How internet pirates are saving the entertainment industry...

[BaiHu]

This harkens back to an old conversation and is interesting.

"The large segment of the population who reported consuming entertainment via both legal and illegal means consistently spent far more than people who only consumed via legal means.

In some cases, these “hybrid pirates” spent three times as much as the law abiding citizen. Now, admittedly, the pirates who only downloaded content illegally spent far less, but they constitute only 4% of the population.
........
The reason that these hybrids spend far more than their legal counterparts is simple: they’re more engaged. They watch more movies, listen to more music, and watch more television. These are your fanboys, your TV junkies, and your super fans."

http://feedly.com/k/1fpRqE1

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk now Free ('http://tapatalk.com/m?id=10')

[ToddG]

If the "fanboys" hadn't been downloading copyrighted material illegally, do you think they'd have spent less money on legally procured entertainment? That seems like a hell of a stretch. One might just as easily opine that the true "fanboy," if forced to choose between not seeing something or paying for it, would choose to spend his money.

But even if the subject title is somehow true, it's like saying "people who dine & dash are saving the restaurant industry" because they go out to dinner more and since only 4% dash every time, it's good for the economy and environment and world peace.

[GardoneVT]

If the "fanboys" hadn't been downloading copyrighted material illegally, do you think they'd have spent less money on legally procured entertainment? That seems like a hell of a stretch. One might just as easily opine that the true "fanboy," if forced to choose between not seeing something or paying for it, would choose to spend his money.

But even if the subject title is somehow true, it's like saying "people who dine & dash are saving the restaurant industry" because they go out to dinner more and since only 4% dash every time, it's good for the economy and environment and world peace.

Indeed.

To refocus on firearms, one could claim that Feinstein and Obama have "saved the gun business" by promoting gun control. In terms of entertainment, the business would doubtlessly be better if everyone paid for their media, and so we would be if gun rights were left alone.

[PPGMD]

I am probably an example of the hybrid pirate. I legally pay for any content that I can, which is like 95% of what I consume.

But I will pirate if the content is either unavailable, or a long lead time. These days it is pretty rare, the only show that I actively pirate is Game of Thrones as there is no legal way to get it without waiting a year which means I can't be engaged with others about the show, or spending another $80+ a month for an expensive cable package. If they offered the show on the internet the next day (like I purchase most of my others shows) at a reasonable price (lets say $4-5 an episode HD to own, or $1 for a rental HD) I would gladly pay up.

[tremiles]

I am probably an example of the hybrid pirate. I legally pay for any content that I can, which is like 95% of what I consume.

But I will pirate if the content is either unavailable, or a long lead time. These days it is pretty rare, the only show that I actively pirate is Game of Thrones as there is no legal way to get it without waiting a year which means I can't be engaged with others about the show, or spending another $80+ a month for an expensive cable package. If they offered the show on the internet the next day (like I purchase most of my others shows) at a reasonable price (lets say $4-5 an episode HD to own, or $1 for a rental HD) I would gladly pay up.

I too, am acquainted with a person who was unwilling to subscribe to HBO's business model of cable/satellite only expensive monthly fees, watched a few pirated episodes of GOT, then purchased the available S1, S2 on BluRay.

If HBO GO was available by separate paid subscription, and not only available with an existing cable/satellite sub, my acquaintance would subscribe RIGHT NOW.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4

[Byron]

...it's like saying "people who dine & dash are saving the restaurant industry"...
I believe that one of the reasons why this topic is so difficult to discuss is because it really is not analogous to any traditional system our society has dealt with before.

Whether we want to make the analogy that it's like stealing cars, or it's like copying cars, or it's like copying blueprints, or it's like dine & dash... or whatever... then people just start arguing about the applicability of the metaphor rather than the actual topic. Then we all jump onto a new metaphor that someone throws in and argue about that, and why it does or doesn't apply, and on and on and on...

File sharing just isn't analogous to anything in the physical world. If we want to seriously discuss this topic, I think we should discuss it literally.

But respectfully, you don't seem interested in doing that. Your mind is clearly made up. Data doesn't show the results you want it to, so your first inclination is to simply dismiss it as untrue, made up, or whatever the case may be. You, of course, offer the caveat that "even if the subject title is somehow true" it's still offensive to your morals.

The article addresses part of your argument, and challenges it with actual data. It isn't even as if this is the first time data has suggested this: I cited a couple of the other studies/experiments in the other thread we had about piracy a few months ago. You ignored said data, just as you are now ignoring this new data.

It's disappointing to see you so blinded by a moral position that you ignore hard numbers. It's something that you usually criticize in others when it comes to other topics.

I anticipate that you'll next make disparaging remarks about the source of the data, oversimplify the concept, and condescendingly question whether I agree with some new rhetorical: "So you're saying I can steal your house and that's cool?"

Sure. Whatever. Yes: you can come steal my house, and my car, and my food, and kill my cats, and poop on my lawn...

