The Pirate’s Dilemma
Written by Ernesto on January 08, 2008Pirates are innovators, they signal market problems and lead the way to new business models. Nevertheless, they are tagged as thieves by many. We invited Matt Mason, author of the book “The Pirate’s Dilemma: How Youth Culture Is Reinventing Capitalism”, to write an article on the “pirate’s dilemma” for TorrentFreak.
The Pirate’s Dilemma: The Problem With Information (and how to fix it)
BY MATT MASON
The same way light confuses scientists by existing as particles and waves at the same time, information increasingly seems to confuse us. Information is getting cheaper and more expensive at the same time, and it appears that many of us, especially those of us who own or control a great deal of it, no longer understand how to observe or use it.
We live in a world where it is legal for a company to patent pigs, or any other living thing except for a full birth human being, but copying a CD you bought onto your hard drive is considered an infringement of someone else’s rights. A place where an average law abiding citizen could owe more than $12 million dollars in fines if they were sued every time they accidentally violated copyright law in a single day. A society where it’s ok for each of us to be hit with 5,000 advertising messages every 24 hours, usually without our permission, but creating a piece of art and placing it in public yourself without permission can land you in prison. This isn’t just about the pros and cons of file sharing - this is about an entire species losing its sense of perspective, failing to understand the potential of one of its most precious (and yet most abundant) resources.
Many of us are confused about whether our ideas should count as information, or property. When we have a new idea, there are two opposing forces at work. At the same time as we are thinking “how can I get this out there?” we’re also asking ourselves “how can I benefit from/monetize this idea?” We want to spread ideas as information, but capitalize on them as intellectual property. This problem with information is something I call The Pirate’s Dilemma.
The first thing we need to understand is that the decision as to how we share “our” information isn’t always “ours” to make alone. If a drug company decides it won’t share malaria and anti-retroviral AIDS drugs with a developing nation for a price the suffering citizens of that country can afford, that country may decide to ignore patent protections and manufacture pirate copies of the drugs anyway in order to save lives. If an industry dependent on physical information, distribution bottlenecks and artificial scarcity decides to ignore more efficient ways of distributing the information it considers its property, pirates will step into the breach and highlight the fact that there is a better way for us to do things.
Some of America’s greatest innovators were thought of as pirates. When Thomas Edison invented the phonographic record player, musicians branded him a pirate out to steal their work and destroy the live music business, until a system was established so everyone could be paid royalties, which we today call the record industry. Edison, in turn, went on to invent filmmaking, and demanded a licensing fee from those making movies with his technology. This caused a band of filmmaking pirates, including a man named William, to flee New York for the then still wild West, where they thrived, unlicensed, until Edison’s patents expired. These pirates continue to operate there, albeit legally now, in the town they founded: Hollywood. William’s last name? Fox.
Piracy is the sharp end of innovation, innovation by any means necessary. Large oligopolies control most of our industries and governments. Six companies control most of what we see and hear. According to The World Bank’s 2007 figures, roughly two-thirds the world’s 150 largest economies aren’t nations, but corporations. We all know the system doesn’t work quite the way it’s supposed to, yet continue to think of this inefficient system we have as “the free market”. Pirates upend inefficient systems – they take order and create short-term chaos, but often the long-term result of piracy on a large scale is a better system - a more efficient way of doing things. Pirates created many of our established orders out of chaos, and now that these industries are becoming inefficient in the face of new technologies, chaos is being created once again.
From CEOs to struggling artists, in everything from health care to entertainment to education, many of us are being challenged by the problem of others sharing and using our intellectual property without permission. This challenge requires a change of attitude, because sometimes piracy isn’t the problem, it’s the solution. You see, piracy is really a market signal - an early warning system, a warning that all too often goes ignored by established industries. Whether we consider ourselves pirates or professionals, we’re all competing in the same space.
When pirates enter our market spaces, we have two choices: We can throw lawsuits at them and hope they go away. Sometimes this is the best thing to do. But what if those pirates are adding value to society in some way? If these pirates are really doing something useful, people support them, and the strong arm of the law won’t work. The pirates will keep coming back and multiplying no matter how many people are sued. And the truth is, if lawsuits become a core component of your business model, then you no longer have a business model (unless you’re a lawyer).
Because in these cases, what pirates are actually doing is highlighting a better way for us to do things; they find gaps outside the market – and better ways for society to operate. In these situations the only way to fight piracy is legitimize and legalize new innovations by competing with pirates in the marketplace. Once the new market space is legitimized, more opportunities are created for everyone. This is how cable TV started, it’s why many drugs are now sold at prices people in the third world can afford, it’s how many other new opportunities are being created today. Pirates present us with a choice. We can either fight them in the courts, or match them play for play in the marketplace. To compete or not to compete, that is the question; that is The Pirate’s Dilemma.
Matt’s book: “The Pirate’s Dilemma: How Youth Culture Is Reinventing Capitalism” is out now through Free Press, and probably soon on a BitTorrent tracker near you ;).
Previously: Sweden’s Biggest File-Sharing Case Goes to Retrial
Next: BitTorrent, Uncensoring Independent Filmmakers
104 Responses (Add yours or TrackBack)
Interesting article.
But we kinda already know all this… question is, what can we do to fix it?
“You can’t reform profit capitalism and inhumanity. Just kick it till it breaks.”
Piracy isn’t reinventing capitalism… It is fighting against one part of a core aspect of capitalism, property - in this case intellectual property.
Still a good article :)
A strong article with a compelling story. I didn’t know that about Fox, and it’s deliriously ironic.
While free is all nice and swell, a massive amount of people will prefer to pay for premium services, and while they won’t always get that, that’s what you have competition for - both “illegal” and legal. Competition’s important.
Very interesting read. I agree with many of the author’s points.
Heres my Idea of how we can share without going to prison since Bens guide didn’t make it into the most popular file in the P2P World.
Why don’t the RIAA give out free music on Bittorrent with mandatory ad viewing so their advertisers say the RIAA for their music.
Why don’t every company use P2P to advertise while giving out freebies such as free mp3s, free software, free games, free cell phone minutes, and other free stuff.
Why not take advantage of P2P instead of trying to destroy and sue the P2P to death.
I haven’t finished reading this yet, but I can’t wait to after work. This looks like a great article. Thank you.
This author loses all credibility with me in the second paragraph.
Mr Leader,
Your suggestion would require the corporations to have actual common sense, something that’s in very short supply.
Pirates are thieves, there’s no two ways about it. Everyone has the right to information but it makes me laugh when people try to say that that extends to the latest Foo Fighters album, or the latest bag of shit to come out of hollywood, as though if they did not have it they would somehow be in the dark. Movies, music, games, and computer applications are not the kind of information that come as a basic freedom contrary to the ramblings of your average p2p’er. Call a spade a spade, if you download shit that you have no legal right to, you are a thief, at least have the balls to admit it instead of trying to hide behind some made up freedom of information bollocks that only exists on your head.
I am not a pirate. I am a thief, and a proud thief at that.
Great article.
Please recommend more torrent related books if there are any good ones out there.
[quote comment="258459"]Heres my Idea of how we can share without going to prison since Bens guide didn’t make it into the most popular file in the P2P World.
Why don’t the RIAA give out free music on Bittorrent with mandatory ad viewing so their advertisers say the RIAA for their music.
Why don’t every company use P2P to advertise while giving out freebies such as free mp3s, free software, free games, free cell phone minutes, and other free stuff.
