Support NeoGAF

[Dilbert]

You're always in here spouting the same bullshit jinx, claiming that the music industry's high CD prices for many years makes all the piracy of music today right and justified. Did the music industry set itself up for this level of piracy by not embracing online distribution and the MP3 format earlier? ABSOLUTELY. But it doesn't justify piracy nor does it make it legal.

You need to work on your reading comprehension, since I have NEVER said that piracy is justified. I do, however, repeatedly make the following statements:

1) Piracy is not theft. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Given your job, you ought to know better.

2) Copyright law, as currently written, is deeply flawed and perverted from its original intent.

3) The recording, movie, and book industries gouge both consumers and the artists.

4) The U.S. government should NOT be passing or enforcing legislation which is designed to preserve the RIAA's and MPAA's business model. They should instead be adapting to the new technology creatively...like every OTHER company has to do when the competitive environment changes.

5) It is my contention that filesharing actually would IMPROVE the bottom line for these companies. Unfortunately, the evidence that I've seen is primarily from the Napster era, making it hard to separate the effects of a then-booming economy from the availability of "free" downloads...and, of course, there is no such data from the current state of affairs.

6) Pursuing individual, small-volume downloaders is a waste of taxpayer money.

So, there you have it -- my usual platform. Go ahead and try to find "Hey, The Man is evil, pirate away, boys!" somewhere in it.

As far as I'm concerned, copyright infringement is just like speeding. Yes, it's illegal. If you're incredibly unlucky, you get a ticket. But as soon as the cops aren't looking, people drive at whatever speed works for them. And guess what? IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. Speeding laws are nothing more than a big fat moneymaker for police departments. In a better world, we'd figure out as a culture that it's dumb to set a speed limit of 65 MPH on a highway that goes barely 15 MPH at rush hour, or that has no one on it at 10 PM. If people drive too fast collectively, enough bad stuff will happen to rein in the excesses.

It's the same deal with filesharing. In fact, filesharing is just another case of the classic paradox in non-zero-sum game theory...the so-called "subway problem." (If it's possible for any individual to hop the entrance turnstile and avoid paying a quarter for the train, wouldn't EVERYONE choose to hop over, thereby bankrupting the subway?) It has been DEMONSTRATED time and again that despite the "rational" analysis which foretells of bankruptcy, people collectively still support the institutions.

So stop putting words in my mouth, and learn how to respond to some DIFFERENT arguments than the ones they trained you to refute.

 

[DJ Demon J]

DJ: What about sites like www.sharingthegroove.org that offer demos and live soundboard/radio/audience bootlegs that have NOT been commerically sold?

That's an issue for the bands to settle. It was their performance live, their copyrighted work (and perhaps a work for hire copyright depending on their agreement with a label in the case of a studio demo). They have the right to control distribution of that work. Some famous bands (I'm thinking Phish, Grateful Dead, etc.) don't care and encourage their fans to bootleg (and I'm sure that if a Grateful Dead/Phish Live compilation album came out it would still sell many copies). But, in the end, that's Phish's choice to make, not anyone else's.

 

[DJ Demon J]

You need to work on your reading comprehension, since I have NEVER said that piracy is justified. I do, however, repeatedly make the following statements:

1) Piracy is not theft. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Given your job, you ought to know better.

You were owned last time we had a thread on this (I think on the old forums, which makes it impossible for me to pull that thread out--note to self: archive these threads from now on.. Piracy is theft. Don't give me that bullshit, "I never would have paid for it anyway." Let me pull out the dictionary again, like I did last time:

steal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stl)
v. stole, (stl) sto·len, (stln) steal·ing, steals
v. tr.
To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

Now I can already hear you bleating through the Internet "b-b-but it makes a digital copy so nothing is lost!" Yes, something is lost, a SALE. You took something for free that you otherwise would have to pay for. THAT IS STEALING. You ought to know better--but obviously you don't.

2) Copyright law, as currently written, is deeply flawed and perverted from its original intent.

No argument here, I've stated this before.

3) The recording, movie, and book industries gouge both consumers and the artists.