[PPGMD]

I too, am acquainted with a person who was unwilling to subscribe to HBO's business model of cable/satellite only expensive monthly fees, watched a few pirated episodes of GOT, then purchased the available S1, S2 on BluRay.

If HBO GO was available by separate paid subscription, and not only available with an existing cable/satellite sub, my acquaintance would subscribe RIGHT NOW.

I would prefer to purchase the show by the episode, but I would be willing to pay for a subscription if the price were right, and they didn't attempt to lock me into a contract (as I would only subscribe while GOT airs).

[ToddG]

I believe that one of the reasons why this topic is so difficult to discuss is because it really is not analogous to any traditional system our society has dealt with before.

Why? Why is stealing copyrighted information on a computer different than stealing it with a photocopier? The word game calling it "file sharing" is just ridiculous. The whole attempt to carve out some kind of special case for illegal data theft is nothing but a dodge. The only difference is that it's easy to steal anonymously over the internet and because it's easy, lots of people do it.


But respectfully, you don't seem interested in doing that. Your mind is clearly made up. Data doesn't show the results you want it to, so your first inclination is to simply dismiss it as untrue, made up, or whatever the case may be. You, of course, offer the caveat that "even if the subject title is somehow true" it's still offensive to your morals.

Absolutely. My objection is a moral one, not an economic one. If it's really better for the companies, then the companies should get to decide their policies, not random people sitting in front of their computers. If you told me that my house would be worth more if you broke in and painted all the walls, that doesn't mean you're just allowed to do so.


The article addresses part of your argument, and challenges it with actual data.

What data? There was a ton of interpretation of data in a convenient way. There was talk of other revenue streams increasing, etc. But that's not proof that XYZ would happen if illegal downloading stopped. There is no data about that. There are theories and assumptions and perhaps they have some validity, but you don't get to call them "data" like it's an open and shut case.


It's disappointing to see you so blinded by a moral position...
<...>
Sure. Whatever. Yes: you can come steal my house, and my car, and my food, and kill my cats, and poop on my lawn...

And I'm the one who is blinded by emotion here? :cool:

That people will continue to steal doesn't disturb me nearly as much as all the people who lie to themselves pretending that it's not really stealing because <insert excuse here> when really it all comes down to, "it's easy so I do it." People who steal want to justify their theft so all of this silliness about "it's really better for the industry!" salves their conscience. There's something you could pay for but you don't want to pay for it -- it's too expensive, you have to wait too long, whatever -- so you steal it. Period.

I think it's wrong and I said so. I didn't call for new laws to hang people by their eyeballs for stealing music or throw people in prison for life because they want to watch Game of Thrones. I simply said it's wrong. Ask yourself why you care if deep down inside you think what you're doing is perfectly right.

[TGS]

...
Data doesn't show the results you want it to, so your first inclination is to simply dismiss it as untrue, made up, or whatever the case may be.
...
The article addresses part of your argument, and challenges it with actual data. It isn't even as if this is the first time data has suggested this: I cited a couple of the other studies/experiments in the other thread we had about piracy a few months ago. You ignored said data, just as you are now ignoring this new data.
...

I anticipate that you'll next make disparaging remarks about the source of the data, oversimplify the concept, and condescendingly question whether I agree with some new rhetorical: "So you're saying I can steal your house and that's cool?"

Well, now that we have a response, I guess you nailed that one!

[JAD]

If your moral compass doesn't recognize piracy as theft, it's a little out of tune. If your experience matches mine, it'll come back towards true north as you grow up. We can chat about this when you're 40.

[JV_]

If your moral compass doesn't recognize piracy as theft, it's a little out of tune.I agree.

[PPGMD]

If your moral compass doesn't recognize piracy as theft, it's a little out of tune. If your experience matches mine, it'll come back towards true north as you grow up. We can chat about this when you're 40.

Because of extreme length of copyright laws, it is piracy that moves the industry forward anymore. Because copyright laws cover their works for in excess of a century, if it weren't for piracy they would have no reason to disrupt their current marketplace. Look at the publishing industry, due to it's nature there is limited piracy, it took the DOJ filing a lawsuit to get them to stop their uncompetitive practices (granted they have the right to be scared since unlike movies the authors don't need them as much to fund the project).

It was the industry's attempts to combat piracy that allowed almost all of the streaming services to exist, the idea of buying TV shows over the internet wouldn't exist, nor would you have the ability to purchase music by anything but the complete CD.

And studies have shown that piracy diminishes greatly once you offer the consumer the content they want, on the terms that the want, and at reasonable prices.

Virtually everyone that I knew that pirated music, and TV shows have stopped once legal avenues came about.

[JAD]

Tl;dr. Seemed like an athletic justification for stealing. Which is wrong.

[TGS]

Tl;dr. Seemed like an athletic justification for stealing. Which is wrong.

If you're going to stand on a moral soapbox, it behooves you to actually exercise respect by reading someone's post instead of writing tl;dr.

But, I'm not 40, so I guess I don't get to speak.

[JV_]

The end justifies the means? Yea, I don't work like that.