Why not take advantage of P2P instead of trying to destroy and sue the P2P to death.[/quote]
In terms of the RIAA giving out music free, will hurt them a whole lot more than piracy. Reason being that if something is available free then who would buy their product if it free. Right now the case seems to be RIAA sells tracks, stuff is still pirated, and adds to RIAA’s profits as curiousity/interest from pirates leads to the purchasing of music (see previous TF article on piracy leads to increased sales).
i pay for movies i deem worthy of my money
its not many anymore
[quote comment="258500"]i pay for movies i deem worthy of my money
its not many anymore[/quote]
Indeed, most movies these days are just remakes of older ones… who the hell cares?
Listen friends.
everyone want money.
Why they opened Anti Piracy company ?
They need money too !
They won’t shut down their company if you tell them the truth.
They are human, they want $ also.
They won’t shutdown Bittorrent completely, after they shut down bittorrent, from where they’ll make $$$ ! ! !
It’s very simple! Anti Piracy makes $ from Bittorrent.
They find Torrent members, they sue them. making $ from them.
They will never shut down torrent sites. if they do, how will they find someone and sue ?
it’s pretty clear, they make $ from bittorrent sites and they really make huge $ from bittorrent.
They do fraud.
For example:
They sue someone, taking his PC from him, connecting another HDD and telling court, we found illegal songs or copyright material.
Then court fine that person 220,000$!
If you want the truth about them. sue them and get their PCs, access to MPAA/RIAA emails, read about their plans and tricks.
We are using one brain, because 1 person have only 1 brain, they are unite, a big group ( 50 or 100 person ).
all of them thinking of new tricks and ways to sue and make $. they’ll never think of shutting down a torrent site :)
Use your little brain my friends.
Enjoy MPAA/RAA, You guys really making good $ and playing with $ and ripping poor people.
( 220,000$ ) from an old mother ! ! ! LoL
Given the message, I’m surprised Matt isn’t releasing a free pdf of the book. What’s up with that?
Coincidentally, I just read about that Hollywood piracy story in Against Intellectual Monopoly, which _is_ freely available for download:
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm
All of this could have been avoided if the RIAA had just reduced the prices on CD’s to 4.99 a pop several years ago. They would have still make a ton in profits, and no one would have bothered with file sharing, as it would cost MORE in money (IE computer, blank discs, Internet connection, backup material, etc) and time (searching, downloading, burning, backing up, sorting, etc.) than it would be worth. A CD, label, and sleeve costs ME less than 75 cents to make, so how much does it cost a major production company, who’s equipment has been bought and paid for 20 years ago? 35 cents? 25 cents? I can remember a time when CD’s shared the shelves with cassette tapes and the cassettes where only 6.99 for full record recordings, so are you gonna tell me that CD’s couldn’t be produced WITH a profit for 2 bucks less. There is a lot more material in a cassette tape than in a CD. Yes, I know, someone is gonna talk about the cost of marketing… blah blah blah. How much does a website, a my space page, and any number of FREE marketing cost? Bottom line is the greedy bastards at the RIAA just didn’t want to change with the times.
[quote] Pirates are thieves, there’s no two ways about it. Everyone has the right to information but it makes me laugh when people try to say that that extends to the latest Foo Fighters album, or the latest bag of shit to come out of hollywood, as though if they did not have it they would somehow be in the dark. Movies, music, games, and computer applications are not the kind of information that come as a basic freedom contrary to the ramblings of your average p2p’er. Call a spade a spade, if you download shit that you have no legal right to, you are a thief, at least have the balls to admit it instead of trying to hide behind some made up freedom of information bollocks that only exists on your head.
I am not a pirate. I am a thief, and a proud thief at that.[/quote]
I’m sorry but I am not going to pretend sharing some movies online means I stole something just because you think it means I am more manly…
[quote comment="258486"]Pirates are thieves, there’s no two ways about it. Everyone has the right to information but it makes me laugh when people try to say that that extends to the latest Foo Fighters album, or the latest bag of shit to come out of hollywood, as though if they did not have it they would somehow be in the dark. Movies, music, games, and computer applications are not the kind of information that come as a basic freedom contrary to the ramblings of your average p2p’er. Call a spade a spade, if you download shit that you have no legal right to, you are a thief, at least have the balls to admit it instead of trying to hide behind some made up freedom of information bollocks that only exists on your head.
I am not a pirate. I am a thief, and a proud thief at that.[/quote]
Only because in 1974 the system decided to call it stealing. Before then it was perfectly fine.
Stealing is all frame of reference. The RIAA sees it as stealing. 2 of 500 see it as stealing. 498 of 500 see it as perfectly fine.
this analogy’s been used before, but i’m gonna bring it up again.
If i buy a newspaper and leave it on the table for the next person to read, that’s considered stealing because didn’t pay for that newspaper. They have no legal right to posses that newspaper. Do we go to jail because of reading newspapers that people leave behind? No.
Ontop of that, it’s the same for music. I can buy a CD at the store and use some of the songs from the CD on my website (myspace,blog,etc. etc.). The people who are listening to the music are stealing, hell they didn’t pay for the music, why are they allowed to listen to it? Just because they’re not downloading it or they don’t physically have a copy of it saved on their harddrive doesn’t mean they’re not stealing.
When you go to a store to buy a CD, you have to pay for it. If you take it without paying for it, it’s stealing. So why do people that visit websites that have music on them don’t go to jail?
e_e …
This whole stealing , not stealing argument again.
It’s NOT stealing, it’s copyright infringement.
If it was stolen, then no-one could ever hear the music again because someone stole the damn thing.
[quote comment="258545"]this analogy’s been used before, but i’m gonna bring it up again.
If i buy a newspaper and leave it on the table for the next person to read, that’s considered stealing because didn’t pay for that newspaper. They have no legal right to posses that newspaper. Do we go to jail because of reading newspapers that people leave behind? No.
Ontop of that, it’s the same for music. I can buy a CD at the store and use some of the songs from the CD on my website (myspace,blog,etc. etc.). The people who are listening to the music are stealing, hell they didn’t pay for the music, why are they allowed to listen to it? Just because they’re not downloading it or they don’t physically have a copy of it saved on their harddrive doesn’t mean they’re not stealing.
When you go to a store to buy a CD, you have to pay for it. If you take it without paying for it, it’s stealing. So why do people that visit websites that have music on them don’t go to jail?[/quote]
Not buying something does not qualify as theft as nothing of value is taken
I only read a few comments, but I’m pretty surprised at how few people realize that the things that we all pirate ARE these companies’ main products. Not ads.
I’d like that one guy to expand on how he thinks distributing the main product for free but with ads would make the artist or programmer and their higher ups any cash?
Don’t get me wrong, I may or may not pirate more than most people, but I’m pretty sure what we’re doing by taking what we want instead of paying is pretty horrible for everyone outside of our group.
I’m surprised how few people realize that pirating the RIAA, IFPI, and MPAA’s member companies’ products serves to legitimize them, making it seem they are the only good source of music and movies.
They’re not.
It’s great that you can pirate if you need to, but give some credit to everything out there that WANTS to be free. That’s where you’ll find the artists who really deserve your support.
Basically, the author took an economics class and applied it to P2P. It’s the same theory that one could apply to black markets. The idea is that supply and demand is not at equilibrium, and somebody has stepped in (pirates) to set it straight.
However, this isn’t a model that’s easily sustained. Under developed economies around the world exist in part because of the lack of property laws, the foundation of a sustainable economy. Without property laws, there is no incentive to produce goods, as no form of compensation is guaranteed.
Anyway, I won’t go all macro/micro ecoonomics on you guys, but if you want to get a better idea of the autors perspective, economics is the way to go.
