Dear Caitlin Dewey:
I have read some really dumb, cloying, and earnestly written ideological gibberish in the past three years, but you have reset the bar with your recent love letter to online piracy. To be clear, I am confident that piracy itself is a serious problem for both culture and the economy, but this particular disease is nothing compared to the metastasized cancer that has scrambled brains like yours into believing that piracy is actually about something. You write, “See, the Pirate Bay is as much an idea and an orientation to entrainment media as it is/was a torrent-tracking site.” Really? Are you so culturally illiterate that you don’t know a cheap sales pitch when you hear one? The boys of TPB are not the first thieves in history to justify their crimes by claiming to be leading the world toward some New Jerusalem. And being a sucker for that message is more socially toxic than the piracy itself. If you’re going to pirate media, then have the intellectual honesty to say “I’m stealing and I don’t care.” And then shut up about it.
Piracy isn’t an idea or an ideology or a principle. It’s a cheap, tawdry, and frankly sexist (note the ads) enterprise of lazy opportunists who profit from other people’s hard and real work. Profit is why the Pirate Bay and sites like it have existed; and consuming media for free is why people use these sites. It doesn’t take a degree in psychology to understand either the “buy” or the “sell” side of these transactions, which make pirate sites profitable; but if pundits like you would at least spare us your banner-waving social revolutionary horse shit, then perhaps actual thought might survive this digital slaughter bench of reason that seems to flip your proverbial kilt.
Again, you write: “But even if TPB doesn’t return, the politics and the conventions it advanced — that content should be free, and if you torrent, they can be! — will be very difficult to eradicate.”
That’s positively adorable, like something a child might write, especially the way your ebullience almost masks the lack of subject/verb agreement.* But that’s the thing, Caitlin, writing is work, and good writing is hard work. And so is making music, television shows, and motion pictures. And it is not in fact the Internet “created by The Pirate Bay” that enables you to jump on this facile bandwagon and spill out a few hundred words for The Washington Post. In truth, you are able to get up in the morning, buy yourself a latte, and have at it with your keyboard because you live in a society in which free people are rewarded for their labor by compensation. And that fundamental, economic principle has a hell of a lot more to do with the freedom you claim to love than does your petulant desire to watch Game of Thrones without bloody well paying for it.
*NOTE: To be fair, Dewey’s error is a singular antecedent with plural pronoun, which sounds like subject/verb disagreement but isn’t quite. See, good writing is hard work. Thanks to one reader for noticing.
Well said David. I think the fact that Big Bang Theory tops the charts in terms of torrent downloads speaks volumes.
Thanks, Glenn. The social significance people like Dewey ascribe to people watching TV at all, let alone while financing pirate site owners, is astonishing.
Wow, wish I’d read that chart properly, how embarrassment 😉
@monkey, good point regarding the increased affordability brought about my mass consumption. Having access to cultural goods which are based on ideas is a hallmark of a highly developed and free society which we devalue at our peril.
…and of course the comments are the usual nonsense: “we used to tape stuff.”
“Content sucks anyway” “it’s all about exposure.” “Corporations are greedy.” It’s not worth going into the specifics of why these arguments are ridiculous.
But one stands out for me: “entertainment is too expensive.” A $3 movie ticket in 1977 translates to about $12 in 2014 dollars. Meet The Beatles cost $5.98 in 1964, which translates to $45 in 2014. Entertainment is actually *cheaper* than ever.
But this doesn’t really matter, because since when is anyone entitled to entertainment? Where is the universal right to affordable entertainment?
David,
“your recent love letter to online piracy”
I don’t think that’s a fair characterization at all. I read the article, and there’s nothing in there that supports piracy. This was objective reporting: The article discusses that piracy is popular, and that having TPB down will pose a problem for its users, and that even if the site itself stays down, the ethos of its users is harder to eliminate. That’s all true.
Or are you so insecure, and the anti-piracy position so weak, that any article which fails to utterly excoriate piracy is, in your view, a love letter? Is it so intolerable that reporters might have a neutral voice? Shall this be the new Red Scare, where there are loyalty oaths and people risk being blacklisted if they fail to publicly support all the things you support, and denounce all the things you denounce?
“the metastasized cancer that has scrambled brains like yours into believing that piracy is actually about something. You write, ‘See, the Pirate Bay is as much an idea and an orientation to entrainment media as it is/was a torrent-tracking site.’ Really?”
Is it so hard to believe that some people would approach piracy from an ideological standpoint? Which is not to say that they may or may not also enjoy freely using and sharing works, just that there’s more nuance than you’re recognizing.
For example:
“If you’re going to pirate media, then have the intellectual honesty to say “I’m stealing and I don’t care.” And then shut up about it.”
When American revolutionaries destroyed tea in Boston, people who supported the East India Company might have said that it was nothing but theft and vandalism, but that wasn’t the case.
When abolitionists defied the law to help fugitive slaves escape their captivity, southern slave owners might have said that it was theft, but again, there was a deeper reason at work.
Many countries around the world have had land reform movements, in which land was taken, sometimes forcibly, from large landowners and distributed among the peasants who typically were the ones working it anyway. The owners of large estates have often claimed this was theft, but these sorts of reforms typically don’t occur in the absence of great economic injustice and inefficiency, and are meant as a reaction and cure to it.
And while copying is not theft, often people do just steal things because they want them, and a cigar is sometimes just a cigar.
If you’re going to complain about intellectual honesty, you should really have the intellectual honesty to recognize that not everyone who advocates for, who provides support for, or who simply does pirate works, is ‘stealing.’
Further, Dewey’s article doesn’t indicate what her position is on the subject at all.
“Profit is why the Pirate Bay and sites like it have existed”
No, plenty of file sharing sites exist simply in order to facilitate file sharing, and don’t have a profit motive in mind. Some may attempt to cover costs, while others simply run at a loss. Again, you’re oversimplifying.
“a society in which free people are rewarded for their labor by compensation”
Ha! That’s often not the case.
Anonymous —
Dewey’s article states clearly and rather childishly in the final paragraph that content should be free. And she credits TPB with creating the internet as we know it, and means that in a good way. The tone of the piece absolutely champions piracy and is not merely an observation at all. Beyond that, I have little to add to your response. Clearly, I find the ideology associated with piracy to be dismissible nonsense or I would not have written this post or any number of others. Interesting that you mention slavery, though, since piracy is a form of exploiting labor. The notion that content SHOULD be free presumes rather obnoxiously that it needs to exist at all.
Hey David! “Dewey” herself here. I actually have no POV on piracy whatsoever, and the sole purpose of the article is — as your very kind commenter above states — to put Pirate Bay in its larger historical and economic context, and point out that, given the entrenched nature of those things, the prevalence of/social attitude toward piracy is unlikely to change. I can certainly appreciate that a lot of people don’t agree with that, but the numbers speak for themselves.
Additionally, I don’t drink lattes. I make my own coffee every morning.
Thanks for reading!
Caitlin, whenever someone uses the “that many people can’t be wrong” argument, I remind myself and others that some 40-60 million Americans are quite confident Darwin is a load of hogwash. Had you written analytically, I would not feel the need to jump on your editorial, but you quite clearly wrote in a rather cheerleading tone, stating in your conclusion that content must be free. So, if you are neutral, you did not write a neutral piece. As for the latte comment, I mean it generically, that you live in and benefit from a world comprised of commerce, and all that “content” to which you refer is the result of millions of hours of human labor, none of which has been performed by people like the founders of The Pirate Bay. As such, I find the point of view communicated in your article, whether you mean it or not, to be profoundly offensive and dangerously naive. Thank you for reading.
There have always been entrenched social attitudes to things. From cock fighting, drink driving, and smoking in the workplace, through to female circumcision, wife beating, racism, homophobia, and religious intolerance, to name but a few in no particular order.
Except these guys aren’t plucky underdogs. They’re heavily funded (in the case of TPB partially by a new nazi) and have billion dollar corporations abetting them.
And regardless of their lofty principles about disseminating information, if that means creators aren’t paid they’re not progressive at all.
“When abolitionists defied the law to help fugitive slaves escape their captivity, southern slave owners might have said that it was theft, but again, there was a deeper reason at work.”
Yes, abolitionists were fighting the exploitation of people who were being used for unpaid labor. What is TPB fighting for?
I am very leery of the comparison between piracy and slavery – in fact I find distasteful (sorry David?) ut the fact is that one side is devaluing labor, and it’s not the copyright proponents,
@David, she was not advocating piracy. She was reiterating a point that you are simply going to have to accept, the consumer determines the value of content, not the creator.
“In fact, more people watch “Game of Thrones” by torrent than watch it on HBO — a figure that, more than any other, should hammer in how well-entrenched this whole digital-piracy thing is.”
Think about that, and look at the chart she presented. The shows who have the lowest legitimate viewership and the highest piracy rates are ALL behind a pay wall and not available anywhere else. Legitimate viewership of the shows that are openly available(on streaming services BTW) always is at least double, and in most cases a lot more than that in terms of actual views vs piracy.
You keep calling people who do not agree with you naive. YOU are the one who is being naive in thinking it is the pirates that are the problem. The pirates are opportunists Her point, that you clearly ignored, was that eliminating one opportunist will not solve the issue. There will always be more so long as there is demand.
What you need to start doing is looking at it from another angle. Why do way more people watch the Big Bang theory as opposed to pirate it? Notice it is the ONLY show on that list that is readily available for FREE. It is also the most viewed of the bunch and it is pirated as much as everything else ACCEPT the show that can only be watched by subscribing to a service. Do you see the pattern here?
“Piracy isn’t an idea or an ideology or a principle. It’s a cheap, tawdry, and frankly sexist (note the ads) enterprise of lazy opportunists who profit from other people’s hard and real work. ”
Torrenting is a technology designed to allow large files to be moved around more easily. The benefits of technologies like these FAR outweigh the issues in terms of piracy.
I am not here to argue, or get into it with you again. I want you to have an open mind and I want to work on a solution with you through your blog. I think there are some good people here, who have legitimate issues with losing revenue on their content. But the first thing you have to accept is that the CONSUMER is the “thief” accept at least half the time, they are being given the content from the creator for “free”, so they don’t really see the difference between the big bang theory and game of thrones in terms of viewing. They just go to one link/channel or another.
Every show that is readily available on a streaming service(past seasons especially), has a lot more legitimate viewing than pirated. Every show locked behind a gate, has those numbers running REALLY close.
The only way to stop pirates is to embrace technology that allows you to quantify and control views/listens. You have to monetize the usage and stop thinking of the content as your product.
And once again…
PEOPLE HAVE TRIED THAT.
And they are still pirated.
Nope. That wasn’t her point. Had she said “there’s no effective way to stop piracy,” I probably would have ignored the article. She said something different and something more serious than piracy. But then, I already said that.
“But even if TPB doesn’t return, the politics and the conventions it advanced — that content should be free, and if you torrent, they can be! — will be very difficult to eradicate.
You may be able to shut down Pirate Bay, but good luck raiding the Internet that Pirate Bay created.”
“to put Pirate Bay in its larger historical and economic context, and point out that, given the entrenched nature of those things, the prevalence of/social attitude toward piracy is unlikely to change.”
That is not advocating anything. She actually posted here to reiterate her ACTUAL point. You don’t have to like it, but you can’t ignore her stated intent or the fact that your take on her article is not the only one. Some people actually did take her point as stated.
