CoC's 'Victims Of Internet Piracy' Look More Like 'Victims Of Propagandist Exploitation'

from the your-violins-are-out-of-tune dept

It appears that the US Chamber of Commerce is ramping up its laughably inept propaganda attempts in support of PROTECT IP. First it had that awful video that conflated harmful counterfeit drugs with copyright infringement (and discussed an event in Canada, not the US), and now it's put together another silly video supposedly showing content creators "harmed" by infringement:
It's so chock full of blatantly wrong, clueless or misleading statements that the only people this would be convincing for are the purely ignorant -- but I guess that's the Chamber's main target audience. Let's take a look at some of the statements and people in the video, who it appears the Chamber of Commerce didn't review too carefully:
"The idea that I have to accept as a filmmaker that a certain percentage of the people who see my stuff are never going to pay me for it... in film school, I never thought I'd have to live with that. What other business would it be okay to lose 50% of your product and not receive income for it?"
The thing is, most folks who go to film school end up with almost no one ever paying to see a film that they make. If you're actually getting people who want to see your films, then you're doing something right -- and then the challenge is for you to put in place a business model that works. And it does work. We've seen plenty of filmmakers who have embraced having most people see their works for free and they still make good money by connecting with fans and giving real reasons to buy beyond that. And, no, you haven't "lost" 50% of your product. Your product is still there. What you failed to do is to build a good business model.

And even if we really were talking about 50% of your "product" not selling, plenty of businesses end up in that position... and their job, as business people, is to figure out ways to make money. Just because you invest in something and make a product, it doesn't mean people have to buy. No one turns 100% of their "effort" into revenue. Complaining about people not buying is not a legal issue, it's a business model one.

It seems kind of ironic that the Chamber of Commerce of all operations seems to not want to help this filmmaker create a business model, but instead wants to exploit his situation to pass a bad law that won't help him at all.

Oh, and we should mention that the filmmaker in question appears to be Dano Johnson, and he's most well known for the movie Flatland. Flatland, you say? Isn't that the old book? Why, yes, yes it is. And in this little interview clip with Dano Johnson and his producer partner Seth Caplan, they brag about the fact that the book is in the public domain so they didn't have to pay for it.
Yes, this is perfectly legal, but it highlights the cognitive dissonance and internal inconsistencies in Johnson's argument. He talks up the moral arguments for why creators "should" get revenue any time their work is used, but clearly recognizes the benefits of content that can be used without licensing, and which can be built upon without payment. Yet, if there's a "moral" argument for paying creators, then shouldn't he have also paid for this work?

Dano then goes away for a bit and we get an author:
"Used to be where they would give you a two, three, four book contract. That's not the case any more. Now we have to do well with the first book or there won't be a second book."
First of all, while there are some multi-book contracts, they were never quite as popular as some people think, and getting away from them has happened mainly because they were bad deals for everyone (including the author in many cases), which has nothing whatsoever to do with "piracy." This woman, "Tracy Deebs" seems to just assume that "piracy" is why such contracts have gone away. She offers no evidence.
"Internet piracy affects this greatly because the numbers get skewed. People are downloading stuff for free."
Or they could go to the library and get the book for free. Ban libraries, because Tracy Deebs says they're killing her ability to make money!

Perhaps Ms. Deebs should check in on the writings of JA Konrath who found no evidence that file sharing hurts sales. He's also found that he's much better off without one of those "two, three or four book contracts," because he makes a lot more money self-publishing ebooks at much cheaper prices. And this is especially true in the "young adult" space, which is what Deebs writes for these days, where Amanda Hockling figured out how to self-publish and sell over 100,000 books a month.

Oops. Just like with Dano Johnson, it looks like the problem here is the failure to put in place a good business model, rather than anything having to do with file sharing. Perhaps she should be looking to the Chamber of Commerce for help with that, rather than letting them get her to support a law with massive unintended consequences that won't help her one bit.

Johnson then returns:
"As an independent animator, we decided to make this film. We didn't really have any investors, so we were all putting in our time for free, with the hope to sell the film, and once it's successful pay ourselves back... While we've been successful, we can also see that we've lost a significant amount of revenue."
Surely, as a one-time film school student, he knows that most films don't ever become "successful." Just the fact that he has been successful is an accomplishment -- in part thanks to his ability to build on the public domain (and then lock up the resulting work). And how does he know that his success is not due to the film being more widely available and more people knowing about it? If you look at the website for the Flatland movie, you can see that the film is available to buy and it appears that plenty of people are buying it. Furthermore, according to IMDB and Wikipedia, it looks like Johnson has helped make a 3D-IMAX version of the film which will be released this fall. That seems like a smart move. Johnson is figuring out that he can do things to compete with the free versions by making an experience that can't easily be copied. Given the subject matter, I would expect that schools will be a prime target to take classrooms full of kids to see Flatland in IMAX 3D. So where is his proof of "lost revenue"? How does he know that he hasn't gained sales from people finding out about the films online?

Then we move on to a musician, Guy Forsyth.
"There's a hole in the system, and it's where the artists aren't getting paid for the work that they're doing."
Interesting. I was curious about Guy Forsyth and so I discovered that his main claim to fame as a musician was as a part of The Asylum Street Spankers:
Founded by Christina Marrs, Wammo and Guy Forsyth after a legendary party at the famous Dabbs Hotel along the Llano River in Texas, the band began by busking on the streets of Austin and playing for tips in bars. In their earliest days, the Spankers' repertoire consisted almost entirely of country, blues, jazz, swing and Tin Pan Alley songs dating from the 1890s to the 1950s with a particular emphasis on the 1920s and 1930s.
Now that's pretty cool, and I'd be interested in seeing Forsyth play, but I'm curious if, when they were out busking, he was paying the rightsholders from those songs that were still under copyright. In fact, the Wikipedia entry notes that it was only after Forsyth left the band that they started playing more original songs. So, once again, we have someone who builds off the culture of others, but now supports laws that would make that harder, if not impossible, for others to do the same. For shame.