So, how much did you pay him to write this article? If he wrote it pro-bono then he really is for the people, if he charged then you should probably ransack his home.
Without property laws, there is no incentive to produce goods, as no form of compensation is guaranteed.
I don’t really agree that’s the case. I think music will still be created, films still be produced etc.
It’s been going on for centuries well before property laws came about.
I think more so, people don’t like the idea of the middleman. The guys that do nothing but skim money off the profits and trickle the rest to the artist.
The public need a way to pay artists direct with no dipping in it.
Let use pay the artist we love, not some fat middle aged cocaine addict in an office.
have you all seen this?????
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/att-and-other-isps-may-be-getting-ready-to-filter/index.html?ref=technology
att is plannong to put filters on too!!!??!?!?!
Theres only one problem with this article, there is no Dilemma.. the ONLY choice is to compete instead of fight, I mean fight all you want your not doing anything and it will just ruin you, why not plan for the future.. unless of course you know you wont have one.
I make an effort to download more when they take something down or sue someone, and I give it to all my friends and I teach tons of people how to do it.
Interesting.
Where can i downmload the book for free ?
[quote comment="258492"]In terms of the RIAA giving out music free, will hurt them a whole lot more than piracy. Reason being that if something is available free then who would buy their product if it free.[/quote]
Once you’re out of your teens and somewhere in your twenties you should begin to develop a broader understanding that society is a collection of individuals,, all with seperate ambitions, life-goals, and individual points of view and beliefs. This sense of plurality should lead you to a deeper appreciation for the need of art and artists in society - we need to be uplifted and emotionally moved in our co-inciding existances, it’s both primal and essential. And once you have this sense of plurality and appreciate for art, you will understand why so many of say we are eager to support artists and do our best to ensure that as much of the money we choose to spend in supporting the artists actually goes to the performers, and not a gang of crypto-fascists intent on controlling their monopoly of distribution and censorship.
It’s not about getting something for free, it’s about not supporting an enterprise that strips artists of ownership and control over their own productions as the price paid for distribution. THIS must end.
Well i think that the world has moved on, its obvious that the industry has changed, the market has ceased to exist as we knew it 5 years ago. That is undeniable, its not like out of the blue anything anyone says is going to convince me and who knows how many others to stop downloading. Thats the direction the world is moving, and its for the greater good, its not like people will STOP making movies and music because they cant make money! The ideas behind the music and the films are what gives them value, and the internet and free distribution of information can only aid this.
[quote comment="258709"][quote comment="258492"]In terms of the RIAA giving out music free, will hurt them a whole lot more than piracy. Reason being that if something is available free then who would buy their product if it free.[/quote]
Once you’re out of your teens and somewhere in your twenties you should begin to develop a broader understanding that society is a collection of individuals,, all with seperate ambitions, life-goals, and individual points of view and beliefs. This sense of plurality should lead you to a deeper appreciation for the need of art and artists in society - we need to be uplifted and emotionally moved in our co-inciding existances, it’s both primal and essential. And once you have this sense of plurality and appreciate for art, you will understand why so many of say we are eager to support artists and do our best to ensure that as much of the money we choose to spend in supporting the artists actually goes to the performers, and not a gang of crypto-fascists intent on controlling their monopoly of distribution and censorship.
It’s not about getting something for free, it’s about not supporting an enterprise that strips artists of ownership and control over their own productions as the price paid for distribution. THIS must end.[/quote]
Too right! Well said Hiro81
[quote comment="258709"][quote comment="258492"]
It’s not about getting something for free, it’s about not supporting an enterprise that strips artists of ownership and control over their own productions as the price paid for distribution. THIS must end.[/quote]
Of course its about getting something for free. How am I supporting film companies by downloading their movies instead of paying to go and see them in the cinema? How am I supporting bands by downloading their albums instead of buying them?
There’s no point dressing it up as anything else. Its there for the taking, so we’re taking.
Someone torrent this book, lol.
Sorry, quoted wrong person there.
[quote comment="258486"]Pirates are thieves, there’s no two ways about it. Everyone has the right to information but it makes me laugh when people try to say that that extends to the latest Foo Fighters album, or the latest bag of shit to come out of hollywood, as though if they did not have it they would somehow be in the dark. Movies, music, games, and computer applications are not the kind of information that come as a basic freedom contrary to the ramblings of your average p2p’er. Call a spade a spade, if you download shit that you have no legal right to, you are a thief, at least have the balls to admit it instead of trying to hide behind some made up freedom of information bollocks that only exists on your head.
I am not a pirate. I am a thief, and a proud thief at that.[/quote]
be aware that not everyone’s justification for pirating is the same as yours.
“freedom of information bollocks”?
hope you enjoy the throttled, tiered, not neutral internet to come.
FREE THE BITS!!!!
Nice article! I didn’t know that Hollywood story. It seems history repeats all the time. It looks like they want to get every penny out of it before making some huge change. If anything even does change considering how powerful corporate is in our time. I am both excited and worried over the outcome of p2p.. I don’t know.. just like stated in the article, chaos.
You can argue about semantics all you like. Theft of intelectual property is still theft, and recent court cases have said that what you consider to be worthless is indeed of value, infact $9000 per track in value. So feel free to carry on deluding yourselves, the only one you are fooling is yourself.
Its no different then me ‘aquiring’ your bank account details and helping myself to your monies. If you want information to be free, why stop at a few mp3’s? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that its OK for some information to be free and not other information. You cannot take it upon yourself to decide that someone elses information is of no value but your own is. If its ok for you to take someone elses property, its OK for someone else to take yours. Simple
If you truely feel that information should be free, you must include your own information in that, otherwise you are nothing more that a hypocrite., but then most of you are, its all good as long as it does not affect you personaly. Its all good as long as its not your information thats being shared freely to who ever wants it.
Great article in Wired about how the Japanese Manga Publishers realized they could make far more if they cut their customers some slack.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/magazine/15-11/ff_manga
BTW liked this post. William Fox a Patent Movie Pirate. LOL.
Death to capitalism, we didn’t get rid of marxism to become slaves for psychopath billionaires
[quote comment="258925"]Death to capitalism, we didn’t get rid of marxism to become slaves for psychopath billionaires[/quote]
Marxism and capitalism are polar opposites.
“One of the problems we faced in writing the present work is the fact that most people have only a second-hand knowledge of the basic writings of Marxism. This is regrettable, since the only way to understand Marxism is by reading the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky.”
- http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.htm
Read the above and maybe you’ll know what you’re talking about next time.
So where is the torrent of the eBook then?
best article on TF i have read so far.
P2P shouldn’t be a reinvention of capitalism. By changing the way things are circulated we can restore art from its current place as mere commodity back to its true stature.
It is precisely this view of art as a commodity that leads to the idea that copying it is theft. This isn’t something your economics class will teach you, economics can only explain the world and its operations through its own narrow frame of assigning everything monetary value. This is something more, it’s about redefining the very structures by which we live.
“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.”
-Thomas Jefferson
when I read this, the first case I thought of was Microsoft’s intention to sue open-source users because some programming codes on OpenOffice matched with MS Office. But since they are too affraid to open up their programms, I think they won’t push that too far.
This is a great article, but I do have to take issue with the Edison thing:
He really didn’t invent the motion picture and actually stole the idea. He had a master band of pushy patent securing thugs that wrangled the credit for him.
But that kind of just proves the point more…
Does anybody remember cassette tapes? You know those plastic things with brown and black ribbon inside?
I remember having a boom box that could play on one side and tape on the other.
