thing, I know about the industry more than other average downloaders, cause I got an inside look. but first things first.
          Book writers, nothing to discus for me. Author is clear, gets the rights for life, children till they turn full age. Full stop. Can’t transfer rights, can’t sell them, no corporation can own it.
          Now, the problem arrives with what you might call a work of are or simply biz product done by mane. You are mentioning script writer in relation to movies. Let me tell you, since I sold scripts, screenwriters should never get anything. Here, that’s me eliminating myself out of the equation. Seriously. When you hire 100+ people to produce something, that’s a huge deal. Each one of those people might have done something trully remarkable on the film, but will never seen, or the composer might have written an amazing score which everyone will notice right away. So unfortunatelly, movies are business, there’s no other option. They will also be the hardest to determine on copyright lenght. If I hire people AND pay them for their work, I also created something, I created my fantasy team. I orchastrated this flow of talent into a single presentable product called FILM. Now, for this, either as a producer or someone else who financed and ran it, there should be copyright. You are free to remake your own story of Titanik, James Cameron won’t mind. But if you make carbon or digital copy of his film, that’s another story.
          So, this is where the whole point of the debate lies. What to do with products that have various authors, one owner and by that could be claiming ownership forever.
          Again, despite going against myself, I would seriously limit copyrights on movies, music and software. Life plus 90 years has nothing to do with reality anymore. Maybe 300 years ago, but life is moving much faster now.
          Movie has its theatrical life of six months, maybe a year (you have to understand different territories have different release dates). Even during that time VOD stars and then free tv after a year. As many independant movie makes rely on selling movies over the globe to various distributors, it’s essential for them that those buyers have the time to make their money back (believe me, prices are abnormally high, but so are movie making costs). That’s usually done in two or three tv cycles which last from two to three years. Then there are library sells where you sell few new movies and bunch of older ones and then that’s it.

          So, while Mickey Mouse (the movies, not character) is still copyrighted, it’s really hard to believe there’s a reason for it. Not because Walt died years ago, but because Disney still makes money on account of character on many forms and that I believe they should keep, but the movies should be public domain.
          So where’s the golden cutoff? 50 years? 30 years after the release? For movie biz I would be radical, if I said 30, though I would go for 15, but lets say it’s 30. This is very reasonable and at this point, it would release huge libraries into public domain.
          Music I would compare to books, if there’s one author. If it’s a band signed as the author, then you gotta let them have it for life as well, but they can’t be sold.

          While I’m being too long, just let me conclude with that there is no viable VOD service that would compete with free downloading. We have that, it’s far superior to downloading, instant play, has subtitles, extra features, but it’s not working. There are people using it, don’t get me wrong, but it hasn’t lowered the piracy.
          The future, unfortunatelly, won’t be fair in this matter. We will all pay some monthly fee and that will be then divided to the copyright holders, based on what you will watch online. Be it 5 or 10 dollars or euros, I don’t know, but it will be the only way to ensure the money flow, it will evade prosecutions and fans will actually be able to show what they are really downloading. Pure democracy by usage.

        • AnonSucks

          I can’t give a right time, that’s not for me to decide. What would be fair though IMO, say the life of the creator. NOTE: CREATOR. Not the publisher. Not the label. Not the studio. The actual creator. For books, the author’s lifespan would be fine. For music the life of the actual writer of the music (be it the lyrics and song). Or if it’s a group, til the band dissolves (from it’s original incarnation at the time of creation) +20 years (for those bands that tend to burn out quick). For a movie, whoever writes the script get’s it for their lifetime. That seems fair. But for a corporation (a label, studio, publisher, etc) to get lengths changed to suit their needs, which at the moment is what over 90+ years. Come on. Things that SHOULD be in the public domain at the moment never will be. Mickey Mouse being one of the easiest things to point to in that regards.

          I did miss what you said. So after reading the rest, fair enough. Life for the original creator and when they die, their children get it til they reach the age of 18. I’d even say maybe 21. That’s reasonable. But ONLY for the creator.

          A lot of people’s problem is the creators aren’t the ones with the copyrights. It’s corporations, who then have laws changed so they can keep receiving the benefit of the work of others. That’s not very fair. Nor moral. A lot of anti-pirates/pro-copyright people love to throw morals into the various discussions. So let’s do that. What’s the main argument they use against piracy? “You’re getting something that someone else worked for.” Basically, someone did all the work and others are benefiting from it. So why then is it okay when corporations do the same thing? From a moral perspective. Leave money out of this (as in, they helped them get noticed or blah blah blah). They’re profiting off the work of someone else. For life and an additional 90+ years (to change, for the longer, as they deem fit). That’s not right.

          I’m not here to discuss why there are cam versions out. Or why the same reason for albums. You want to know why there’s copies of albums out before they’re released. Look at the studios/labels. Don’t blame file-sharers. Leaks can’t happen without someone intentionally leaking it. I mean the same applies to screeners of movies. So look at who controls the original copies before they’re officially released. You want to point fingers, point them at the right place. As for downloading, like I said, not my concern. Anon up there brought up copyright, I responded in turn. Let’s not turn this into a downloading discussion. There’s enough of that. And I don’t want to get into an argument with you. I’m trying to be civil here and discuss things reasonably without going off topic.

          I mean look at that last paragraph you wrote. You’re already pointing the topic to something else and saying “give it to ‘em free and they’ll still complain”. I could easily say the same but in regards to corporations. Let them have copyright for an additional 50 years (bring the total up to life +140 more years) and they’d still say it’s not enough. I could come up with a great business model for the digital age and hand it over to the various industries that would actually compete with file sharing (as in be so much better and easier an option, that people would choose my business model over the free alternative) and they’d still say it’s not enough. Can you say I’m wrong? No. Not if you answer honestly. The same way I can’t say you’re wrong. The truth is, at the end of the day, doesn’t matter what you do in regards to anything, someone is still always going to b*tch. If we eradicated piracy today, the industries would find something else to blame their problems on. Rather than admit their own shortcomings. You know it, I know it. Any reasonable person knows it. And vice versa. If things were completely free (no industry around), people would still b*tch. Well, it’s not up to MY standards they’d say. Or something else. It’s just how people are. But like I said, I don’t want to get into that with you. I wouldn’t mind. But not if you aren’t willing to look at it reasonably, which I’m not saying you aren’t. I’m just saying on here, no one really wants to look at anything from someone else’s point of view.

        • AnonSucks

          Well I think you did alright with most of what you said. But I think you’re problem is you can’t think hypothetically for a moment.

          My thought on a business model that beats piracy was hypothetical and I was using that to say even if it happened they’d find something to b*tch about and you pretty much confirmed that someone would still blame piracy for any problems.

