Live in the UK? Hope you like internet censorship!

[0dev]

Yes. It is up to me to move with the times. Or not. It's my decision, and nobody else's. If my decision is the right one, and I'm lucky, my business thrives, if my decision is the wrong one - then my business doesn't thrive. But it is still my decision, I bear the consequences - good or bad.

Pirates are just stealing, and forcing businesses into decisions that favour the pirates and not customers. Pirates, by definition, are not customers since customers pay for purchases, and pirates don't. [Pirates can of course, also be customers - at other times -, and vice versa. But during the act of piracy they are not customers.] So why should I bend over backwards to make life easy for someone who is stealing from me? Wouldn't my business do better if I concentrated on the people who actually pay for stuff?

The fact of the matter is this: we're not talking about a few people "stealing", we're talking about a culture change. The way people think about things is changing. The new generation is different from the last and tangible physical products are different from digital files. So you either move with the times and adapt to the new culture or you sit still - much like an old man who wishes things were back as they were "in my day..." - while you watch your business fall apart.

Even the music industry, which we all know is notoriously reluctant to change their ways and embrace new technology, has come to this realisation and started backing ventures such as Spotify. As we can see in the OP, the movie industry has yet to get the message, but they will have to soon enough. They won't stop a culture change with shoddy legal practices and badly coded censorship systems.

So, yes, it is your choice and you can choose to do nothing to change your business model. Of course you can. But is it in your interest to do nothing? Quite simply, no.

 

[nay043]

Hi! I just read all this and registered just to add into a wonderful discussion.

Last thing I read was -

It is only hypothetical that they may end up paying for the content (or other content) later. Also, a culture that accepts piracy as legitimate drives prices down. If everybody is getting their IP for free( illegitimately, but widespread) then why would a consumer pay money for IP? So creators are forced to lower their prices to lower the barrier from "free" to "paid for". Which drives creators out of the business, or they create crap because they can create many many crappy cheap items in the same time it took to create on good item, that they can't sell anymore - but which people are happy steal.

That's simply not true. They're having to lower there prices because the consumer no longer feels they're getting value for money. If you create something, you can stick any old price tag on it, but that doesn't mean someone will buy it for that price. And just because only a handful of people paid the price tag doesn't mean you can scream "Pirates Stoleded my monies!"

Lets take the games industry for example (mainly because I know a fair amount about it). The sales of certain games hasn't fallen, in fact more people are buying games now than 10 years ago (go view the stupid figures on the GTA IV sales, or even the Wii and it's shoddy games). But where publishers are failing is where their games are simply not up to a good enough standard. And with that, they scream piracy.

Next example, the good old Apple App Store. Most of the games on there are 69 Great British Pennies. Now, I don't know about you, but that's the cheapest I've ever seen a game. Sure, they're mobile games. But they take time to develop and create, is 69p really enough? And then take into account Apples cut, now the Dev is only getting 39p. Now compare these 69p games to those created by "real" publishers (EA, Ubisoft, 2k, etc). The price triples, sometimes more. Is there more content in them? Usually not (in fact my iPhone lacks in 'real' games as they tend to be half ar**d, broken 'things'). Have they taken longer/cost more to develop? Nope. So why the price increase? Why would I pay more, for less? Simple, I won't. It's these same publishers that scream and cry about piracy and yet don't realise it's there own failures letting themselves down.

Look at Angry Birds, it was the first thing I purchased, how many downloads has that had? All I know is that it doesn't seem to go away from the "top sellers" section. So how much money have those guys made from simply making a fun, enjoyable and stable game? They even add things too it. The last 'big' game I purchased was Need for Speed, simply because it was on offer for 69p and I fancied a racing game. It last a few days before it was deleted. Sure, it looked pretty, but it wasn't fun and spent 90% of the time crashing. In the time I've owned it it hasn't received a single update, yet they charge more for this game than others. This is why they fail.

I think the same can be said of the music industry. I honestly don't remember the last album I purchased. Why? Because I don't feel they're worth the money. I don't even know the RRP of an album anymore. back when I purchased CD's it was about £10 for an album. £10 for an hours music? Nah. I can turn the radio on and listen to endless music for the price of a TV license, something everyone here in the UK has (or should) anyway. So, is the radio destroying the music industry too? Sure they pay for the rights to play the music over the air, but I no longer purchase music. I also listen to the music that comes free with my games. Jonathan Coulton is a legend. A hairy Legend.

OH! I do remember! Nine Inch Nails, Ghosts. Worth it, and you can actually download it legally for free. Did it harm his sales? Nope. Because if it's worth it, people will buy it.

Anyway. That was my 69 pence. Thanks for reading Keep debating, it's refreshing

-Nay

 

[snberk103]

The fact of the matter is this: we're not talking about a few people "stealing", we're talking about a culture change. The way people think about things is changing. The new generation is different from the last and tangible physical products are different from digital files. So you either move with the times and adapt to the new culture or you sit still - much like an old man who wishes things were back as they were "in my day..." - while you watch your business fall apart.

Even the music industry, which we all know is notoriously reluctant to change their ways and embrace new technology, has come to this realisation and started backing ventures such as Spotify. As we can see in the OP, the movie industry has yet to get the message, but they will have to soon enough. They won't stop a culture change with shoddy legal practices and badly coded censorship systems.

So, yes, it is your choice and you can choose to do nothing to change your business model. Of course you can. But is it in your interest to do nothing? Quite simply, no.

So, we actually mostly agree. But I also agree that the culture is changing, and that one needs to adopt one's business practices. In my business, photographers used to charge the portrait client for prints, and keep the negatives. Each time the client wanted more prints, they paid the photographer for them. This was in the days of film, and when scanners weren't that good. Photographers would offer the "sitting" for cheap, or even for free sometimes - and make their money off of the prints. Or they would offer a package of a sitting with a certain amount of prints for free.