You can’t say “no your point is not what you are stating”, it is what I THINK you were saying based on my opinion. I mean you can say it, but that does not change her stated intent.
The ability to transfer large files via torrent is not going anywhere. Period. That is the reality of the internet, and it is only going to get easier to do so. Why? Because how you or anyone else protects their content is not the job of the people creating technology.
It would be awesome if creators and technologists would work together, but you have to look at the bigger picture if that is ever going to happen.
Both sides need to be working on a solution.
The one thing that I find most troubling is that (to use a term from Lanier) the idea that content as a loss leader for other revenue streams has become “locked in.” I read someone claim that creators NEVER got rich off of royalties but always made money on touring and merch. This would be news to bands like steely dan who rarely performed in the old days, or the Beatles, who were constantly ripped off by merchandisers.
But it’s spreading to other art forms. Authors are supposed to spend their time on public appearances rather than actually spending time on writing (again, I guess Pynchon will starve) or “merch” through gimmicky editions and even trinkets (I don’t want an umberto Eco t shirt.)
I’ve never gotten a satisfactory reason WHY someone shouldn’t pay for stuff they want.
It is by no means “shouldn’t pay”. The question is HOW should they pay. How do we get the consumer to see the difference between Game of Thrones and Big Bang theory in terms of value/cost. A big part of that problem, IMO, is how the content is presented. I know LOTS of people who would subscribe to a reasonably priced streaming service for HBO, but won’t pay for the cable service(they do not see the value for one show they want to watch).
Some people will always take what they can get for free. Some people will pay for what they want if it is convenient. WHY do more people watch Big Bang Theory legit than pirate it? Because they value it more than GoT? No, because the easiest way to view it is legit. Yes some people still pirate that show(a lot apparently), but the legit viewers dwarf the pirates.
Why? That is the question. The “public” forum is not just real world appearances anymore. It is the internet as well. Someone is making money, or else there would not be any new content. What separates them from the people who are losing out because of piracy?
Perceived value FROM THE CONSUMER. Even if you eliminated all piracy, the consumer is still going to assign value on their own terms. Not based on the effort or cost of creating something. Not on how popular something may be. No they will assign value to the things they like and its availability
Why is piracy far less an issue in the games industry? Because people don’t want games to be free? No. It is control of access to content that allows that industry to limit the effect piracy has on its wares.
How many ways can someone play Call of Duty? How many access points? How easy is it to duplicate and distribute? Lock down the access, but make that access simple for the consumer. The issue with media is that it is device independent. That was done BY THE INDUSTRY to maximize exposure. The big companies opened up their distribution methods to maximize exposure, realizing that they could sell more than they would lose to pirates. THAT screwed the little guy more than anything else. To compete you HAVE to expose your creation to an open market. You have to give up strict control. Why? Because there is no way for you to stop people from making copies. None.
So what can we/you do?
The INDUSTRY needs to reign in how content is presented. They need to limit the ability of the consumer to duplicate works WITHOUT eliminating the convenience that has come to be expected. Only then will the small producers be able to make money without fear of lost revenue to streaming or piracy. So long as a person can make a copy, or grab a file without penalty, they will.
Then frankly tech should be helping with that solution, considering that many tech companies are getting rich off the idea that people want free content.
The irony? The best way to actually do this is via streaming. No “perceived” ownership of the content by the user. Content only available through an access point. YOUR access point.
I used to buy a lot of CDs. I used to by DVD’s. I don’t anymore. I either buy the MP3s(for music), and with movies/TV I stream.
I actually spend that money for movies by GOING to the movies I want to see. I pay a fee to be able to watch the rest, whenever I feel like it. I accept that as licensing expires, some things go away, while new things appear. That is how the market has changed for me.
As an independent creator, the only real way I could see making money would be to build a following. Constantly produce new content and hope people like what I am doing.
So my question is, how much do you think eliminating piracy will truly help the small producer? In both the long and short terms? Also, what can the independents do without the full support of the main industry?
@monkey, I am on-board with trying to help the little guy. The question is how?
Well, I’ve heard from many indie artists who say that exact thing – that they can see the numbers falling with each release, even though the fans are still there at shows.
My problem with the touring and t shirts idea is that it doesn’t scale and it doesn’t help everyone. Songwriters, producers and engineers (or editors in terms of books) get nothing from touring. (And while it’s true engineers don’t get royalties, artists having to cut costs affects everyone).
The problem – and we’re already seeing it – is that this model is only really feasible for three types of people – the already rich, the young and healthy, and the gregarious/extrovert. Ariana Grande, Taylor Swift and even Mumford and Sons are all examples of artists who come from privileged backgrounds. It’s less noticeable in publishing, but it’s intetesting that the people publishing pro piracy books are often tenured professors. The young and healthy is obvious – if you’re a parent or a disabled person touring becomes difficult.
As for the extroverts- as an introvert this one scares me. If “content” is devalued then people will put less effort into their content and more into promoting it. Studio geniuses like Brian Wilson or Glenn Gould will go the way of the dinosaur, and that’s not good. Instead well get the flagrant self promoters – the Amanda palmers of the world.
I know we’ve clashed but i believe you’re sincere. if a tech solution is difficult, a more immediate answer would be to counter the memes like “exposure,” “touring and t shirts” and (yes) “information wants to be free.”
@Monkey – “My problem with the touring and t shirts idea is that it doesn’t scale and it doesn’t help everyone.”
So ask yourself the question, what is the purpose of touring? Selling merch? You don’t like the word “exposure”, but the reality is that bands have always tried to get as many eyes/ears on their work as possible. That aspect of being an artist hasn’t changed. Right? What has changed however is the means by which artists are able to do this. For arguments sake, just consider, for a moment, that your youTube channel, facebook page, twitter account, etc. They are your virtual stage.
Think about who the most successful mainstream artists are, and HOW they became successful. How did they gain the following they have? How do they keep interest in their music? Tours? T-shirts? Or is it a steady if not constant connection to their fanbase. How do TV shows do it? By entering the public consciousness in a way that promotes discussion, connection, interaction. All of the technologies that cause you great concern, are the same things that make this type of interaction possible. They are the same things that allow bands to build a following WITHOUT playing the young persons game of traveling from city to city.
“As for the extroverts- as an introvert this one scares me. If “content” is devalued then people will put less effort into their content and more into promoting it. Studio geniuses like Brian Wilson or Glenn Gould will go the way of the dinosaur, and that’s not good. Instead well get the flagrant self promoters – the Amanda palmers of the world.”
How is this different than the churn and burn tactics of the big companies? I am not disagreeing with you, simply stating that mass marketed content has always been the bane of the little guy.
I don’t know how to get more eyes/ears on the creations of independent people. If I did my band would not be as obscure as we are right now. But I do see a correlation between interaction with my audience and growth(albeit slow). That is ONE solution to a problem that is only going to continue as more and more artists enter the market.
I just gave you two examples. While it’s true that the Beatles toured hard in the early days, they realized that they couldn’t express themselves live anymore, and made the record the performance.and they were royally screwed by merchandisers.
(btw, there was piracy before the Internet. Foreign companies would press copies of albums without paying the artist. Tolkien suffered from pirate editions in the US. The same issues were involved but it was still illegal.
The problem is that while it was hard for the people I described before, now it’s impossible.
As for the interaction with fans, I’m not saying limit technology! I’m saying that we should kill the touring and t shirt/ content as loss leader meme. When artists are telling their fans “please don’t pirate our stuff… We need you to pay for it if you won’t to make more” don’t ignore them! If you’re a fan, be a fan! Support them directly by paying for what you want!
Here’s one solution that jaron Lanier supports, and it makes sense to me (although I have no background in computer science.) Lanier credits it to Ted Nelson, creator of hypertext and thus arguably one of the fathers of the web:
Let’s say you create something – a story, a song, whatever. It’s yours – technically there’s only one copy. If someone wants to consume it, they pay for access to it (a nominal amount, much less than a physical product but direct and to the creator.
If someone wants to makes derivative work, they can, but a percentage of their fee goes back to you.
Where it gets really interesting is that if someone sees something derivative of your work, they get a link to the original as well. This would have a benificial effect that it would be difficult if not impossible to distort something out of context because the original would be there.
It would change the Internet, but I don’t think it would break it.
@Monkey, that is the only way I see this working. ONE primary access point, to which all others are connected. That is how the games industry does it. And consumers don’t seem to bothered by that model.
Streaming is a good start, but again it’s not a one-size-fits-all solution. Nelson’s idea is different in that it would be built into the very infrastructure of the internet.
In the meantime, I want to see creators get together and create streaming-style services on their own = form guilds, an old idea but a good one. kickstarter benefits some, but there’s no A&R or editing team – there’s no infrastructure to help creators. One of the advantages of the old corporate system was that hits could provide money to nurture and promote more difficult work. Bob Dylan benefitted from Tony Bennett and Miles Davis, and in turn Bruce Springsteen and Billy joel benefited from Dylan (they were all on Columbia Records, and Dylan and Bruce still are).
We need to challenge the idea that “disintermediation” is always good. Some of the best works of the 20th century were shaped by editors and producers. They’re not all censorious twits.
As well, we need social solutions. one is Dave Lowery’s idea of naming and shaming companies who advertise on pirate sites. Whether or not pirate sites count as free speech, ad revenue is not a human right. But the other thing is that when an artist says they are affected by piracy and low streaming payments to listen to them rather than just call them greedy, as so many have.
The one thing I do want to encourage is to make people realize that “User Generated Content” simply means that someone is exploiting your work. Putting a cute caption on a cat photo may not seem like much, but people value it enough to share it, and if you did that, you should benefit from it. If we want to empower people to create, we need to do it without creating digital serfdoms who occaisonally reward a lucky few.
I think that if meme theory is true, the key to meme survival is not the fitness of the idea but whether the idea is consistent with the believer’s sense of self. “Slave were better off in America than in Africa” is categorically untrue, but the descendant of a slaveowner might believe it because it comforts them. “Record labels ripped off artists too” or “they make their money touring” may or may not be true, but the truth doesn’t matter as much as the fact that it helps people get what they want without feeling bad. If we show people they are stakeholders rather than just consumers of culture, things might change.
I can’t think of many legal solutions, other than to increase arts funding (always an uphill battle) and challenge Google when they try to shape laws in the name of “saving the internet.”
As for the hoary meme “information wants to be free,” I would offer the words of another philosopher “you can’t always get what you want.”
I noticed this gem from the comments:
“The founding fathers of the US and the founding philosophers of democracy held the following belief sacred:
Any law which is opposed to the will of the people is unjust, and it’s the ethical duty of a free people to oppose it. ”
I don’t recall the civil rights bill being universally accepted as in favor of the “will of the people.” Or the emancipation proclamation.
They should Fire this person’s civics teacher.
David–
“Dewey’s article states clearly and rather childishly in the final paragraph that content should be free.”
No it doesn’t. It says that Pirate Bay supported that idea, and that it will be a hard idea to eradicate. Nowhere in the article does Dewey adopt that position herself. She’s just reporting on it.
“The tone of the piece absolutely champions piracy and is not merely an observation at all.”
I think you’re just reading that into it. It seems like a neutral, if informally written, piece to me.