          So I’m done here, but you can compete with free.

          My grandmother and lots of people in the city she lives have their own private underground wells for water. With pumps attached that bring the water up and those things that then filter it. They’re paying for the electricity to said pumps, but ignore that for a moment, and they all get free clean water. Do you know what they do? They all go buy water in jugs or still pay for water from the water company. Why? They get it for free.

          You can beat free. But you just don’t want to think about it. It’s possible to beat anything, there’s always ways. But if you’re stuck in a certain mindset you won’t open up your mind enough to consider any possibilities. And you’re right, there is no viable VOD service that could compete with file sharing. It hasn’t been made yet. That’s my point. How can they b*tch they can’t compete when they aren’t trying. Ignore blu-rays and dvds. That’s not the same thing as a downloaded copy. A physical copy and a digital one. It’s not the same. Make something exactly the same and let people know about it. But if you don’t, of course you can’t compete.

          Netflix took off. That’s a comparable service to free downloading. How’s that doing? Very well. Only recently that studios realized it’s potential did it start kind of floundering. Because they went from not caring about it to suddenly saying oh this isn’t so bad, and placing ridiculous restrictions on it and then attempting to get a stranglehold on it through licensing fees. In addition they started forcing manufacturers of hardware to adopt DRM restrictions on various devices as well, to further kill Netflix. You want proof of that, look at the latest Android phones/tablets. Most CAN handle Netflix, but they want control so they made them include DRM technology into the phones and suddenly less people can access Netflix. That’s suddenly less people who DID want your product being denied access to it. So what option are they left with? They can do without or they can file share. Either way that’s lost revenue that the studios denied themselves. No one did that to them, they did it on their own. And as for Netflix and those restrictions and it’s floundering, what about it? Basically, they (the studios) made money while they didn’t care. They were satisfied. Then suddenly realized Netflix is what people want and will gladly pay for, and they decided they wanted a bigger piece of Netflix’s pie. Andf they’ve pretty much f*cked Netflix and themselves in the process through their greed.

          It’s more than possible to compete, like I said, Netflix is proof of that. iTunes is proof of that. Both are so simple to use and very reasonably priced. It’s a better alternative to most people than file sharing. But the studios and labels always get greedy and shoot themselves in the foot. So yeah, you know what. F*ck it. Let the people download and do as they please, I don’t care one way or another. If the studios/labels can’t see that they’re pushing away their own customers, what do I care? F*ck ‘em. Let them learn their lessons the hard way then. In the end what they’re doing is only going to alienate people more. And if you think “the people” will just gladly accept a monthly surcharge tacked on to their taxes or whatever so they can download, you’ll be surprised to find out that they don’t want that and won’t accept it. People can be quite vocal when they’re surprised by things like that. At the moment, the majority don’t know or care one way or another, force their hand and they’ll do what some are doing now. Jump ship. Just like with Netflix.

          What do I know though? I only keep up with technology and work with it. I’m no copyright expert. But I know people. And I can look at things with an open mind and I’m telling you, this negative attitude, which you expressed so well with “you can’t compete with free downloading” is not going to win anyone any supporters. You’re giving up without even making an effort. Of course you’d take the side of the “let’s sue ‘em all and lobby to have laws changed for OUR benefit” crowd. It’s easier to cry foul and have someone defend you than it is to actually stand up for yourself. Doesn’t make it the smarter move though.

        • Anonymous

          Well, when you think I can’t think in hypotheticals, that’s where you are wrong. See, I actually work in this biz, I know stuff you obviously don’t. I’ve been not just following, I was on the side that implemented everything you mentioned and not this year, but started back in 2005. Got it? 2005!
          I don’t have to tell you you can’t compete with free. You can, but you won’t make money. Not enough to justify. This is where you don’t understand (because you don’t have access to data) that, if you make some sales and publicise them (in order to attract more users), that doesn’t mean the biz is doing well, let alone providing enough income to pay for all the resources behind it.
          We had VOD, SVOD, stuff for free. Doesn’t matter.
          Steve Jobs made that comparison a while ago better than anyone. Compare the price of one song on itunes and calculate how much time you need to find it on pirate sites and download it. Then check what’s your paycheck for hour, that’s how much you value your time. Then chec again how much you basicly “paid” for that pirated songs. Ridiculous, isn’t it. And yet we do it. Of course digital sales go up, but none of that can still recoup millions of investments in production.
          So when I tell you that you can’t compete it’s not because I can’t think out of the box (god knows everyone knows me to basicly live out of the box). It’s not that. It’s the mentality.
          Studios will always find a scapegoat for their failure, be it piracy or something else. But they don’t have to invent numbers which are very clear and show exactly when and how they went down.

          What many don’t understand is the fact, that by omnipresence of high quality content at no price at all, the abstract value of it went down. Many don’t appreciate it for what it is and think whatever hwood produces, random users on youtube can as well. Anyone with an average IQ can understand that’s BS.

          So when you will work with customers, give them your stuff for free, givem them cheap, reliable, FAST, service and sese that they hardly use it and when they do, they complain about the bill, since they actually had to pay for something, then you’ll see how things trully work.
          Everything else is a fantasy and I’ll be the first one to admit it, that I had them too. I also believed all this can be done. We can offer people more stuff for less and they will reward us for it. WRONG. It’s not how it works.
          If you know how it works, well, this is how it goes.
          If I promote certain movie to the point of absurdity and that at least parts of it resonate well with the target audience, they will fill the theaters to the max. They all fall for the promotion and the fact, they can’t get it anywhere else. Well, that’s till the pirated versions online are good enough they can watch them. That’s what pays the bill and guess what, that’s what pays all those experiments where we give stuff almost for free, but no one cares.
          That’s why you’ll see people throw their money on stupid movies or facist gadget that apple make (I seriously hate how they operate, go figure, eh?). It’s the image they project. That’s what people pay for in volume that it does pay off. Everything else is just postering online by wannabe personal rights fighters.
          You can ask me any real data from movie biz and I’ll present it to you the way it is without propganda by RIAA or wall street interest. You just won’t be able to accept it, because it will ruin the fantasy world created by both sides of this argument. None of them is correct.