Now, I charge people a couple hundred $$ for the sitting - because yes, I am that much better than their uncle Fred, which includes a couple free prints that I've edited and printed. And give them the CD with my edits. After that they can do what they want, far as I'm concerned... but my point is this ... I am giving them permission to do this. Which, in my mind, is entirely different than my clients empowering themselves and then rationalizing the piracy.

When they can't match my quality of prints, I'm happy to charge them for reprints - however, I'm equally happy to teach them how to print high quality prints. They'll be back for another session when the kids are older, or when there's a new grandchild.

But again, in this whole scenario - I've adapted my practices because it's good for business. It's been my choice. Some of my friends still run their photo businesses on the previous model, and I will defend their practices fiercely .... because it is their IP, and they can do what they want with it. I may counsel them to change those practices, but I will never counsel someone to steal from them because I think my friend is doing something old-fashioned. And, contrary to your statement earlier.... the majority of our clients still honour IP protections. And it didn't matter it they didn't ... as my blessed grandmother used to say... "If all of your friends jumped off the Brooklyn bridge, would you?". (My family used to be from Queens, and wouldn't use the usually quoted Empire State Building as the jumping spot, since it was in Manhattan.... )

And, to paraphrase you... The fact of the matter is we are talking about stealing. Rationalize as a culture change if you will.... but the IP belongs to the creator, and they can do what they want with their IP. Including making decisions that you may not agree with.

I do agree that some of methods the IP owners have used to prevent piracy have gone too far - though I don't have any good alternative ideas - but that doesn't make the act of piracy acceptable. The only acceptable way to protest the price of some IP, or the methods used to protect it, is to not buy it - and to not watch/listen/view/use it. You have the right to not buy something. But if you choose to not buy something, you do not have the right to watch/listen/view/use it regardless.

 

[0dev]

So, we actually mostly agree. But I also agree that the culture is changing, and that one needs to adopt one's business practices.

Good to know we're in agreement

In my business, photographers used to charge the portrait client for prints, and keep the negatives. Each time the client wanted more prints, they paid the photographer for them. This was in the days of film, and when scanners weren't that good. Photographers would offer the "sitting" for cheap, or even for free sometimes - and make their money off of the prints. Or they would offer a package of a sitting with a certain amount of prints for free.

Now, I charge people a couple hundred $$ for the sitting - because yes, I am that much better than their uncle Fred, which includes a couple free prints that I've edited and printed. And give them the CD with my edits. After that they can do what they want, far as I'm concerned... but my point is this ... I am giving them permission to do this. Which, in my mind, is entirely different than my clients empowering themselves and then rationalizing the piracy.

That is a sensible decision, but in your specific case, if decided you didn't want your customers to distribute the photos they paid you for, don't you think that'd be silly? If a photographer were to put such a limitation on their photos, why would anyone pay them for their product? No point having photos you can't show anyone.

So, if you had that limitation, hypothetically, and your customers stuck the photos on Facebook anyway, their friends may very well ask where they got them done, and you'd then have free advertising done on your behalf, and the best type of advertising there is, too - trustworthy friendly recommendations. And this is exactly the kind of thing that happens when other forms of media are "pirated", and it's part of the reason why piracy has been shown to drive up sales.

But again, in this whole scenario - I've adapted my practices because it's good for business. It's been my choice. Some of my friends still run their photo businesses on the previous model, and I will defend their practices fiercely .... because it is their IP, and they can do what they want with it. I may counsel them to change those practices, but I will never counsel someone to steal from them because I think my friend is doing something old-fashioned. And, contrary to your statement earlier.... the majority of our clients still honour IP protections. And it didn't matter it they didn't ... as my blessed grandmother used to say... "If all of your friends jumped off the Brooklyn bridge, would you?". (My family used to be from Queens, and wouldn't use the usually quoted Empire State Building as the jumping spot, since it was in Manhattan.... )

Absolutely, it is their choice if they want to run their business on an old model, and if they're still doing alright for it at the moment then more power to them. But in the wider case of the entertainment industry, I'm sure you'll agree that the "keep to the old model" attitude combined with the obscene amount of money and influence they have gained from their rising profits (which are sooooo damaged by all the piracy ) is damaging society, especially when they're taking people to court and attempting to enforce censorship.

And, to paraphrase you... The fact of the matter is we are talking about stealing. Rationalize as a culture change if you will.... but the IP belongs to the creator, and they can do what they want with their IP. Including making decisions that you may not agree with.

This is irrelevant if your customer base no longer thinks your product is worth their money. You can scream and shout all day about how it's theft, but at the end of the day, they ain't getting arrested and it's the new direction society is heading in.

Some time ago, the film industry claimed VHS and cable TV to be "pirate mediums" that were "theft". It's the same story over and over. The technology is resisted then eventually embraced, because there's no choice. Not even those massive corporations can stop technological and sociological progression. So forgive me if I don't take these calls of "theft!" seriously.

I do agree that some of methods the IP owners have used to prevent piracy have gone too far - though I don't have any good alternative ideas

There are plenty of good alternative ideas. Things like Spotify are working very well for the music industry, for instance. That's the real way to tackle the issue. They need to get into a room and go "OK, customers are illegitimately getting our stuff like this, clearly they like it, so let's give them a way to do it legitimately." But they didn't do that until they absolutely had to. And that is the issue.

but that doesn't make the act of piracy acceptable. The only acceptable way to protest the price of some IP, or the methods used to protect it, is to not buy it - and to not watch/listen/view/use it. You have the right to not buy something. But if you choose to not buy something, you do not have the right to watch/listen/view/use it regardless.

You are applying the principles of a tangible object to a digital file and that simply makes no sense. They're different ideas and different products entirely, and they are not governed by the same rules - not by law, and not by society.

 

[snberk103]

Good to know we're in agreement

It makes things so much more civilized if we're not trying to bash each over the head with a frying pan.....