I taped friends tapes that they bought onto a blank tape.
I gave them back their original tape.
I played my tape in my boom box.
I guess I have been a pirate since i was 14.
Now that we have a massive distribution system that can freely transfer data from anywhere to anyone, Information is Free.
All information, not just popular material is all free and available on the internet. Even if the internet is stifled by corporations, the people will rebuild it for its current purposes.
All information is now free; you have no reason to pay anyone any money for anything that can be distributed digitally. It’s like Walmart offering cheaper crap; people complain, but they still support it by buying shit there. And of course there’s the idea that again, competition actually increases sales.
So in summation, just continue to take advantage of what the world gives to you.
A well written article raising several good points. Nice job. :)
~Ulysses
[quote comment="258618"]Under developed economies around the world exist in part because of the lack of property laws, the foundation of a sustainable economy. Without property laws, there is no incentive to produce goods, as no form of compensation is guaranteed.
Anyway, I won’t go all macro/micro ecoonomics on you guys, but if you want to get a better idea of the autors perspective, economics is the way to go.[/quote]
Ever been to China? You think Africa is under-developed because people are concerned about piracy? Don’t CVS et al seem to do fine making generic medications? If you are going to go all anything on anyone, throw in some actual information and make a coherent point, don’t just copy out of your econ text book.
Pirates bay! I think we can’t avoid piracy if we still use it..so the main point here is our self, stop using the pirates thing and it will gone forever but for me sometime it is better to have pirates first, so we can know the valuable of certain product before I decide to buy the original one.
PREACH!
Great read.. Thanks for authoring it!
[quote comment="258659"]So, how much did you pay him to write this article? If he wrote it pro-bono then he really is for the people, if he charged then you should probably ransack his home.[/quote]
I wrote it for free, and was glad to do it. But I’d like to point out that I do believe in property laws, they do encourage innovation. The problem is when they become too aggressive and stop people producing culture and sharing information in a way that adds value to society. Piracy can be good, but it can also be bad. Fighting pirates can be the right thing to do, but sometimes competing with them is the way to go - this is the dilemma.
[quote comment="258843"]You can argue about semantics all you like. Theft of intelectual property is still theft, and recent court cases have said that what you consider to be worthless is indeed of value, infact $9000 per track in value. So feel free to carry on deluding yourselves, the only one you are fooling is yourself.
Its no different then me ‘aquiring’ your bank account details and helping myself to your monies. If you want information to be free, why stop at a few mp3’s? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that its OK for some information to be free and not other information. You cannot take it upon yourself to decide that someone elses information is of no value but your own is. If its ok for you to take someone elses property, its OK for someone else to take yours. Simple
If you truely feel that information should be free, you must include your own information in that, otherwise you are nothing more that a hypocrite., but then most of you are, its all good as long as it does not affect you personaly. Its all good as long as its not your information thats being shared freely to who ever wants it.[/quote]
How can you say there is no difference between stealing someone’s bank account information and downloading a copy of something like an mp3? That’s a real stretch, and $9000 per track is absolutely ridiculous. Who comes up with a bogus number like that? Money in my bank account isn’t information for one thing (and certainly not intended for public domain like music), the data used to organize it online might be, but it is linked to something physical and finite. If you ‘acquired’ my money, you are not making a copy of it for yourself. You’re literally stealing it and leaving me with nothing. There are no repercussions if you simply copy a file from me.
I don’t think stealing music is necessarily a good thing, but the current system sucks. And the more people here about how it works, the less willing people will be to fund it.
You are seriously being ignorant, “you must include your own information, otherwise you a nothing more than a hypocrite”. Have you heard of youtube, or blip, clipstar, etc?
[quote comment="258843"]You can argue about semantics all you like. Theft of intelectual property is still theft, and recent court cases have said that what you consider to be worthless is indeed of value, infact $9000 per track in value. So feel free to carry on deluding yourselves, the only one you are fooling is yourself.
Its no different then me ‘aquiring’ your bank account details and helping myself to your monies. If you want information to be free, why stop at a few mp3’s? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that its OK for some information to be free and not other information. You cannot take it upon yourself to decide that someone elses information is of no value but your own is. If its ok for you to take someone elses property, its OK for someone else to take yours. Simple
If you truely feel that information should be free, you must include your own information in that, otherwise you are nothing more that a hypocrite., but then most of you are, its all good as long as it does not affect you personaly. Its all good as long as its not your information thats being shared freely to who ever wants it.[/quote]
How can you say there is no difference between stealing someone’s bank account information and downloading a copy of something like an mp3? That’s a real stretch, and $9000 per track is absolutely ridiculous. Who comes up with a bogus number like that? Money in my bank account isn’t information for one thing (and certainly not intended for public domain like music), the data used to organize it online might be, but it is linked to something physical and finite. If you ‘acquired’ my money, you are not making a copy of it for yourself. You’re literally stealing it and leaving me with nothing. There are no repercussions if you simply copy a file from me.
I don’t think stealing music is necessarily a good thing, but the current system sucks. And the more people here about how it works, the less willing people will be to fund it.
You are seriously being ignorant, “you must include your own information, otherwise you a nothing more than a hypocrite”. Have you heard of youtube, or blip, clipstar, etc?
So… what say you “honest pirates” to the fact that over 70% of the people who downloaded the latest RadioHead album (when given a choice to pay as much or as little as they wanted) did so for nothing? Where were all the honest people who feel that…
“It’s not about getting something for free, it’s about not supporting an enterprise that strips artists of ownership and control over their own productions as the price paid for distribution.”
Lovely words. But as long as there are (apparently) 70% of pirates who just want something for free, your naive idealism goes for naught. I happen to agree that the RIAA is evil, that the studios screw over every musician who signs with them, and that CD prices are way too high, etc, etc.
That being said, as long as people *can* get something for nothing, many (the majority) *will choose to do so*. And that majority hides behind the idealistic talk of social justice and “Freeing the Bits.”
There are two things going on here within the “pirate community” - idealists who genuinely believe that they are righting a social wrong, and people who see no problem with stealing something because they can. And there are a lot more of them.
When every act of art (from blockbuster movie series like LOTR) to the guy busking on the street is reduced to a “tip jar” mentality (pay what you want), it will no longer be possible to make a living at that art (much less do it to an extent as done now).
Although I enjoyed the article I think most people realize this is the “dilemma”. You just stated it more eloquent than most. What I would like hear your thoughts on the solution.
Very well written article, the author gave two examples that i really liked a lot. The first one is “copying a CD you bought onto your hard drive is considered an infringement of someone else’s rights”. and the second is “creating a piece of art and placing it in public yourself without permission can land you in prison”. This is really very true but i never thought of it.
http://www.postonfire.com
weiufhwrigrgher
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
rr
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
rrrr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
rrrrr
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
rrr
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
rr
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r fergver ev ve eer
frf
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
[quote comment="259207"]Although I enjoyed the article I think most people realize this is the “dilemma”. You just stated it more eloquent than most. What I would like hear your thoughts on the solution.[/quote]
I don’t think there is one catch-all solution. Radiohead certainly found one that worked for them, despite 70% of people not paying, there was still a pot of gold at the end of In Rainbows for them, and perhaps the 70 wouldn’t have bought In Rainbows ever, at any price.
But that won’t work for everyone trying to make a living from creative work. If you sell $2,000 women’s shoes, there probably isn’t much value in competing with $25 counterfeit copies, those buying them probably aren’t your target market, the copies are not adding value to the originals(unless you create a bridge line making lower quality versions think Emporio Armani vs Giorgio Armani, but that could damage your flagship brand), so throwing lawsuits at pirates would be advisable.