  • Englishdevil

    Where did the movie industry make their money before the invention of the vhs/beta machines then DVD/Bluray players. Before you could watch a movie in the comfort of your home you would go to the cinema,that was your only choice.Then innovation gave everyone the ability to watch movies at home. A sudden windfall for the entertainment industry. That windfall is now slowly drying up and they need to come up with something that competes with free, in my opinion nothing can compete with free other than a completely different business plan including free. Again in my opinion , the movie industry is milking the old system for as long as they can , people are still buying DVD/Bluray
    and will continue to in smaller and smaller numbers. As in any business profit is number one and at the moment they are still making profit from old formats. When they get to a point where they can make more money from supplying for free, they will do so. They are not blind to what is going on , they are not blind to the changes coming , they just want to keep the old system as long as possible while they are making money from it. There base business plan is theaters , they will still make enough to cover the costs of a good movie, and make huge profits if they release blockbusters i.e Over a billion for the last Harry Potter movie. The movie Industry is not stupid ,or ignorant to what is happening with technology , they know people can download a HD copy of a movie within hours of it being released, they just chose to ignore it at the moment and sue a few people to discourage others from using the new free model. I predict that in a few years they will encourage the use of free distribution and not charge for downloading the latest movies, they will release movies in HD format for free a few months after the cinema release and make money from it, a lot of money, maybe not as much as they did make , but if they are clever, and i believe they are, they will be able to get close to what they were making at the height of the DVD revolution.

  • CartmanHatesYou

    You know, I really like Rick’s articles because I learn a little history with them. And I love learning about history in any sense. With that said, I always enjoy the comments in said articles. Why? Because there’s always a huge number of people upset over his analogies. “That’s not the same thing!” they cry. Well no f*cking sh*t, Sherlock. He’s making a comparison, it won’t be exact. But the gist of it is understood and comparable to those who aren’t nitpicking the hell out of it. Heck, he could make a comparison that is literally exactly the same to any situation and some of you would still flip the hell out over it. Just because it’s Rick writing it. That’s exactly what I’ve noticed. Pick on the analogy. If the analogy is (or were to be) perfect, or explained enough that some of you eventually accept it, you then pick on Rick’s character or beliefs or whatnot. And I bet if Rick had impeccable character/beliefs/etc, you’d find something else to hate on. There’d be no pleasing you ever. Why? Just because what he feels isn’t what you feel. The only way you’d STFU and just not b*tch would be if Rick completely said exactly what you wanted to hear. And even then I have my doubts.

    So please, move on from “the analogies not the same” schtick. See past that, get that he’s making a comparison for the Average Joe Sixpack to understand. Which is what this is.

    I mean if you want it really simplified so you can shut up and move on, here goes: Icemen suddenly are not needed, because of refrigerators. Icemen accept this and move on. (To do what doesn’t matter, they just move on.) The comparison would be “middle men” are not needed, because of technology. They do not accept this. They lobby to have laws enacted to protect them, to criminalize everyone, to fight literally the internet (and technology), etc. That is the comparison, pure and simple. Ignore money, ignore artists, ignore music/movies/games, ignore everything else. It’s about a group of people being made obsolete. Except in the past occurrence, those people didn’t make a big deal about it or fight technology or ask for any favoritism to keep their place. In the current occurrence, the people are doing the exact opposite. That’s the point of the article.

    I really wonder sometimes about some of you. There are plenty of pro-copyright/anti-piracy sites where a few of you (not all) would be much better off spending your time. But it seems like you just come here to b*tch. And argue. And restate yourself a gillion times over. We get it. A handful of you are trolls and troll multiple sites. Get a life.

    • Englishdevil

      I wouldn’t get so upset about people not “getting” the analogies, i think they do, they just chose to ignore the point that is being made. I come on this site every day to check what is being discussed I check out the comments and see how people can improve on the discussion either for or against what has been said, sometimes i learn something , sometimes i just learn that people can be idiots. I honestly believe that things are changing in the entertainment industry , just as they have changed in the past and it is interesting to me as to how people see it changing, I personally ignore those posts that are obvious trolls, attacking the method of writing or ignoring the point people are making just because they can.These people do not make any contribution to the site they just troll.

      • CartmanHatesYou

        I agree with what you said. But I just wanted to make it overly simplified for some. And point out a few things. I too come here to read the articles and comments. Some comments are great. On the part of both sides and you see that there is a middle ground to be had and that discussions can be reasonable, logical and respectful by all sides. Of course Rick’s articles tend to bring out the trolls, which bugs me. If they got nothing worthwhile to bring to the table, why show up at all?

    • Englishdevil

      I wouldn’t get so upset about people not “getting” the analogies, i think they do, they just chose to ignore the point that is being made. I come on this site every day to check what is being discussed I check out the comments and see how people can improve on the discussion either for or against what has been said, sometimes i learn something , sometimes i just learn that people can be idiots. I honestly believe that things are changing in the entertainment industry , just as they have changed in the past and it is interesting to me as to how people see it changing, I personally ignore those posts that are obvious trolls, attacking the method of writing or ignoring the point people are making just because they can.These people do not make any contribution to the site they just troll.

  • Pingback: La pathétique histoire d’un glaçon qui ne voulait pas fondre | Dico Micro

  • DRuNKeN MaSTeR

    As always a great article, Rick! Thank you!

    @MAFIAA: you are obsolte. Get it now? Nobody could have said it better, than Rick.

    • DRuNKeN MaSTeR

      *obsolete

  • Pingback: Nobody Asked For A Refrigerator Fee | Pixelbean

  • Gsmraxe

    This is possibly the best article I’ve read on this site. Well written, well researched and the content is spot on.

    Thank you Rick!

  • Pingback: BLOGDIAL » Blog Archive » Nobody Asked For A Violent State

  • Iceman

    I think this article is trying to say is, we should buy ice from icemen and then put it in the refrigerator :D.

  • Iceman

    I think this article is trying to say is, we should buy ice from icemen and then put it in the refrigerator :D.

  • Iceman

    I think this article is trying to say is, we should buy ice from icemen and then put it in the refrigerator :D.

  • Iceman

    I think this article is trying to say is, we should buy ice from icemen and then put it in the refrigerator :D.

  • Iceman

    I think this article is trying to say is, we should buy ice from icemen and then put it in the refrigerator :D.

  • Iceman

    I think this article is trying to say is, we should buy ice from icemen and then put it in the refrigerator :D.

  • Iceman

    I think this article is trying to say is, we should buy ice from icemen and then put it in the refrigerator :D.

  • Iceman

    I think this article is trying to say is, we should buy ice from icemen and then put it in the refrigerator :D.

  • Iceman

    I think this article is trying to say is, we should buy ice from icemen and then put it in the refrigerator :D.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01998671718803374744 A41202813@GMAIL.COM

    KARMA ( Disruptive Technologies ) Is A ‘LADY’.

  • DriesD

    Rick your analogy does not make any sense at all. You are completely missing the point! If I create something, I have the right to choose whatever kind of distribution I want.Especially if I prefer one type of distribution over the other (for instance if one of them is more profitable for me).