“piracy is a form of exploiting labor”
Sorry, I don’t see it. Pirates don’t force authors to create works, they just use works once they’ve been created.
“Caitlin, whenever someone uses the “that many people can’t be wrong” argument”
Also not in the article. She points out, correctly, that piracy is popular. She doesn’t say that it’s therefore not wrong.
Monkey–
“But it’s spreading to other art forms. Authors are supposed to spend their time on public appearances rather than actually spending time on writing”
Is that new? Authors used to go on speaking tours all the time in the 19th century, and made some good money off of it.
“I guess Pynchon will starve”
Doesn’t seem to have stopped The Residents.
“I’ve never gotten a satisfactory reason WHY someone shouldn’t pay for stuff they want.”
So how much do you pay for air? Is it flat rate, or do you meter your breathing?
“Lanier credits it to Ted Nelson, creator of hypertext and thus arguably one of the fathers of the web:”
Nelson dislikes the web, actually; he’s said that it was what he was trying to avoid with his long-heralded Xanadu project, part of which is what you’re referring to. Of course, work started on Xanadu in 1960 and nothing of note has ever come of it, other than other people being inspired but creating more pragmatic software that actually gets released. There’s no indication that Nelson’s idea (bidirectional, micropayment, auto-negotiated licensed linking) is viable, and nowadays it would not only have to actually work (which has never been the case) but it would have to prove itself to be better than the web, which whatever its flaws, is pretty useful.
“I don’t recall the civil rights bill being universally accepted”
Indeed. OTOH, that doesn’t mean that it’s appropriate, or a good idea, or even very safe, for a government to do whatever it wants, and to run roughshod over its people. Even if it tries to act benevolently, people don’t like paternalism, and don’t like not having the option to have a say in matters.
As a general rule, laws should adhere to social norms, where there are any. In rare cases, laws might override social norms, but it’s dangerous, and there had better be a very good reason to do so. In the early 20th century, Prohibition was pushed on Americans, and even though it was quite popular, most people violated it flagrantly, and the effects were disastrous. In the mid 20th century, we got greater protection for civil rights, and we got desegregation. It had to be pushed on a lot of people, but it was of the highest importance, and it generally had positive effects (and would’ve worked even better had people not resisted it so much).
I have a hard time seeing copyright as being of the same level of importance as racial equality. It’s ultimately not too important to most people, and is probably further on the Prohibition end of the spectrum.
theangryvillager–
“The INDUSTRY needs to reign in how content is presented. They need to limit the ability of the consumer to duplicate works WITHOUT eliminating the convenience that has come to be expected. Only then will the small producers be able to make money without fear of lost revenue to streaming or piracy. So long as a person can make a copy, or grab a file without penalty, they will.”
This is not only not viable, but it’s not a good idea. I suggest you take a look at Cory Doctorow’s talk about that very subject: http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html
“That is how the games industry does it. And consumers don’t seem to bothered by that model.”
The games industry is a hotbed of piracy. And when Microsoft made noises about banning the ability of people to sell used games (even though there is widespread dislike for GameStop, the main retailer in that sector), people went apeshit. Whatever tolerance exists for games is probably rooted in people wanting relatively fair online multiplayer gaming. I think it’s a special case, and not very useful for other publishing industries.
Anonymous –
You’re right. I’m being unfair, but only sorta. I can believe Dewey’s piece is neutral, but only if I ignore its tone and many of the word and syntactical choices. She may not mean to be cheerleading piracy, but she winds up sounding like she is right from the title. TorrenFreak tends to post stories that have a more neutral tone than this one. Fundamentally, she’s making a case that popularity indicates something more profound than the obvious reasons for that popularity. Had she used expressions like “attitudes about piracy,” and questioned whether or not those attitudes would change, then I and others would read the piece as neutral and not have jumped all over her. But when someone chooses phrasing like “Good luck putting this [ideological movement] back in the box,” that sounds a lot like endorsement.
One of the phrases that David lowery jumped on was “courage of conviction on their side” which implies that the other side has more mercenary interests. One piece of rhetoric that has become popular over the last 20 years is to suggest that the enemy’s motives are simple while yours are complex and principled (e.g. “They hate our freedoms!”) here, it’s guys who want information to be free vs greed heads.
@David “She may not mean to be cheerleading piracy, but she winds up sounding like she is right from the title.”
Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. The ONLY way what she wrote could be taken this way would be to ignore all context just to push your own personal agenda.
She stated an unfortunate reality of technology, she was not advocating for it.
Angry, I have to disagree. She could have at least tried to quote some of their critics instead of just TPB’s press clippings.
And she barely mentioned technology. Her main point was that this is what people are getting used to.
“Her main point was that this is what people are getting used to.”
I agree. But that was definitely more of a warning than a supporting statement.
Imagine she was making an article about horseless carriages at the turn of the last century. And you are a blacksmith.
By explaining that people are becoming more accustomed to the newest technology, one that makes yours obsolete in regards to horse shoes, she need not advocate for automobiles to present the information right?
If anything, this should be taken as a warning. Times are changing, how the consumer views content is changing. Adjust accordingly. That was my take. And pretty much what SHE stated when she responded.
“I have a hard time seeing copyright as being of the same level of importance as racial equality. It’s ultimately not too important to most people, and is probably further on the Prohibition end of the spectrum.”
And yet you have no problem comparing Pirates to abolitionists,..
The residents are an amusing example. However, people claim they want to support artists directly through live performances, but they don’t consider what that would actually mean. Imagine every musical act, novelist and actor going on tour, all the time. We would get a lot less actual art, more promotion, and the “fans” would have to put their money where their mouth is and actually go out every night and see them.
Seriously, forget laws, let’s talk basic human decency. You don’t pay for air (…yet) because nobody labours to make that air. If you want to consume someone’s art, ensure that they have the ability to make more. Pay them.
““piracy is a form of exploiting labor”
Sorry, I don’t see it. Pirates don’t force authors to create works, they just use works once they’ve been created.’
That seems like rather weird logic. I have never forced a farmer to grow anything nor forced my local grocery store to bring his product into my neighborhood. But I think we’d agree that me stealing something from the farmer’s field or the grocery store would be wrong (and more importantly to my mind: economically destructive). Most of what we have in this society we get without asking, because asking for something specifically is terribly inefficient. For most products we’ve replaced one on one requests for production with a market. To the incredibly awesome fabtastic benefit of all (at least to my mind).
I get the “Copying isn’t stealing/the digital world means infinite product” argument. Or, I should say I think it’s very wrong because it identifies the end product as the only focus of cost rather than the labor used to produce the first copy of said product, but I get how someone could make that mistake. Hell, I think they may even be right, on a practical basis, when it comes to 20th century style popular music because that kind of music is so incredibly cheap and easy (and fun!) to make.
But “I never asked you to make it, so I can take it if I want” makes no sense at all to me.
“This is not only not viable, but it’s not a good idea. I suggest you take a look at Cory Doctorow’s talk about that very subject:”
It is actually already in practice and quite viable, both the film and game industry do this quite effectively. The article you referenced is not relevant to the discussion at hand. Protecting ownership is not akin to limiting functionality. Controlled access points are quite profitable.
“The games industry is a hotbed of piracy. And when Microsoft made noises about banning the ability of people to sell used games (even though there is widespread dislike for GameStop, the main retailer in that sector), people went apeshit. Whatever tolerance exists for games is probably rooted in people wanting relatively fair online multiplayer gaming. I think it’s a special case, and not very useful for other publishing industries.”
Not even close. Games are platform specific. They are controlled via the access point(the hardware). The more open the hardware(PC vs Console), the more prevalent the piracy.
Angry, the “horseless carriage” analogy doesn’t work, because in the case people still want the product. The thing is, again, this is not just about technology, it’s about behaviour, and behavior is malleable,
Believe me, most artists would have no problem with the *public* getting their stuff for free, if others weren’t mKing a lot of money off of advertising without adding anything.
And Ive noticed a psychological phenomenon: when I get something for free (while I have only downloaded two songs without paying, I have ripped friends’ CDs”, etc) it means less to me than something I’ve paid for, I had a friend who said he had downloaded a particular show I like a lot. I asked him what he thought of a particular episode, and he said “eh, I haven’t watched much of it, in fact I don’t really like it.”
“The “point” of Google may be to provide “unfiltered content,” but not everybody gets to do whatever they want. Google is not a government”
Google does not force you to use their service. You can remove a site from google provided it belongs to you. Search engines cannot be responsible for the content that is used/placed on sites they do not control. There are waaaaay too many variables. Now ISP’s? They could technically do such things, but that is a sticky subject. The article that anonymous posted, while not relevant to my point, is relevant to the idea of using technology to filter “good” vs “bad” content. The bottom line: The type of control you are suggesting is not feasible on that level.
One thing I have been advocating for in all of these discussions is for content creators to strictly control the legitimate points of access for content, which in turn allows for easier identification of the illegitimate sites/apps, etc.
” Yes, labels rip off people, that doesn’t make pirates okay to rip off people.”
That is not what I am saying. By diluting the market, labels are a big part of the problem when it comes to getting recognition as an independent artist. The millions of other aspiring artists are also a “problem”. There are lots of choices for the consumer that have nothing to do with piracy.
No one is advocating piracy. But simply stopping people from stealing content is not going to put more money in the hands of creators. The piracy angle, IMO, is a red herring. If you eliminated all piracy tomorrow, that is not going to make it any easier for independents to get recognized. THAT is my only issue with the general line of thinking in these blog posts. The implication that the biggest problem facing independents is piracy. Sorry, but I am not buying that.
“For independent creators, the Internet offers them the chance to get noticed. But they have no chance of monetizing if the site next door is offering their stuff for free.”
That simply is not true. A pirate site does not own your content. There is nothing stopping you from monetization. Can piracy cut into that profit margin? Of course. There is no argument there. But that still does not stop you from making money. A sale is a sale. A download or stream is an impression. The two are not equivalent. Artists SHOULD get compensated for impressions(via royalties). The best way to accomplish this, IN MY OPINION, is to make legitimate access more appealing to the consumer than illegal access. Of this, there are MANY examples. PROFITABLE examples. Again, no one is advocating for ripping off artists,
“You keep saying that you want to “help the little guy,” but its become impossible for the little guy to monetize their work, and that’s all because of piracy.”
Monkey, that is a dead end. It is not “all because of piracy”. How would eliminating piracy help my band sell more records? How would it get more ears on my music? Helping the little guy, IMO, is about making their music viable. That has nothing to do with piracy. Going after piracy is about protecting sales that may or may not exists. Advocating exposure is about gaining enough attention to make those sales possible in the first place.
We still have the same goal. Just see the problem as two separate issues. I mean you no disrespect in any of this.
Sigh, that response was meant for monkey…
“Believe me, most artists would have no problem with the *public* getting their stuff for free, if others weren’t mKing a lot of money off of advertising without adding anything.”
So that is the crux of the issue. A pirate site is basically a pass-through. The file is hosted(or linked to) and is not the actual source of revenue. The clicks are. So the only way I see artists making money is to create their own portals and essentially beat the pirates at their own game.
There really is nothing stopping people from doing that, I use services like SoundCloud for this purpose with my own band.
How do we change consumer habits? That is my question. Must pirate sites be eliminated(which seems like a never ending game of whack a mole to me), or can it be done by offering the same thing with better results for the content creator.