On top of that, his claim that there's a "hole" and that musicians aren't getting paid any more has been debunked over and over again. While plenty of studies have shown that record labels haven't been earning as much, they've also showed that actual musicians are making noticeably more money these days. And they're doing it by putting in place innovative business models -- the kind of thing you'd think the US Chamber of Commerce would be helping with, rather than ignoring.

Then the video bounces back to both Deebs and Johnson, complaining about "free," and making assumptions about how each download is a lost sale. That's the same theme pushed by the next person, "actress" Krista Betts:
"As an actress, I'm used to those residual checks coming in and I open the mailbox, and I'm getting all excited... 'Oh! Screen Actors Guild!' And I open it up and the check is for... oh, about eight dollars. And I just stopped for a moment and thought 'I wonder, how much the check would have been had everyone purchased the DVD."
Well, if "everyone" had purchased the DVD you'd have the best selling movie of all time. I'm guessing she means had everyone who downloaded it purchased it, which is ridiculous. Most of the people downloading would never have purchased it in the first place. Anyway, I was curious what DVD this might be, and according to IMDB Krista Betts appeared in one movie... in 2002 called "Lone Star State of Mind," It does not appear to have much of a wide release, and the only five reviewers who reviewed the movie on Rotten Tomatoes all hated the movie. For example, check out this review:
While watching, this tended to remind me of "Raising Arizona", with only one exception: Raising Arizona is good, and this is bad, really bad. There's a movie that you can watch that is so bad that it makes you feel like tearing your eyebrows off one by one just to numb the pain. The cliches are so thick in this film that it inevitably tears down the film with no chance of recovery. There's practically every known cliche and stereotype in this film applying to Texan people.
So, Krista, I'm not sure, but the fact that you're still getting even $8 for a film you did a decade ago, which barely moved the needle and apparently had reviewers wanting to tear their eyebrows out... perhaps that's not something to complain about. No one pays me for the work I did a decade ago, and I don't think it drove anyone to tear out any eyebrows.

Then there are a bunch of quotes comparing file sharing to theft. First from Johnson:
"For me, you buy a ticket. You buy a digital download."
But you don't buy the rights to a story. That's too expensive. Obviously, there are exceptions -- such as the one at the end of the interview video above with Johnson, where he plugs the free showing of Flatland. Sometimes, apparently, you don't have to buy a ticket, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Back to Forsyth:
"You go out to your car and the window is busted and you look inside, and you're like 'oh, they grabbed my wallet, they grabbed the stereo out of the dash.' It's that same feeling that someone has reached in and taken something away from you. Something that you worked hard to earn."
Except it's not like that at all and anyone who's being intellectually honest in this debate knows that. Nothing has been "taken" from him. No one has smashed a window. He's not missing a wallet. He's not missing a stereo. Plenty of musicians have done amazingly well by embracing what their fans want, embracing free, recognizing the value of promotion. That Forsyth apparently hasn't done so isn't a reason to change the law. It's a reason to point Forsyth to some of the many case studies of musicians who are doing it right.

On to Deebs:
"If internet piracy caused me to lose my contracts because I didn't sell enough books, then I would have a really hard time picking up another publisher. And this is my job. This is how I make my income. This is how I support my family."
Actually Deebs, whose real name appears to be Tracy Wolff, admits in various online bios that her "job" is teaching writing at a local college. But, more to the point, just because you make your living one way, does NOT mean that Congress automatically has to pass laws to make sure you always make your living that way. Even more important is that the real problem isn't "internet piracy." Nowhere does she show that "internet piracy" actually harms her sales, and nearly all of the evidence we've seen for books shows no harm to sales from downloadable books. Again, Konrath's writings and empirical studies on this are compelling. The real problem, as she sneaks into the latter half of the sentence is that she didn't sell enough books. That's a business model problem. Since tons of authors are selling more and more books than ever before (and many are doing it through self-publishing), I'm not sure I see the real "problem" here.

It's also probably worth mentioning that for all this talk about how evil it is not to pay the "creators" of various things, the Chamber of Commerce is relying on Drupal to manage the astroturf "Fight Online Theft" site that this content comes from. How much do you think the Chamber of Commerce donated to the Drupal Association? And, of course, they're getting free bandwidth, hosting and high quality video playback software from YouTube (rogue site!). For all this hand-waving about how evil it is not to pay creators, it seems that the US Chamber of Commerce is plenty happy to save money by using free things. Either the folks there recognize the cost advantage of not having to worry about licensing all the time, or they seem to implicitly recognize the "quality" of software and services that (according to them) never should have been created since they're available for "free." Either way, the US Chamber of Commerce appears to be completely inconsistent in what it says and what it does... just like many of the folks in the video.

I have to admit that I'm pretty shocked that this was the "best" that the US Chamber of Commerce could come up with. None of the stories is remotely compelling. You have two folks who relied on the works of others, but now want to block that off for others, and then a woman who is complaining that she's not getting enough money from residuals from a decade old movie that no one liked. And, finally, an author who appears to not be familiar with the new opportunities enabled through publishing today thanks to the internet.

And for this they want us to change the laws in such a way that will break the fundamental architecture of the internet, hinder innovation, tie up companies in needless litigation, apply additional liability to all sorts of companies, encourage blatant censorship of websites without trials and do absolutely nothing to help artists make more money? Sorry, but no thanks.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:04am

    Ah, yes, "Piracy." We have dismissed that claim.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    charliebrown (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:05am

    I've never heard of these four people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:42am

      Re:

      I think that was the idea. That piracy hurts the "little guy"

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Jose_X, Aug 12th, 2011 @ 10:07am

        Re: Re:

        You meant to say that "piracy" suppression hurts the little guy, as these alleged little guys demonstrate.