    Your analogy would make sense if the copyright industry were to say: “we want a law that says that all movies must be distributed on movie reels”. But that is not what they are saying, what they are saying is: if I distribute my movie on reels someone else should not be allowed to distribute MY movie in any other way”

    The are perfectly fine with you creating your own movie and then distribute it through the internet (for free, for a fee, or whatever)

    The old business model would indeed become obsolete if people would lose their interest in movies distributed in the old fashioned way e.g. because they would find the ones you put up for download much more entertaining.

    But I don’t think people are losing their interest in the movies themselves it is the distribution they find out dated… Only one way to respond to that: do not watch the movie then!

  • Anonymous

    I think that more than piracy, the real threat are the other interaction rich forms of entertainment available today.

    The day only has so many hours, with free options of endless entertainment provided by social networks, video games, and social networks+video games, I totally see where he’s coming when he says teens don’t watch as many movies as 10 years ago.

  • Yofako

    I’m not in favour of the legal sledgehammering big IP is doing, but I’m an author. I write fantasy/sci-fi novels and make practically nothing even when my books are critically acclaimed and sell well. The complete death of copyright would kill any hope I have of making a living at this. I’d just be a 9-5 wage slave my whole life. The culture would be richer for the death of copyright but would any of the creators be?

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/2df4ccp

  • Pingback: Nobody Asked For A Refrigerator Fee | p2p | DigitFreak

  • Pingback: Why Are We Letting An Obsolete Gatekeeper Drive The Debate On Anything? | Geek News and Musings

  • Mscbybls

    Make your own ice…….no charge

    Make your own music….no charge

    • Mscbybls

      It’s actually a rather good analogy, Rick.

      If you don’t like the taste of your own (free) ice, you can pay for ice made with better tasting water.

      If you aren’t happy with the your own (free) music (Garage Band and Apple Loops), you can purchase music from those who have spent considerably more time and money creating their music.

      Simple, elegant analogy.

      • Fredrika

        But you seem to forget that in the digital age we can manufacture our own music that tastes exactly like we want it to, i.e. exactly as someone else’s music.

        What they offer and try to sell is no longer better. It no longer adds any additional value to the table, that is worth any money. It’s the same as what we can manufacture ourselves, through copying. Therefore there’s no longer any need for the single particular business model of manufacture, distributing and selling copies. That single particular business model is obsolete.

        The analogy stands, you just haven’t fully understood it yet.

        • Mscbybls

          Fredrika – Do you write songs? We’re not talking about stealng from manufacturers we’re talking about the copyright owned by the creator of the musical work not the creator of the physical product. The songwriter, the composer. Those are the people from whom you are stealing . Write and record your own songs. Sell them if you like. Give them away if you like.
          What is your primary stream of revenue derived from? Do you offer your services or product for free?

          The only thing that has no value is the thing that no one wants.

        • Fredrika

          > “Fredrika – Do you write songs?”

          What i do is irrelevant to the discussion or any actual arguments.

          However, regardless, author or not an author, i would never dream of being so arrogant, selfish or lazy, so that i would demand, or even wish for, to be privileged with a monopoly, that performs an intrusion into other peoples physical property, out of principle, just because i wrote a piece of intellectual work, or just because such a monopoly might make it a bit easier for me to make money. The need for legislative monopolies is obviously never about what i want, or what best benefits me.

          Legislative monopolies are exclusively suppose to benefit the public, and what best benefits me isn’t necessary the same thing as what best benefits the public.

          > “we’re talking about the copyright owned by the creator of the musical work not the creator of the physical product. The songwriter, the composer.”

          No, were talking about the copyright monopoly, regardless of who the right holder is, the act of physically manufacturing an item, and the lack of need for an outdated business model.

          > ” Those are the people from whom you are stealing .”

          I’m not stealing anything from anyone? Neither are people filesharing?

          Stealing is when you perform theft. Theft is when an item is taken from it’s owner, so that he no longer has access to it.

          For theft to take place, i.e. something to be stolen, a specific item must be taken from it’s owner, so that he no longer has access to that specific item. That’s what takes place when you deprive someone of an item.

          When filesharing you possibly perform a copyright infringement, performing an intrusion into the copyright monopoly. That is never theft, according neither to the law or a dictionary.

          When you perform an intrusion into a monopoly, and manufacture an item on your own, with your own physical property, through copying, no specific item is taken from any owner, so that the person in question no longer has access to it.

          These are indisputable facts according to correct use of language, and possible relevant legislation.

          > “Write and record your own songs.”

          This discussion is not about the intellectual works? It’s about the physical copies, and one particular business model built up around the manufacturing and distribution of them.

          And today people can manufacture their own copies in a more efficient manner. Which is why there no longer any need for that particular business model.

          > “What is your primary stream of revenue derived from? Do you offer your services or product for free?”

          More questions that are completely irrelevant to the discussion or any actual arguments. But for all entrepreneurs, revenues comes from selling a product or a service. If you don’t sell anything, you obviously aren’t entitled to any revenues.

          > “The only thing that has no value is the thing that no one wants.”

          Correct, and today people no longer wants manufacturing and distribution of physical copies to done for them by someone else, because that business model no longer adds any value, that people can’t perform themselves more cost efficient.

  • Voice10110

    Feel free to give your music away -the music you wrote and recorded yourself. Don’t give mine away. That’s my choice to make, not yours.

    Arguing about whether you like that business model is irrelevant, especially as you type the words on the computer you own, in the home you own.

    Either you favor property rights to avoid a civilization where the mighty or stealthy just take what they want or you don’t.

  • http://www.facebook.com/desihoes Desi Hoes

    This made no sense at all. God made the ice and let God sue people for using it. If I made something and I would like to get paid for it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/desihoes Desi Hoes

    This made no sense at all. God made the ice and let God sue people for using it. If I made something and I would like to get paid for it.

  • Kane

    First interesting article from Rick.

  • http://twitter.com/gpretty Grant Prettyman

    I think one of the biggest things here is that the flow of money is disrupted at distribution, and people are getting pissed. Everyone is working in the industry in hopes that they will make money off of what they put money into. But when the people don’t pay for a product that is expected to be paid for, the flow of money is severed.

    What we would need is the artists, at the beginning of the financial flow, to learn how to record and distribute themselves so that you are cutting out the “pissed off industry” all together. If artists knew how, and had the resources, to get their name out there and give their music out for free on the internet, there would be no profit loss because the only thing they “spent” was time, not money, on making the recordings (expect for their initial cost for the equipment). So if the artist was willing to put their music out their for free (considering they made it for “free” and personally owned the recordings and songs) this would be an applicable analogy to the iceman and refrigerator. The ice is the artist. The iceman, the industry, is doing all the work to help an artist become successful and reach the audience, who has now purchased in-home refrigerators–the internet.