[BaiHu]

PPGMD hit the nail on the head for me. I don't pirate stuff, b/c I can afford what I want and have patience for the rest. However, I think piracy has helped, b/c I'm listening to Coldplay on Google Play service as I write this and without Napster and other "piracy" software, I wouldn't be able to get a lifetime of music for the cost of 500 CDs @ today's cheap prices of $10.

The consumer eventually gets what it wants and it's the dinosaurs of the industry that have indirectly created this behavior and technique.

Look, we all talk about the law of unintended consequences with the government, so let's not pretend that it's any different in the private sector.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk now Free ('http://tapatalk.com/m?id=10')

[JAD]

But, I'm not 40, so I guess I don't get to speak.

That's more of a guideline than a hard and fast rule.

[Kobalt60]

Righteous indignation aside, the movie and tv industry has to evolve its business model if its going to keep this revenue stream. TV is well on its way with services like Hulu. But Movie studios and cable companies are stuck in antiquity. Digital distribution saved the music industry from evaporation, but its killing movie studios because they won't change.

Music piracy is pretty marginal now, like software piracy (which is practically encouraged on the sly by many companies) because legally buying music through iTunes or subscribing via Spotify and its ilk is easier than pirating the content for most people. The only people who still pirate music are kids whose parents won't pay for it. The music industry turns blind eye because it builds their fan base.

Movies and cable content like HBO's are at the mercy of distribution models that rely on wasteful subscriptions where most content that's paid for isn't used and artificially limited by locality and what other crap you're willing to pay for... they need to realize that they're competing with free and that the only thing that can best free, is easy.

[ToddG]

Because of extreme length of copyright laws, it is piracy that moves the industry forward anymore.

Those Game of Thrones episodes you're pirating are 100 years old? 20? Less than a year, actually, between when the season ends and it's available on iTunes and the like. So the "extreme length" argument rings false.


And studies have shown that piracy diminishes greatly once you offer the consumer the content they want, on the terms that the want, and at reasonable prices.

Studies have shown that people stop when they get their way. Amazing!


Virtually everyone that I knew that pirated music, and TV shows have stopped once legal avenues came about.

Good. That doesn't justify the stealing they did beforehand.

[PPGMD]

Those Game of Thrones episodes you're pirating are 100 years old? 20? Less than a year, actually, between when the season ends and it's available on iTunes and the like. So the "extreme length" argument rings false.

I was speaking of the term of copyright, not availability.

Also GOT Season 3 isn't available on any streaming service yet, nor will it be until next year when the DVD/BR copy is released.


Studies have shown that people stop when they get their way. Amazing!

Good. That doesn't justify the stealing they did beforehand.

The industry is so protected from competition, piracy was the only way to change it. If you enjoy buying music by the track you need to thank Napster. If you enjoy buying TV by the episode or streaming it, you need to thank Bittorrent.

This is the industry that got brought you DMCA, which makes it illegal to unlock your phone, or rip DVDs. The ability to pirate media is the only thing that has kept it in check. I was born into both eras, I personally think that piracy saved the industry that was in stagnation as they had a virtual monopoly on music, and TV/movies.

[GardoneVT]

The industry is so protected from competition, piracy was the only way to change it. If you enjoy buying music by the track you need to thank Napster. If you enjoy buying TV by the episode or streaming it, you need to thank Bittorrent.

This is the industry that got brought you DMCA, which makes it illegal to unlock your phone, or rip DVDs. The ability to pirate media is the only thing that has kept it in check. I was born into both eras, I personally think that piracy saved the industry that was in stagnation as they had a virtual monopoly on music, and TV/movies.

Bullpucky.

What the industry should or should not do is NOT up to you. Or to me, or to anyone else at the consumer level. If you don't like what Capitol Records does, don't buy their stuff. But do NOT assume that downloading their music is going to somehow alter their business model. The music business might be crooked , but that doesn't give anyone the moral right to commit theft.

Legislation , last I checked, still requires a positive vote by your elected rep to be enacted. If you don't like DCMA, you should have called your Congress(wo)man to oppose it. As the relative of a 1980's recording artist, I can say that the ability to pirate media has done nothing except socially sanction theft. That's not a step forward for anyone, especially the artist who now gets screwed by the label AND the consumer.

[PPGMD]

Bullpucky.

What the industry should or should not do is NOT up to you. Or to me, or to anyone else at the consumer level. If you don't like what Capitol Records does, don't buy their stuff. But do NOT assume that downloading their music is going to somehow alter their business model. The music business might be crooked , but that doesn't give anyone the moral right to commit theft.

Whether morally right or wrong, it took piracy to change an industry that felt it that it could put out a $20 CD filled with 75% junk, even some artists have admitted that most of their albums were mostly filler mandated by the labels.


Legislation , last I checked, still requires a positive vote by your elected rep to be enacted. If you don't like DCMA, you should have called your Congress(wo)man to oppose it.