        From Wikipedia >> Paulo Coelho is a strong advocate of spreading his books through peer-to-peer file sharing networks. A fan posted a Russian translation of one of his novels online. Sales of his book jumped from 3,000 to one million in three years, with no additional promotion or publicity from his publishers.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    herbert, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:09am

    and the 'powers that be, the politicians and law makers' will be all over this like a measles rash on a kid! they will believe every stupid word and claim made by these so called artists and, as per usual, totally ignore all the facts! what a bunch of tossers!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:13am

    Mike Masnick: Defending the imaginary "rights" of pirates, and looking to strip the real rights of artists.

    Every day.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:21am

      Re:

      Mike Masnick: Defending the imaginary "rights" of pirates, and looking to strip the real rights of artists.


      By pointing artists to business models that work and explaining to them how they can make more money? By pointing out that laws like the one they're pitching won't actually do a damn thing to help them?

      How the hell is that stripping the rights of artists? It's a strange world you live in where helping artists is called stripping their rights.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 11:17am

        Re: Re:

        Wait, aren't you the same guy who says "we don't support business models, we just show some that have worked in individual cases"?

        Strange world we live in when you can flip flop on that position to suit your needs.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 11:30am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Wait, aren't you the same guy who says "we don't support business models, we just show some that have worked in individual cases"?

          No. He is not! Aren't you that AC who just makes up random accusations and unsupported facts?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 11:37am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Wait, aren't you the same guy who says "we don't support business models, we just show some that have worked in individual cases"?


          No. But you're the AC who makes stuff up to make sure you disagree with what I say on ever post even if (as you did yesterday) you don't even read the post so accidentally end up agreeing with me.

          Anyway, care to point out where I said that ridiculous sentence? Because you can't. Because I didn't. So you can just admit you were wrong and we can all go on with our merry lives.

          Strange world we live in when you can flip flop on that position to suit your needs.


          If I did, you'd have a point. But I don't. So you don't.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 12:22pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Oh god Mike, do I have to go spend hours re-reading this site to come up where you talk about this? My quote isn't a direct quote, it's sort of a summary line of things you have said over the last 5 or 6 years.

            Are you suggesting that all business models work for all cases?

            You have said before that these are not business models that apply to everyone, rather they are business models that have worked in individual cases. It usually comes with you mocking my comments that this only applies in one case.

            heck, you have even said yourself:

            "really, just how many exceptions do we need until people realize that the market is changing rapidly, and those who embrace new models and new methods of distribution are finding that they can make a lot more money than they did in the past. "

            You are clear in discussing the idea of exceptions, and that many of us have noted that many of the business models you show are exceptional.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 12:52pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Oh god Mike, do I have to go spend hours re-reading this site to come up where you talk about this? My quote isn't a direct quote, it's sort of a summary line of things you have said over the last 5 or 6 years.

              No, it's a summary of you misrepresenting what I've said. I've never said anything like what you claimed.

              Are you suggesting that all business models work for all cases?


              Um. No. How the hell did you get that out of what I said? I've specifically said the opposite.

              Can you really not comprehend that we can say "you should find a better business model" and that doesn't mean "all business models work for all cases." A better business model is not the same thing as all business models.

              You have said before that these are not business models that apply to everyone, rather they are business models that have worked in individual cases.

              Um. And I've also explained the economic principles that help people understand which kinds of business models work in which kinds of cases. But you ignore that.

              You are clear in discussing the idea of exceptions, and that many of us have noted that many of the business models you show are exceptional

              Keep on believing that. It's funny to see you flail.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 1:45pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I don't ignore your claims of "business models that work", but more often than not you show models that have worked for one particular group or artist in one way, not a long term strategy.

                So, how are the CwF sales the last 3 months? Is that still bringing in the major bucks, or has the merch business pretty much died off as soon as you stopped talking about it?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Cowardly Anon, Aug 11th, 2011 @ 2:23pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I'm sorry Mr. AC, but I'm afraid I don't follow your argument there. Is there any business model that you allows you to continue making money in it long term without having to change and adapt?

                  Connecting with your fans is the point. If people are willing to consume your stuff for free, you have an audience. Do you have any idea how many artist strive for and wish for an audience? To be heard and to build up loyal fans?

                  Once an artist has a fanbase they are able to make money off that fanbase. To say 'no! don't look at my stuff until you pay for it!' pretty much tells the world 'I don't care about my fans, only about my paycheck.'

                  That would be like me telling my biggest client 'no! I will not make that small change for you unless you pay me first!' Do you think they will hire me next time? Doubt it.

                  Pirates, Fans, Consumers, Customers. They are all the same thing. Please don't forget that.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  techflaws.org (profile), Aug 11th, 2011 @ 10:47pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  not a long term strategy.

                  But the long term strategy of ratcheting up laws and suing fileshares has worked so well over the last 15 years? That's why piracy is over, right?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  PaulT (profile), Sep 24th, 2011 @ 4:15am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "models that have worked for one particular group or artist in one way, not a long term strategy"

                  The funny thing about long term models is that they're *long term*.
                  Along with the simple fact that the term is vague (what's long term? 5 years? 10? 20?), if you're waiting for proof that they work, hundreds if not thousands of people will have been successful before you've even realised it's a viable option.

                  If you want a quick example, Jonathan Coulton has been working on these models since 2003. That's longer than most major label musicians have a career.