That is a sensible decision, but in your specific case, if decided you didn't want your customers to distribute the photos they paid you for, don't you think that'd be silly? ...

Two different issues. One, does it makes sense to put restrictions on portraits? I don't think it does, but that is a business decision. Two, am I allowed to put those restrictions on portraits? Absolutely. I have the law behind me (and it's an old law, not new). I may not be able to enforce the restrictions, if people choose to abuse the process.

Pirates are purposely abusing the process to bypass restrictions on who controls the content of IP.

So, if you had that limitation, hypothetically, and your customers stuck the photos on Facebook anyway, their friends may very well ask where they got them done, and you'd then have free advertising done on your behalf, and the best type of advertising there is, too - trustworthy friendly recommendations.

Yes. But it needs to be my choice. When a pirate rationalizes their behaviour by saying this, what they are saying "I don't agree with your actions, and for your own good I am stealing your content." How would you feel if people were infringing on your rights, telling you it was for your own good?

And this is exactly the kind of thing that happens when other forms of media are "pirated", and it's part of the reason why piracy has been shown to drive up sales.

Doesn't drive up my sales. Portraits I've changed up to accommodate, but sales aren't driven by on-line copies. If anything, it just means the Uncle Freds have something to try to imitate. And I've had to abandon a small stock photo business because of piracy. Not of my photos, but the whole "online = free" has killed the market for mid-range stock photos. Either you pay the big $$ for the good stuff, or you use the really cheap to free stock photos now because too many people were just swiping images off the internet. Why pay when you can get it for free? The end result is that the quality of photos in the low-end ads have declined markedly.... because so many photographers can't be bothered to shoot stock anymore.

But let's combine stock photos and portraits for a moment. One of the few restrictions I do put on my portrait sessions is that the images are not for commercial use without my permission. It's pretty vague statement, but what it does mean is that if my client wants sell a picture of themselves to L'Oreal Cosmetics (Ha! I should be that lucky) then I get to get paid again. Basically I'm saying that if you are going to make a lot money off of the work I did, then I'm going to get my cut too. It's never happened, but I do try to protect myself. And I have longstanding law to back me up on that too.

Interesting case happened a few years ago. A photographer in NY (or perhaps Chicago) took a photo of pedestrians crossing the street. Didn't bother getting model releases, because it was a crowd scene. Had the photo used in an ad, and the photographer got sued for huge $$. Why? Because some big basketball star was, unluckily for the photographer, in the crowd crossing the street. And the basketball star was under an exclusive contract for advertizing. And since the basketball star had appeared in another's advertizing he sued the photographer for damages. Had to, in order to protect his contract. That is why photographer's need to be careful of where their content goes. If the photographer's image of the crowd had been pirated, he could have then sued the publisher for his damages.

Absolutely, it is their choice if they want to run their business on an old model, and if they're still doing alright for it at the moment then more power to them. But in the wider case of the entertainment industry, I'm sure you'll agree that the "keep to the old model" attitude combined with the obscene amount of money and influence they have gained from their rising profits (which are sooooo damaged by all the piracy ) is damaging society, especially when they're taking people to court and attempting to enforce censorship.

Wrong is wrong. Whether it's the million$ industry, or the local folksingers who sell CDs at their gigs. It's about the action, not the victim. And it's up the business to make those decisions, not others to steal from them 'cause it's good for them to join the 21st century.

...
You are applying the principles of a tangible object to a digital file and that simply makes no sense. They're different ideas and different products entirely, and they are not governed by the same rules - not by law, and not by society.

I am saying if someone has not paid for the right to use something, then it's stolen. I agree that there are differences in the stealing of a tangible product, and the use of a service. But it's still stealing.

Is it OK to use borrow someone's car (when they're not using it) without permission? Let's say that they trade in their car every year, that your usage won't add enough miles to affect the trade-in value, that you won't have an accident, etc etc. In other words - you can use the car without financially affecting the car owner at all. Does that mean that you can use that person's car, without permission? Does it matter if the car owner is big rental outfit, or your neighbour? That perhaps by borrowing the car without permission you might then rent the car later?

 

[0dev]

It makes things so much more civilized if we're not trying to bash each over the head with a frying pan.....

Two different issues. One, does it makes sense to put restrictions on portraits? I don't think it does, but that is a business decision. Two, am I allowed to put those restrictions on portraits? Absolutely. I have the law behind me (and it's an old law, not new). I may not be able to enforce the restrictions, if people choose to abuse the process.

All you're proving with this statement is how outdated copyright law is and how badly it needs to be reformed, and I haven't even got to replying the later part of your post with the baseball player yet...

Pirates are purposely abusing the process to bypass restrictions on who controls the content of IP.

If you import a CD into iTunes, it is breaking the built in copy protection on the disk in order to do that, and in the UK (I know you're in the US but this shows how stupid copyright laws are worldwide), doing so is technically illegal. So, if you're following the letter of the law, Apple are pirates too.

Of course, in the real world, a law which millions of people break every day simply cannot be enforced. It is, in that case, the law which needs to change, not the people. As is the case with piracy.

Keeping outdated laws is just as stupid - if not worse - than keeping outdated business models.

Yes. But it needs to be my choice. When a pirate rationalizes their behaviour by saying this, what they are saying "I don't agree with your actions, and for your own good I am stealing your content." How would you feel if people were infringing on your rights, telling you it was for your own good?

If it's inevitable anyway, you need to accept it and move on at the end of the day, whether it's ideal for you or not. All I'm doing is showing you the bright side which does work for many creative industries.

Doesn't drive up my sales. Portraits I've changed up to accommodate, but sales aren't driven by on-line copies. If anything, it just means the Uncle Freds have something to try to imitate. And I've had to abandon a small stock photo business because of piracy. Not of my photos, but the whole "online = free" has killed the market for mid-range stock photos. Either you pay the big $$ for the good stuff, or you use the really cheap to free stock photos now because too many people were just swiping images off the internet. Why pay when you can get it for free? The end result is that the quality of photos in the low-end ads have declined markedly.... because so many photographers can't be bothered to shoot stock anymore.

