In Defense of Piracy(online.wsj.com)
online.wsj.com
In Defense of Piracy
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html
12 comments
> If the record and movie companies are failing it's because people have decided that their products aren't worthy of immediate purchase... then they download them and realize they're not worthy of purchase, period.
It would be great if studios only produced great music and movies.
Until now, a lot of crap has been produced knowingly because all they need is people going into theatres & music videos with scantily clad women waving their asses around.
But in their quest for quality, how could the studios always choose only the productions which will actually rise to true greatness?
A lot of good stuff would never make it through, but maybe that's alright since no one has enough time and money to discover all the music he would fall in love with anyway.
You and I might enjoy high quality entertainment, but what about Most People?
They're the ones buying and liking all that crap that has very little merit other than some random hot guy/girl being fascinating?
It's problematic. Smart people want quality, but most people will settle for whatever's rammed down their throats.
As for me, I actually buy quite a lot of music that I really like, because I want it at maximum quality.
I'm not as innocent when it comes to movies. Sometimes I download them, but rarely go see them in theatres.
Sometimes I start watching a downloaded movie but stop because it's not good enough.
Sometimes, a downloaded movie happens to be really enjoyable, but will I go buy it after watching?
Nope..
The problem is that the re-use value of good music is pretty much infinite, but you'll rarely want to watch even a good movie again, so after seeing it, its value drops close to zero.
It would be great if studios only produced great music and movies.
Until now, a lot of crap has been produced knowingly because all they need is people going into theatres & music videos with scantily clad women waving their asses around.
But in their quest for quality, how could the studios always choose only the productions which will actually rise to true greatness?
A lot of good stuff would never make it through, but maybe that's alright since no one has enough time and money to discover all the music he would fall in love with anyway.
You and I might enjoy high quality entertainment, but what about Most People?
They're the ones buying and liking all that crap that has very little merit other than some random hot guy/girl being fascinating?
It's problematic. Smart people want quality, but most people will settle for whatever's rammed down their throats.
As for me, I actually buy quite a lot of music that I really like, because I want it at maximum quality.
I'm not as innocent when it comes to movies. Sometimes I download them, but rarely go see them in theatres.
Sometimes I start watching a downloaded movie but stop because it's not good enough.
Sometimes, a downloaded movie happens to be really enjoyable, but will I go buy it after watching?
Nope..
The problem is that the re-use value of good music is pretty much infinite, but you'll rarely want to watch even a good movie again, so after seeing it, its value drops close to zero.
You bring up some good points (although a couple actual paragraphs would have been easier to read ;), but I have to personally disagree on the replay value of good movies. I own many movies that I have watched countless times; I recently had to buy Fight Club again because we watch it a few times a week and the DVD was just worn out. There are numerous other amazing films that I can't get enough of as well. I have no idea how many times I've watched The Shawshank Redemption, as another example. I own movies like Transformers not because they're perfect filmmaking, but because I like to relive my younger years sometimes.
In general I agree that music has far greater replay value. I think that's partially because it's something that can be enjoyed basically any time, anywhere. I can't think of the last time I worked in silence for more than a few minutes at a time. That being said, I do my best to "pay tribute" to quality media by purchasing it. I'm sure I own quite a few movies I haven't seen in years, but I bought them because they struck me as worth paying for.
Finally, I think at this stage piracy (well, quality piracy at least) is still something that Joe Public isn't savvy enough to pick up. By the time the people who pay to consume all the horrible media out there (like, 90% of the total), I would hope a sane and intelligent response to the piracy issue will have found its way to "Big Entertainment."
In general I agree that music has far greater replay value. I think that's partially because it's something that can be enjoyed basically any time, anywhere. I can't think of the last time I worked in silence for more than a few minutes at a time. That being said, I do my best to "pay tribute" to quality media by purchasing it. I'm sure I own quite a few movies I haven't seen in years, but I bought them because they struck me as worth paying for.