LOL we have someone that actually believes that they listen to their voters. Except for issues that their base supports, or one where the voters are known to be passionate (like guns, abortion, and such), the lobby group with the most Congress Critters on their side are ones that they listen to. Any attempts to actually pass real copyright reform have been crushed by the Hollywood media lobby. Do you really think that we got 120 year copyrights because that is what the voters actually wanted? Or DMCA?

[Mr_White]

Here's a variant question for discussion purposes: what do you all think about downloading (without paying) for content that is otherwise completely unavailable into perpetuity?

Example: unique DJ mixes that are not available for sale under any circumstance. You could probably go find the original tracks and purchase those, but those individual tracks are different than the overall larger mix created from them. But the larger mixed work can be downloaded for free out in the wild of the internet - which means you really don't know who actually recorded and uploaded it to the internet in the first place. It may have been the DJ themselves, or maybe not.

What say you?

[BaiHu]

I would add that someone paid for the CD that put the music on the net in the first place and Sony is one of the makers of CD writers and CDRWs that first made it all possible. If you said all guns are illegal, but gave me all the parts available for me to buy and assemble then......

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk now Free ('http://tapatalk.com/m?id=10')

[Chuck Whitlock]

I'm mostly out of my lane on this subject, but here are some thoughts:

First, piracy = theft = wrong. Period. Full stop.
Granted.

Is there anyone here north of 40ish that didn't make a copy of a friend's cassette tape with a dual cassette deck back in the day?
As a kid, did the thought even cross your mind that you were technically stealing? What about taping a song that was playing over the radio?

Does the general consumer even know the difference between pirated content and public domain stuff? I don't have to pay $ when I download Ballistic Radio podcasts. I'm thinking that the vast majority of consumers think, "I want to watch/listen to this.....oh, here it is, and it's free! Yippee!!" and don't think one thought beyond that.

How do you know whether something is public domain or not?

[Mr_White]

Here's a variant question for discussion purposes: what do you all think about downloading (without paying) for content that is otherwise completely unavailable into perpetuity?

Example: unique DJ mixes that are not available for sale under any circumstance. You could probably go find the original tracks and purchase those, but those individual tracks are different than the overall larger mix created from them. But the larger mixed work can be downloaded for free out in the wild of the internet - which means you really don't know who actually recorded and uploaded it to the internet in the first place. It may have been the DJ themselves, or maybe not.

What say you?

A variant of the variant: how about content that used to be available for sale, is now out of print with no reasonable expectation of it being available for purchase again in the future, but it is available for free download? Can you simply not rightfully acquire that content at all under those circumstances?

[ToddG]

Whether morally right or wrong...

And that statement, in a nutshell, is the crux of the disagreement. Folks can justify it to themselves however they want, convince themselves they made the world a better place, convince themselves they saved music from extinction, or whatever. But at the end of the day they took something they had no legal right to, without paying for it. Period.

PPGMD, I'm not trying to pick on you specifically but just because the Game of Thrones example is a good one: when the series does become available on DVD do you buy it? In other words, having justified your "file sharing" based on not wanting to wait a year before you see the show, do you still reimburse HBO when the opportunity presents itself?

[JAD]

A variant of the variant: how about content that used to be available for sale, is now out of print with no reasonable expectation of it being available for purchase again in the future, but it is available for free download? Can you simply not rightfully acquire that content at all under those circumstances?

If someone made anything you couldn't buy would that make it okay to steal?

[BaiHu]

Bullpucky.

What the industry should or should not do is NOT up to you. Or to me, or to anyone else at the consumer level.

I cry bullpucky on this thought process. ToddG and I believe Tom (forgive me) created "The Gadget" precisely because Glock or other striker fired guns don't have an interest in serving the consumer in this way for whatever economic/non-econonic reason.

Obviously, I'm not saying they stole something, but the idea that the consumer just has to suck it up until the industry figures it out is a fantasy. Most inventions happen precisely because the industry has either missed something or is complacent in their execution.

As I said before, the industry that is making a big issue over piracy is the exact industry that created the major tools necessary to pirate. Sony and Phillips created the CDR and the laser writer and Sony is a major label. The only thing different between me tape recording songs off the radio and making mix tapes for a girl or myself back in the 80s vs "file sharing" is scale. Now my "friends" are anonymous people on the internet and back then I actually "knew" the person who's CD I was copying/pirating.

I think theft is wrong, but if I buy something and share it with anyone and I'm not making a profit (real piracy in my mind), then I didn't steal it and someone didn't steal it from me. I bought it and I shared it with someone and whoever else they share that with is out of my hands.

In the end, it isn't a car, a gun or a house, it's information and I think there could be a slippery slope between telling me how to use something I paid for vs what I say about something. For a far out example: If I had a well followed blog and I said some movie/album/book sucked, haven't I effected the sales? If the same blog offered a movie/book/album for free, because I thought it was awesome, haven't I effected sales? In both cases you could argue that someone would still be willing to buy said product, no?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk now Free ('http://tapatalk.com/m?id=10')

[Kobalt60]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute and challenge the assumption that content piracy is "theft" or "stealing".