So you don't get any sales at all from customer recommendation? I find that very hard to believe.

With the stock photo business, why not move to a new model? Just as music labels traditionally generate revenue by sales of music but now do so through advertising on YouTube and Spotify, you could do the same on your stock photo site. You could also promote affiliate links for eBay, Amazon, etc. You'd even make money if people don't use your photos then, just as long as your SEO is good enough, and let's face it, that isn't as hard as it's often made out to be.

That's just one suggestion to how things can be adapted to the internet age, I'm sure there are plenty more than will come through in the next few years, many better, I'm sure. If you think of something better first, you could strike gold

But let's combine stock photos and portraits for a moment. One of the few restrictions I do put on my portrait sessions is that the images are not for commercial use without my permission. It's pretty vague statement, but what it does mean is that if my client wants sell a picture of themselves to L'Oreal Cosmetics (Ha! I should be that lucky) then I get to get paid again. Basically I'm saying that if you are going to make a lot money off of the work I did, then I'm going to get my cut too. It's never happened, but I do try to protect myself. And I have longstanding law to back me up on that too.

Smart man

Interesting case happened a few years ago. A photographer in NY (or perhaps Chicago) took a photo of pedestrians crossing the street. Didn't bother getting model releases, because it was a crowd scene. Had the photo used in an ad, and the photographer got sued for huge $$. Why? Because some big basketball star was, unluckily for the photographer, in the crowd crossing the street. And the basketball star was under an exclusive contract for advertizing. And since the basketball star had appeared in another's advertizing he sued the photographer for damages. Had to, in order to protect his contract. That is why photographer's need to be careful of where their content goes. If the photographer's image of the crowd had been pirated, he could have then sued the publisher for his damages.
Wrong is wrong. Whether it's the million$ industry, or the local folksingers who sell CDs at their gigs. It's about the action, not the victim. And it's up the business to make those decisions, not others to steal from them 'cause it's good for them to join the 21st century.

If anything, this proves what I said before about how ludicrous copyright law is. It's at the stage where you can pay for rights to all photos of a person and sue anyone else who sells them. I mean, come on. Are you seriously saying that's any better than piracy? This is what the entertainment industry do to protect their stupid business models and exploitation of outdated laws then they act like they're the victims while they watch their profits skyrocket.

I am saying if someone has not paid for the right to use something, then it's stolen. I agree that there are differences in the stealing of a tangible product, and the use of a service. But it's still stealing.

Is it OK to use borrow someone's car (when they're not using it) without permission? Let's say that they trade in their car every year, that your usage won't add enough miles to affect the trade-in value, that you won't have an accident, etc etc. In other words - you can use the car without financially affecting the car owner at all. Does that mean that you can use that person's car, without permission? Does it matter if the car owner is big rental outfit, or your neighbour? That perhaps by borrowing the car without permission you might then rent the car later?

If I could make a copy of someone's car then it wouldn't matter if I wrecked the damn thing, they'd still have their original in their drive. And that's what I mean about the difference between physical goods and digital files. You cannot compare them and call "theft!" if the original remains.

 

[snberk103]

All you're proving with this statement is how outdated copyright law is and how badly it needs to be reformed, and I haven't even got to replying the later part of your post with the baseball player yet...

So, if everyone on my island decides that car ownership laws are old fashioned, and it's nearly unanimous.... I shouldn't have be able to seek the protection of the law? In a case like this (i.e. the law is not repugnant to basic ideals of humanity and justice) the proper response to change an outdated law is to have the law amended/repealed by the government. Pirating content is lazy. Pirates are not actually getting the law changed, they have merely decided arbitrarily that the law doesn't apply to them. If it was truly outdated, then they would be working to have the law modernized.

If you import a CD into iTunes, it is breaking the built in copy protection on the disk in order to do that, and in the UK (I know you're in the US but this shows how stupid copyright laws are worldwide), doing so is technically illegal. So, if you're following the letter of the law, Apple are pirates too.

Actually, I'm in Canada. Here we still have the right to make a copy of something we have bought for personal use, and for backup. The US is a little weird about this, perhaps... but I don't believe should be talking about the arcane details of what is considered "fair use," or not. I think the basic premise is.... does the content creator have right to control whether the content is used by people who have not paid for it? Personally, if someone has to break copy protections in order to use the content for personal use, I don't really have a problem with that. As long as they are not giving it, selling it, renting, lending it to somebody else. I will occasionally lend someone my computer (technically not allowed by some interpretations of some licences that ban the transfer of the license). I will even sell/give someone my licence to a SW title after I have deleted it from my system - if I have not used to upgrade the version. This is expressly disallowed by some licenses - and yet, I will do it. [See, I can be rebel too!]. But - I will not make a copy of something for others to use without paying for it. The core issue for me is .... have you paid for right to use something. If you haven't, then it's piracy. And piracy is stealing - but not theft, we've already established that....

Of course, in the real world, a law which millions of people break every day simply cannot be enforced. It is, in that case, the law which needs to change, not the people. As is the case with piracy.

Then change the law. Like my example above. Just because a lot of people do it, it doesn't make it right. Lots of people jay-walk. Does that mean that we should just do away with rules that prevent people from walking out into traffic?

...
So you don't get any sales at all from customer recommendation? I find that very hard to believe.

Sure I get recommendations... from people who have used me. But, no ... I don't get business from pictures that have been stolen since the contact info is stripped off.

With the stock photo business, why not move to a new model? ...You could also promote affiliate links for eBay, Amazon, etc. You'd even make money if people don't use your photos then, just as long as your SEO is good enough, and let's face it, that isn't as hard as it's often made out to be.

I did change my model... I abandoned it. And yes, I could make a meagre (very meagre) amount of money by spending a great deal of time trying drive traffic through the affiliation links. But to mis-quote a great doctor, "Dammit Jim, I'm a photographer- not webmaster.."