    The only part of this analogy that doesn’t work is that in Rick’s analogy, the refrigerator makes the ice, which in my analogy would mean that the internet makes the artist. But this isn’t the case (duh). Somehow, the artist needs to be educated and become skilled at recording themselves skillfully enough so the general audience enjoys the music, and they have to know how to get their music out their to the masses. The internet is a great tool, like the refrigerator, to get the artist, the ice, to the public. But the only problem here is that most artists don’t know how to do this.

    We could successfully uproot the “pissed off industry” by enabling the artist with a way to get their name out there, but its not as easy as ABC. I could put my music on the internet, and no one would ever find it…UNLESS I HAD MONEY. This is where the industry comes into play. Rick’s analogy doesn’t work (if i read it correctly) because the iceman was no longer needed for ice. Technically the industry is not needed for music to enter the home of the general population, because the internet can accomplish this, but how will the general population know where to look to find this music? With ice, they wanted ice, and they got it. With music, the general population knows they want music, but there’s a variety of different types of music, and the general population doesn’t know they want it until someone TELLS them they want it, which is what the industry (WHO HAS MONEY) does.

    So an industry hater has a dilemma: without the industry, you wouldn’t know what music you wanted to torrent or download, because SOMEHOW, at some point, someone found out about [insert artist you want to download] by means that were implemented by the people with money. Either, the band was sent on a tour, they payed for studio time (and where’d they get that money–unless they started out rich or new how to record themselves already *the exceptions) or some other form of well thought out distribution. The industry does great things for the artist.

    Main point: if the artist was self-sufficient on all sides of the music business, they would have the ability to cut out the iceman, the industry, completely. But, most don’t, so the industry stays and continues to fight because they are business-oriented, and most bands are creative-oriented. The music industry would DRASTICALLY change if bands became both business and creative-oriented.

  • Johnny Rocket

    LOL, your analogy is truly pathetic. If you refer to ice as music or software, then no, no one has a problem with you making your own music or writing your own code. The problem is when you steal it from others.

    • Anonymous

      *sigh*
      copying is NOT Theft or stealing. I thought we’d just gone through this….

    • Fredrika

      > “The problem is when you steal it from others.”

      Stealing is when you perform theft. Theft is when an item is taken from it’s owner, so that he no longer has access to it.

      For theft to take place, i.e. something to be stolen, a specific item must be taken from it’s owner, so that he no longer has access to that specific item. That’s what takes place when you deprive someone of an item.

      When filesharing you possibly perform a copyright infringement, performing an intrusion into the copyright monopoly. That is never theft, according neither to the law or a dictionary.

      When you perform an intrusion into a monopoly, and manufacture an item on your own, with your own physical property, through copying, no specific item is taken from any owner, so that the person in question no longer has access to it.

      These are indisputable facts according to correct use of language, physics, and possible relevant legislation.

      According to your own statement, therefore no problem exists.

    • Obviously

      this is just payback for overcharging kids for music and movies for decades and for ripping off artists and most importantly for feeding the world with unintelligent fake art. Failed business model. Thanks to us.

  • Anonymous

    No one will read this but they should. I appear to be commenter number 3893409 in this thread, but I will comment anyway.

    TPB should put up a tip jar. I want to pay a little for a movie. Its appropriate. More to the point, its something “THEY CAN DO”. So while everyone here wants change, the real change is available to TPB. They could add a tip jar and let me pay a little. The money could go to charity so that when TPB gets shut down, kids starve in Africa or whatever.

    Rick Falkvinge, you appear closer to TPB than I will ever be. Why not at least have that discussion with them? It doesn’t signal defeat, rather a “haa haa” in their face. You have tremendous power and you are not using it. You my friend are sticking to “your old business model” just as they are.

    Jim Pruett, Director
    WikiSPEEDia.org

  • Pingback: Piraterie pe Internet si nu numai - Page 31 - My Garage

  • Pingback: pinboard August 28, 2011 — arghh.net

  • Guest

    Nicely written. I think this echoes with a recent TED talk

    http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html

  • Guest

    Nicely written. I think this echoes with a recent TED talk

    http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html

  • Pingback: Samat K Jain (samatjain)'s status on Sunday, 28-Aug-11 21:37:45 UTC - Identi.ca

  • Pingback: NICE DREAM » Copyright

  • EARL

    Wow Rick, you’re a great writer… who are some authors that inspired you growing up? I bet those authors were able to publish their material huh? I also bet those authors were able to continue to put out work because they were able to make a living at it, thanks to copyright compensation. It seems to me your “cultural evolution” theory will lead to some seriously mediocre art & entertainment. The trust fund kids will be the only ones able to make, package and release art. Kind of like Rebecca Black. Sounds inspired huh?? I guess the future John Lennons of the world are more productive working a 9-5 for minimum wage their entire life. Liverpool ain’t so bad… Maybe they can even find a little time to write a song in-between working their asses off at the construction yard and cutting coupons so their family can stock up on canned soup. Great thinking Rick..

    • Anonymous

      “Liverpool ain’t so bad”
      In fact it’s great. And I’m proud to be from Liverpool.

  • Demosophos

    Otherwise intelligent people think that there’s no difference between stealing my horse and stealing my song. — John Perry Barlow, lyricist

  • Canadianintoronto

    I hope everyone here is under 25. IF you’re over 25 and steal software, and you don’t live in your parents basement, you’re morally corrupt and a loser.

    I can understand kids with no morals and no money wanting things they can’t afford, but older adults? You’re addicted to free shit and you’re scared the proper and just laws will not enable you to collect free shit.

    • Fredrika

      > “I hope everyone here is under 25. IF you’re over 25 and steal software, and you don’t live in your parents basement, you’re morally corrupt and a loser.”

      Well, since filesharer’s don’t steal anything, that claim is completely irrelevant. They manufacture items with their own physical property. The only thing that performs theft is the copyright monopoly, since it performs an intrusion into people’s physical property. That theft is no longer accepted by people.

      > “I can understand kids with no morals and no money wanting things they can’t afford, but older adults?”

      Can’t afford? The cost for manufacturing your own copies, with your won physical property, is free. Everyone can afford that?

      The desire to spend as little money as possible for items you want, either when you buy them or when you manufacture them yourself, is called basic capitalism. There’s nothing strange with that.

      > ” You’re addicted to free shit..”