                  "Is that still bringing in the major bucks, or has the merch business pretty much died off as soon as you stopped talking about it?"

                  When did he stop taking about it?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 9:23pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Denial - not just a river in Egypt, right?

                let me get this straight, you don't show individual cases that work, but you do say that not all business models work for all cases. Now, would you say that very narrowly many of the examples you cite would work only for a small number of people, perhaps only the single example given?

                Would you also say that, if everyone adopted the successful methods used that they would likely kill whatever success is generated, because it would raise the noise to the point where the good idea is drowned out?

                Do you think that the business models you talk about apply broadly or narrowly, in general?

                There is no flailing here, just working hard to dodge your weasel words and non-answers.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  PaulT (profile), Aug 11th, 2011 @ 2:08am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  A rebuttal so good you had to say it twice?

                  Sadly, no. Mike has never claimed that a single business model works for everyone, and nobody with any intelligence would ever claim that. His strategy tends to be to point out artists and other individuals who are trying new business models, and succeeding. His strategy is to build up a body of evidence that proves wrong the notion that selling plastic discs is the most important part of the industry.

                  He now has plenty of examples to prove people wrong when they claim this. if someone complains that only big artists can make a success with these models, he pull out the independents. If they claim only small artists can be successful, he pulls out the big guns. Plus, contrary to your assertion, he also returns to artists who are becoming long term successes with these model, but of course since they're "new" models, there's only a few of these (but a number which will increase in time).

                  Now, the only rebuttal you seem to have is to pretend that there just *has* to be hundreds of other artists trying and failing with the same models but Mike only reports on the few successes? Funnily enough, that's how the traditional model works as well. Most businesses fail, that doesn't disprove the concept of business.

                  "There is no flailing here, just working hard to dodge your weasel words and non-answers."

                  As opposed to your easily disproved lies and distortions of others' positions?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 12th, 2011 @ 1:39am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  let me get this straight, you don't show individual cases that work, but you do say that not all business models work for all cases. Now, would you say that very narrowly many of the examples you cite would work only for a small number of people, perhaps only the single example given?

                  Not at all. This is a bizarre claim. I've shown specific business models that work while also explaining the economic principles behind them, and explained how you can take those principles and extend them to help define a business model that works better for anyone.

                  So, no. You're wrong.

                  Would you also say that, if everyone adopted the successful methods used that they would likely kill whatever success is generated, because it would raise the noise to the point where the good idea is drowned out?


                  Wow. No. Not at all. There's simply no basis for that statement at all. None of the stuff we talk about is about raising noise.

                  You must have me confused with someone else.

                  Do you think that the business models you talk about apply broadly or narrowly, in general?


                  The economics apply broadly. In fact, they apply across the board (that's economics for you).

                  But, then again, if you're who I think you are, you still don't understand what marginal cost means, so I could see why you would fail to understand the economics we talk about.

                  There is no flailing here, just working hard to dodge your weasel words and non-answers.


                  I've explained everything clearly to you for years. You don't want to learn. We can all come to our own conclusions why.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  btrussell (profile), Aug 12th, 2011 @ 3:30am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Is there a boiler-plate business plan that all start-ups can use to take to the bank seeking funds?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              A Monkey with Atitude, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 1:01pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              wow never thought i would see bits and bytes wasted (ffs they are the ultimate recyclable) BUT YOU HAVE MANAGED IT...

              Congrats +50 troll points for you...

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      blaktron (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:29am

      Re:

      Can you please quote the line where he even mentioned a 'pirate's rights' or which 'rights' he wanted to strip from artists?

      On that note, how many 'rights' does an artist have, and why do they have more than me?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:32am

        Re: Re:

        Dead artists have more rights than actual living people. Makes sense.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:33am

        Re: Re:

        what rights do artists have that you believe you don't also have?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          The eejit (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:49am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The right to free speech, for one.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:59am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I don't have the right to make money off of one little thing I made decades ago and not having to lift a finger since, so there's that.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          blaktron (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 12:29pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Artists apparently have the right to copy that which they see around them, and yet I dont.

          Or as Eejit said, the right to FREE speech. And by the way, free isn't an analogue concept, with varying degrees. Its very much digital, on or off. Any restriction automatically makes something not free. So yes, they have free speech, i do not.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          CommonSense (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 1:01pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The right to get paid forever for a small piece of shitty work that I did years ago...for one.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      rubberpants, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:32am

      Re:

      Lobbyists: Defending the imaginary "property" of middle-men, and looking to strip the real value of artists.

      Every day.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:50am

      Re:

      Artists have no rights, they aren't allowed any by law, its the copyRIGHT holders who do, and they are all leeches and freetards.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      weneedhelp (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:52am

      Re:

      DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Scooters (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:18am

    Dear Techdirt,

    You have an entire comment section filled with people who'd bend over backward to appear in a "anti-anti piracy" video (or several).

    I've a feeling not a single one would charge for their "performance".

    Perhaps take them up on the offer and fight video with video.

    *lights fuse and busts a groove

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Tor (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:19am

    "The idea that I have to accept as a filmmaker that a certain percentage of the people who see my stuff are never going to pay me for it... in film school, I never thought I'd have to live with that. What other business would it be okay to lose 50% of your product and not receive income for it?"