I think of the solution in terms of game theory because this is a decision people need to make based on how they think others, customers and competitors, will react. If you can see other revenue streams that will grow because you share something, it’s a good idea. If you can’t, hire a lawyer.
In terms of the entertainment industry, I think the answer will be some new royalty-based system that covers all content online, that’s maybe an extra $5 or $10 or $20 a month on a cable bill, divided up among content providers through a mechanism like ASCAP. I would point out that I don’t think this will happen anytime soon, because it’s not in the interests of the powers that be and would require such a monumental shift in so many industries. But it’s not impossible. This is basically what happened with cable TV - for years the networks weren’t getting any money from it. I don’t hear people complaining too much about having to pay for cable or on demand anymore. The problem is these days everyone can be the network, and the cable provider.
We shall see…
[quote comment="259187"]So… what say you “honest pirates” to the fact that over 70% of the people who downloaded the latest RadioHead album (when given a choice to pay as much or as little as they wanted) did so for nothing? Where were all the honest people who feel that…[/quote]
They got paid what their customers thought it was worth, and apparently most thought low-quality mp3s were worth very little, but admiring them for the attempt to break out of the traditional marketing trap people threw them a bone (not that they needed it).
If you are in favour of market capitalism why are you railing against its essential operation? I’ll say again, Radiohead gave people the opportunity to pay what they felt a low-quality copy was worth, and they did just that.. and according to you 70% recognized it for what it was, a sales pitch they shouldn’t have to pay for. If you disagree with the average person so strongly, by all means give them $200 for those low-quality mp3s and make up for everyone else if it gets you off, but don’t try to use your preconcieved attitudes about others to colour my argument.
[quote comment="259187"]When every act of art (from blockbuster movie series like LOTR) to the guy busking on the street is reduced to a “tip jar” mentality (pay what you want), it will no longer be possible to make a living at that art (much less do it to an extent as done now).[/quote]
That’s simply ridiculous. Art as a commodity has always had its value determined by what people were willing to pay for it: it is the very essence of supply and demand capitalism. Your argument also completely fails because mp3s and digital copies are objects of no real worth (look it up). You really should read Walter Benjammin’s essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, I think your views on art and property are in for a real shock. I know it certainly did alot to get my head around to the side of true artistic freedom anyways…
And I’m not even going to address whatever’s slackjawed comments about personal information and digital privace. Clearly a troll not due any further attention…
I dug all of this, but the paragraph on famous innovators is the hottest thing I’ve seen today. I would take that paragraph to the prom, by which I mean back seat. Yeahhhh.
Hiro, you bring up some interesting points. I will go read that essay, thank you for the recommendation (seriously, thank you).
I understand that mp3s and other digital copies have no “real worth” - an mp3 file is an encoded series of ones and zeros. Were I so inclined, I could rearrange those ones and zeros into a pdf file or a jpg representation of Whistler’s mother. I get that.
The problem as I see it is that there *is* work of real value - original art produced by original artists. As an artist myself (a musician of little real talent ;-) it confounds me how I could possibly make a living at it in a future as you envision (particularly if I don’t have the time or inclination to tour or play live).
I love the story about Edison in this article - it brings up a wonderful parallel about the current debate. However, the barrier for copying and distributing copies (and copies of copies) has historically never been lower.
As far as “In Rainbows,” Radiohead stated that they were disappointed with the results (but hey, they had the means to do it so why not?).
That being said, I find your statement about the mp3s being of low quality to be a bit intellectually dishonest… Maybe they were of low quality, but even if they had posted the original digital masters my bet is that the stealing rate would have been about the same (if not slightly higher).
There’s one more aspect about this that’s slightly interesting - there *is* a cost associated with downloads (even for “free”). There’s the amortized cost of the computer, the cost of the internet connection, electricity, etc. So at the end of the day, when you download a movie or mp3, you are implicitly admitting that it’s worth something. What’s wrong about that is that the money you pay to your ISP and electrical company just goes to them, not to support the artists who created the work.
I’m not expecting a lot of sympathy here ;-), but I appreciate your response. I’m a bit new to this debate, so I’m going to go read the Walter Benjamin essay.
[quote comment="258560"][quote comment="258545"]this analogy’s been used before, but i’m gonna bring it up again.
If i buy a newspaper and leave it on the table for the next person to read, that’s considered stealing because didn’t pay for that newspaper. They have no legal right to posses that newspaper. Do we go to jail because of reading newspapers that people leave behind? No.
Ontop of that, it’s the same for music. I can buy a CD at the store and use some of the songs from the CD on my website (myspace,blog,etc. etc.). The people who are listening to the music are stealing, hell they didn’t pay for the music, why are they allowed to listen to it? Just because they’re not downloading it or they don’t physically have a copy of it saved on their harddrive doesn’t mean they’re not stealing.
When you go to a store to buy a CD, you have to pay for it. If you take it without paying for it, it’s stealing. So why do people that visit websites that have music on them don’t go to jail?[/quote]
Not buying something does not qualify as theft as nothing of value is taken[/quote]
There isn’t really much of value in whats released by the film and music industry now days anyway.
People will always spend what they can afford to pay for what they want or need. That never changes, what changes is the amount they get for their money.
Mass distribution is a capital intensive enterprise. Innovation is very upsetting to it.
Think of it this way, If you spend a million making a way to manufacture widgets and someone else finds a way to make just as many that are just as good for a thousand you are broke and out of business.
In nature you would have starved or been eaten. For us humans it is just a lesson in intelligence, innovation always outdoes resources in the long run.
Adaptation will always lead the way in any fight. Look at the automotive and some other unions, NECESSARY! in their day, now just as bloated and ineffective as the industry they at one time helped rein in. (Not referring to the writers strike, those lazy fat cats at the studios just want to be pirates themselves. The writers just want to be paid whether the product is a tape or DVD or download. Arguably the download should be worth more to the writers because there are no other packaging costs associated.)
What those unions who went bad did was give high wages to a small group and hence raised prices for the rest of us. In my area unions represented one fifth of the workforce and almost half the wages, many of us had trouble keeping a roof over our heads and food on the table. The studios are doing the same thing with artists in their collusion with the radio stations and big chain music stores which keeps music prices artificially high.
I hope they go bust soon and let the artists compete fairly with concerts being where they make most of their money and have album sales as little more than loss leader advertising.
The little history background about Hollywood is brilliant! Great article, hope it get into more hands.
[quote comment="259187"]So… what say you “honest pirates” to the fact that over 70% of the people who downloaded the latest RadioHead album (when given a choice to pay as much or as little as they wanted) did so for nothing?[/quote]
I can’t believe this keeps being dragged out as an example of disappointing results / dishonesty / failure.
If your song were played on the radio, and 30% of the people who heard it went out and bought the single — “only” 30% — would you be let down?
Hell no; in fact, that would be PHENOMENAL.
Have some perspective. If the 30% paid figure is true, Radiohead’s experiment was a runaway success.
To Matt Mason:
Thanks for posting this and even braving the comments section. Your writing is quite classy by the standards of this very populist website :)
I’m disappointed, though, that your book is not available as a free pdf. Given your message, I expected the book would be, and was actually thinking, “Awesome, I’m going to go out and buy this.” That enthusiasm dullened when I found out you aren’t sharing it with the pirates on the internet.