Finally, I think at this stage piracy (well, quality piracy at least) is still something that Joe Public isn't savvy enough to pick up. By the time the people who pay to consume all the horrible media out there (like, 90% of the total), I would hope a sane and intelligent response to the piracy issue will have found its way to "Big Entertainment."
Yeah sorry about the lack of paragraphs. I always get this nagging feeling that I need to add empty rows for.. clarity :)
You watch Fight Club several times per week?! I can't understand the motivation, but hey, people are different!
I've seen Fight Club exactly once, in a theatre, but there are movies I've seen many times, and will watch again. One such movie is Leon ("The Professional"). In case you haven't seen it, do yourself a favour.. It has to be the director's cut though.
> Finally, I think at this stage piracy (well, quality piracy at least) is still something that Joe Public isn't savvy enough to pick up.
Maybe, but many Joe Publics are already downloading movies much like you and I, and at least see some of the good stuff in there while looking for Saw XVII.
They might download quality entertainment by accident. Of course, they might just as well stop watching it too, when quality fails to keep their attention.
Anyways, Transformers was legendary for me too, and the movie was enjoyable, with some of the coolest 3D ever. I feared Michael Bay would just totally ruin it.
You watch Fight Club several times per week?! I can't understand the motivation, but hey, people are different!
I've seen Fight Club exactly once, in a theatre, but there are movies I've seen many times, and will watch again. One such movie is Leon ("The Professional"). In case you haven't seen it, do yourself a favour.. It has to be the director's cut though.
> Finally, I think at this stage piracy (well, quality piracy at least) is still something that Joe Public isn't savvy enough to pick up.
Maybe, but many Joe Publics are already downloading movies much like you and I, and at least see some of the good stuff in there while looking for Saw XVII.
They might download quality entertainment by accident. Of course, they might just as well stop watching it too, when quality fails to keep their attention.
Anyways, Transformers was legendary for me too, and the movie was enjoyable, with some of the coolest 3D ever. I feared Michael Bay would just totally ruin it.
Fight Club helps keep us grounded in a sense. As for Léon, it is an amazing film to be sure. Transformers I first saw on DVD after it had been released. Maybe it was due in part to my circumstances at the time, but it was somehow a profoundly surreal experience.
Lessig FTW
Deregulate amateur remix: We need to restore a copyright law that leaves "amateur creativity" free from regulation. Before the 20th century, this culture flourished. The 21st century could see its return. Digital technologies have democratized the ability to create and re-create the culture around us. Where the creativity is an amateur remix, the law should leave it alone. It should deregulate amateur remix.
Deregulate amateur remix: We need to restore a copyright law that leaves "amateur creativity" free from regulation. Before the 20th century, this culture flourished. The 21st century could see its return. Digital technologies have democratized the ability to create and re-create the culture around us. Where the creativity is an amateur remix, the law should leave it alone. It should deregulate amateur remix.
The statistic that 95% of pirated music would not have been purchased, had piracy not been an option should be mentioned more often. The fact that someone violates copyright by pulling down the complete beach boys does not suggest that he would have purchased a $100 box set. The ease of piracy is the impetus. He would have happily gone without the product.
Regardless, if piracy becomes legal & socially acceptable, it will remove an reason to buy a $100 box set at any point. You may still have your 95% rule, but you'll just have an average person 'owning' 2000% more music then they would have otherwise with 0% of the cost.
I think it may settle at illegal and socially acceptable, much like driving faster than the speed limit - punishable in rare cases. And people will feel about as much shame for having done it.
I'm not arguing that piracy should be legal, but that it should be just about as illegal as speeding.
I'm not arguing that piracy should be legal, but that it should be just about as illegal as speeding.
That kind of a fuzzy equilibrium is what we're at now. Most people do it. Officially you can't. If you do it to make money, they'll come after you. Some people think it's wrong. Lots of others think its kinda wrong.
What you do get on these sorts of threads everywhere from here to spamblog is people saying something along the lines of: I pirate some things that I want to listen to. If I like it/it's good enough/it's reasonably priced/ I like the artist, I buy a copy.
The power is in the hands of the 'consumer.' They decide if they want to pay or not based on their own criteria. That's not ownership! That's beerware. Consumption is not tied to purchase.