Researching the raw definition of the terms isn't really helpful because there are many definitions out there that one can pick and choose from to support or oppose the argument. However, the criminal act the theft involves not only the acquisition of a good but also the taking of it from another, thus injured party... Therein lies the rub. When content is illegally copied, there isn't someone else out there that's missing the thing that was stolen. Therefore it's not the same as theft. Not even close. If your neighbor built a car exactly like yours, you wouldn't say they stole your car.

So, please stop saying its theft and making moral arguments on that assumption. It's a violation of copyright laws and of the DMCA, nothing more or less. Just like some people don't believe that Obamacare, or the GCA is a moral law, some people don't believe that the DMCA is moral or that the recent adjustments to copyright law are moral. That doesn't make breaking the law acceptable, but it's a law of commerce, malum prohibitum rather than malum in se.

[PPGMD]

And that statement, in a nutshell, is the crux of the disagreement. Folks can justify it to themselves however they want, convince themselves they made the world a better place, convince themselves they saved music from extinction, or whatever. But at the end of the day they took something they had no legal right to, without paying for it. Period.

PPGMD, I'm not trying to pick on you specifically but just because the Game of Thrones example is a good one: when the series does become available on DVD do you buy it? In other words, having justified your "file sharing" based on not wanting to wait a year before you see the show, do you still reimburse HBO when the opportunity presents itself?

I do own the BRs for season one and two. And will purchase season three when it gets closer to release (it is scheduled for February). Unless HBO changes their policies I will also be downloading season four as it airs.

I don't do that as a justification simply because the show is good enough that I want to watch it again. I also own all the books on Kindle which I am going through very slowly as each book is almost 1,000 pages long.

Personally I don't use the changes to the industry as a personal justification, simply pointing out to the piracy is bad crowd, that much of the innovation that they likely take advantage of are because the industry was forced to change their business model to combat piracy.

If you give the non-cable customers a choice between a free shady pirate site, and a reasonably priced legal source, a large majority will choose the legal source. Right now sports and the premium channels are the only hold outs these days.

[Byron]

Regarding the idea that piracy is absolutely "theft," the laws don't even hold this. Pirates are not charged with "theft" in a criminal court.

This isn't a rationalization. This is simply a recognition that theft and copyright violation are not the same thing legally, even if you might consider them equal morally.


I believe that one of the reasons why this topic is so difficult to discuss is because it really is not analogous to any traditional system our society has dealt with before.

Why? Why is stealing copyrighted information on a computer different than stealing it with a photocopier? The word game calling it "file sharing" is just ridiculous. The whole attempt to carve out some kind of special case for illegal data theft is nothing but a dodge. The only difference is that it's easy to steal anonymously over the internet and because it's easy, lots of people do it.
Your last sentence answers your first question.

The ease of distribution, the level of effort required: these are all important differences that reinforce my assertion that we don't have other systems that are cleanly analogous.

But it appears that you misunderstand my position, or I have not been clear enough about it in the past. I don't want anything special "carved out." I simply want to talk about the issue itself, rather than what we all want to argue it's analogous to (and I realize that I have made my own failed attempts at analogies in the past).

File sharing is a specific method of distribution for pirated materials. It is not the only form of illegal downloading. I wasn't trying to play a word game: I was saying that the method of distribution itself is novel.

I don't doubt that some people want to use "file sharing" as a blanket term for all illegal content consumption, but I'm not trying to do that. I feel fine calling it piracy.


Absolutely. My objection is a moral one, not an economic one.
OK, then we're just talking past each other then.
You want to talk about the morals, and not the economics.
I want to talk about the economics, and not the morals.

The last thread was an article about economic impact to the video game industry. This thread is about the economic impact to media consumers. My position is the same now as it was then:


I am not weighing in on the ethical issues involved here.

Like I said: I'm not trying to argue about the ethics. I'm arguing about the economics.

I get your frustration about the ethics of it: I really do.




But that's not proof that XYZ would happen if illegal downloading stopped. There is no data about that.
No, it's not proof of what would happen if illegal downloading stopped. I never claimed such.

How would such data ever be gathered?



Sure. Whatever. Yes: you can come steal my house, and my car, and my food, and kill my cats, and poop on my lawn...

And I'm the one who is blinded by emotion here? :cool:
If my post sounded like an emotional outburst then I failed in properly expressing myself.

I was preemptively addressing the wild examples I knew would eventually come. Like this one:

If you told me that my house would be worth more if you broke in and painted all the walls, that doesn't mean you're just allowed to do so.


People who steal want to justify their theft so all of this silliness about "it's really better for the industry!" salves their conscience. There's something you could pay for but you don't want to pay for it -- it's too expensive, you have to wait too long, whatever -- so you steal it. Period.
I have no interest in soothing anyone's conscience (least of all my own), or justifying anything.

The article was about the economic impact of an illegal activity.

If the article had been about the economic impact of illegal drugs, I would want to discuss the economic impact of illegal drugs. I wouldn't be posting about whether I thought drugs were good or bad or whether drug users are good or bad, or anything of the sort.