That's just one suggestion to how things can be adapted to the internet age, I'm sure there are plenty more than will come through in the next few years, many better, I'm sure. If you think of something better first, you could strike gold

Personal service. People still pay for actually being seen as a person, and not having to order on-line.

...
If I could make a copy of someone's car then it wouldn't matter if I wrecked the damn thing, they'd still have their original in their drive. And that's what I mean about the difference between physical goods and digital files. You cannot compare them and call "theft!" if the original remains.

Analogies are always bad when looked at too closely.

But how about this one....

What if someone looked at everything you had written in this thread, decided it was manna from heaven.... put it into a small book, and started selling it. With your name on it, perhaps. In fact, they have looked at everything you have ever written... packaged it up, and now selling it... Is that OK with you? I mean, you haven't lost anything.... it's just a copy.

If you are... how about if they then put a satanic rites cover on it? Or a picture of a .... well, use your imagination. At what point do you start caring that you have lost control of your IP?

Perhaps you draw... and you are especially proud of something you have done - and you really like drawing. A friend borrows it, makes a copy. Now everyone in your town has a copy.. and they love the drawing. Really love the drawing. In fact, they love every single drawing you have ever done... and there are copies everywhere. Are you thinking that perhaps you could have made a decent living drawing, instead of that cr*ppy (hypothetical of course) job in the loading dock? Except you actually make a living just drawing and flogging your wares... because everyone thinks the moment you have finished the drawing, it belongs to the world... for free.

If not 'drawing', substitute dancing, singing, painting, photography, writing, calligraphy, designing, acting, etc etc....

 

[0dev]

So, if everyone on my island decides that car ownership laws are old fashioned, and it's nearly unanimous.... I shouldn't have be able to seek the protection of the law?

Once again, theft of physical property is a different concept. But if this scenario were to happen, the law would still be impossible to enforce, and that's what's happened with the outdated IP law. It is impossible to enforce it, especially on P2P networks such as BitTorrent where there's no central server to take down.

In a case like this (i.e. the law is not repugnant to basic ideals of humanity and justice) the proper response to change an outdated law is to have the law amended/repealed by the government. Pirating content is lazy. Pirates are not actually getting the law changed, they have merely decided arbitrarily that the law doesn't apply to them. If it was truly outdated, then they would be working to have the law modernized.

If a law is being broken by a significant percentage of the population, it is a culture change, and it is laws which need to adapt. If the government choose to side with the entertainment industries rather than the people, that's bad leadership. But this is an issue big enough to warrant a political movement, make no mistake - the Swedish Pirate Party has two seats in the European Parliament, and similar parties exist worldwide and are gaining in popularity every election.

Now, if you want to know how copyright law should be done, look at Spain. Spanish copyright law states that if you pirate something for personal use, it is 100% legal. However, piracy for commercial purposes is still illegal, and as a trade-off, a small tax is added to all entertainment equipment. As a result, the Spanish system embraces the culture change, yet compensates for possible loss of earnings for the entertainment industry.

If you want to look at the wider picture (as I'm sure you do), one could even argue that record companies, publishers, etc, are all obsolete due to the progress of technology. After all, who needs a publisher when anyone who's written a book can self-publish online? And who needs a record deal when anyone with a laptop can record songs and potentially become famous online?

This issue is something that is looked at far more deeply in Steal This Film, which I suggest you watch. You can "pirate" it legally as the film's creators have allowed it

Actually, I'm in Canada. Here we still have the right to make a copy of something we have bought for personal use, and for backup. The US is a little weird about this, perhaps... but I don't believe should be talking about the arcane details of what is considered "fair use," or not. I think the basic premise is.... does the content creator have right to control whether the content is used by people who have not paid for it? Personally, if someone has to break copy protections in order to use the content for personal use, I don't really have a problem with that. As long as they are not giving it, selling it, renting, lending it to somebody else. I will occasionally lend someone my computer (technically not allowed by some interpretations of some licences that ban the transfer of the license). I will even sell/give someone my licence to a SW title after I have deleted it from my system - if I have not used to upgrade the version. This is expressly disallowed by some licenses - and yet, I will do it. [See, I can be rebel too!]. But - I will not make a copy of something for others to use without paying for it. The core issue for me is .... have you paid for right to use something. If you haven't, then it's piracy. And piracy is stealing - but not theft, we've already established that....

See, you have your own code of ethics and I respect that. But "pirates" are just people with a slightly different code, and many of them - as I've mentioned - will even still pay for the right to own something once they've pirated it.

Then change the law. Like my example above. Just because a lot of people do it, it doesn't make it right. Lots of people jay-walk. Does that mean that we should just do away with rules that prevent people from walking out into traffic?

I agree the law should be changed, and the Pirate Parties around the world are working hard to make it happen, don't worry

Jay-walking is legal where I live, as far as I'm aware, which is good - we shouldn't have laws to enforce common sense anyway. But that's a whole other issue.

Sure I get recommendations... from people who have used me. But, no ... I don't get business from pictures that have been stolen since the contact info is stripped off.

Who said anything about stripping the contact info off?

And you see, people show others the photos and it drives business to you. When lots of copies of something float around the net, it drives up the popularity, and in the end, business, of the creator. There are even many artists who would agree with me on this - I believe I linked to a video of such an artist discussing this issue earlier in the thread.

I did change my model... I abandoned it. And yes, I could make a meagre (very meagre) amount of money by spending a great deal of time trying drive traffic through the affiliation links. But to mis-quote a great doctor, "Dammit Jim, I'm a photographer- not webmaster.."

You can make lots of money if your site is popular enough, and good content makes a site popular. But if you don't wish to spend time building up such a site it's your decision, of course.