    Many TV viewers skip over commercials. Since the viewers generally pay by paying attention the ads, this group of viewers see films that they don't pay for. This concept of not profiting from every single use of your product can hardly be new...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    gorehound (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:26am

    I am so sick of this PROTCET-IP ACT and other bullshit laws these greedy paid-off politicians will have a war on their hand.I will gladly end up in a jail for taking part in any mass protest of hacking and brigning down the websites of these bastards.Let them pass their shit and then we will throw that stench back into their faces.
    There are millions and millions of us out there................. just imagine the power of all of us doing something together at the same time !!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 11:48am

      Re:

      Waiting until after the fact to defend your legal rights by performing illegal activities only goes to prove their point that those who do not support this law are criminals. Your efforts are better used in rallying those millions of people to write their representatives and educate them on the reality instead of the fantasy.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:33am

    It is, to be frank, troublesome to read the same arguments that conflate the consumptive use of a work with the creative use of a work. All of those in the film you lambaste engage in the latter...they create things. Pirates, on the other hand, engage in the former...they are copiers who merely consume the work by downloads/uploads/distribution/etc.

    You speak of business models as if they are a panacea for all that ails content creators and the content industry. In my view some of the models advocated fall short of the mark in that they take content creators away from that at which they excel, content creation, and place them in a position where an inordinate amount of their otherwise "creative time" must be shifted to "non-creative" time. I am not at all sanguine this is a beneficial shift if the goal is to create more content for public consumption.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:49am

      Re:

      Business models are not a panacea, but they can be a death knell. A poor business model will kill a business or creator far faster than piracy could ever accomplish.

      However, if you adjust your business to accommodate for changes in your fans' climate, you can succeed.

      There is no "one" business model that will work for every person. That is something that middle men like labels and publishers want content creators to believe. These middle men want creators to believe that the only way to succeed is by subscribing to their outdated and slow to change business models. They fight tooth and nail to discredit any person, successful or not, who advocates doing something that does not require a middle man.

      To think that a content creator cannot create content and connect with fans is one of those lies. It is far easier today to connect with your fans because of the internet. You don't need million dollar advertising campaigns. Those were only needed when all avenues of communication were controlled by middle men.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      el_segfaulto (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:50am

      Re:

      "conflate", "ails", "lambaste", "panacea", "sanguine". Somebody's using their liberal arts degree!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:50am

      Re:

      You speak of business models as if they are a panacea for all that ails content creators and the content industry. In my view some of the models advocated fall short of the mark in that they take content creators away from that at which they excel, content creation, and place them in a position where an inordinate amount of their otherwise "creative time" must be shifted to "non-creative" time. I am not at all sanguine this is a beneficial shift if the goal is to

      As opposed to the fantasy world you live in where creators automatically get money? Sorry, but that's a myth. Content creators who want to earn money have *always* had to spend time on the business side of things. But they often have managers or agents who do that for them, and none of that changes in the world of new business models.

      So, sorry, but your entire statement above is simply false. Nothing in the business models we talk about makes anyone any less creative or means they spend any time in less creative endeavors. I've talked to dozens of artists and my favorite line from someone who was successfully making use of new business models was "the most creative thing I do is connect with my fans, which inspires me to create new works."

      So, please, can the myth. It's just not true.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        blaktron (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 12:32pm

        Re: Re:

        Actually, artists in general have never made money. In the last 80-some years a few multinational corporations have given massive wealth to a very select group of people in the hopes that they will change the perception of art as a poor mans gig, and give it the illusion of promising wealth. They then proceed to shove that precious few (less than 1% of 1% of even signed recording artists get rich) in front of all of us telling us that without the copyright-driven label system no one would make money.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      JEDIDIAH, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:51am

      Two sides of the same coin.

      If you can't pirate it, then you can't create interesting new works out of it. You can't have one without the other. Of course piracy and derivatives will be conflated. They arise from the same thing.

      However note how the industry likes to ignore derivatives and tries to forget the past while trying to lock up the future.

      When the industry whines about pirates, no one stops to consider the intellectual freedom of artists either in the present day or in the future.

      Piracy is just a red herring to distract from the fact that Big Business is building a monopoly on creative capital and the means to produce new creative works.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:52am

      Re:

      Piracy is largely a business model issue. Look at the research done on the issue by groups like SSRC. Essentially, enforcement is likely to do nothing to stop piracy and the choice to pirate is mainly a convenience or economic decision. That makes it a business model problem.

      If you've ever been involved in a small business or been self employed, you'd know that much of your time becomes shifted from "creative" endeavors to "non-creative" time. It's the nature of the business world. You still have the option of "teaming" or "signing" with a larger corporation to handle the business side of things, but someone has to do it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Killercool (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 11:05am

      Re:

      I am only moderately more computer-literate than your average Joe with a PC, and I can set up an advertising service, a distribution system, and a place for fans to congregate and communicate with me in little more than an hour.
      The advertising service: could be one of many, or multiple services, on the internet. Many of these have actually been designed to be tailored towards specific audiences.
      The distribution system: there is FTP, torrenting, file lockers, DDL, etc. All of these can be protected enough that someone who is willing (or able) to pay an amount larger than zero will leave them alone.
      The feedback: For the sake of argument, I'll list as many as I can off the top of my head. Social networking sites, BBS, blogs, IRC, a viable email, twitter, a new website... I'm out.

      You'll notice that many of these options have different amounts of control, different amounts of freedom, and different costs. It's the cost that most artists are actually shying at. What they don't realize is that their out of pocket costs will be much lower than what will be extor-ahem- extracted from them by a traditional label. The labels hate the options because their main concern, control, will never be as almighty as they want it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      MrWilson, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 11:07am

      Re:

      You have a false dichotomy going there. You define pirates strictly as pure leeches and artists as pure creators. You don't seem to accept the wide variety of copyright violators out there. Yes, there are some leeches who pay for little more than their bandwidth. And there are some people who use Netflix and Redbox and supplement their purchases with violations of copyright (often for legally unavailable media). And there are some fans who pirate as a try-before-you-buy model and actually purchase more than regular consumers. Even artists violate copyrights by downloading other people's works.