There is no single way to stop it. We need to make people realize the social consequence of pirating – that like litter and smoking in public, it is socially destructive behavior. People care about whether the guy who grows the coffee beans gets paid, why not their entertainment?
Some of the people who are most vocal about movie piracy are documentary and other independent filmmakers. These are people who are committed to their projects and would like people to see them. They don’t want big profits, but they do want to make more movies. Some of these don’t rely on individual sales but on distribution through Netflix and traditional broadcasting. And they are very upset and demoralized to see their work being offered for free by others.
But also, we need it known that advertisers are propping up these sites, and they’re often big names – lowery has found ads from Chevrolet and coke (and even Netflix!) on pirate sites.
If you do actually buy music directly from artists, ask them how piracy affects them. My guess is they won’t all be saying “hey, at least it’s exposure.’
Clicks for an individual group/artist don’t generate money. None of them have enough content to make the fractions of a penny add up.
Currently, I’m listening to this guy http://www.ketilbjornstad.com how many clicks do you think he’ll need to make up the sale of a CD?
“Clicks for an individual group/artist don’t generate money. None of them have enough content to make the fractions of a penny add up.
Currently, I’m listening to this guy http://www.ketilbjornstad.com how many clicks do you think he’ll need to make up the sale of a CD?”
And how many CD’s need to be sold to make a living? It is a catch-22. The only way to get sales is by being heard, the only way to be heard is to be exposed to an audience. Just because I make a CD, even if I am popular, that doesn’t guarantee me enough money to quit my day job. Why should it? Because I put the effort into making music?
So piracy cuts into the bottom line. OK, I agree. We are not on different pages with that assessment. Shutting down pirate sites? Again. Same page. But ultimately, no piracy is not going to get any more people interested in some random artists work. So, yes. Champion legal action against pirates. Work with the PRO’s and labels to keep content ownership in the hands of the creators. Gotcha.
I have never advocated against this.
But it doesn’t solve the REAL issue with making money as an artist. Recognition. There are more independents now than ever before. Good, bad, down right silly. Addressing piracy is ONE facet of the problem facing independent musicians. And railing against companies/technology with no stake in your work either way is not going to solve the problem.
I had my own site for many years. I promoted it as best I could, and got a trickle here, a listen there. Social media and streaming sites have opened up a lot of avenues for exposure. And while it is slow going for a complete unknown. It IS possible. I see artists all over the place with quality work, getting recognition. Not from the industry. Not from the media. But from actual fans. People who like what they are doing and support the ARTIST. No, not all of them are sales. But they are contacts/connections. And the smarter artists have leveraged this into revenue. Be it clicks, merch, partnerships whatever.
The opportunity exists. And technology is a BIG part of that. It is not a guarantee, but it sure as hell is not a hindrance.
The only way to get sales is by being heard, the only way to be heard is to be exposed to an audience.
When I bought the first CD by Bjørnstad I’d never heard him. What might have induced me to do so?
I have no idea. I generally don’t buy music I have not heard, even when recommended by a friend. That seems like a pretty silly way to spend money. As an artist I have no expectation of a sale when I ask someone to listen to my music. I am more than happy with a critique. As a designer, I don’t just design something and expect people to buy it either. As a programmer, I generally expect my code to fill a need before I expect payment,
Content is not valuable until someone finds value in it. For some artists, their own sense of accomplishment is enough. For others they measure that value in sales. I don’t expect either. I make music to be heard, not sold. And yes i know that is MY preference.
And whilst we are at it – why 24 years ago would I have bought an CD by this guy unheard? http://www.anouarbrahem.com/
I generally don’t buy music I have not heard, even when recommended by a friend. That seems like a pretty silly way to spend money.
You don’t think that someone who likes blues wouldn’t buy a record simply because it was on the Chess label? Or someone into jazz wouldn’t buy something just because it was from Blue Note. Or that someone that likes world fusion wouldn’t just reach out an pick up an ECM recording? Or as has been discussed before here with folk music CDs from the Fuse or Irregular labels?
In the past people bought new stuff simple because it was on Island, or Chrysalis. Its simply not the case that labels aren’t or weren’t important. And as of now I have a 1500 ECM catalog to work through.
Anon: thing is, it does affect everyone. People are starting to question whether they own their tweets, their Instagram photos, etc. and they’re not liking the answers they’re getting.
People need to realize that their own creations have value, and they can get compensated for them or just stand back and let aggregators get rich off them.
bingo. copyright belongs to all, just as owning your own goods in your dwelling belong to you… you shouldn’t just willy-nilly give up the right of ownership of things to google and Co. because the peddlers of ignorance told you so.
You can’t claim ownership of content that you could not have created without external technology while pretending that the technology itself has no value.
My point. YOUR tweet, or Taylor Swifts tweet, does not have the same value on its own as it does on Twitter. Your cat photo is not relevant unless it goes viral through sharing. The value is not derived from the content, it is derived from the usage and exposure.
Which works more or less fine for cat photos and tweets. Music? Short film? Not so much unless your primary goal is the aforementioned exposure.
No one is claiming the technology has no value! It just doesn’t add all the value. And frankly, without the cat videos the Internet wouldn’t be worth many advertising eyeballs.
It’s a simple labor issue, and a rather old one: big tech owns the means of production but fools the user into thinking they do.
“It’s a simple labor issue, and a rather old one: big tech owns the means of production but fools the user into thinking they do.”
I think one of the problems is that people see someone’s cat video start making money and everyone thinks they are going to be the next “Grumpy Cat”.
That also goes back to what I have been saying in regards to musicians and film makers.
How do we(the creators) convey the value of our efforts to the consumer? How do we change the damage that has been done by the record industry. Yes, the main industry. In order to sell as many of the big artists as possible, they have diluted the market and have made it really hard for the little guy to get noticed.
I still think the answer is a centralized access point for ALL music.
But we can track views. We can tell how many people watch that cat video.
I can see a definite problem with everything being centralized:,there is an obvious possibility for censorship.
Eventually, it’s going to all come down to this: we either have a form of techno-socialism or techno-libertarianism. The way things seem to be going, however, is utter economic freedom for a few and socialism for everyone else. This could get really ugly, especially when you throw in climate change and other problems.
David–
“She may not mean to be cheerleading piracy, but she winds up sounding like she is”
Well, it’s informally written, very bloggy in its tone. I think we can agree with that much.
“Fundamentally, she’s making a case that popularity indicates something more profound than the obvious reasons for that popularity.”
Again, no, I don’t think so. She says that ideological reasons were at work in the founding of the site, but doesn’t ascribe these to the users. The closest you can get is in one clause in the last sentence, but even that jibes with the idea that people just want to watch stuff for free, which is the obvious, unprofound reason.
Monkey–
“And yet you have no problem comparing Pirates to abolitionists”
I’m not saying that they’re moral equivalents. I’m just citing abolitionists as an example of people who broke property laws, and could be (and I’m sure plenty were) called thieves, but who had deeper reasons for what they did.
Nor am I saying that all pirates act out of some sort of ideology. I’m just saying that some do; it’s wrong to tar them all with the same brush.
“However, people claim they want to support artists directly through live performances, but they don’t consider what that would actually mean.”
I think it’s suggested as an alternative, not as the only acceptable means. For my own part, while I’m not averse to it or anything, I recognize that it’s not for everyone, and further that for my own part, I don’t like going to see live musical performances; I’m happy with studio recordings.
“Seriously, forget laws, let’s talk basic human decency. You don’t pay for air (…yet) because nobody labours to make that air.”
We don’t have Lockean property laws.
Suppose that in my neighborhood, there is a PTA that works very hard to make the school one of the best in town; there are local businesspeople who are committed to improving this area, and many popular and profitable stores open on the main street; everyone works hard to beautify all the houses and yards. And all of this causes the property values in my neighborhood to rise substantially.
If I never lift a finger to help out, and never improve my house or property, I can still sell for a higher price than I could but for the hard work of everyone around me. That increase is directly attributable to them.
But I’m not obligated to share the proceeds when I sell.
(And if this sounds like a real lack of human decency, well, that’s property speculation for you)
“People are starting to question whether they own their tweets, their Instagram photos, etc. and they’re not liking the answers they’re getting.”
You mean the recent kerfuffle with Creative Commons licensing? Well, I don’t like adhesive licenses, EULAs, etc., so I don’t like to have to say it, but it is true that this wasn’t ever a secret.
Personally I suppose returning the US to a policy of not granting copyrights to published works unless they’ve been timely registered. This may seem harsher to you — instead of being copyrighted but subject to a license when you upload a photo to wherever the kids upload photos to these days, an uploaded, unregistered photo might just be public domain — I think it’s appropriate to put the burden of choosing which works need to be copyrighted on the authors, who are best able to make that determination. Possibly a grace period, similar to the US’s one-year rule in patents, might be useful.
If a work were published without protection having been sought, who are we to grant it? If it’s important, the author will get a copyright. If it’s not, let’s enjoy their gift to the public.
sf46–
“But I think we’d agree that me stealing something from the farmer’s field or the grocery store would be wrong (and more importantly to my mind: economically destructive).”
I’d agree with the economically destructive part. I’ve pointed out before that copyright, and in fact real and personal property law, is utilitarian. Right and wrong don’t hold up well. And in fact, we have a word for when large groups of people decide to steal something from the farmer’s field: taxes.
“I get the “Copying isn’t stealing/the digital world means infinite product” argument.”
Well, copying isn’t stealing, and it’s neither right nor wrong (though in an extreme case, I suppose it might be slightly to the side of right), but that doesn’t mean we can’t regulate it, and the question of the sunk costs of creative labor are an excellent reason for regulating it. I’m all for copyright; it’s a fine idea. It just needs to be implemented better.
“But ‘I never asked you to make it, so I can take it if I want’ makes no sense at all to me.”
As I said, it’s utilitarian; if you want people to refrain from copying it, all you have to do is convince them that it is in their own best interests not to do so. You may be successful, depending on the exact regulations at stake. For example, piracy at the level of ordinary people who just want to watch a movie or listen to music for free has broad popular support, as evidenced by the vast numbers of people who do it. But commercial piracy, where organized gangs use presses to stamp out counterfeit discs is something that a lot of people would probably agree should be illegal.
But so-called “personal” piracy on the order of “I want to see GoT without paying for HBO” cannot exist on a mass level without commercial piracy. True, it’s all based on peer-to-peer, but that can only work on a convenient level with ad-supported sites.
I am related very distantly to abolitionists, and I find the very comparison deeply offensive. Information doesn’t want to be free. People deserve to be free.
And it is entirely possible for people to have control of their own photos, tweets, etc, and not let them get in the hands of people who will exploit them, but it would require a lot more labor and a lot less profit for google, Facebook, Instagram, etc. maybe they could help the economy by hiring more people to help with this instead of getting obscenely rich while proposing charity and universal income schemes.
Anyway, I’m tired of wading through long comments to where you respond to my objections. Figure out a way to respond directly, please.
“But commercial piracy, where organized gangs use presses to stamp out counterfeit discs is something that a lot of people would probably agree should be illegal.”
When massive ad-supported sites provide a one-stop-shop for piracy, that rises to the level of “commercial piracy,” whatever TPB’s vaunted claims to the latter.