      Yes, that became the norm over 150 years ago, when society decided that there is something very good with all people having completely free access to all intellectual works available, and that the act of making available and accessing culture in a non-profit manner and commercial scale, without any regards to the creators wishes, and without them being privileged with any compensation from such, is completely ok.

      > “..and you’re scared the proper and just laws will not enable you to collect free shit.”

      No filesharer is afraid of that. It’s already completely clear that no legislation or technical countermeasures will ever stop pirates from accessing as much culture as they desire. This is a lesson that has been taught over and over again over the last ten years. Although some people missed that lesson, and are still in need of education.

      • Anonymous

        Frederika, I asked you a couple times now, can you answer with your straight face:

        1) Is printing your own money copyright infringment or theft?

        2) Are we allowed to use your gene code any way we desire?

        Being able to get something for free, if possible, has always been the norm. The funny part here is that all pirates trash the very content they download the most and praise the content they don’t consume at all. Bunch of hypocrits.
        Just answer two questions they way you answered all others and lets see where we are.

      • Anonymous

        Frederika, I asked you a couple times now, can you answer with your straight face:

        1) Is printing your own money copyright infringment or theft?

        2) Are we allowed to use your gene code any way we desire?

        Being able to get something for free, if possible, has always been the norm. The funny part here is that all pirates trash the very content they download the most and praise the content they don’t consume at all. Bunch of hypocrits.
        Just answer two questions they way you answered all others and lets see where we are

        • Fredrika

          > “I asked you a couple times now”..

          I don’t remember you asking me either of these questions before?

          > “1) Is printing your own money copyright infringment or theft?”

          Neither. Nor is the answer relevant to the filesharing debate and the non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly’s intrusion into people own property, or the fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, is no longer needed by society.

          > “2) Are we allowed to use your gene code any way we desire?”

          I’m not familiar with the current legislation in that area, so i don’t know.

          But since you seem to have a hard time dropping that irrelevant question, i feel i need to remind you of what i wrote over a week ago the last time you tried to confuse yourself with that thread.

          The debate about gene code doesn’t change the fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, is no longer needed by society.

          It is not the fact that intellectual works are made up of information, or the mere fact that it can be copied, that is why the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, no longer is needed.

          It is not the fact that intellectual works are made up of information, or the mere fact that it can be copied, that explains why the non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly is unjust, and therefore something that people don’t feel the need to care about.

          The single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, is no longer needed, since it no longer add’s any additional value, that consumers can’t add themselves.

          The non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly is unjust, because it is simply made up of illegitimate legislation, that no one can produce any sort of evidence that it is actually needed to help the goal of copyright.

          The copyright monopoly performs an intrusion into peoples own physical property, that they own. If you would manage to copy genes, you would perform no intrusion into other people’s physical property.

          It is fully possible that in the future gene copying turns into something that the public embraces on a large scale and use for themselves in a manner that brings them appreciated value, and as a result of that some particular business model goes out of style. And as you know, on a free market, companies that wish to operate an outdated business model should never be privileged with legislative monopolies, that forces their outdated model on the consumers, when they don’t need it.

          > “Being able to get something for free, if possible, has always been the norm.”

          No not really, but the act of having copyrighted works made available and accessed in a non-profit manner and large commercial scale, free of charge, without any regards to the creators wishes, and without them being privileged with any compensation from such, that has been the norm in society for over 150 years now.

          “Just answer two questions they way you answered all others and lets see where we are”

          Where we are? We already know were we are, from out week old discussion? You put forward claim after claim, that in no way changes the fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, is no longer needed.

          Then your claims are refuted and proven wrong or irrelevant. And then you simply drop that argumentative thread, ignoring everything that just was written, and start a new side track discussion, that still doesn’t change the fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, is no longer needed.

          Or you just simply stop responding all together, as you did after this answer to you:

          http://torrentfreak.com/nobody-asked-for-a-refrigerator-fee-110821/#comment-295792469

        • Anonymous

          >> “I asked you a couple times now”..

          >I don’t remember you asking me either of these questions before?

          yeah, that’s why you think I stopped replying, while I didn’t. Even last post I had to write twice, cause it couldn’t be seen on some browsers.

          >> “1) Is printing your own money copyright infringment or theft?”

          >Neither. Nor is the answer relevant to the filesharing debate

          That’s your opinion. I am not stealing from anyone, I am just making my copy that I might share with others. What’s wrong with that?
          Oh, it devaluates real money, right.

          >> “2) Are we allowed to use your gene code any way we desire?”

          >I’m not familiar with the current legislation in that area, so i don’t know.
          It is not the fact that intellectual works are made up of information, or the mere fact that it can be copied, that explains why the non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly is unjust, and therefore something that people don’t feel the need to care about.

          See? Just because YOU feel something is unjust, or some group of people says they feel it’s unjusts, it doesn’t make it so. Some people might feel gay marriage shouldn’t happen. SOME people might think a lot of things, but they don’t make it legit.

          >The non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly is unjust, because it is simply made up of illegitimate legislation, that no one can produce any sort of evidence that it is actually needed to help the goal of copyright.

          Again, that’s what you think. Just like YOU believe you argued something and thus prove it, it still doesn’t make it so. There is no non-profit copyright, never is. You might believe it is, but there isn’t.
          You could also be shown hundreds of cases where copyright is just, has meaning, benefits the society, it advances the technology, but you just wouldn’t accept it.

          Why? Because you are not satisfied with the stuff you’re given free. You absolutely want for free all the stuff, that you’re not allowed to copy by copyright holder.
          Change the law and then do what you want.

          You might also believe that there’s nothing it can be done regarding piracy. There could it, it’s just the quesiton how far you wanna bring it.

          >It is fully possible that in the future gene copying turns into something that the public embraces on a large scale and use for themselves in a manner that brings them appreciated value,

          Of course, I will make fingers with your fingerprint, copy your iris and then “share” it with anyone who wants. Whether they will then use it for fraud or make money, that’s up for them.

          You obviously just don’t get the point, that business models evolve. If entertainment business offers entertainment, then you are free to consume and share whaterver is given free. Whatever is offered for payment, that has to be paid, regardless of what you think or believe. Whatever you think is a non-profit copying, it isn’t. Someone is making money either with banners or ISP is banking on bandwidth. If you copy for free something that was supposed to be paid, then that’s not non-profit, there was a damage done in same way if I printed money. You devaluated property.

          It’s time you understand what the law says. Just because you feel you don’t have to abide to it, that’s doesn’t make it unjust.

        • Fredrika

          > “Oh, it devaluates real money, right.”

          That does not change the fact that money is still needed? The fact that filesharing might diminish the economical value of the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, does not change the fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, is no longer needed by society.