And I acknowledge the hypocrisy of my attempt to now use an analogy...

Imagine a thread on illegal drugs where there are at least four groups arguing:

People who are morally opposed to illegal drugs. That's all there is to it. Full stop.
People who love illegal drugs. Drugs are great.
People who think that illegal drugs have X impact on the economy.
People who think that illegal drugs have Y impact on the economy.

You, and many others, would fall into the first group.
You seem to think that I fall into the second group, but I do not. I'm in group 3, and I'm interested in discussion with people from group 4.


I think it's wrong and I said so. I didn't call for new laws to hang people by their eyeballs for stealing music or throw people in prison for life because they want to watch Game of Thrones. I simply said it's wrong. Ask yourself why you care if deep down inside you think what you're doing is perfectly right.
While an interesting psych hypothesis, I am not replying out of some inner need to sleep better at night.

I'm fine with you saying piracy is wrong. I wasn't saying internet piracy is different because it should be looked at with awe and respect. I was saying internet piracy is different because it literally does not adhere to previous physical models.

[ToddG]

I cry bullpucky on this thought process. ToddG and I believe Tom (forgive me) created "The Gadget" precisely because Glock or other striker fired guns don't have an interest in serving the consumer in this way for whatever economic/non-econonic reason.

That's absolutely the most idiotic comparison I've ever heard and candidly more than a little offensive. Tom & I created new intellectual property. That's the farthest thing from piracy. A better analogy would be if someone was "tired of waiting" for the Gadget so they started making their own. Since the Gadget is patented, guess what? That's illegal!

The fact that you'd even see those two things are comparable just goes to show how little respect for and understanding of intellectual property you must have.


However, the criminal act the theft involves not only the acquisition of a good but also the taking of it from another, thus injured party... Therein lies the rub. When content is illegally copied, there isn't someone else out there that's missing the thing that was stolen. Therefore it's not the same as theft. Not even close. If your neighbor built a car exactly like yours, you wouldn't say they stole your car.

No. Wrong. That's exactly why intellectual property is its own section of the law. It's one of the few such things actually spelled out in the Constitution itself. There's no requirement in the law that you deprive me of my use or enjoyment of something in order for theft to occur.


Regarding the idea that piracy is absolutely "theft," the laws don't even hold this. Pirates are not charged with "theft" in a criminal court.

Come on, Byron. You're above silliness like that. You're going to hang your hat on the statutory name of the crime? Embezzlement isn't theft by that logic. Please...


This isn't a rationalization. This is simply a recognition that theft and copyright violation are not the same thing legally, even if you might consider them equal morally.

Your definition is no less or more judgment than mine. I fail to see how you became the arbiter here. As mentioned above, copyright protections have been around almost since the day the Constitution came into being. The idea that you can dismiss some laws because you don't think they're right is, by definition, a moral judgment on your part.


The ease of distribution, the level of effort required: these are all important differences that reinforce my assertion that we don't have other systems that are cleanly analogous.

So because it's stealing candy from a baby it's not stealing? Because everyone is doing it it's not illegal? You don't think any of those are moral judgments?

This whole "it's not analogous to anything" line of reasoning is just more excuses and dodges. Regardless of how many times you say you don't want to carve out some special set of rules for this particular type of stealing, that's exactly what you're trying to do. Of course you don't want to analogize it to anything else: because every other type of stealing is wrong, too.


OK, then we're just talking past each other then.
You want to talk about the morals, and not the economics.
I want to talk about the economics, and not the morals.

I think that defines things perfectly.


How would such data ever be gathered?

Then the snide comment about how I'd question the data was uncalled for, since you don't have data supporting the actual claim being made.


If the article had been about the economic impact of illegal drugs, I would want to discuss the economic impact of illegal drugs. I wouldn't be posting about whether I thought drugs were good or bad or whether drug users are good or bad, or anything of the sort.

That's fine. But if someone starts a thread about how heroin users are actually good for the medical industry because they bring in lots of money, do you really think no one will want to discuss something beyond that narrow aspect? You've been on the internet before, haven't you?


I'm fine with you saying piracy is wrong. I wasn't saying internet piracy is different because it should be looked at with awe and respect. I was saying internet piracy is different because it literally does not adhere to previous physical models.

No. It adheres to the centuries-old intellectual property models.

There's nothing more that I can add about my personal opinion so I'm out of this thread.

[BaiHu]

Wooooohhh Todd! Read what I wrote.


I cry bullpucky on this thought process. ToddG and I believe Tom (forgive me) created "The Gadget" precisely because Glock or other striker fired guns don't have an interest in serving the consumer in this way for whatever economic/non-econonic reason.

Obviously, I'm not saying they stole something, but the idea that the consumer just has to suck it up until the industry figures it out is a fantasy. Most inventions happen precisely because the industry has either missed something or is complacent in their execution.

now Free ('http://tapatalk.com/m?id=10')

I was talking about the creation of illegal or legal items/methods occur when the market isn't producing what a consumer wants.