I find it amusing that you want to limit creator’s rights – which is what your proposal to bring back registered copyright is – while giving other free reign. So the Internet is a bastion of free speech, just as long as the creators don’t own it (which doesn’t stop others from using that speech to make money without paying them)
You might not have a choice, though; if enough people wake up to the exploitive nature of so-called “user-generated-content” we might end up with a very different Internet.
It’s also amusing that your answer is a universal income while at the same time calling taxes theft. How do you propose this universal income work?
Sorry, wanted to add this: the problem is that individual infringement cannot exist on a mass scale without ad-supported sites which profit off material while not paying the creators.
And moral equivalence aside, as someone who is distantly related to abolitionists I find the comparison of TPB to the abolitionist movement obscene. Freeing people is much more important than “freeing” information.
Monkey–
“I find it amusing that you want to limit creator’s rights – which is what your proposal to bring back registered copyright is”
That’s not a limit on the scope or duration of the rights, it’s a limit on the vesting of the rights. We still have similar limits in the law today, and they seem not to draw many objections. And this limit was one that the US had in force for almost 190 years, and we all seem to have done pretty well.
“So the Internet is a bastion of free speech, just as long as the creators don’t own it (which doesn’t stop others from using that speech to make money without paying them)”
I don’t have a problem with people — including creators — using public domain works without payment or permission. One of the main reasons to have the public domain is to promote that very thing.
“It’s also amusing that your answer is a universal income while at the same time calling taxes theft. How do you propose this universal income work?”
I propose that they’re funded by progressive income and wealth taxes.
I don’t have a problem with taxes. I just recognize that copyright law, and property law, are made on behalf of the majority, to suit the tastes of the majority, by a government empowered solely by the consent of the majority. Frankly, it seems to be the other side of this debate that is probably opposed to the very idea of taxation.
“When massive ad-supported sites provide a one-stop-shop for piracy, that rises to the level of ‘commercial piracy'”
I agree. In fact, I’d go further; selling ad space makes it commercial, regardless of whether the site is massive or a ‘one-stop-shop.’
“Sorry, wanted to add this: the problem is that individual infringement cannot exist on a mass scale without ad-supported sites which profit off material while not paying the creators.”
Then let’s legalize only non-commercial infringement engaged in by natural persons — no ads; no selling merchandise; no donations of money, goods, or services (beyond the actual dissemination of works, obviously); not even filesharing quotas — and we’ll see whether it can exist on a mass scale.
I’d be very much surprised if it couldn’t scale up, provided that it was allowed to be done legally, out in the open.
“And moral equivalence aside, as someone who is distantly related to abolitionists I find the comparison of TPB to the abolitionist movement obscene. Freeing people is much more important than ‘freeing’ information.”
As someone who is distantly related to slaves, I didn’t have a problem with it. I never said that pirates were the moral equivalents or betters of abolitionists. I said that it is foolish to say that all people who took slaves away from their masters were thieves; some of them surely were, but some of them were abolitionists, and they had a cause impelling them to steal slaves beyond mere theft. Likewise, it is foolish to say that all pirates who infringe on copyrights are thieves; some of them also have an ideology that goes further than David, and others, give them credit for. (Also ‘thief’ is the wrong word, but we’ll leave that aside for now)
theangryvillager–
“It is actually already in practice and quite viable, both the film and game industry do this quite effectively.”
Yes, I guess that explains why neither the film nor the game industry ever suffer from piracy.
“The article you referenced is not relevant to the discussion at hand. Protecting ownership is not akin to limiting functionality. Controlled access points are quite profitable.”
Well, you had a period in between there, turning that into two sentences, so I guess I can’t say that you contradicted yourself in a single breath, but it’s pretty close. There is no way to control access in order to ‘protect ownership’ without limiting functionality. Computers just don’t work that way. Streaming a file, for example, is literally no different from copying a file, except that the recipient is expected to discard the data straight away. But this isn’t capable of enforcement, where functionality is not limited. It’s quite easy to save streams.
You should probably actually read the article, instead of dismissing it out of hand. It addresses this sort of thing.
“Games are platform specific.”
So? Honestly, I’ve never even heard of a mere pirate who made porting games from one system to another a part of their plan. (There is stuff like Mighty Mouth or KC Munchkin) I guess it might have happened, maybe with old text adventures. But usually when pirates want to do this, they emulate the platform that the game is meant to run on, and don’t modify the game at all. This is actually very popular. People play all sorts of arcade games and console games on their computers, often working from pirated copies.
Then let’s legalize only non-commercial infringement engaged in by natural persons — no ads; no selling merchandise; no donations of money, goods, or services (beyond the actual dissemination of works, obviously); not even filesharing quotas — and we’ll see whether it can exist on a mass scale.
This is basically the proposal by the Photography groups in relation to Orphan works. Make provision for non-commercial use by personal websites, blogs, librarians, and researchers. The tech companies (Google and its shills) screamed merry hell about that one. It would solve 99% of the issues without allowing them to profiteer.
“You should probably actually read the article, instead of dismissing it out of hand. It addresses this sort of thing.”
I read the article. It is referring to the inability of technology to discern between good and bad behavior, thus making it impossible to program devices to truly be biased in one way or another.
Controlled access is not the same principle. So your article is in fact irrelevant, as stated.
“There is no way to control access in order to ‘protect ownership’ without limiting functionality.”
Limiting access, limits exposure, it has no bearing on the “functionality” of a creative works. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, HBO Go… They all control access. The first three are quite profitable while the last one is most affected by piracy. THAT is an important takeaway from the article David referenced. The only way to access the most pirated show legitimately is via a service that costs upwards of 10 times as much as the competition(since you need HBO to get HBO go). However the most watched show, with piracy numbers that are close to that of show with limited access, is also the most accessible. Also note how close the number of pirates is across all of the shows listed.
Pirates are a subset of online viewing. The most pirated shows are the ones that are hardest to watch legitimately in a digital form. The show affected least by piracy is the one readily available(AS it airs) via its network site. The point of her article was that piracy exists, people like to share content they find online, there is no putting the genie back in the bottle.
My point is that content creators need to adapt and use this technology to their advantage.
“People play all sorts of arcade games and console games on their computers, often working from pirated copies.”
I am not talking about small time/out dated content. If you want to play the latest and greatest you have generally one of three choices. Two of which are completely locked down. Digital game sales are on the rise, and people are becoming more and more accustomed to gated access to that content. WHY? Because an ecosystem was built around these platforms that promotes community and while you don’t get to share your games per se, you are able to share the experience via multi-player.
The point of all of that? The console makers created value in their portals. The consoles are the access points. No one thinks twice about not being able to take their XBOX One game to their buddies house and pop it in a PS4.
I did not suggest that media needed to be proprietary and connected to a particular platform or device. But I did suggest that the ONLY way to guarantee as much revenue as possible for the creators is via controlled access. Either through a netflix like model(they pay the distributors for access to content and charge a nominal fee). Or the youTube/TV model. Content is supported by advertising, in which case a central access point would allow revenue sharing between big and small artists. Something a lot of channels are doing on youTube.
Hunting down pirates is not the solution. People will always find a way to skirt the system. The example from the article you posted is spot on, DRM is pointless because of this.
So what IS the solution. Make it easier to get content legitimately than it is to get it illegally. How you profit from that is up to you, but the only real way to combat piracy is to make it obsolete.
That might require actions that some might gripe are “limiting technology” : pressuring advertisers to not buy ads on these sites. Pressuring Google to actually de-link infringing sites.
Of course, it would really only be “limiting” technology in the way that pollution laws “limit” industry, but I think we can live with that.
“Pirates are a subset of online viewing. The most pirated shows are the ones that are hardest to watch legitimately in a digital form. ”
Um.., Big Bang Theory?
“Pressuring Google to actually de-link infringing sites.”
That is not their job or their place IMO. The point of Google, regardless of the downside is to present unfiltered content. It is not their job embarrassing pictures(as has been attempted in Europe). Or to help independent creators get noticed.
And the truth of the matter. Even if they took that stance, it is ultimately the consumer that controls what becomes popular/profitable and what falls by the wayside.
There are many examples of legitimate portals that focus consumer access. They neither limit technology or rob the creators.
The record industry and the PRO’s are a much bigger problem for independent artists than pirates will ever be. Why? Because IMO they are no better. They too are profiting from the hard work of the little guy while doing very little to actually get that guy a piece of the pie.
They will sell out thousands of small artists just to accommodate the larger ones. Make deals that do not ultimately benefit independent artists. Google has nothing to do with that.
Honestly, I am not sure why so much effort is spent bashing tech companies and pirate sites, when the true villains in this industry have always been the labels, distributors and the PRO’s.
Tell me how any of them is working for YOU or for me? At least with google if I get enough traffic I can slap a dog food ad on my site…
The record industry and the PRO’s are a much bigger problem for independent artists than pirates will ever be.
ECM.
Oh, and about the abolitionist thing: the point is that information is not living, despite what some techno Utopians believe. It has no will of its own. To value information more then the people who create it is immoral.
The “point” of Google may be to provide “unfiltered content,” but not everybody gets to do whatever they want. Google is not a government,
Your “the labels are the real villains” argument has been refuted so many times it’s not funny. Yes, labels rip off people, that doesn’t make pirates okay to rip off people. If
Labels give artists too little, that’s a problem. But pirates give artists NOTHING.
(And it’s frankly bullshit that Google doesnt filter content, it just doesn’t filter pirated content)
For independent creators, the Internet offers them the chance to get noticed. But they have no chance of monetizing if the site next door is offering their stuff for free. It’s really not that hard to understand.
You keep saying that you want to “help the little guy,” but its become impossible for the little guy to monetize their work, and that’s all because of piracy. It’s that simple.
This got put into a response to anonymous.
“The “point” of Google may be to provide “unfiltered content,” but not everybody gets to do whatever they want. Google is not a government”
Google does not force you to use their service. You can remove a site from google provided it belongs to you. Search engines cannot be responsible for the content that is used/placed on sites they do not control. There are waaaaay too many variables. Now ISP’s? They could technically do such things, but that is a sticky subject. The article that anonymous posted, while not relevant to my point, is relevant to the idea of using technology to filter “good” vs “bad” content. The bottom line: The type of control you are suggesting is not feasible on that level.
One thing I have been advocating for in all of these discussions is for content creators to strictly control the legitimate points of access for content, which in turn allows for easier identification of the illegitimate sites/apps, etc.
” Yes, labels rip off people, that doesn’t make pirates okay to rip off people.”
That is not what I am saying. By diluting the market, labels are a big part of the problem when it comes to getting recognition as an independent artist. The millions of other aspiring artists are also a “problem”. There are lots of choices for the consumer that have nothing to do with piracy.
No one is advocating piracy. But simply stopping people from stealing content is not going to put more money in the hands of creators. The piracy angle, IMO, is a red herring. If you eliminated all piracy tomorrow, that is not going to make it any easier for independents to get recognized. THAT is my only issue with the general line of thinking in these blog posts. The implication that the biggest problem facing independents is piracy. Sorry, but I am not buying that.
“For independent creators, the Internet offers them the chance to get noticed. But they have no chance of monetizing if the site next door is offering their stuff for free.”