          You are confusing society’s need for money, with an artificial need for a single particular business model.

          > “Just because YOU feel something is unjust, or some group of people says they feel it’s unjusts, it doesn’t make it so.”

          I have never claimed that the copyright monopoly is unjust because people feel or say so?

          > “SOME people might think a lot of things, but they don’t make it legit.”

          I never made such claim either.

          > “Again, that’s what you think. Just like YOU believe you argued something and thus prove it, it still doesn’t make it so.”

          Again you try to reverse the order of society in an dishonest way. The burden of proof does not lie upon me, it lies upon the party which claims that the copyright monopoly is needed.

          > “There is no non-profit copyright, never is. You might believe it is, but there isn’t.”

          According to the legislation and the dictionaries there most definitely is. The term non-profit has a very clear meaning.

          > “You could also be shown hundreds of cases where copyright is just, has meaning, benefits the society, it advances the technology, but you just wouldn’t accept it.”

          There are clear rules that legislation must uphold to. The non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly does not uphold to these rules. No evidence exists that proves that the non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly produces a collective positive cultural effect for society. No one has been able to produce any such evidence over the last 40 years. Nor does the non-profit parts of the monopoly even work.

          These are well known facts. The possibility that the copyright monopoly might produce some positive effect for some individuals or an individual business model, is something completely different.

          > “Because you are not satisfied with the stuff you’re given free.”

          People filesharing are not given anything for free. They manufacture copies themselves for free. And they share them for free.

          > “Change the law and then do what you want.”

          The law obviously has no effect on filesharing. This fact has been proven over and over again over the last 15 years.

          > “You might also believe that there’s nothing it can be done regarding piracy. There could it, it’s just the quesiton how far you wanna bring it.”

          Actually, legislation can do nothing about filesharing that takes place in private encrypted communication such as F2F.

          Secondly it’s not the people filesharing that want to bring something. It’s the people who don’t accept that there no longer is any need for their business model that do, and the politicians they fool. This is their responsibility alone.

          > “You obviously just don’t get the point, that business models evolve.”

          Industries built around legislative monopolies seldom do. And still, that does not change the fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, is no longer needed by society.

          > “If entertainment business offers entertainment, then you are free to consume..”

          You seem confused? You are free to consume whatever you have in front of yourself. The entertainment business has no say on that. You do not need permission to consume goods you have in front of yourself, that you own.

          > “Whatever is offered for payment, that has to be paid..

          If you chose to buy it yes. People filesharing on the other hand don’t buy any goods or services. They manufacture the goods and services themselves. There is nothing to pay for, when you do the work yourself.

          > “Whatever you think is a non-profit copying, it isn’t.”

          According to the legislation and dictionaries, it is. It’s not a question of my belief, on the contrary, it’s an indisputable legislative fact.

          > “Someone is making money either with banners or ISP is banking on bandwidth.”

          That someone else makes money from something else, does not change the fact that manufacturing and distribution of copies through filesharing is a non-profit action.

          > “If you copy for free something that was supposed to be paid”

          Filesharing is not supposed to be paid, it is offered free of charge. There is nothing to pay for.

          > “..then that’s not non-profit, there was a damage done in same way if I printed money. You devaluated property.”

          The fact that some property might lose it’s value as a result of non-profit filesharing does not change the fact that it is non-profit filesharing.

          > “It’s time you understand what the law says.”

          I understand very well what the law says.

          > “Just because you feel you don’t have to abide to it, that’s doesn’t make it unjust.”

          Which i never claimed in the first place. And it works the other way around, people don’t feel the need to obey the copyright monopoly, because it is unjust.

        • Anonymous

          >> “Oh, it devaluates real money, right.”

          >That does not change the fact that money is still needed?

          Why? I can make my own money, why not? Is 3D version of Avatar needed?

          >single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, is no longer needed by society.

          Really? In how many business? If it’s no longer needed, lets abandon it. Some pharmaceutical company invests billions in production of a new drug. The second it’s out, lets all just copy it and produce it, right?

          >You are confusing society’s need for money, with an artificial need for a single particular business model.

          How come? Society obviously needs movies as much as money. Money are being offered in exchange for money, not for free.
          If you wanna buy a dvd, ok, wanna share it with your friends? No problem. Wanna share it on bittorrent or similar? That’s okay too, broadcasting licence is for sale as well. You just need one person to buy that licence and than he can share with whole internet.

          > “Just because YOU feel something is unjust, or some group of people says they feel it’s unjusts, it doesn’t make it so.”

          I have never claimed that the copyright monopoly is unjust because people feel or say so?

          I need to quote you? Seriously?

          >The burden of proof does not lie upon me, it lies upon the party which claims that the copyright monopoly is needed.

          LOL, seriously? It is upon those, that are breaking the law to prove it should be changed, not the other way around, cmon, get real.

          >> “There is no non-profit copyright, never is. You might believe it is, but there isn’t.”

          >According to the legislation and the dictionaries there most definitely is. The term non-profit has a very clear meaning.

          Wait a sec? What legislation? The one I shouldn’t care about? Someone being a hypocrit again?
          So it’s about people’s egos, nice. Quote the law when it suites you, call it unjust when it doesn’t. Nice.

          >> “You could also be shown hundreds of cases where copyright is just, has meaning, benefits the society, it advances the technology, but you just wouldn’t accept it.”

          >There are clear rules that legislation must uphold to.

          HAHAHAHA, again? What legislation? You don’t care for it.

          >The non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly does not uphold to these rules.

          Stop with the monopoly nonsense. If I had 70% of the salt seling market, that’s be a monopoly. If I have rights for a one book, one of hundreds of thousands on the market, I have no monopol.
          Entertainment products have their own rules and legislation. You can’t apply practices from other business just cause you feel you should.

          >These are well known facts. The possibility that the copyright monopoly might produce some positive effect for some individuals or an individual business model, is something completely different.

          Just like filesharing of copyrighted content brings benefits to certain individuals and deprives other individuals or their income and devaluates their work.

          > “Because you are not satisfied with the stuff you’re given free.”

          People filesharing are not given anything for free. They manufacture copies themselves for free. And they share them for free.

          Yes you are, certain content is given for free, but that’s not enough for you.

          >> “Change the law and then do what you want.”

          >The law obviously has no effect on filesharing. This fact has been proven over and over again over the last 15 years.

          It doesn’t seem to have and effect with santioning speed limits violations. They will never be able to catch everyone speeding. Or will they? Is that fact enough to remove speed limits on roads?

          >> “You might also believe that there’s nothing it can be done regarding piracy. There could it, it’s just the quesiton how far you wanna bring it.”