The fact is, I like to make purchases that support people who are pro-sharing. Contrary to that, I dislike buying from people who may smugly feel that they’ve MADE me pay them; the purchase feels as though I’m saying, “Yes, I agree that the only proper way to read your words is to pay for some paper and ink.” But I don’t agree with that. Your decision not to share your writing for free has actually cost you my money (at least for now).
This counterintuitive decision-making was covered in a TF article a few days ago, if you’re interested (http://torrentfreak.com/when-pirates-pay-they-pay-good-080105/). The psychological concept of “reactance” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_%28psychology%29) may be the root cause of why people feel this way, even if they’re not consciously activist.
I remain hopeful that you’ll release a free pdf in the future. It would not only be generous to the internet community; I really think it would increase your sales. If your publisher doesn’t like the idea, then rather than a single-file download, maybe you could convince them to let you put the book up on the web in plain HTML (a la http://birdflubook.com); this has the additional benefit that people Googling the relevant issues will come across your book.
Give it some thought, Matt. Thanks again for stopping by these parts :)
William Fox, the Godfather of motion picture piracy. Gotta love it :)
I’m part of running an indie record label. As well as being a producer, recording & mixing engineer and occaisional musician, I also fund or help fund alot of our releases. That means when we want some “name” singer on one of our records, its usually someting out of my pocket.
We sell vinyl records and digital downloads, but our stuff always ends up on the russian mp3 sale sites and torrent sites, often before we get our product into full distribution. If the numbers those sites report are true, we’d be selling tens of thousands of copies. Our tracks also end up on alot of DJ mix CDs. I see kids buying em just down the street from our studio.
The truth is we’ve never manufactured more than 1,000 units of any release, usually only 500 and dont have distributors lining up for re-orders.
The russians sure arent going to pay us any more than the downloaders or the mixtape guys. Most of the time we break even or dont loose much. When we get lucky with a release we make enough to cover maintenance on our studio gear.
I’m posting this as “Anonymous” because What label we run or what songs weve done isnt the point. Theres lots of small labels out there just like ours. For all the kids thinking they are getting over on “The Man”, try to remember theres still alot of us out there who work full time jobs and still put in the hours to try and bring you something besides corporate pop. Sometimes maybe you could actually buy our tunes instead of downloading them for nothing?
Thanks for reading.
Great thoughts… in fact thought provoking thoughts… Are patents really a big problem for companies. Big companies and swallowing mid sized and little ones like a sharks. Is it ethical? Everything has become fair to earn more and more.
Art(s) & culture(s) know no global boundaries. Corporate intervention is extremely dangerous since:
a) People learn about other ‘foreigners’ through art & entertainment first. Padlocking data produces ignorance. It’s the equivalent of going to the local [free] library and not being to checkout or make copies of any material(s)!
b) consumers choose how/when/where to process content and placing MPAA/RIAA figureheads to filter the handling of bits or bytes compromises future technological innovation(s).
c) P2P helps the circulation of open communication with the rest of the world. If you are lucky enough, you might even be able to travel the world for weeks staying overnight for free with meaningful international penpals. This experience is priceless especially when opening your mind to the unknown(s).
______________________________
Here’s to hoisting a glass when all artists/directors/producers/etc. represent ONLY themselves by standing over the mp**/ri** corpses.
[quote comment="259250"][quote comment="259207"]Although I enjoyed the article I think most people realize this is the “dilemma”. You just stated it more eloquent than most. What I would like hear your thoughts on the solution.[/quote]
I don’t think there is one catch-all solution. Radiohead certainly found one that worked for them, despite 70% of people not paying, there was still a pot of gold at the end of In Rainbows for them, and perhaps the 70 wouldn’t have bought In Rainbows ever, at any price.
But that won’t work for everyone trying to make a living from creative work. If you sell $2,000 women’s shoes, there probably isn’t much value in competing with $25 counterfeit copies, those buying them probably aren’t your target market, the copies are not adding value to the originals(unless you create a bridge line making lower quality versions think Emporio Armani vs Giorgio Armani, but that could damage your flagship brand), so throwing lawsuits at pirates would be advisable.
I think of the solution in terms of game theory because this is a decision people need to make based on how they think others, customers and competitors, will react. If you can see other revenue streams that will grow because you share something, it’s a good idea. If you can’t, hire a lawyer.
In terms of the entertainment industry, I think the answer will be some new royalty-based system that covers all content online, that’s maybe an extra $5 or $10 or $20 a month on a cable bill, divided up among content providers through a mechanism like ASCAP. I would point out that I don’t think this will happen anytime soon, because it’s not in the interests of the powers that be and would require such a monumental shift in so many industries. But it’s not impossible. This is basically what happened with cable TV - for years the networks weren’t getting any money from it. I don’t hear people complaining too much about having to pay for cable or on demand anymore. The problem is these days everyone can be the network, and the cable provider.
We shall see…[/quote]
Thank you for your response. I am really enjoying this conversation. You mention Radiohead’s “pay what you want” system as if it worked. I have never seen any numbers that said it did or didn’t. Maybe they have posted the results and I just missed it somewhere? Numbers I have seen are posted at http://ninblogs.wordpress.com/. Saul William’s cd was also released as “pay what you want” and here are the numbers:
As of 1/2/08,
154,449 people chose to download Saul’s new record.
28,322 of those people chose to pay $5 for it, meaning:
18.3% chose to pay.
Of those paying,
3220 chose 192kbps MP3
19,764 chose 320kbps MP3
5338 chose FLAC
He also mentions that this record was really only marketed through NIN and Saul William’s fan base. Meaning these people were probably already of fan of there music.
To the record-label “Anonymous” guy:
Boohoo.
Being small gives you a bloody advantage, and by not using that advantage you’re not exactly making it easy for us to feel sympathy for you when your work gets “pirated”.
Distribution and marketing on the net is not hard - and the ONLY reason your work is getting higher download numbers from the pirate sites than from the public ones, is because they offer better deals than you do. Not just in terms of economic costs - but in terms of practicalities, like method of distribution and ease of use. Stop thinking of new technology as the big bad wolf, and try instead to embrace it as the new and exciting market place that it really is. A good business model will never lose to piracy.
Hey b -
If I ran a store, and 70% of my customers walked off with my inventory, would that be a “runaway success?” Sorry, it seems like there’s entirely too much equivocation going on here - no one in the so-called “pirate community” is willing to face the ethical questions that their actions raise. You just b****h-slapped “Anonymous,” who’s trying to make an honest living with a small label, maybe get some artists heard and put some food on the table at the same time, and all you can think of is your own misguided sense of entitlement - not the fact that the artists whose works you’re downloading won’t see a nickel from you.
If it’s worth downloading, it’s worth paying for - even if it’s just a little bit. Give people their due. But every time someone brings up that argument, all I hear is “the music isn’t that great, the movies aren’t that great…” Doesn’t that smack of self-justification?
Hiro, thank you for pointing me toward the Walter Benjamin essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” - that’s pretty heady stuff.
I must admit, I find it strange for you to ask me “if you are in favour of market capitalism why are you railing against its essential operation?” and then turn around and point me toward a Marxist essay.
I’ll go ahead and put this out there - is this about free-market, or Marxist philosophies? Because if you can reconcile them both together in your own head, you have a much greater capacity for paradox than I do.
Wow I liked that. I might buy your book. Actually nahh, I’ll just download it!
Brett,
First of all, there is a difference between taking an object, which can only be in one place at one time, and copying information, which can be in unlimited places and which billions of people can possess at one time. This is a very very old fallacy caused by conflating the content (music) with the medium (a CD), and you really need to get past it before you can talk about this issue sensibly.