      I'm sorry you want such a black and white reality, but it simply doesn't exist. And the business majors and lawyers who keep "fighting for the artists" are ripping off the artists right in front of their faces with bad contracts, creative accounting, and backwards thinking. Who has the moral high ground here?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 12:26pm

      Re:

      "they are copiers who merely consume the work by downloads/uploads/distribution/etc"

      I think you need to look up what the word "consume" means. Because it doesn't mean what you think it means.

      Or maybe you know that and you are equivocating on purpose.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 2:07pm

      Re:

      It is, to be frank, troublesome to read the argument that attempts to draw a line with 'creators' on one said and 'everyone else' on the other. Have you learned nothing from the last decade? Everyone is a creator. Everyone creates things. I'm creating content right now! You just created content! One would think that in an age of youtube and comment sections and social networks that it would be obvious that everyone contributes to this culture via creativity, not just the few who are fortunate enough to make a living off of nothing but their creativity.

      Just to be pedantic though, where in the PROTECT IP act does it say that 'creative use of a work' is allowed?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:39am

    "Adding comments has been disabled for this video."

    I guess the issue is not up for discussion.

    Are you forwarding these articles to the same politicians the Chamber of Commerce is sending this video to?

    And could they find any less-mainstream artists than these? If you're making an animated film about math, your audience is limited to being with. Perhaps they should have got funding through public television?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    John Doe, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:55am

    Bravo!

    This has to be the best post I have read here to date. It points out the hypocrisy of the content industries with some well done detective work. Buy yourself a beef from me. ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 10:57am

    People are only willing to spend so much on music or movies per month. If say someone is willing to spend $10 a month for music, and they are only using iTunes, then they will only buy 10 songs. But if they try out say Spotify and pay a $10 monthly subscription, obviously they are going to try more than 10 songs.

    Trying 50 songs on Spotify, doesn't mean they would've bought 50 songs on iTunes. So you can't come and say later "Oh, I lost 80% of my potential sales!". That's a very unrealistic way to look at it. In the same way, just because people are willing to download more stuff for free from torrents, doesn't mean they would've been willing to pay for ALL of them.

    As for the subscription model, if anything it helps gain MORE customers, and helps the companies convert some pirates to paid users, just like Netflix has shown. Netflix is now more popular than torrenting in USA.

    So what people want is good options, and a good updated business model to our times. They will pay for Netflix, but if they can't find your movie or show on Netflix, they'll use torrenting again to see it. But if they made it available to Netflix in the first place, they wouldn't do that.

    Why can't companies realize that they can actually MAKE money from people who would otherwise pirate?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 11:54am

      Re:

      Because it entails actual work.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      blaktron (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 12:36pm

      Re:

      To go one step farther, the 10 songs on iTunes will keep the consumer spending 10 bucks a month on music, where the 50 songs on spotify might convince them to spend that 10 on spotify then buy a few of those on iTunes as well (raising the monthly spending by at LEAST 10% in this case). The more time someone spends listening to music, the greater the percentage of their income they spend on music. Its that simple. The goal of the music industry should be to have everyone listening to music all the time. Then they would be as ubiquitous as google and might be as rich.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ManTaboo, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 11:01am

    CoC?

    Jesus, from the headline I honestly thought people were mass downloading Corrosion of Conformity songs for some reason. It's horrible that even writers have become susceptible to acronyms. Lazy, I tell you!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    A non-mouse, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 11:05am

    Thieving pirates ruin everything

    "What other business would it be okay to lose 50% of your product and not receive income for it?"

    Preach on, brother! I mean, who is gonna pay to see half a movie, right? And it's the crappy half that no one bothered to steal!

    Oh, wait...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Aug 11th, 2011 @ 2:18am

      Re: Thieving pirates ruin everything

      "What other business would it be okay to lose 50% of your product and not receive income for it?"

      OMG, I rented books from the library and mostly bought second hand books so that means no books are published any more!

      Wait...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 11th, 2011 @ 8:11am

        Re: Re: Thieving pirates ruin everything

        Books are sold to libraries with full knowledge they will be read by others. This is a bargained for exchange and satisfactory to all parties to the transaction.

        Books are sold with full knowledge that at some point in time they may find their way into second hand shops where they may be resold to others. The initial sale with this knowledge is likewise a bargained for exchange, and is entirely lawful under the First Sale Doctrine.

        These types of transactions fall squarely within activities consistent with governing law, so to use them as examples for activities that are not consistent with governing law is inapt.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Jay (profile), Aug 11th, 2011 @ 7:41pm

          Re: Re: Re: Thieving pirates ruin everything

          So how is the digital marketplace affecting the physical marketplace. People have no respect for a law that is quite pervasive in their lives.

          You could make a death penalty for copyright infringement. How many people would really respect it?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 11:21am

    Don't read this. It is theft and putting me in debt.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 11:25am

    Don't read this. It is theft and putting me in debt.

    This is why the politicians GET it, and you guys don't. At this very moment, while your reading this, you are stealing from me. That's right, your copying my work, into your own head, and I am not getting a thing for it. Now I am one more viewing in debt. A WHOLE VIEWING! How can I pay my bills if you don't pay me back for this viewing, or feed my family (of dogs, so that's cruelty to animals on your part too). While I'm away, this may be read, 100 times, 1,000 times! I may be a 1,000 viewings in debt by the end of the day because of people like you. This piracy must end.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      ltlw0lf (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 12:41pm

      Re: Don't read this. It is theft and putting me in debt.

      This is why the politicians GET it, and you guys don't.

      You sir, have just won an internet. Good show.

      And no, my sarcasm meter is working fine...I just created a derivative work without permission. Come at me bro.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 1:22pm

      Re: Don't read this. It is theft and putting me in debt.