The record companies & friends play up to this trying to increase the moral pressure. This seems to have the effect of increasing the above sentiment.
Anyway we're stuck in this no man's land. How sustainable is it? I don't think it is sustainable at all. We are following the music lives in a cd protocol like a cargo cult. People are going to buy cds of artists they like because they remember that is how they used to do it. That memory will fade, the cd player will disappear & we'll still be buying licences in the form of a cd? I don't think so. What's the alternative? Buy the license online? People will go online & literally make a donation to a millionaire?
Something's gotta give
*If there is a proper recession, maybe we'll see donations to artists in the form of cd purchases go down with donations to normal charities.
What you do get on these sorts of threads everywhere from here to spamblog is people saying something along the lines of: I pirate some things that I want to listen to. If I like it/it's good enough/it's reasonably priced/ I like the artist, I buy a copy.
The power is in the hands of the 'consumer.' They decide if they want to pay or not based on their own criteria. That's not ownership! That's beerware. Consumption is not tied to purchase.
The record companies & friends play up to this trying to increase the moral pressure. This seems to have the effect of increasing the above sentiment.
Anyway we're stuck in this no man's land. How sustainable is it? I don't think it is sustainable at all. We are following the music lives in a cd protocol like a cargo cult. People are going to buy cds of artists they like because they remember that is how they used to do it. That memory will fade, the cd player will disappear & we'll still be buying licences in the form of a cd? I don't think so. What's the alternative? Buy the license online? People will go online & literally make a donation to a millionaire?
Something's gotta give
*If there is a proper recession, maybe we'll see donations to artists in the form of cd purchases go down with donations to normal charities.
"Adapted from "Remix" by Lawrence Lessig, to be published by The Penguin Press on Oct. 16, 2008. <i>Copyright by Lawrence Lessig, 2008. Printed by arrangement with The Penguin Press, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.</i>"
Holy crap, irony overload. Publishing this remixed adaptation required Lessig's publisher's permission.
Holy crap, irony overload. Publishing this remixed adaptation required Lessig's publisher's permission.
Tax-code complexity regulating income is bad enough; tax-code complexity regulating speech is a First Amendment nightmare.
The snippet from the article seems to suggest that the nightmare is due to the special sanctity of the First Amendment as compared to the Fourth. Rather, the nightmare comes from the burden of applying such a complex law as the DMCA with the frequency that would be necessary to enforce its provisions. It's the difference between doing your taxes once (or four times) per year vs. applying the DMCA every single time you turn the radio on.
I like my Fourth Amendment, too, thank-you-very-much.
Don't know why I felt compelled to point this all out.
The snippet from the article seems to suggest that the nightmare is due to the special sanctity of the First Amendment as compared to the Fourth. Rather, the nightmare comes from the burden of applying such a complex law as the DMCA with the frequency that would be necessary to enforce its provisions. It's the difference between doing your taxes once (or four times) per year vs. applying the DMCA every single time you turn the radio on.
I like my Fourth Amendment, too, thank-you-very-much.
Don't know why I felt compelled to point this all out.
On their view of the law, she is liable to a fine of up to $150,000 for sharing 29 seconds of Holden dancing
My biggest problem with these piracy disputes is the amount of damages involved. I realize that the record companies are claiming that they missed out on sales, but imagine this: You run a red light (breaking the law) and hit an executive on the way to a big client meeting. Are you liable for his missing out on a multimillion dollar contract?
My biggest problem with these piracy disputes is the amount of damages involved. I realize that the record companies are claiming that they missed out on sales, but imagine this: You run a red light (breaking the law) and hit an executive on the way to a big client meeting. Are you liable for his missing out on a multimillion dollar contract?
If videos like Ms. Lenz's are so valuable, why aren't they & others like them being shared at mininova? One glance at the popular file sharing sites should convince anyone that piracy doesn't need the wsj's defense.
Clearly we value this "remix culture" a lot less than we think we're supposed to.
Clearly we value this "remix culture" a lot less than we think we're supposed to.