I was not saying that the gadget was illegal, I was pointing out that legal objects like the CDRW and laser were made by the same people who produce music and then they sold it on the open market. What did they think was going to happen? It's almost like selling a car that has a keg of beer installed as an option and wondering why we have more DUIs.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk now Free ('http://tapatalk.com/m?id=10')

[Totem Polar]

I've tried to stay out of this, largely because (as in most debates) folks tend towards pre-entrenched positions on this topic. I will say, however, that this is a *remarkably* complex subject, and very smart and experienced industry insiders have, and are, trying to figure all this out. To give an idea of how complex this is, take on one side of the issue the jazz "fakebook"; bootlegged and pirated hard copies of lead sheets for jazz standards. This has become so much a part of jazz culture over the second half of the 20th-c. that it is safe to say that jazz performance, jazz education, jazz composition and jazz culture would not be where it is today in the 21st-c. without this patently illegal "paper sharing" tradition. I doubt that there is a *single* person of any repute in all of jazz today who is also not guilty of bootlegging, by extension.

On the other hand, we have the new 'legal' alternatives such as spotify. Great that it's legal and all, but it's an absolute shit deal for the artists. Disclaimer: Not that it should ever come up on a forum like this, but my day (and night) job is as a relatively successful musician–if, by successful, one means making a fun living at it, running a couple of paid-for reliable cars and owning a modest home (with a full-up patriot safe) outright, as opposed to being on American Idol, or something. I also have some friends/acquaintances who are currently at the top of the music industry (such as it is: one of whom has probably been seen singing by any here who are fans of classic/hard rock), so this is something that I have discussed a fair amount and thought about as much.

But back to spotify: That is just legal stealing by the folks who have the means to try and provide for and steer (not control) distribution. I received a text from a student of mine a few weeks back commenting that he had found a bunch of my past product on spotify; I had no idea that I was on there. I can assure you that I will *never* see a check from spotify: few will. See this recent article by Talking Heads frontman (and uber-smart guy) David Bryne: if anything, he understates how badly content providers get kittened by "legal" distribution channels.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/11/david-byrne-internet-content-world

This leads us to a world where artists/creators are actively encouraging the stealing of their product/content by their fans from their labels/channels of distribution. Where is right, when the creators of the content are encouraging theft for moral (and practical) reasons?

What we do know is this: the first person who figures out how to *fairly* monetize what has become the evolved standard for creative content distribution will win. But, like pulling excalibur out of the stone, the right person has yet to do it.

JMO.

[BaiHu]

Awesome post Sidheshooter and congrats on being successful at doing what you love.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk now Free ('http://tapatalk.com/m?id=10')

[Byron]

Come on, Byron. You're above silliness like that. You're going to hang your hat on the statutory name of the crime? Embezzlement isn't theft by that logic.
...
Your definition is no less or more judgment than mine. I fail to see how you became the arbiter here. As mentioned above, copyright protections have been around almost since the day the Constitution came into being. The idea that you can dismiss some laws because you don't think they're right is, by definition, a moral judgment on your part.
...
So because it's stealing candy from a baby it's not stealing? Because everyone is doing it it's not illegal? You don't think any of those are moral judgments?
I didn't say the laws should be dismissed.
I didn't say the laws weren't right.
I didn't say it's not stealing.

Pointing out that stealing a car is dealt with in criminal court, while stealing music is dealt with in civil court, was not my attempt at reframing judgment, nor was it my attempt at being an arbiter. Rather, it was a statement of fact, and an acknowledgement that our courts look at the acts differently.

It's no more of a moral judgment than pointing out that is handled differently by our court systems than . I am not saying x is worse than y, or y is worse than x: just that they are different animals.


This whole "it's not analogous to anything" line of reasoning is just more excuses and dodges. Regardless of how many times you say you don't want to carve out some special set of rules for this particular type of stealing, that's exactly what you're trying to do. Of course you don't want to analogize it to anything else: [i]because every other type of stealing is wrong, too.
I just want to discuss an issue as its own issue.

If we're talking about drugs, I don't want to argue about abortion.
If we're talking about abortion, I don't want to argue about unemployment.

Let me clarify something, because it would appear that I haven't communicated it:
I do believe that people should pay for the content they consume.

But back to your point that I'm just trying to dodge by saying that this issue doesn't have a clean analog, I can list all the reasons I believe this if you truly wish, but I doubt you're genuinely interested. Here's a pretty big one though: I can think of no other good or service where the illegal, black market, free version is not only equal to the full-cost, legal version, but it is [I]superior to it.

If you choose to reply again to this thread, you will no doubt retort, "Oh, so it's OK to steal because it's better?"
Nope. I'm not justifying stealing content: I'm simply making an argument that this beast is really more complex than a simple conversational analogy allows.
(See, I'm fine using the S-word)


Then the snide comment about how I'd question the data was uncalled for, since you don't have data supporting the actual claim being made.
It wasn't just this data: it was data in the other thread as well. We don't even agree on what claim is being made, it would seem, so I don't suppose we'll agree about what data supports it.