That simply is not true. A pirate site does not own your content. There is nothing stopping you from monetization. Can piracy cut into that profit margin? Of course. There is no argument there. But that still does not stop you from making money. A sale is a sale. A download or stream is an impression. The two are not equivalent. Artists SHOULD get compensated for impressions(via royalties). The best way to accomplish this, IN MY OPINION, is to make legitimate access more appealing to the consumer than illegal access. Of this, there are MANY examples. PROFITABLE examples. Again, no one is advocating for ripping off artists,
“You keep saying that you want to “help the little guy,” but its become impossible for the little guy to monetize their work, and that’s all because of piracy.”
Monkey, that is a dead end. It is not “all because of piracy”. How would eliminating piracy help my band sell more records? How would it get more ears on my music? Helping the little guy, IMO, is about making their music viable. That has nothing to do with piracy. Going after piracy is about protecting sales that may or may not exists. Advocating exposure is about gaining enough attention to make those sales possible in the first place.
We still have the same goal. Just see the problem as two separate issues. I mean you no disrespect in any of this.
No you can’t remove a site from google. Its almost impossible unless you are a whizz at regex which most people aren’t. Even then your site will still be mined by the bastards, despite whay they say robots.txt doesn’t stop them from crawling a site, at best it might stop them from displaying results in their search engine, but should you reorganize the site or the pages will be back up in their search engine within days if not hours. When the kids were younger I put up system for them and their friends to chat and blog amongst themselves. It was a full time job to keep Google crawlers out, without putting .htaccess security on the directories. Precious few people know how to do that, or even have the ability to do so.
@John, if it is on the internet, of course it is available for indexing. But you aren’t completely powerless. I am still not sure why you are blaming Google in this anyway. They don’t control the internet, they just index it.
In what other situation do we allow unwelcome 3rd parties to ferret about amongst our papers?
In what other situations do we allow 3rd parties to evesdrop on our childrens conversations?
How is that Googles fault? It is quite easy to monitor yourself and your children online.
They have even provided apps for kids, the better to profile and manipulate them.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/26google.h33.html
Angry: I have heard countless stories from creators who have said that they have lost income due to piracy. You keep saying that not every illegal download is a lost sale, but theres no way to determine that. And it doesn’t change the fact that pirate sites give nothing to the artist.
I have heard from musicians who have had people say to their face that they downloaded their material without paying. I guess it’s nice that they paid to get into the concert, but it doesn’t sound like they’re really being fans to me.
You’re right, pirate sites don’t own the content, but do you seriously think they could get ad money – real, major ad money from car companies and others – if they didn’t provide free access to content that’s not theirs?
The problem is not with “exposure,” it’s that exposure without a way to monetize it is meaningless? How can an artist possibly compete with free?
Why is it so hard to understand? If I’m an artist offering my work, I’m expected to have fans pay basically out of the kindness of their hearts.
You keep saying you’re not pro-piracy, but not giving people the proper tools to deal with piracy is as good as accepting it.
We’re going round in circles here. You seem like a decent guy, but people’s frustration with you is that you’re using arguments that we’ve all heard before, and we are presenting you with real examples of how piracy affects people, and thou wave them away. It’s very frustrating, because you’re not a “fuck art” type like someone else I could mention.
We’re at an impasse here, but I beg you – please listen to independent artists when they say their income is hurt by piracy. At least listen with an open mind if you really want to help creators.
No one is saying that piracy does not cost artists income. But there are plenty of pirated artists who sell more than is stolen. The point? Your work is either viable, despite piracy, or it isn’t. Again, lets stop piracy, got it, I agree. But go after the thieves, not the guys making the getaway car. Technology is useful beyond its abuses. See a site that has your stuff illegally? Shut it down. That’s on you. Or me. Not Google.
“I have heard from musicians who have had people say to their face that they downloaded their material without paying. I guess it’s nice that they paid to get into the concert, but it doesn’t sound like they’re really being fans to me.”
By your definition. For me a fan is someone who enjoys my work. No matter how they here it. And don’t try and tell me there aren’t an equivalent number of artists who feel the same way. No one I know who makes music is in it for the money. And I know people who make quite a good living at it. Anecdotes are a dime a dozen.
I AM a musician. I know musicians. My OPINION on music is that it’s value is not tied to how many units I sell. That is ME. I am not the only one. And I know your point is valid as well.
When working a solution, I see piracy as a minor issue. Why? Because when I look at the people who are big enough to be pirated, I do not see the small artist. I don’t see the guy doing this on his own. Yeah, those guys exist. But there is more to a fan base than albums sold.
WHO are these artists dying out because of piracy? WHO? Because I see plenty making nothing but good music, no money. No record deals. Just making music.
Songwriters? Not the same thing? That is contract work IMO. They deserve a fee and a royalty. If the work is popular, that royalty should be huge. If it is obscure… I don’t know what you expect.
People should get paid, but that all depends on the audience. Companies spend billions every year that ends up at a loss. Piracy or no, that is the nature of the game.
Sorry.
“WHO are these artists dying out because of piracy? WHO? Because I see plenty making nothing but good music, no money. No record deals. Just making music.”
Thry are out there. Some have commented on this very site. I’m not sure what more to say than that.
@monkey – I don’t doubt they exist. My point in asking who is to determine the parameters with which they operate. A very small artist has different options and needs than a mid sized or large one. We have no need to go back and forth, but in order to try an attack the issue(even if that issue truly is piracy), we need to look at the ACTUAL problem.
A small artist like myself with a limited body of work has a pretty good idea of where my stuff exists legitimately. I could easily do some detective work and see how many illegitimate places my work may exists and would then be able to go after them directly.
A mid range artist still has that option but might also be able to take legal action. And a large artist, well, they can pull a Taylor Swift I guess.
I am not interested in hearsay or anecdotes. That does not help the issue. I have no problem ending the discussion here, if that is all we have left on the table.
I was impressed by “The Tragedy of the Commons.” I wonder if any pirates have bothered to read it.:)
“I am not interested in hearsay or anecdotes. That does not help the issue. I have no problem ending the discussion here, if that is all we have left on the table.”
But… You’re doing the exact same thing! You’re saying that from the experience of you and try to extrapolate from that!
Read the trichordist, read other sources. There is real data out there. The number of professional musicians is dwindling, and it can’t all be because of a glut of material.
As for “legal action,” read the countless stories of how people have sent out DMCA notices and gotten ignored. Then there’s google’s “chilling effects,” which delists the site but still leaves the url.
But again, there is a deeper issue here. Robots and algorithms are putting more people out of work, while tech companies get richer. If we don’t do something soon, we are all in big trouble.
I will leave you with this.
It is true I know artists who do just fine. Who are either not popular to be affected by piracy, or who simply do not consider it an issue. You are correct that is MY experience. When I ask about WHO is being affected, neither my experience nor the flip side is actually relevant to the issue. Piracy is PART of the problem for making music a viable career. My point is that it is not the ONLY problem, and I would contend that it is not even the PRIMARY problem. I ask WHO you are referring to because the relevance of that particular issue(piracy) is highly dependent on the level at which an artist is operating. If I sell 50 units a year and 30 more are pirated, music is not a viable career for me regardless. Just like a plumber who can only get a few jobs or a baseball player who can’t get picked up by a team. You could name all kinds of reasons someone is not successful. Focusing on one, that affects people at different levels in completely different ways is not going to solve the problem of them being able to make a living.
“Then there’s google’s “chilling effects,” which delists the site but still leaves the url.”
Google has no power to eliminate a URL. You do know that they do not control the internet, right? It could be linked on another site. Listed with another search engine… Simply removing it from the index has no impact on anything but search results. You are giving them way too much credit in terms of the control they have over a given site.
“Robots and algorithms are putting more people out of work, while tech companies get richer. If we don’t do something soon, we are all in big trouble.”
Industrialization and automation did the same thing 100+ years ago. Society adapted. Those who adapted quickly prospered, those who were mired in their own ways, did not. This is nothing new. Music production is no exception.
There was a time when football players were a certain size. Then some players changed. Got bigger, stronger. During that time, the little guys got pummeled. Once the league adapted, competition returned.
The point of her article was not, “let’s pummel the little guy”. It was a commentary on the changes brought about by technology. Just like they couldn’t stop someone bigger from having an advantage, you can’t stop the tech savvy, be they moral or immoral, from taking advantage of technology. The best way to combat piracy, streaming, whatever is to beat them at their own game. It will take time, and some people are not going to make it. But ultimately I think the industry and the creative landscape will be better for all.
If you look solely at piracy in the moment, it may appear to be less relevant than it is; but if you look at the industry post-Napster, it’s different story. The plain fact is that every industry professional you talk to — label owner, engineer, producer, lawyer, recording artist, etc. — of any size will tell you that the opportunities for any artists other than easily salable mega-stars are far less than they were 20 years ago. It’s simple economics; the investment pool is just smaller, so there are fewer paths available to potentially professional musical artists. Everyone else is just playing roulette on YouTube. This isn’t about adapting to new paradigms or new methodologies. This about gutting the value of something the market theoretically still wants. Nobody has yet proposed a real solution for that.
“It’s simple economics; the investment pool is just smaller, so there are fewer paths available to potentially professional musical artists.”
So my question to you David is this: Where is the creative gap? Where have we lost creative content? From the amateur to the high profile super star, where have we lost art? The consumer isn’t seeing it. The industry isn’t seeing it(they create pop stars almost weekly). So I ask where is the gap, and WHO is missing?
I assign less value to piracy in this discussion because I simply do not see the loss of creative content(which is one of the things you and monkey, etc. are claiming to be on the horizon).
I am not being contrary, but that is about as clear as I can get in regards to my position. There is more content than ever before. And while you or monkey may not apply the same value to most of it as you might a “professional”, the consumer most certainly does. So my question from here on out will always be, WHO are you talking about when you say “professional artist”, because there seems to be more content every day, piracy or no piracy.
Who’s missing is the professional artist. Many of the bands working right now that would have been classic, middle-class bands 20 years ago, are just hanging on, and some will drop out. Sure, there are other bands out there. And maybe society will benefit from an endless turnover of artists who create and perform while they can — while they’re young enough not to need anything, or as a sideline to another career — but maybe not. This problem will be exacerbated if that “stable” job is simultaneously less stable than it might have been 20 years ago, which is the trend. Yes, there is more content right now (or at least appears to be), but if 10,000 artists playing YouTube roulette does not translate into, say, 1,000 artists becoming 20-30 year professionals, that’s economic loss for all of us — not just the artists.
“Professional” means paid. That’s its definition. It doesn’t mean better than someone who is unpaid. But it matters because for every professional band that is actually making money, that represents many associated jobs that exist because of that band. When a band doesn’t make money, it’s no different from any other small business failing. If a business fails because nobody likes the product, all’s fair in love and war; but if it fails despite having “customers” solely because something is broken in the market, that’s a problem. And odds are it’s a problem that doesn’t just affect one line of business.
I get that you’re saying, despite the economic shift, we’re hearing plenty of music. But I would counter that may be a very temporary phenomenon, and that it is an unfortunately cynical view because it ignores the fact the expansion we see has been pushed by the very companies who are only too happy to exploit so many artists’ hopes. YouTube loves that everybody puts their songs out there eager to find an audience, and Google is hoping nobody notices that even if a million people love the work, there may not be a way to turn that “success” into a real business. Google’s model of ad revenue sharing won’t cut it.
I guess that is it then. To me, and this is just and opinion. You seem out of touch with the world we live in today, or more accurately, you seem to long for the days gone by.
monkey posted this: “When you type in a song, the FIRST result you get is often a pirate site.”