You say “If it’s worth downloading, it’s worth paying for.” That’s not necessarily true. If a person hasn’t listened to Rainbows yet, how does she know if it’s worth paying for?
(Based on Radiohead’s fame and past track record? Maybe, but not everyone was already familiar with them, and good artists’ output has been known to devolve into crap before. Based on reviews? Your taste might not agree with the reviewers’. Why beat around the bush… to know for sure, you have to hear it.)
Now I think I recall seeing reports from Radiohead themselves saying the “70% didn’t pay” statistic was inaccurate, but let’s suppose it was true. The quantity demanded of any good increases as the price gets lower, and the quantity demanded for free is very high. This is basic economics. If Radiohead had set a minimum payment, say pay at least $5 to download the album, far fewer people would have downloaded the album (at least FROM THEM, more on this later).
So, is that good for Radiohead?
I can’t see how it is. Even if the lost listeners weren’t going to pay anything, they still would have talked about and played the album for their friends, who might pay, and they might have gone on to buy tickets to Radiohead shows. More exposure creates more opportunities for the band to make money.
Basically, what I’m saying is this. Suppose for the sake of argument that a million people downloaded the album; 300,000 paid, and 700,000 did not. This means 30% paid. What if, instead, 300,000 paid, and nobody else downloaded the album? That would mean 100% paid. But it wouldn’t mean any more money for the band, and it would mean less exposure. Is that better?
Not at all, and that’s why looking at the percentage and saying, “Clearly, people suck and that was a mistake.” is dishonest.
As an additional point, if Radiohead had released their album by traditional means, “The Scene” would leak it prior to its release, there would be an MP3 download, and 0% of people would pay (it wouldn’t even be possible to). If you read some interviews with Thom Yorke, this kind of leak is exactly what the band wanted to compete with. So this dovetails nicely with Matt Mason’s book, which is about competing with pirates.
[quote comment="259823"]If I ran a store, and 70% of my customers walked off with my inventory, would that be a “runaway success?” Sorry, it seems like there’s entirely too much equivocation going on here - no one in the so-called “pirate community” is willing to face the ethical questions that their actions raise.[quote]
My experience has been the oppositive, and I’ve found that many of the people who share content are quite aware of the moral and ethical dimensions to their actions (and generally seem to be alot more of a self-aware bunch than the average person you meet on the street) and I believe most of them do want to see the content creators earn a fair and equitable living. Certainly there are anarchists and nihilists and teenagers too.. but you’ll find those people just about anywhere.
Before his recent bit of infamy Ersan was working on (and presumably still is, I can’t reach him for comment at the moment) an alternate payment structure for artists who distribute content via p2p. I would post some details or the link to the wiki entry, but my google-fu is tired…
[quote comment="259823"]If it’s worth downloading, it’s worth paying for - even if it’s just a little bit.[/quote]
Here I must disagree with you again. I do not believe an mp3 has either intrinsic or real worth, and is in no way a true reproduction of the commerical product it promotes. Even a high quality (320k) MP3 displays noticable audible differences when compared with an original lossless recording as played on my stereo. MP3s are the digital equivilent of AM radio. They are NOT a commodity or something anyone should be paying for in my opinion, and as such I don’t.
One thing I do, however, is put a large percentage of my disposable income into supporting the artists and musicians I love. That means I pay to see them when they come to my town, I buy vinyl, cd, or lossless direct from their personal websites or equitably-fair distributor, and most of all I share my music with others in the hope that they will enjoy it, purchase it, and encourage and support those same artists I love in their lives and future creations. Oh, I also repeatedly post every Metallica album to Usenet, just to ensure everyone never has to give those stupid twats another dime again.
You seem like a reasonable and intelligent fellow Brett, so I do hope you get my moments of sarcasm, such as they are.. :P
But seriously, most of the music I like, listen to, and purchase is released in relatively small quantities by independant artists and labels, and were it not for the MP3s I download I would have never purchased 90% of the music in my collection. I download all kinds of music and alot of it I listen to once and delete, and I don’t think I should have to pay any more than my internet access fee to do so.
[quote comment="259823"]Hiro, thank you for pointing me toward the Walter Benjamin essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” - that’s pretty heady stuff.
I must admit, I find it strange for you to ask me “if you are in favour of market capitalism why are you railing against its essential operation?” and then turn around and point me toward a Marxist essay.
I’ll go ahead and put this out there - is this about free-market, or Marxist philosophies? Because if you can reconcile them both together in your own head, you have a much greater capacity for paradox than I do.[/quote]
To quote John Lennon, “I don’t believe in the Beatles, I just believe in me.”
Which is to say I don’t like -isms, and tend to believe they distort our view of reality through their claims of a total and definitive plan for the ideal society. To me, the ideal society is one in which everyone is free to seek their own pleasure and live in any way they choose so long as it doesn’t infringe upon upon the freedom and pleasure of others. You
could call it a societal embodiment of the Golden Rule; and I don’t mean the one about he who holds the gold making the rules, as is our current state of affairs in the western democracies.
As I live in a market capitalist society I am oblidged to participate in certain elements of this exchange if I wish to enjoy the benefits and distractions of the technological society. However this does not preclude me from entertaining my own ideals and political conceptions or living them.
In America the taxes of the citizens are directed into corporate coffers and then used by the MAFiAA to sue the citizens who freely share something of no real worth. Those who speak against this corruption of democracy are called pirates and face criminal prosecution, emprisonment, and their life’s ruin. 150 years ago in America people faced the same risks in opposing slavery, a corrupt economic device that reduced a fellow human being to a complete tool of industry and stripped them of their essential rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While obviously the essentials of the two experiences are worlds apart, the vigorousness of their defense by those who benefit from the systems is the same.
Take a step back, then take another, and think about the history of impediment to free communication in the world. It was only 60 odd years ago the largest countries in the world were at war with one another over the right to control property and the economic exchange of the world. Millions of young men were convinced to fight one another in the name of God and Country. They were convinced the enemy were ungodly, “Dirty Japs” or the like, and this was possible because people were largely afraid and knew little of each other. Where-as today I know that I am not much different from anyone else in the world, and I live in age of amazing communication that promotes the global spread of ideas between cultures and races. The longer this continues the greater our understanding of one another must become, and it will be ever less likely that the people of the planet Earth will war upon one another, will poison and destroy one region of the planet for the bounty and comfort of another, and inch by inch the top-down grip of those who have benefited from all of this strife and inhumanity will lessen and eventual cede.
So what does all that have to do with sharing some music? It’s a stretch, I know, but for me this is the foreground in the fight for freedom and the rights of man in the digital age, and I intend to do my best to represent and defend the side of freedom and liberty.
Glad you enjoyed the Walter Benjamin essay. He totally rocked my perception of film. :D
[quote comment="259823"]If I ran a store, and 70% of my customers walked off with my inventory, would that be a “runaway success?” Sorry, it seems like there’s entirely too much equivocation going on here - no one in the so-called “pirate community” is willing to face the ethical questions that their actions raise.[/quote]
My experience has been the oppositive, and I’ve found that many of the people who share content are quite aware of the moral and ethical dimensions to their actions (and generally seem to be alot more of a self-aware bunch than the average person you meet on the street) and I believe most of them do want to see the content creators earn a fair and equitable living. Certainly there are anarchists and nihilists and teenagers too.. but you’ll find those people just about anywhere.