          >Actually, legislation can do nothing about filesharing that takes place in private encrypted communication such as F2F.

          Patriot act seemed to do stuff people didn’t think will ever happen and yet it did. Wanna push it that far? Funny world, eh?
          I don’t what something like that to happen, I am just mentioning it for argumant sake, to bring you into reality.

          > “You obviously just don’t get the point, that business models evolve.”

          Industries built around legislative monopolies seldom do. And still, that does not change the fact that the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, is no longer needed by society.

          Well, in that case, business will evolve and you’ll be stuck with companies like apple and worse. They’ll make tons of money and you’ll lose your privacy… willingly. Funny, eh?

          >> “It’s time you understand what the law says.”

          >I understand very well what the law says.

          When you want to.

          >> “Just because you feel you don’t have to abide to it, that’s doesn’t make it unjust.”

          >Which i never claimed in the first place. And it works the other way around, people don’t feel the need to obey the copyright monopoly, because it is unjust.

          OMG, you are actually able to contradict yourself in one paragraf? I rest my case. You will deny something that you wrote severa times in just one earlier post. I have enough, you need to check yourself.

        • Fredrika

          > “Why? I can make my own money, why not?”

          You can make counterfeit money. Passing them on as genuine money causes a problem for the value of real money, which society actually needs, since those still bring an additional needed value to society.

          Filesharing on the other hand, only impacts the value of the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, a business model which in turn no longer is needed by society, since it no longer adds any additional value.

          You shouldn’t confuse what society needs, with an individual party’s desire to get revenues from a particular single business model. Their need doesn’t necessarily coincide with society’s need.

          > “Really? In how many business?”

          Any business that only provides an added value that the consumer can add themselves, free of charge, is obviously not needed.

          > “If it’s no longer needed, lets abandon it.”

          Well you are free to try, but do not expect special legislation to aid you, such as a legislative monopoly.

          > “Some pharmaceutical company invests billions in production of a new drug. The second it’s out, lets all just copy it and produce it, right?”

          The day people can manufacture their own identical medicine free of charge with their own physical property, the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling medicine, will no longer be needed by society. That is correct.

          > “Society obviously needs movies as much as money.”

          Well, even if that were so, you shouldn’t confuse society’s eventual need for movies, with a need for the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies.

          >> “I have never claimed that the copyright monopoly is unjust because people feel or say so?

          > “I need to quote you? Seriously?”

          Actually, yes you do, because i have never claimed such. Please quote what sentence from me you have misinterpreted in that way, and i will gladly help you read it properly according to correct English, so that you can understand it as it actually written.

          “It is upon those, that are breaking the law to prove it should be changed, not the other way around, cmon, get real.”

          No, the burden of proof always lies on the party that desires the legislation to perform in intrusion into peoples freedom or property rights. People should never have to argue for why they don’t wish their freedom or property rights to be intruded into by legislative prohibition.

          The fact that such intrusions once were believed to be needed in the legislation, does not reverse the burden of proof. If the relevant party can’t continuously argue for such intrusions whenever they are questioned, the legislation should naturally reverse to it’s natural order.

          > “Wait a sec? What legislation? The one I shouldn’t care about? Someone being a hypocrit again?”

          No, with or without the legislation, the meaning of the term non-profit still is very clearly defined, in our dictionaries.

          >> “There are clear rules that legislation must uphold to.”

          > “What legislation? You don’t care for it.”

          People don’t care for it, because it doesn’t uphold to those aforementioned rules.

          > “Stop with the monopoly nonsense. If I had 70% of the salt seling market, that’s be a monopoly. If I have rights for a one book, one of hundreds of thousands on the market, I have no monopol.”

          If everyone else are legislatively forbidden to manufacture copies of that book, you have by definition been privileged with a legislative monopoly on that action. The fact that there are hundreds of thousand of such monopolies does not change that fact, that it is in fact a monopoly.

          > “Entertainment products have their own rules and legislation. You can’t apply practices from other business just cause you feel you should.”

          I don’t do it because i feel i should? The exclusive rights that an author is privileged with through the copyright legislation is by definition a legislative monopoly.

          All intellectual property rights are made up of legislative monopolies. That’s the very core function of all intellectual property rights legislation, to provide the rights holder with a legislative monopoly, that gives them an legislative advantage on the market. Punch in the word monopoly in a dictionary or Wikipedia and you’ll find this to be a fact.

          Trying to deny the very core function of all intellectual property rights, and that they in fact are made up of legislative monopolies, well, that is a bit backwards..

          > “Just like filesharing of copyrighted content brings benefits to certain individuals and deprives other individuals or their income and devaluates their work.”

          Filesharing does not devaluate the value of any intellectual work. It devaluates the value of the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies. That is not the same thing as the value of the intellectual work.

          > “Yes you are, certain content is given for free, but that’s not enough for you.”

          Content can not be owned. Therefore it can’t be given to anyone. Regardless, about your original statement, people filesharing are not given anything for free. They manufacture copies themselves for free. And they share them for free, i.e. give them away.

          > “It doesn’t seem to have and effect with santioning speed limits violations. They will never be able to catch everyone speeding. Or will they? Is that fact enough to remove speed limits on roads?”

          No, nor have i ever stated that the fact that it’s impossible to catch all people filesharing, that’s the reason for why the non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly are unjust and should be dismantled.

          > “Patriot act seemed to do stuff people didn’t think will ever happen and yet it did. Wanna push it that far?”

          People filesharing are not pushing for any more intrusive legislative changes. Other parties are. That’s their responsibility alone.

          >> “I understand very well what the law says.”

          > “When you want to.”

          No, all the time, even when people don’t feel the need to obey it. The fact that you don’t obey the law, does not mean that you don’t understand the law.

          >> “Which i never claimed in the first place. And it works the other way around, people don’t feel the need to obey the copyright monopoly, because it is unjust.”

          > “OMG, you are actually able to contradict yourself in one paragraf? I rest my case. You will deny something that you wrote severa times in just one earlier post. I have enough, you need to check yourself.”

          Actually, it’s you who need to check again what i actually wrote. There are no contradictions in what i wrote.

          It is not the fact that people disobey the law, that makes the disobeyed law unjust. It is something else that makes the law unjust.

          That, something else, is the reason why people don’t obey the law. Something else in this case is the fact that the copyright legislation doesn’t uphold to the rules of legislation.

  • mr.man

    Obvious troll is obvious. (Asd)

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

  • Feds Seize Cash from Major Bitcoin Exchange’s Dwolla Account

    The U.S. Government has taken a significant action against the web’s top Bitcoin exchange by seizing...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.