I typed “Ani Defranco 32 flavors free” into both google and bing. Google didn’t list an pirate sites on the first page and Bing put legit streaming, link to the album on Amazon, a wiki article and videos before the two random download sites that did actually showed up. I repeated this process for multiple artists at multiple levels and the results were pretty consistent. Social media sites, information, lyrics, trumped pirate sites in almost every instance.
Could I have been more specific? Yup. But me actively looking for free music is not akin to google or any other search engine promoting piracy. They create an INDEX, and tailor that index to the user. Nothing more. So when you speak of piracy, your problem is a lot less about tech or the sites themselves and more about the perception of the consumer.
We have had the “professional” vs amateur discussion before. I know what you mean by professional. The problem I have is with the level of importance you grant to people who make music for a living, yet are not famous or known to a mass market. They are not shaping the industry. They are not the ones creating jobs. Bottom line, the unknowns may be making music for a living but they are not the backbone of anything.
If all of those musicians disappeared, there would still be Taylor swifts, and Ani Defranco’s. Roadies would still be needed. Bartenders would still have to work crappy shows. People like me would still go to studios and make records. The only real difference between us and them, the “professionals” you speak of, is either we have moved beyond having sales be crucial to our success(Swift), or we have never made music with the expectation of profit(me).
Bottom line. The subset of musician who is impacted in the ways you mention by piracy, are not integral to music as a whole progressing and continuing to be made. I AM NOT SAYING THEY ARE NOT IMPORTANT, or valid, or without need. I am simply stating that the industry is far bigger than the unsung hero’s trying to do this for a living.
” If a business fails because nobody likes the product, all’s fair in love and war; but if it fails despite having “customers” solely because something is broken in the market, that’s a problem.”
Businesses that can’t market themselves properly, or that have more overhead than income fail all of the time, no matter how good their products may be. The key to success is not just customers, you have to be able to adjust your business to fit into whatever market you want to compete in. That means dealing with cheats, scoundrels, deadbeats, etc.
Monkey, I like discussing things with you. But I am not sure where you get your disdain for tech companies. Their pro’s and con’s are easily seen by anyone willing to look. They are no better or worse than any other business. Technology will enhance our ability to experience art. I truly believe that. I hope that someday you will be able to see that as well.
It’s not nostalgia, AV. I’m not that sentimental by nature. It’s that I don’t believe in vague terms like “new business models” when there is in reality no model. We’ve been listening to the same, vague nonsense since Web 1.0; I’ve been in meetings with people who earnestly believed in a world filled with pixies, and they were wrong then. Everything you’re saying doesn’t add up to “new business model;” it rejects business as a model. If I take you seriously, then there are two kinds of musical artists — mega stars and hobbyists. Hobbyists may be brilliant musicians, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t major economic loss by virtue of their being hobbyists.
And it’s fundamentally wrong to say that any entrepreneurs in the middle of any business sector are not the “backbone” of our economy. The health of our economy relies entirely on a broad and diverse middle that’s in good shape, which is why our economy is unfortunately on rather shaky ground. At least that’s what the economists are saying.
“And it’s fundamentally wrong to say that any entrepreneurs in the middle of any business sector are not the “backbone” of our economy.”
I think another impasse we tend to find ourselves at is the defining of music as a business. Art is so subjective, my opinion is that you can’t put a set value on creative works. How much SHOULD someone who makes music their living be able to make? 50k? 100k? Most businesses don’t pay someone based on effort alone, right? There has to be demand/need for their skill, or the product the produce. So I have a hard time quantifying losses due to piracy for professionals who may or may not starve regardless. It all depends on who wants to hear them play, create, etc.
When I speak of the backbone, I am referencing the creativity that drives the industry, that gets people listening. Is that the “pro” musician just getting by, is it the songwriter for the big names? Is it the big names themselves that are setting trends. Like I said, it is all very subjective.
I mean think about it. How important is Taylor Swift to the industry as a whole? If she quit tomorrow, what would be the impact on the world of music? None. Sure some people wouldn’t make any money off of her in the short term, but there are 100 other Taylor Swifts waiting to happen. And that is just reality. I am not bashing her creativity/talent. She is ultimately just not that special. None of us are. Our job is to entertain, so long as the people can find amusement somewhere, anyone can be replaced. And to me that is ok. No one likes every painting, or every movie. Yet people still paint, crappy movies still get made.
The same goes for music.
I will try to keep your point of view in mind should I post here again. Just because we don’t agree on the state of things, that does not mean we cannot be civil and have discourse.
AV, sorry about the delay in responding. I understand what you’re saying, and the question of art v commerce is one that certainly predates the Internet and one that is itself subjective. It is even a question that frustrates artists after they make money because I think most artists grapple with an unhealthy dose of self doubt to begin with. Anyone who has something to say through any medium is hoping for acceptance on some level, right? And then, sometimes, a creator authors something that makes him a pile of money. Then begins the maddening internal process of distinguishing the work from the trade or balancing those forces; and then there’s the peanut gallery liable to call him genius one moment, sell-out the next. It’s all pretty crazy.
When speaking generally about the social or economic value of creative workers, I try to do so without referring to personal taste because it brings all that subjectivity into the conversation. I have my own tastes in music, film, books, etc. and I would say that the works that are special to me are a mix of things that are popular among millions and other works that are less well known. But among all of these works, I could never claim to know what is intrinsically special. I know what you mean about Taylor Swift, and it is certainly my opinion that most pop music today is less interesting (special) than pop music was in the 1980s, but I am also confident that all this the safe, danceable, over-produced, non-confrontational fare is the result of economic loss to the core music industry. We see it in film, too. There is simply less diversity of investment in these industries, and that is largely attributable to the overall devaluation in direct sales of works fueled by piracy. I’m not making that up; that’s a summation of things I’ve been told by people who historically make those investment decisions.
You are certainly within your rights to choose not to view your own music as business, but I do not believe it is your right to make that decision for other musicians. And I do think we as a society have benefitted both economically and culturally from the fact that musicians historically were able to make their work a business.
“There is simply less diversity of investment in these industries, and that is largely attributable to the overall devaluation in direct sales of works fueled by piracy.”
That I think is an important point and it hits right at the heart of my thoughts on piracy. You know how I keep asking about WHO is truly being affected by piracy? To me from a monetary standpoint, as in actual sales money lost, it seems like the INDUSTRY that is seeing the majority of the effects, not the random musician. The guy trying to feed his family with music is not making it or breaking it in terms of sales because of piracy IMO. Bear with me here for a second, this is going to come back around.
As I have said. I just don’t see those hand to mouth artists as being big enough to generate enough sales to BE pirated in the first place. And that I think is where our main disconnect has been. Because the point you just made, to me, is a WHOLE other ballgame.
Piracy does affect the movie/music/game industry. In some ways it is a direct effect, loss of sales, and yeah the difference between 30 million and 50 million is a problem. But that is not the REAL issue. The real issue is a lack of diversity caused by companies hedging their bets with whatever is current/safe/popular. That I can agree with 100%. Any lost revenue causes companies/industries to play it safe. This allows them to make GoT and have it be pirated more than watch legitimately. Because they can also make lots of fluff that costs next to nothing and have numbers that all but negate the effects of piracy from the equation. But what about the other interesting show? The niche show? The “next” GoT. Well that one is in a queue. Waiting for a shot at becoming something, and more than likely, along with the 100s of other shows that share the same vision, that shot will never come. Music, games, movies. Same scenario no matter what the creative industry. Diversity is controlled by the people with the purse strings. For the most part.
In a world without piracy, we could imagine that companies would be more willing to take risks, that they would be almost guaranteed to make money regardless. And more diversity in the market would be better for everyone. That sounds great. And to some extent I think is a spot on assessment.
But I would offer the idea that there is a little more to the story. You see, the industries in question operated with impunity for a VERY long time. They set the prices among themselves for media, they made the decisions as to what would and would not be given a chance to succeed. And then the internet became ubiquitous. And that power continues to wane as a result.
People can voice their opinions and feel connected regardless of interest. Things that would have been successful before, now? They can become astronomical. But along with that chance, also comes a public that is a lot more fickle, always looking for the next best thing. So a lot of times the industry is playing catch up(be it movie, music or games). I include games BTW because as a creative medium it makes more than the music and movie industries combined. Which is another factor to consider. People have become used to interactive entertainment. And when comparing value per dollar. Consumers just don’t see them as equivalent any more. $.99 is a song. Or a mobile game. Both provide hours of entertainment. And both are the victim of industries who used set pricing to entice consumers to switch. To buy things again in the case of the music and movie industry, and to pay to be advertised to in the case of games.
Piracy capitalizes on this disconnect. When people don’t FEEL the media they are after is worth, the game they just played, or the last movie they watched, or song they just heard, then they don’t FEEL as if they should have to pay the same price as the movie they LOVED, and the song they can’t stop listening to. THAT is why streaming has become popular. Not some conspiracy to edge out the little guy. The industry has to hedge their bets. And THAT to me is why controlled access is the only real solution to piracy. You are never going to make people feel one song is worth X and another is worth Y. And so long as they see them as the same, they will only be willing to pay so much, and they will only pay for what they deem valuable.
Sorry this is so long, but I do feel like we are making some progress in the discussion that has lasted for months now. A very important discussion for all people interested in the media arts to have.
The INDUSTRY created this mess IMO. Not the tech companies. Not the pirates. Those groups while opportunistic did not set the value of creative works. They did not force small players to compete with huge companies on a VERY uneven field. So while I agree that piracy should be stopped. Ultimately I don’t care about lost revenue for multi-million dollar franchises. I don’t care if Bieber or Swift participate in streaming. All I want is for music to be heard, so that anyone with enough talent can have a shot. Where the PEOPLE listening or watching can determine value while NOT hindering the new artist development process. I want them to be entertained, but I don’t want the “majority rule” type of investment strategy being taken by major studios and producers. Thank you for your response.
AV —
Thanks for your response. I’m a little tired, but I’ll do my best to reply as fully as possible. Suffice to say that I understand and even relate to the sentiments behind your point of view, but I am more critical of this perspective in practical terms. For one thing, none of what I keep calling the middle-class artists — the touring bands, the indie labels, bootstrap, indie filmmakers — that I have met so far support this perspective for the simple fact that even their adoring fans just don’t buy their works either. These aren’t artists that would ever be mega-stars, but they could be solidly profitable based on measurable popularity, including illegal downloads and streams of their works. And, unfortunately, the legacy of piracy (if not always direct piracy) has damaged the idea that certain works should be paid for at all. The entire post-Napster market has to be assessed when we talk about the effects of piracy — not strictly lost sales, but the influence on consumer attitudes and on pricing by legal services like iTunes and Spotify. But enough about that because it’s somewhat tangential.
As for the matter of diversity of investment, it is a bit tough to generalize about all media; but in simple terms, with regard to publishing, music, and motion pictures, the traditional model was one of spreading investments across a range of presumptive safe bets and riskier, though likely more interesting, fare. This gets into the discussion of whom to blame for all the pabulum, the consumer or the producer? Is Duck Dynasty TV producers’ fault or the viewers’ fault? I’m enough of a snob personally to say that I’d like never to see that stuff produced, but I also have to admit that even though many of us predicted the death of TV with the dawn of reality programming, several factors contributed to what many of us feel is a real golden age for the “small screen.” And if one show I hate finances another show I love, that’s kind of how the process is supposed to work.