To say that I've made an uncalled snide remark flabbergasts me, however. On this topic (as is the case with many topics you feel passionately about), you throw snide comments around like confetti, talk down to people, mischaracterize their arguments into straw men positions, and then blast people with patently offensive rhetorical questions and comparisons.

The way you've spoken to me in this thread has put me in a pretty crappy mood today.

I wish you a happy weekend.

Thanks to everyone else for the input.

[BobLoblaw]

A few observations to note: of the people I know who pirate content, they all fall into certain mindsets.

1. They won't listen to their customers. We'll sample it, delete it after viewing, and pay in full when it becomes available.
2. We are sick of getting duped by Hollywood. We're going to sample this low quality "video cam in a theater" rip and if it's half-decent we'll pay to experience a quality version. If it's over priced, we'll wait till it hits Netflix, Hulu, etc.
3. We borrow our friends' DVDs and it doesn't harm anyone. We would never actually pay money to see these overpriced, bottom-of-barrel films. No potential revenue for them, no incurred harm to them. We only pay money for movies approved by our trusted sources.
4. They give all the good parts away in the previews and charge us equal amounts for amazing films (10% of theater films) and pathetic films (60% of theater films). Kitten them. They won't see a cent from us. We're burning everything to DVD and keeping it forever unless they reform their business model and advertising practices.

The first three groups are the vast bulk of "pirates" (a label for plundering, raping, and murdering thieves that those who engage in illegal downloading have not rightfully earned).

If criminal prosecutions are never pursued, how can others assert that this is a crime and those who do it are criminals? No time, no crime. If the vast majority of "pirates" have not proven to damage entertainment companies, few charges are filed although trillions of downloads were completed, and the majority of downloaders reason that they did so because the entertainment companies continually fail to deliver, it sounds to me like this is yet another message that will lead to something better than a damaging act by virtual plunderers, rapists, murderers, and thieves.

If "pirates" stopped watching movies until they got what they wanted and also stopped illegal downloading in the meantime, would the entertainment industry fair better or worse? I would surmise worse since it's perpetual bad PR to sue customers and they would have a net neutral or net loss due to the elimination of highly impressionable, free advertising hype through social media provided by these "pirates" leading to potential sales they may not have incurred with a single "pirate" purchase. Why? Because many of these low-quality copies are available before opening to the general public so no one can disagree with said hype until after they see it (guaranteeing at least a net neutral effect). Also, if they watch a lot of movies and their peers know this, their opinion is more highly regarded than some mouthpiece who sees 5 movies a year and tweets "Ghost Ship is the best movie evahhh" two weeks after the movie came out. Those "pirates" would lose their "movie buff" label since they do not trust the film industry's current business model of set price/cinema view regardless of quality, cost, etc. to deliver an equal or greater value of entertainment for the cost of admission. So the "pirates" would see few films at or before the release date rendering their opinion of films and creation of release hype to little to no aid to the film company and by extension, the entertainment industry.

The software industry is a different beast but for the film industry and music industry, I'm glad people are doing this. It leads to a better product (see: iTunes, Pandora, Netflix, Redbox, Hulu etc.) and the prices don't rise as they would with literally stealing at a brick and mortar. There's a reason that the battle cry of the entertainment industry has reduced so much in this arena: they finally are realizing that the easiest way to a strong bottom line is to listen to the customers instead of suing them for trying to get what they want after getting the cold shoulder.

FWIW, I don't download torrents or engage in P2P sharing but I gave a speech in Public Speaking 10(something) pertaining to this debate. It bothers me none knowing that others do this and I don't judge them for it. If anyone were actually being harmed, I would feel very differently. It's the industry's poor business model that resulted in this practice so they can go with the flow and make something better or fight the current and lose. Even Steven Speilburg (and maybe George Lucas) commented not too long ago that the film industry is going to drown soon if they don't fix their business model. If that happens it's not because "pirates" robbed them, raped their women, and murdered their crew, it's because the industry refused to listen to those who keep them afloat.

[Mr_White]

If someone made anything you couldn't buy would that make it okay to steal?


...the criminal act the theft involves not only the acquisition of a good but also the taking of it from another, thus injured party...When content is illegally copied, there isn't someone else out there that's missing the thing that was stolen.

This is part of what I was getting at. No one is deprived of the copied thing.

They are deprived of the compensation for that copied thing...but the further subtlety I was trying to get at is that in some aspects of this discussion, specifically the electronic music I was using as an example, the thing isn't offered for sale. So you can choose to have it, or not have it, but you can't give money for it either way.


...the jazz "fakebook"; bootlegged and pirated hard copies of lead sheets for jazz standards. This has become so much a part of jazz culture over the second half of the 20th-c. that it is safe to say that jazz performance, jazz education, jazz composition and jazz culture would not be where it is today in the 21st-c. without this patently illegal "paper sharing" tradition. I doubt that there is a *single* person of any repute in all of jazz today who is also not guilty of bootlegging, by extension.

I don't completely understand what is written here (fakebook, lead sheets), but it sure sounds like the culture involved in electronic music.