What if someone looked at everything you had written in this thread, decided it was manna from heaven.... put it into a small book, and started selling it. With your name on it, perhaps. In fact, they have looked at everything you have ever written... packaged it up, and now selling it... Is that OK with you? I mean, you haven't lost anything.... it's just a copy.

If you are... how about if they then put a satanic rites cover on it? Or a picture of a .... well, use your imagination. At what point do you start caring that you have lost control of your IP?

Perhaps you draw... and you are especially proud of something you have done - and you really like drawing. A friend borrows it, makes a copy. Now everyone in your town has a copy.. and they love the drawing. Really love the drawing. In fact, they love every single drawing you have ever done... and there are copies everywhere. Are you thinking that perhaps you could have made a decent living drawing, instead of that cr*ppy (hypothetical of course) job in the loading dock? Except you actually make a living just drawing and flogging your wares... because everyone thinks the moment you have finished the drawing, it belongs to the world... for free.

If not 'drawing', substitute dancing, singing, painting, photography, writing, calligraphy, designing, acting, etc etc....

This is an interesting one, and something I've been thinking about myself, actually.

First off, if someone was to take all my posts in this thread and make copies, I wouldn't care. I put them freely in the public domain in the first place, after all.

But if I were to write a book which I wished to sell on the Amazon Kindle, and it generated such a demand that people wanted to pirate it, I'd be extremely pleased. My work would get more and more popular and it would demonstrate that there are a lot of fans out there who want to get their hands on my work.

This isn't something that's merely hypothetical - I am writing literature which I plan to self-publish as an ebook upon completion. And I know that the odds are against me on it. The world is full of writers who I am sure possess far superior talent to myself, and the aforementioned writers may very well have advertising campaigns (something that big name recording studios and publishers are still good for, admittedly).

But yet, if this literature is pirated and significant numbers of copies are spread around online, it would show that my work is in demand. It would make me more well known as a writer. And it may even help a publisher find my work - after all, it isn't that rare for publishers to contact small time writers who self-publish and offer them deals, providing they can attract a large enough audience.

So, to answer your question, if my work was to be enjoyed by many people and those people wanted to share it, I'd be over the moon, and I don't believe that the piracy would do anything other than increase possible earnings from the work, if anything.

 

[snberk103]

We are obviously going to disagree about a bunch of stuff... fair enough... it's what makes the world an interesting place. I will just say, though, that you keep making distinction between theft of an actual "thing" and making a copy of it, and using that to counter points that I don't believe that distinction is valid (it it a valid distinction for some things, though - of course.)

Just because a law is difficult to enforce (whether it is theft or piracy) is not a reason to argue that it's OK to ignore it. The fairness of the law, the reasons for the law, the equality of the law are the only reasons to keep a law, or to invalidate it.

You keep referring to the big corporate music and movie business....but piracy affects the small operations, probably more so. The small developers, the small photographers, the small musicians. The big corps can afford to give away products in order to drive business to theme parks, advertizing campaigns, physical products (like dolls and action figures), posters etc. And sure, some bands achieve overnight fame from a YouTube video that goes viral. But most artists/developers/IP content creators are just trying to make a living. They need to sell CDs at the local music store, and at live performances because the box office take barely covers the cost booking the hall. Because the cost of buying a computer every 3 years, and a keeping camera gear up-to-date eats a year's worth of earnings. (Luckily I'm not in that boat, so I can afford a more academic interest in the topic).

The whole notion of "Once it's been digitized, it's open to the world for free" means that the reward to create new and original content is diminished. Sure it's nice to be create art for art's sake. But an artist still needs to eat, and pay the rent.

In your quote below, you indicate that you'd be over the moon if the world found your words. But if nobody wanted to buy your words, then how do you make a living?

....
This is an interesting one, and something I've been thinking about myself, actually.

First off, if someone was to take all my posts in this thread and make copies, I wouldn't care. I put them freely in the public domain in the first place, after all.

But if I were to write a book which I wished to sell on the Amazon Kindle, and it generated such a demand that people wanted to pirate it, I'd be extremely pleased. My work would get more and more popular and it would demonstrate that there are a lot of fans out there who want to get their hands on my work.

This isn't something that's merely hypothetical - I am writing literature which I plan to self-publish as an ebook upon completion. And I know that the odds are against me on it. The world is full of writers who I am sure possess far superior talent to myself, and the aforementioned writers may very well have advertising campaigns (something that big name recording studios and publishers are still good for, admittedly).

But yet, if this literature is pirated and significant numbers of copies are spread around online, it would show that my work is in demand. It would make me more well known as a writer. And it may even help a publisher find my work - after all, it isn't that rare for publishers to contact small time writers who self-publish and offer them deals, providing they can attract a large enough audience.

So, to answer your question, if my work was to be enjoyed by many people and those people wanted to share it, I'd be over the moon, and I don't believe that the piracy would do anything other than increase possible earnings from the work, if anything.

 

[Roheryn]

You're not taking something that does not belong to you. You're making a copy.

And you are going to give it back ???

I didn't think so.

 

[0dev]

We are obviously going to disagree about a bunch of stuff... fair enough... it's what makes the world an interesting place.

Very true

I will just say, though, that you keep making distinction between theft of an actual "thing" and making a copy of it, and using that to counter points that I don't believe that distinction is valid (it it a valid distinction for some things, though - of course.)

Your car analogy hinged on the original going missing, and it was applicable to that. It was not applicable to your second analogy, however, which is why I adjusted my response accordingly.

Just because a law is difficult to enforce (whether it is theft or piracy) is not a reason to argue that it's OK to ignore it. The fairness of the law, the reasons for the law, the equality of the law are the only reasons to keep a law, or to invalidate it.

Absolutely. And current copyright laws are not fair or equal, and the reasons they're still around is because those with too much power and money are abusing it.