Again, I've agreed that the music industry was heading for trouble by not foreseeing the consumer desire for online distribution and MP3s, and continuing to maintain high prices. They've built up a huge consumer backlash and are dealing with the consequences. But again, that does not justify stealing music. As for the artist "gouging," no one is holding a gun to a bands' head making them sign with a label. There are benefits (and drawbacks) that labels provide to artists who want their music exposed as much as possible and with a good chance of it catching on and becoming really big--if that is that bands' goal. The alternative years ago was to build a core audience at live shows and sign/form an independent label. But now with the Internet, there's more chances for a band to become internationally heard than ever before. Are the music labels in this to make money? Abso-fucking-lutely. But if you want the services and connections they have built over 50 years of creating an industry, you can either meet their demands, negotiate a better deal for yourself, or tell them to go fuck themselves, get big on your own and keep the profits all to yourself.

4) The U.S. government should NOT be passing or enforcing legislation which is designed to preserve the RIAA's and MPAA's business model. They should instead be adapting to the new technology creatively...like every OTHER company has to do when the competitive environment changes.

Again, you show your lack of knowledge here. I attended the Induce Act drafting sessions a few weeks back (which ended badly, and the Induce Act will not be seeing daylight anytime soon), and let me tell you the absolute last thing that happened was language being adopted to preserve "business models." While the power of lobbyists scares me sometimes, the people on Representatives'/Senators' staff are by-and-large even-minded people who do not enter into new legislation lightly and when they do, it's after careful consideration that (in the Induce Act for example) technology isn't stymied by strict legislation. At the same time, the abuse of technology by individuals or entities to do illegal activities should not be allowed to go unimpeded. It's a fine balance, for certain, but painting broad strokes and saying that RIAA wants to kill BitTorrent,etc. is wrong. They want to stop the companies who abuse that technology for profit, and the individuals who distribute copyrighted material knowingly and willingly.

Also, you're naive to think that other industries' when faced with technology don't try to preserve their business models (auto industry). The entertainment industry doesn't get a free pass because they're special or have insider advantage.

5) It is my contention that filesharing actually would IMPROVE the bottom line for these companies. Unfortunately, the evidence that I've seen is primarily from the Napster era, making it hard to separate the effects of a then-booming economy from the availability of "free" downloads...and, of course, there is no such data from the current state of affairs.

This argument is pointless, and one of the main reasons why ESA (can't speak for BSA/MPAA/RIAA however) doesn't try to make large reports filled with loss estimates for online piracy. There is no doubt an effect on the music industry from all the illegal downloading.

6) Pursuing individual, small-volume downloaders is a waste of taxpayer money.

100% in agreement, which is why I detailed the intention of the DMCA (forcing copyright owners to use their own resources to protect their copyrights and resorting to goverment resources only for the largest, most damaging criminal activity). Try re-reading my post again, maybe this time it will sink in..

So stop putting words in my mouth, and learn how to respond to some DIFFERENT arguments than the ones they trained you to refute.

You should heed your own advice.

 

[Willco]

Here is some advice for everyone -- if you can buy it, pay for it. The end.

 

[Dilbert]

TITOR!

 

[Diablos]

DJ: As much as I hate to throw something else in your direction since you're in the middle of an argument with jinx, it would surprise you how many bands that are on labels that copyright their work still don't care that their songs and/or albums get pirated. Bands like Guided by Voices, for example. You probably have not heard of them, but regardless, their work is copyrighted just like everything else. The lead singer himself said (not an exact quote but it means the same thing): "Kids don't have a lot of money, I understand that, if they want to download our albums instead of buying them, I don't care." He based the argument off of the idea that mainstream labels rip off indie and less popular bands/artists more than consumers do. He'd rather have people that actually care about their work ripping them off instead of a bunch of corporate guys that just want as much money from the band as they can possibly get, and oh, by the way, they think their music is worthless too!

Every U2 album is obviously copyrighted, but Bono himself has said "I'm underworked and overpaid, if you want to copyright my album go right ahead." Fred Durst has said the same thing (Limp Bizkit sucks, but who cares, he's rich and that's the point I'm trying to get across.) What's your stance on that? Let me throw this example at you: Some kid uploads a torrent that is a RAR of every U2, Limp Bizkit and Guided by Voices album to suprnova. You take legal action. He provides links or magazine articles of quotes made by the people from these bands saying that pirating their work is no big deal. What do you do?