      TL;DR

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Zot-Sindi, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 3:43pm

      Re: Don't read this. It is theft and putting me in debt.

      lulz

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Zot-Sindi, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 3:43pm

        Re: Re: Don't read this. It is theft and putting me in debt.

        would be funnier if it wasn't for the very very sad fact that there really are some people who think like that... for real

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Marcel de Jong (profile), Aug 11th, 2011 @ 3:28am

      Re: Don't read this. It is theft and putting me in debt.

      Hah! I read your comment at least twice. So I 'stole' it twice.
      Muahahahaha!
      *twirls mustache*
      *pets Persian cat*
      *re-adjusts monocle*

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 11:52am

    "The idea that I have to accept as a filmmaker that a certain percentage of the people who see my stuff are never going to pay me for it... in film school, I never thought I'd have to live with that. What other business would it be okay to lose 50% of your product and not receive income for it?"

    How is this different from me buying a DVD and a friend coming over and watching it?

    One person - in that case - got to watch it for free, right?

    Should that be illegal? Let me know if it is, so I can stop buying DVD's also.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 1:42pm

      Re:

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but as a filmmaker, he wouldn't be seeing the money from the sale of that DVD anyway, correct? He would have already taken his cut from whoever funded his screenplay.

      Same goes for the actress, she is already getting money if someone does or doesn't buy a DVD anyway.

      Are they putting these people in the video because they want to show a humane face to the issue or because showing a collection of greasy, cigar-chomping CEOs and Shareholders telling us to fork over more money wouldn't be helping their case?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 3:30pm

        Re: Re:

        @AC

        You're wrong. Actors and directors get residual payments from all distributed sources. Crew, actors and directors benefit plans are partially funded by residuals.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 7:25pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          But initially they all get paid up front, usually. Yes?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Aug 11th, 2011 @ 2:21am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Actually, it depends on their contract. Some are 100% upfront, morons take 100% residuals, other have a mix. Hollywood accounting usually means that the residuals are a bonus, not something they can depend on.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Aug 11th, 2011 @ 11:30am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Go look at the collective bargaining agreements between SAG, DGA, IATSE, Teamsters and the AMPTP. There are negotiated formulas for both individual residual payments and payments into health and retirement plans. The residuals pay hundreds of millions per year and are not "a bonus" and can be depended on

            Sometimes key players will also negotiate "points" as part of compensation. But that is above and beyond.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 2:10pm

      Re:

      Is your friend a member of the public? If so I think it's clear that letting them watch your DVD is illegal.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 11:56am

    Oh and also - realize on the above, that if not for watching movies with friends and family - I would likely spend almost ALL of my time coding or video gaming and filmmakers wouldn't get a cent from me buying DVD's or paying for On-Demand, or even cable for that matter.

    I have a flat screen TV, cable box, and pay for movie channels - to entertain company. By and large, if I was single and didn't have any family that came over my house, I probably wouldn't have anything but a higher powered PC that I would code/game/veg-out on.

    So you 'filmmakers' OWE the people who are freely watching your junk an apology - because if not for them, I wouldn't pay 100 a month for cable and have like 200+ DVDs. Jerks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 11:59am

    Now If I'm the consumer...

    I should be paid for consuming media. That takes effort. I had to work my eyes, thinking muscles, and memory to consume media. I want to be compensated for my effort damn it!

    As long as when you consume what I make, then you should still pay me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 12:07pm

    "No one pays me for the work I did a decade ago, and I don't think it drove anyone to tear out any eyebrows."

    Trolls notwithstanding?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DanZee (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 12:13pm

    Synergy!

    Well, one way to market an independent film is what Kevin Smith is doing with a cheapo horror film he made. He's personally taking it on a road tour where it's combined with a personal appearance by himself. He introduces the film, shows the film, and then talks about the film and takes questions and answers. This way, you're getting more than a film that can be copied, you're getting a personal appearance. And, by the way, Kevin Smith gets to keep ALL THE MONEY (not a percentage or royalty payment)!

    I've seen the bits and pieces of Flatland that's free and the filmmakers could make money by giving away the film but selling T-shirts, mugs and posters based on the film. You can make more money from T-shirts than you can charging for digital downloads!

    These days, you have to think outside the box. Filmmakers who just want to sit back and sell it to a distributor for flat fee or royalty is going to lose. But if you get 10 million views on YouTube, there's a chance that 100,000 people might want to buy a T-shirt based on the film. You've got to think beyond just collecting payments for people downloading or viewing a movie online.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 12:53pm

      Re: Synergy!

      Yeah,but then you have to wonder. Is the movie really worth anything, or is it all a "cult of Kevin Smith" that people are paying for? If they aren't paying for the movie, then why bother?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Travis, Aug 11th, 2011 @ 2:13pm

        Re: Re: Synergy!

        The point is, they can make far (exponentially so) more money with bonuses (personal appearances, merch, face time) than with the movie alone.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Corey, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 4:34pm

      Re: Synergy!

      The problem is, if you expect this example to become the new business model, then filmmakers (and authors if you expect them to do something similar), are spending a whole lot of time on the road instead of actually creating.

      If you expect them two basically do two jobs creative output will suffer.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Marcel de Jong (profile), Aug 11th, 2011 @ 3:47am

        Re: Re: Synergy!

        We are not saying that every example of a new business model is going to fit for everyone. But sticking to your guns on a sinking ship isn't going to get you to the harbor. Now is the time to innovate. Get yourself out there as an author, film maker, comic book artist, musician.

        I mean, there are authors who used podiobooks.com to get their stories out there to find an audience, before they sold their books on Amazon. (Morevi, Chasing the Bard, Infected, 7th son, Max Quick. Just to name a few books)
        Some of them even appeared in the bestseller lists of the NYT. Meaning there is money to be made by releasing one form of your book for free.