You keep referring to the big corporate music and movie business....but piracy affects the small operations, probably more so. The small developers, the small photographers, the small musicians. The big corps can afford to give away products in order to drive business to theme parks, advertizing campaigns, physical products (like dolls and action figures), posters etc. And sure, some bands achieve overnight fame from a YouTube video that goes viral. But most artists/developers/IP content creators are just trying to make a living. They need to sell CDs at the local music store, and at live performances because the box office take barely covers the cost booking the hall. Because the cost of buying a computer every 3 years, and a keeping camera gear up-to-date eats a year's worth of earnings. (Luckily I'm not in that boat, so I can afford a more academic interest in the topic).

As I've stated earlier in the thread, I personally always support independent music artists, film makers, app developers, etc. Always. Of course, many people do not have the same ethics as me. However, as I've also stated earlier, studies show that the biggest users of P2P are also the biggest customers of iTunes.

The whole notion of "Once it's been digitized, it's open to the world for free" means that the reward to create new and original content is diminished. Sure it's nice to be create art for art's sake. But an artist still needs to eat, and pay the rent.

Of course, but as I've said, I believe piracy helps generate revenue rather than reduce it, and I have multiple studies on my side.

In your quote below, you indicate that you'd be over the moon if the world found your words. But if nobody wanted to buy your words, then how do you make a living?

Odds are, people would buy them. They'd pirate them, like them, then buy them. Not everyone would do this, but quite a few people will. And I'd also have a spotlight cast on me for when my next book is out, which is sure to generate further interest and revenue.

I honestly think that if something I wrote was pirated and became popular due to the piracy, it would help me a lot.

 

[gnasher729]

If you import a CD into iTunes, it is breaking the built in copy protection on the disk in order to do that, and in the UK (I know you're in the US but this shows how stupid copyright laws are worldwide), doing so is technically illegal. So, if you're following the letter of the law, Apple are pirates too.

If the shiny silvery disk with music that you import into iTunes has copy protection, then it isn't a CD. Have a look on the packaging, there will be no "CD" sign on it.

Strange enough, I don't think I ever encountered a copy-prevented music disk in my life. My wife got one as a present that my MacBook couldn't read (just ejected it) but hers did, so we didn't care, otherwise it would have been returned to the shop.

 

[Angra-mainju]

they only block the websites that you can get free movies. At least it's blocked and you can't download, compared with the US-get-it-and-they-will-get-you-at-6AM way of police entry :>

 

[0dev]

If the shiny silvery disk with music that you import into iTunes has copy protection, then it isn't a CD. Have a look on the packaging, there will be no "CD" sign on it.

Strange enough, I don't think I ever encountered a copy-prevented music disk in my life. My wife got one as a present that my MacBook couldn't read (just ejected it) but hers did, so we didn't care, otherwise it would have been returned to the shop.

I'm quite sure all CDs have basic copy protection systems on them, but this was cracked ages ago and hasn't been an issue as a result. In fact, Sony once included a rootkit on their CDs.

 

[0098386]

Of course, but as I've said, I believe piracy helps generate revenue rather than reduce it, and I have multiple studies on my side.

You'll probably just skim over this because it goes against this belief with first hand experience - but no. It doesn't.
Ever since pirates broke through some software I developed, my server fees shot up because they weren't supporting the costs through the price. Can't afford to carry on. Close server. Irritates real customers. Nothing I can do.

If those pirates had paid instead of using software I put months into and supported the running costs we'd all be honky dory. Funny how valiant they're not.

 

[snberk103]

...
Of course, but as I've said, I believe piracy helps generate revenue rather than reduce it, and I have multiple studies on my side.
...

As a favour, would you mind linking those studies again, and only if it's not a lot of trouble. I know they''re here somewhere, but to save me looking for and finding that particular post....

Or, if it's pain just say so... as I said, I'm just being lazy.

cheers

 

[0dev]

As a favour, would you mind linking those studies again, and only if it's not a lot of trouble. I know they''re here somewhere, but to save me looking for and finding that particular post....

Or, if it's pain just say so... as I said, I'm just being lazy.

cheers

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...pend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html
http://torrentfreak.com/pirates-are-the-music-industrys-most-valuable-customers-100122/

Three separate studies right there all showing the same thing.

Additionally, I'd like to link to this one where Universal admit stopping piracy is impossible. This is after the entertainment industry has enforced censorship in the UK due to piracy just recently.

 

[snberk103]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...pend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html
http://torrentfreak.com/pirates-are-the-music-industrys-most-valuable-customers-100122/

Three separate studies right there all showing the same thing.

Additionally, I'd like to link to this one where Universal admit stopping piracy is impossible. This is after the entertainment industry has enforced censorship in the UK due to piracy just recently.

Thanks for links. It's always nice to have someone make it easy for me to be bit lazy....

I'm still not convinced, though.

None of the sites link to the actual studies, so it's difficult to analyze its methods. It also means that all 3 articles may be referring to the same Norwegian study.

One stat of interest is that 1 in 10 music downloaders admit to piracy. Which means that 90% of music downloaders are not pirating, which is far cry from your claim that this is a wholesale cultural shift. "The poll, which surveyed 1,000 16- to 50-year-olds with internet access, found that one in 10 people admit to downloading music illegally." Link

Another article, referring to the study, says that pirates seem to have a budget for how much music they can afford to buy. "The average file-sharer is currently spending $100 a year on music according to IFPI’s own research, not really a group that can be classified as freeloaders. However, their demand for music simply exceeds their budget and that’s where they start downloading music on file-sharing sites, because it’s free." Link

Presumably, all music downloaders have budgets that they need to keep within. So I would interpret the statement above as saying that 90% of population who download music stop downloading when they have spent their money, and 10% of the population keep downloading.... and downloading.... and downloading... pirated music.

Explain to me how taking copyright protections off of music would increase sales? If people are already paying as much as they can afford, then it won't lead to increased sales.... just more free-downloads.

 

[0dev]

Thanks for links. It's always nice to have someone make it easy for me to be bit lazy....

I'm still not convinced, though.