Before his recent bit of infamy Ersan was working on (and presumably still is, I can’t reach him for comment at the moment) an alternate payment structure for artists who distribute content via p2p. I would post some details or the link to the wiki entry, but my google-fu is tired…
[quote comment="259823"]If it’s worth downloading, it’s worth paying for - even if it’s just a little bit.[/quote]
Here I must disagree with you again. I do not believe an mp3 has either intrinsic or real worth, and is in no way a true reproduction of the commerical product it promotes. Even a high quality (320k) MP3 displays noticable audible differences when compared with an original lossless recording as played on my stereo. MP3s are the digital equivilent of AM radio. They are NOT a commodity or something anyone should be paying for in my opinion, and as such I don’t.
One thing I do, however, is put a large percentage of my disposable income into supporting the artists and musicians I love. That means I pay to see them when they come to my town, I buy vinyl, cd, or lossless direct from their personal websites or equitably-fair distributor, and most of all I share my music with others in the hope that they will enjoy it, purchase it, and encourage and support those same artists I love in their lives and future creations. Oh, I also repeatedly post every Metallica album to Usenet, just to ensure everyone never has to give those stupid twats another dime again.
You seem like a reasonable and intelligent fellow Brett, so I do hope you get my moments of sarcasm, such as they are.. :P
But seriously, most of the music I like, listen to, and purchase is released in relatively small quantities by independant artists and labels, and were it not for the MP3s I download I would have never purchased 90% of the music in my collection. I download all kinds of music and alot of it I listen to once and delete, and I don’t think I should have to pay any more than my internet access fee to do so.
[quote comment="259823"]Hiro, thank you for pointing me toward the Walter Benjamin essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” - that’s pretty heady stuff.
I must admit, I find it strange for you to ask me “if you are in favour of market capitalism why are you railing against its essential operation?” and then turn around and point me toward a Marxist essay.
I’ll go ahead and put this out there - is this about free-market, or Marxist philosophies? Because if you can reconcile them both together in your own head, you have a much greater capacity for paradox than I do.[/quote]
To quote John Lennon, “I don’t believe in the Beatles, I just believe in me.”
Which is to say I don’t like -isms, and tend to believe they distort our view of reality through their claims of a total and definitive plan for the ideal society. To me, the ideal society is one in which everyone is free to seek their own pleasure and live in any way they choose so long as it doesn’t infringe upon upon the freedom and pleasure of others. You
could call it a societal embodiment of the Golden Rule; and I don’t mean the one about he who holds the gold making the rules, as is our current state of affairs in the western democracies.
As I live in a market capitalist society I am oblidged to participate in certain elements of this exchange if I wish to enjoy the benefits and distractions of the technological society. However this does not preclude me from entertaining my own ideals and political conceptions or living them.
In America the taxes of the citizens are directed into corporate coffers and then used by the MAFiAA to sue the citizens who freely share something of no real worth. Those who speak against this corruption of democracy are called pirates and face criminal prosecution, emprisonment, and their life’s ruin. 150 years ago in America people faced the same risks in opposing slavery, a corrupt economic device that reduced a fellow human being to a complete tool of industry and stripped them of their essential rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While obviously the essentials of the two experiences are worlds apart, the vigorousness of their defense by those who benefit from the systems is the same.
Take a step back, then take another, and think about the history of impediment to free communication in the world. It was only 60 odd years ago the largest countries in the world were at war with one another over the right to control property and the economic exchange of the world. Millions of young men were convinced to fight one another in the name of God and Country. They were convinced the enemy were ungodly, “Dirty Japs” or the like, and this was possible because people were largely afraid and knew little of each other. Where-as today I know that I am not much different from anyone else in the world, and I live in age of amazing communication that promotes the global spread of ideas between cultures and races. The longer this continues the greater our understanding of one another must become, and it will be ever less likely that the people of the planet Earth will war upon one another, will poison and destroy one region of the planet for the bounty and comfort of another, and inch by inch the top-down grip of those who have benefited from all of this strife and inhumanity will lessen and eventual cede.
So what does all that have to do with sharing some music? It’s a stretch, I know, but for me this is the foreground in the fight for freedom and the rights of man in the digital age, and I intend to do my best to represent and defend the side of freedom and liberty.
Glad you enjoyed the Walter Benjamin essay. He totally rocked my perception of film. :D
Mods: feel free to nuke my previous comment, I slipped a /quote, but felt what I had to say here was worth reposting so it was actually legible. Excuse the stone-y fingers… :rolleyes:
I’m expecting to see RIAA/MPAA/IFPI/whatever to open a private tracker ;-)
Oh, they could collect so much information. RIAA/MPAA/IFPI themselves wouldn’t do it; they or their member companies would hire an anti-piracy group such as MediaDefender, MediaSentry, or BayTSP to do it.
However, I don’t know if any anti-piracy groups understand the culture well enough to fool most of us.
I’ve been proven wrong before, though. People need to remember that private trackers are more dangerous than public trackers. Better content, better seed:leech ratio, fewer fakes and stronger community may be good reasons to join a private tracker, but security is absolutely not.
…What does this have to do with this article?
The bible is the most pervasive thing, it is written by corrupt men who sought to corrupt the mindsofmany and they have done a splendid job
I’m the savior you guysorgals have been looking for since ancient time
I’m a virgin, i am aloner, i am in touch with nature, and have done much to help everyone since my birth.
I know all, see all, hear all, and a perfectionist. I am never satisfied until perfect.
believing is seeing
I am here to offer my help to humanity who are on the path to destruction
I am the the solution to world peace
I will bring world peace through love, co-operation, and understanding of the world we live in.
I’m not running up a pirate flag here but I do think that the urge to narrow the use of content we purchase rights too is not rooted in fairness, but rather in greed.
For example, the music industry embraced CD technology inthe 80’s so they could re-sell everyone their old albums again, of course the CD helped open the door to digial music - so goes unintended consequences.
My pirate flag? Right here:
http://buyflagshere.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=33
Arrgh!
Interesting that you mention Edison who himself pirated the credit for the invention of the light bulb. Nor did he hold the first patent for it!
to SantaBJ
You are in part right; because we are small we have the advantage of being able to adjust our release plans without months of meetings, and we can choose to release music that isnt an obvious “hit single”. We can focus on offering unique product and maintain personal relationships with the best distributors and stores for the genres we deal in.
On the other hand, being small we dont have a marketing department or even a marketing budget to speak of. Marketing for us mostly consists of sending out promo copies, photos and translated text to relevant stores and websites. Oddly enough, even in the age of the Internet, most of these people want a physical copy of the record, rather than MP3 files or a CDR, to review or even reprint the press release. That means we could end up paying for a 10% manufacturing over run just for promo copies which we have to then pay to ship out.
Also we dont have the budget or time to maintain our own digital sales infrastructure; we contract with iTunes, Emusic and others for worldwide digital sales as well as with mobile phone carriers music sales departments here in Japan. Those companies actually pay us as opposed to the freeloaders, the russians and mixtape people.
Technology isnt the big bad wolf, in many ways it enables us to do business, but our lack of efforts on sales and distribution has nothing to do with us and our artists getting ripped off. If you have some great ideas for helping us with distribution and marketing post back here with contact information and we’ll get in touch with you about contract work. It would be a plus if you and can speak, read & write in English, French, German and Japanese (that covers our major sales areas).
Maybe it is time for some of the manufacturers to go after the studios - like the guitar companies, etc. They can claim that they sold their guitars for personal use. The sound their instrument produced was for the person’s enjoyment only and not to be shared with others - so any derivative commercial proceeds will need royalties ;-)
nice to see a nice debate & argument for the other side of the fence!
[quote comment="259238"]weiufhwrigrgher
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
rr
r
r
r
r