Now, I fully understand why you criticize “the industry,” and I have been plenty critical myself of large, corporate producers of many things, not just entertainment media. But the problem with this view (one I struggle with) is that the line becomes rather arbitrary. For example, is the motion picture “industry” just the six major film/tv studios? Is it the conglomerates? Does it include an independent feature company like Participant that makes some great films but is way bigger than a plucky start-up? I think the question matters because even a huge corporation started out as a plucky start-up founded on the basic model of invest, risk, produce, sell, reward. And so, the disconnect I have with many anti-corporate proposals is not that they criticize corporate culture, which really can lead to many ills, but that these proposals present unrealistic alternatives to that very basic business model, which still applies even to the tiniest, most altruistic, coolest, creative, and independent producer of stuff. Invest, risk, produce, reward.
Naturally, when there is economic pressure from any source — piracy, recession, change in consumer habits — investors will migrate toward safer fare, taking fewer and fewer risks. This is why you and your music (unless you twerk really well) are less likely to get picked up by any label in 2015 than you were in 1995. If that’s not your ambition, that’s fine, but it is the ambition/hope of many musical artists, and society has benefitted both financially and culturally from these investments in a diversity of artists who could go pro. You may never care that you don’t go on a major national tour or sell a million albums, but if we multiply you by thousands of bands, that’s actually an opportunity cost of associated economic activity. In a nutshell, I want people to have a shot just like you do, but both piracy and the legal economics of Web 2.0 actually diminish shots rather than create them. And this is being documented by creators, by entrepreneurs, by analysts, and by economists almost daily. I do think you’re right that works can be either not popular enough to be pirated or so popular that piracy makes less of a dent in the bottom line, but I think you may be oversimplifying your assessment of the real economics involved. First, as I say, there are a lot of creators between those two extremes who certainly are popular enough to get pirated and can tell you unequivocally that even a fraction of those free downloads could be the difference between loss and profit — the difference between investing in (or having someone else invest in) the next project or not. Second, though, even if we step up to starts I believe people underestimate the cost of producing the big stuff, which is very likely the reason we’re seeing more corporate patronage backing even major acts like Lady Gaga. Third, at what point do we dismiss everything on the basis of size? I’m a big Kinks fan, a band that was never as big as the Stones or the Beatles, but they were plenty big enough to be a business for sure.
And to your point about feeling things, I don’t see where piracy has any effect on either my personal experience or a shared experience when we hear that guitar intro to “All Day and All of the Night.” Can we really translate our individual feelings into price points? The single cost what it cost in 1975, and it costs what it costs in 2015, and neither price is at all prohibitive. And if the next day, I want the Ramones, I don’t haggle and say, “Well, I love the Ramones, but they’re not as varied in style and complexity as the Kinks, so they’re only worth 60% of what the Kinks charge.” Of course not, if my money is limited, I probably buy more Kinks albums and fewer Ramones albums.
None of this is to refute the idea that corporate decision makers make mistakes, but even those mistakes are fairly human when it comes right down to it. In my previous work, I spent about 20 years working with a lot of different corporations, and the thinking that results in bad, myopic, or greedy decisions is fairly consistent no matter what line of business. But these kinds of mistakes are almost unavoidable, and I don’t think piracy or the promise of p2p serve as antidotes to these follies. Anyway, I’ve banged on long enough and have likely failed to respond to several of your points. Unfortunately, we’re generalizing about fairly complex matters that are also in motion as we speak. Thanks.
”
All i can say is that the examples are out there,if you can’t see them, I don’t know what to say.
“Google has no power to eliminate a URL. You do know that they do not control the internet, right? It could be linked on another site. Listed with another search engine… Simply removing it from the index has no impact on anything but search results. You are giving them way too much credit in terms of the control they have over a given site.”
The site may be there, but Google removing it (or relegating to the bottom of the list) has no impact? When you type in a song, the FIRST result you get is often a pirate site. In other words, Google isn’t even trying. And saying there are other search engines is like saying there are other colas.
“Industrialization and automation did the same thing 100+ years ago. Society adapted. Those who adapted quickly prospered, those who were mired in their own ways, did not. This is nothing new. Music production is no exception. ”
Actually, it is something new. We have never seen anything resembling the level of automation that Google and others want to implement. Plus, that “adaptation” led to some of the greatest economic inequality ever seen, until… now, that is.
And the ability to “adapt” is even being taken away. A horse and buggy driver had the knowledge of the streets to become a cab driver. Now, Google and others are saying we don’t need drivers at all.Next will be waiters,store clerks,etc – so those musicians won’t even be able to get “regular jobs.”
What it took to change that inequality in the Gilded Age was strong unions and government aciton against trusts. Neither of those things are very popular right now,and tech lobbyists are very good at keeping them unpopular.
‘There was a time when football players were a certain size. Then some players changed. Got bigger, stronger. During that time, the little guys got pummeled. Once the league adapted, competition returned.
”
Yeahh… youy realize that “change” wasn’t natural but came in a syringe, right?
The problem is that big tech has shown zero interest in allowing people to adapt. They see as simply data to mine and make more money off of.
The idea that the cream will somehow rise and that those who “dont’ make it” didn’t adapt hard enough is not just insulting it’s inaccurate. Some of the people who have been most critical of the online model are the very same artis who were early adopters of the model. thos who have “succeeded” are uniformly young, able-bodied and telegenic, regardless of their musical talent.
“Businesses that can’t market themselves properly, or that have more overhead than income fail all of the time, no matter how good their products may be. The key to success is not just customers, you have to be able to adjust your business to fit into whatever market you want to compete in. That means dealing with cheats, scoundrels, deadbeats, etc.”
Well, right now Pandora and spotify are failing, and their solution has been to screw suppliers.
The trouble I have is that people who are not in need of “exposure” – who have paid their dues and would maybe like royalties as a form of pension for years of providing entertainment – are treated with nothing but contempt by tech.
My point is that if Google can eliminate search results for illegal porn, why can’t they eliminate search results for pirate sites.
And google Adsense is helping these pirate companies get ads too.
(Oh, and lyric sites are infringers, too, often with links to illegal ring tones)
I have nothing against technology. However, technology is not an immutable force of nature. If you actually knew the history of the industrial revolution, you’d know that workers survived not by “adjusting” but by fighting back. Unchecked, the industrial revolution led to crippling monopolies and vast economic inequality.
I don’t dislike technology. But unchecked technology has led to vast inequalities in the past, and it looks like it will here as well.
“Bottom line. The subset of musician who is impacted in the ways you mentrgion by piracy, are not integral to music as a whole progressing and continuing to be made. I AM NOT SAYING THEY ARE NOT IMPORTANT, or valid, or without need. I am simply stating that the industry is far bigger than the unsung hero’s trying to do this for a living.”
The thing is that it’s not just about “unsung heroes *trying* to do this for a living.” It’s also about people who have put in decades *actually* doing this for a living who are having the ground fall away on them.
I apologize if the following sounds snobbish. From your posts I will guess that a) you play a variation on rock music from a broad definition and b) you work in a lucrative job that you trained hard for. There is another class of musician that isn’t be addressed here: the classically trained musician.
When Amanda Palmer got criticized for not paying pickup musicians, there was an unspoken class distinction. She was not asking for people to just show up onstage with guitars; she was asking for people who could play classical instruments. Classical music education is expensive, and the instruments themselves are expensive. People outside that world remarked that playing for Amanda Palmer would look good on their resume, but it’s just not true. None looking for a cellist is going to look at an unpaid pop gig as valuable. If you’re good enough to get paid, you’re good enough to be hired.a gig like the Palmer one is useful to such a musician simply as a paying gig.
Now some would say “so what? Classical music is snobbish and Eurocentric,” to which I would say you don’t have to listen to it, but you don’t have the right to disrupt that world,
From what you’ve written you seem to think of people who want to create art or music for a living as naive, but I think for the most part they know what they’re doing . They know that it’s a long shot that they’ll ever be rich but they are willing to sacrifice creature comforts and luxuries for a chance at doing it full time. It’s not about money; it’s about bring able to devote all your time to your craft. That’s why so many musicians were upset with Ananda Palmer. They are constantly told that they should provide free work for “exposure” long past the time when they should be earning respect and money
They are now told that this is the new norm and they have to get a regular job. But the economy is showing an increasing contempt for service jobs. It’s only going to get worse.
Sorry for the delay Monkey. Nothing you posted sounds snobbish at all. I am a musician, but I am not arrogant enough to not have respect and recognize the difference between myself and someone who has studied music as a vocation. I also recognize the difference between myself and artists who make music as their chosen field.
“From what you’ve written you seem to think of people who want to create art or music for a living as naive, but I think for the most part they know what they’re doing .”
To me that all depends on how you define “making a living”. A musician for hire. A songwriter. Composer. The people who might be affected by the royalties of a song. Even a popular song. Are they the norm? If that is our baseline then yes, fluctuations in royalty rates and legitimate sales/plays are extremely important to them. But there is also an onus that must be placed on them as well. As contract musicians, they have to make a certain amount of money up front. Royalties are above and beyond that in most cases, right?
But how is this different than any other industry? No one can make music, do design work, run a business forever. Planning for retirement is the same no matter what industry you are in. And a reliance on something that had no guaranteed return, even in the best of times, has never been a good idea.
The industry has changed along with the world. But I understand what you are saying. And now I feel like I see who you are talking about more clearly. No, they should not be robbed by pirates. But they do have to take personal responsibility as well. What once was, is no longer the case. So while the fight against piracy should continue, trying to halt the progress of technology and the industry is not going to change anything for anyone. And quite frankly, it is not their enemy anyway.
I don’t have the answer to helping this class of musician. The main reason I do not do freelance work in my own industry is because of the uncertainty that comes along with being your own boss. That is a choice I make to keep the paychecks rolling in. I could make more money as a contractor(I do development and design), but the con’s of such an endeavor have kept me at the same company for many years now. I see more automated processes, making some of what I do obsolete. My only choice has been to adapt, which is why my mindset about music is the way it is. Once you stop adapting, no matter what the industry, you are dead in the water.
*nobody is trying to halt “progress”*. They are trying to point out that there is not one single way to progress.
My problem with “adapt or die” is the resignation to the idea that progress means only one thing. The industrial revolution led to a lot of money and productiveness, but it also led to deplorable working conditions for many, including children, and staggering economic inequality. The people who protested against that were not trying to “halt progress,” they were trying to assert their worth as human beings, something that many tech people seem to have contempt for.
I’m not a songwriter, but IM pretty sure that for most Royalties are the main source of income, not “above and beyond.” And for book authors and others, royalties are indeed the primary source of income.
They thing is, royalties *were* reliable until 10 years ago. It’s not a bad system, it’s just been destroyed in the name of making a few companies richer and many artists poorer. What bothers me is that creators who did things right under the old system are being told “tough luck, you should have adapted” without anyone saying how to adapt other than the old saws of kickstarter and touring and t shirts.
But frankly, you seem to be holding on to this idea that piracy is not a problem in spite of many people telling their own stories in addition to actual statistics (the number of professional musicians has fallen since 2000, despite the alleged opportunities the internet is supposed to provide).