None of the sites link to the actual studies, so it's difficult to analyze its methods. It also means that all 3 articles may be referring to the same Norwegian study.

One stat of interest is that 1 in 10 music downloaders admit to piracy. Which means that 90% of music downloaders are not pirating, which is far cry from your claim that this is a wholesale cultural shift. "The poll, which surveyed 1,000 16- to 50-year-olds with internet access, found that one in 10 people admit to downloading music illegally." Link

Another article, referring to the study, says that pirates seem to have a budget for how much music they can afford to buy. "The average file-sharer is currently spending $100 a year on music according to IFPI’s own research, not really a group that can be classified as freeloaders. However, their demand for music simply exceeds their budget and that’s where they start downloading music on file-sharing sites, because it’s free." Link

Presumably, all music downloaders have budgets that they need to keep within. So I would interpret the statement above as saying that 90% of population who download music stop downloading when they have spent their money, and 10% of the population keep downloading.... and downloading.... and downloading... pirated music.

Explain to me how taking copyright protections off of music would increase sales? If people are already paying as much as they can afford, then it won't lead to increased sales.... just more free-downloads.

If you check the articles, one refers to a poll, one refers to a Norwegian study, and one refers to figures from the music biz itself. The TorrentFreak article links to the original figures.

Now let's look at the data taken from the IFPI. TF summerises that:

Compared to music buyers, music sharers (pirates) are…

* 31% more likely to buy single tracks online.
* 33% more likely to buy music albums online.
* 100% more likely to pay for music subscription services.
* 60% more likely to pay for music on mobile phone.

I'd say that's pretty good evidence that piracy can help sales. And you can see it in the real world, too. I mean, look at how successful Spotify is.

On the number of pirates - in the older generations, there are a high number of people who won't pirate, but today's generation do. A lot. But they also buy music and go to concerts if they're a real fan of the artist.

As for why copy protection should be removed - it already has been. Online music retailers no longer enforce DRM and copy protection for CDs hasn't been significantly updated for ages. The biz has realised it's bad, and the reasoning is simple: why would you buy a crippled product you can only play on a limited number of devices when you can get a product you can play on any device for free? The benefits of this aren't just linked to uploading the file for anyone else to download, they're about the customer using the thing they just paid for. Back when iTunes had DRM, for example, iTunes music could only be played on iPods. This did not make it attractive to consumers and actually made them more likely to pirate. It also didn't do too much to encourage a fair playing field in the online music retailing business when it forced the retailers to create monopolies with their formats.

 

[glynhughes]

If I can't afford them, I wouldn't be able to buy those objects anyway, so the producers lose absolutely nothing if I get them for free. Try to wrap your head around that simple concept.

Exactly. This neatly sums up the rationale that I hear from serial downloaders all the time.

You can't argue with the logic.

It also explains why airlines are happy to fill unsold seats with the great unwashed, why hotels open their doors to the destitute when not fully booked and why you can walk into a cinema for free if there are spare places.

 

[0098386]

You'll probably just skim over this because it goes against this belief with first hand experience

I was right!

 

[0dev]

You'll probably just skim over this because it goes against this belief with first hand experience - but no. It doesn't.
Ever since pirates broke through some software I developed, my server fees shot up because they weren't supporting the costs through the price. Can't afford to carry on. Close server. Irritates real customers. Nothing I can do.

If those pirates had paid instead of using software I put months into and supported the running costs we'd all be honky dory. Funny how valiant they're not.

Well you need to make your software more efficient if you had that much strain on your server, but more to the point, your one isolated case goes against quite a few different studies. There are always outliners, after all.

 

[snberk103]

... goes against quite a few different studies. There are always outliners, after all.

It just occurred to me what the flaw is to "Pirating is good for sales." argument. You are confusing 'correlation' for 'causal'.

Those studies only show that there is correlation between people who buy a pirate a lot of music, and people who buy it. But that does not prove that if more people pirated music, that they would then also buy more.

For example, a correlation would be that people who own Mac computers tend to earn more income. But that does not mean that if more people owned Macs that they would, as a result, earn more.

So I will go back to my first (and best) argument.

If I am offering something for sale, and you (the hypothetical 'you') take it without paying me - whether or not I am actually then missing a physical object - you have stolen from me. Someone who does not pay for something, that was offered for sale, has stolen it. And nothing you have said so far has changed my mind.

 

[0dev]

It just occurred to me what the flaw is to "Pirating is good for sales." argument. You are confusing 'correlation' for 'causal'.

Those studies only show that there is correlation between people who buy a pirate a lot of music, and people who buy it. But that does not prove that if more people pirated music, that they would then also buy more.

For example, a correlation would be that people who own Mac computers tend to earn more income. But that does not mean that if more people owned Macs that they would, as a result, earn more.

So I will go back to my first (and best) argument.

If I am offering something for sale, and you (the hypothetical 'you') take it without paying me - whether or not I am actually then missing a physical object - you have stolen from me. Someone who does not pay for something, that was offered for sale, has stolen it. And nothing you have said so far has changed my mind.

That is true, but it's logical too. A lot of people use piracy to discover music which they then go on to legally purchase. That isn't just a correlation.

If you have a digital file and I copy that digital file I've not stolen anything from you.

 

[snberk103]

That is true, but it's logical too. A lot of people use piracy to discover music which they then go on to legally purchase. That isn't just a correlation.

But one of the studies you cite says that only 10% of the respondents are pirating music. So, "lots" means less than 1 in 10 because some of those pirates are not buying music. And yes, it may just be a correlation because to show causality you either need to set up a controlled experiment with a random selection of people, or you need to do a lot of different polls across many different groups of music downloaders to try and filter out the coincidences.

If you have a digital file and I copy that digital file I've not stolen anything from you.

If you I have a digital that I expect to paid for by people to use that file, then by not paying to use that digital file you have stolen the money I should have received. I find this a very clear concept. I should have been paid - I was not paid. Therefore the pirate has stolen my income.