 

[DJ Demon J]

DJ: As much as I hate to throw something else in your direction since you're in the middle of an argument with jinx, it would surprise you how many bands that are on labels that copyright their work still don't care that their songs and/or albums get pirated. Bands like Guided by Voices, for example. You probably have not heard of them, but regardless, their work is copyrighted just like everything else. The lead singer himself said (not an exact quote but it means the same thing): "Kids don't have a lot of money, I understand that, if they want to download our albums instead of buying them, I don't care." He based the argument off of the idea that mainstream labels rip off indie and less popular bands/artists more than consumers do. He'd rather have people that actually care about their work ripping them off instead of a bunch of corporate guys that just want as much money from the band as they can possibly get, and oh, by the way, they think their music is worthless too!

Every U2 album is obviously copyrighted, but Bono himself has said "I'm underworked and overpaid, if you want to copyright my album go right ahead." Fred Durst has said the same thing (Limp Bizkit sucks, but who cares, he's rich and that's the point I'm trying to get across.) What's your stance on that? Let me throw this example at you: Some kid uploads a torrent that is a RAR of every U2, Limp Bizkit and Guided by Voices album to suprnova. You take legal action. He provides links or magazine articles of quotes made by the people from these bands saying that pirating their work is no big deal. What do you do?

If the artists completely own the copyright, then I wouldn't be taking legal action. It's their decision to enforce their copyright (though, you stand a chance to lose your copyright if you refuse to enforce it). If there's some other arrangement, where the label is a joint owner of the copyright or if the work was a for-hire copyright, then the label can enforce that copyright as they see fit.

Of course Fred Durst will say, "Fuck it, let 'em pirate." He's already got his money, and the label (and thusly, the RIAA) is doing the enforcement for him! So he comes off looking good to the "fuck RIAA!!!1111!!!1" types (like jinx), meanwhile his copyrights are still being enforced. After the shit that Metallica got for defending their copyrighted work, if I were an artist I'd do the same goddamn thing Fred did.

 

[Diablos]

The indie band still doesn't completely own everything they've done since it is on a label. But they said, loud and clear, they don't care because they are getting screwed anyway.

So you're saying Bono and Fred Durst actually do want people sued, they just don't want to take the blame for it? Wow, that in itself is pretty misleading. Sounds illegal. That's like me telling someone they can walk onto my property whenever they want, and do whatever they feel like doing, but as soon as I see them, I pull out a gun and shoot him.

 

[Willco]

I think there is a difference between the music industry and the movie industry. The movie industry, much like the videogame industry, has seen its production costs rise at an astronomical rate. Those who frequent the gaming side know how hard it can be for some companies to break even on games. The movie industry spends a sickening amount on new films.

Now you could make the case that movies and games shouldn't have to spend so much money, but they do and they need to make that money back.

The music industry has seen its production costs rise, but it's method of delivery and distribution is vastly different than other entertainment mediums and its not nearly the risky business venture that movies and games are.

That said, just pay for what you listen/watch/play, you assholes. Then Jason can go home without a guilty conscience!

 

[Dilbert]

In the future, they went after the pirates in the cities. Soon, it was not safe there for anyone...and then the bombs came.

 

[Willco]

In the future, they went after the pirates in the cities. Soon, it was not safe there for anyone...and then the bombs came.

TITOR: THE MOVIE: THE VIDEOGAME: THE SOUNDTRACK

 

[Dilbert]

TITOR: THE MOVIE: THE VIDEOGAME: THE SOUNDTRACK

Just don't SHARE it!

 

[fart]

hypothetical:

i buy a copy of titor the movie in 2004, put it on a shelf until 2031, THEN i bring it back in time with me to 2004.

DID I JUST STEAL FROM THE STARVING AFRICAN MOVIEMAKER CHIlDREN????







WHAT IF IT'S NOT HYPOTHETICAL?????????

 

[Willco]

hypothetical:

i buy a copy of titor the movie in 2004, put it on a shelf until 2031, THEN i bring it back in time with me to 2004.

DID I JUST STEAL FROM THE STARVING AFRICAN MOVIEMAKER CHIlDREN????







WHAT IF IT'S NOT HYPOTHETICAL?????????

THERE IS NO SPOON!!!

 

[Pellham]

I don't care about the MPAA going after people who are illegally copying movies and posting them.

however the MPAA's rating system is fucked up the ass and forces directors to censor themselves (there's countless movies that were slapped with NC-17 ratings and they had to edit themselves to drop to R).