Something doesn't have to have mass appeal to be valuable. In fact, that's pretty much what he's arguing for: amateur remixes, which might not have the reach of something with publisher backing, should not be illegal and punishable with extortion-style fines.
The baby video wasn't marketed. Remix culture is pretty local most of the time. Viral videos are an exception - not every video uploaded on a video-sharing site is watched by millions.
We do value it but its more intimate and less noticeable than mass culture. Most stuff people create - jokes, sketches, songs, voiced opinions, puns, parodies, etc. etc. isn't shared. In fact this "microculture" is the basis of our social lives.
I think mass culture is both a result and a product of our social alienation. The Internet and a better, less snobbish school education in music, literature and art can make wonders for world peace and love ;-).
We do value it but its more intimate and less noticeable than mass culture. Most stuff people create - jokes, sketches, songs, voiced opinions, puns, parodies, etc. etc. isn't shared. In fact this "microculture" is the basis of our social lives.
I think mass culture is both a result and a product of our social alienation. The Internet and a better, less snobbish school education in music, literature and art can make wonders for world peace and love ;-).
Buying albums doesn't support the talent - it supports the suits. Margin wise, artists make jack shit from albums. They make significantly higher cuts from touring, but even that isn't enough.
I wish there was an easy way to donate to the bands directly. No TPS and no big labels taking 90%. Clean, easy, and direct. Tipjoy are you listening? :)
I wish there was an easy way to donate to the bands directly. No TPS and no big labels taking 90%. Clean, easy, and direct. Tipjoy are you listening? :)
Music is ridiculously litigious, but we have plans for the space.
If you like, you can submit any band's site to Tipjoy right now, e.g. http://tipjoy.com/joy/90578/
If you like, you can submit any band's site to Tipjoy right now, e.g. http://tipjoy.com/joy/90578/
Of course, most people don't pirate for that reason -- they do it because it's free.
A site for any band to upload their music to be available for free with a built in donation system would be popular indeed. Maybe even profitable?
A site for any band to upload their music to be available for free with a built in donation system would be popular indeed. Maybe even profitable?
Sometimes
Piracy = Marketing
Piracy = Marketing
The song is "futuristic sex robots - fuck the mpaa"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnLB8wysMbY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnLB8wysMbY
How about the argument that the branding of online 'theft' as 'piracy' has been a boon to the offline Pirate product/apparel business?
Somehow, I doubt Prince would care that some baby is dancing to a grainy recording of one of his songs. Except for Metallica, I can't really think of an artist or band who would give a damn. These days many artists are releasing their work online for free or for... whatever you want to pay! The money is in live shows and the same people who go to live shows are generally the people who will pay for an album regardless of cost.
I buy a possibly excessive amount of music. I also still pirate music on rare occasions where a band or artist is new to me and I want to see if those two songs I heard on Pandora were a fluke or they really are that awesome before buying a whole album (or discography, if it comes to that).
What about TV? I pirate TV shows constantly. I pay for cable; I consider that good enough to justify not wasting 1/3 of my life watching commercials for shit I couldn't care less about; when I browse the Internet I don't have to wait for an ad to finish playing before reading whatever I went to the site for. If more TV shows were available for purchasable download, were priced less ridiculously (why should I pay $80 for the whole season 1 ep at a time when the DVD set is $40?), and were always WS HD, I would stop doing it. When I really like a show I buy it on DVD. Movies are essentially the same deal, except replace commercials with "it costs money just to find out if it's worth watching in the first place."
As far as I'm concerned, piracy is such a big thing now only because it's finally possible to pirate this stuff. Society hasn't changed significantly. There's no secret plot. People are just slowly realizing that they don't have to waste time and money just to find out if they find something entertaining or good enough to warrant their time and money. Sure, there are people who are going to pirate everything and never buy it, but those same people had shoe boxes full of tapes they recorded off the radio. Who cares? It's an insignificant minority. If the record and movie companies are failing it's because people have decided that their products aren't worthy of immediate purchase... then they download them and realize they're not worthy of purchase, period.