        Doesn't mean that every author on podiobooks.com is automatically a NYT bestseller. That took effort to gain an audience and it took quality content to keep that audience captivated enough to drive them to buy your books.

        As an artist, YOU have to make it compelling for people to buy your wares. That's what's the main focus is of all those 'new' business models.

        If you release a CD, and then sit back and do nothing, don't expect people to flock to the stores to buy your CD.

        It's easy to complain that the mentioned business models won't fit your wishes as an artist. But then invent a new model, one that does fit your ideas and wishes and wants. But don't forget that new business models also don't automatically equate with the big bucks.

        Create an audience, capture people's attention, create fans among the audience, and you're halfway there. But how to do that, is entirely your own decision. If touring is not your style, maybe use some other means of connecting with your fans. But make it compelling. And don't expect something for nothing.
        And stop worrying about them damn pirates, a percentage of them would never have shelled out the money anyway, it's not going to be easy converting them into buying fans.

        Instead focus your efforts on the people that do want to pay. Find out why they didn't and see if you can cater to their wishes.
        Perhaps the price is too high or perhaps they aren't sure if it is something for them.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Rob Stuart, Aug 11th, 2011 @ 6:20am

        Re: Re: Synergy!

        Corey, you are inventing 2 jobs when in reality they are one in the same. What content creator expects NOT to promote their work? What then are book tours, book signings, radio interviews and tv interviews?

        Promotion is an essential part of creation.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 12:42pm

    No way, Artists have ALWAYS made money

    They used to be employed by organizations such as the church hundreds of years ago, and the church was rich back then, so of course the artists were getting their due.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 1:35pm

    Can't wait until they launch their campaign on Not-Buying.

    Not-Buying industry garbage is the prime suspect for millions of lost dollars. Clearly we should be forced to own at least one DVD of the latest hit Movie and/or TV show.

    You poor not-buying freetards are ruining the economy we have pieced together with duct tape and paper mache.

    Just listen to all these actors that we paid to say things.
    You want to be cool like them, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    thedigitari, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 1:39pm

    RE: what rights?

    whats rights do Artist get that I don't....

    Well. where I work, they put a freeze on raises, because Gas prices are so high, So I want a law that makes the oil companies give up profits so I can get a raise to be able to feed myself, I make enough money to pay my bills, but not enough to feed myself and my family. so I only am able to eat one meal a day. (My family is able to eat two, sometimes three meals a day)
    I have no laws that protect me on how much monies I get for work I did last month, or last year. (yes, I do "create" works of entertainment, I tell jokes and anecdotes about my work, while at work to lift the spirits of those I work with)
    {for those of you that will say I could change jobs, why should I, I love what I do and am loved for the work I do}

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 1:39pm

    Again, How is this different from me buying a DVD and a friend coming over and watching it?

    50% of the 'viewers' in that case didn't pay for the movie.

    If I invite 3 friend over that means 75% didn't pay for it.
    If I invite 9 people over then 90% didn't pay for it.

    ....

    Of course, that doesn't mean one or more of my friend and family won't go out and buy the movie, if it's good, later on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Corey, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 4:25pm

      Re:

      Overcast, the difference is after pirating it you already own it, so there is no need for you and your friends to go out and buy it, which is vastly different than friends coming over to watch a DVD.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 7:29pm

        Re: Re:

        There's no need for someone's friends to buy a copy of a movie they saw at the purchaser's house either.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        PaulT (profile), Aug 11th, 2011 @ 2:25am

        Re: Re:

        "the difference is after pirating it you already own it, so there is no need for you and your friends to go out and buy it"

        That's an unfounded assumption of course, but carry on and believe fantasies if it makes you feel better. By your logic, nobody who's taped a movie off TV has ever bought a copy of it, which is silly to say the least.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Corey, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 2:17pm

    "Since tons of authors are selling more and more books than ever before (and many are doing it through self-publishing), I'm not sure I see the real "problem" here." - that statement could not be more misleading. Yes, there are more book sales by more authors, but this is in large part to the numerous self-published wannabe authors who sell five books each. Add each of those authors and their five books together and the numbers look impressive, but it does not have anything to do with career authors and whether piracy is hurting their livelihood or not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Marcel de Jong (profile), Aug 11th, 2011 @ 5:32am

      Re:

      Some self-published or bundled under indie-publishers have reached the NYT bestseller lists.

      Sure there is a lot more noise among the signal. That means you as an artist have to work a bit harder to stand out.
      It could also mean that perhaps the idea of a career writer is over. Not many people reached that status anyway.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    RobShaver, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 3:01pm

    I went to their web site ...

    Fight Online Theft and found their take action page. It had a letter that they wanted me to send to my gov reps. So I did ... after I rewrote it a bit. You can look at the original on their web site. Here's what I sent ... not using their site 'cause I couldn't change the subject.

    It may not be perfect but it's what I got.

    "I write in opposition to the legislation that the Senate and House Judiciary Committees are crafting to target so called "rogue sites" - online enterprises that offer unauthorized copyrighted works to the public. These sites have business models predicated on old media companies not responding to their customers and failing to updating their business models to reflect the new realities brought about by new technologies. These Congressional efforts are misguided and bound to have many unpleasant unintended consequences.

    American ingenuity fuels this nation's economic growth, creates millions of new jobs and improves our quality of life. America's economy is based on innovation built upon what has come before. But old media companies are lobbying for laws to keep the status quo ... their business models which fail to satisfy their customers.

    Consumers, however, aren't the only victims: studies show that people who download copyrighted media also pay for and consume more of this same media. They are fans that are forced to obtain the media they want because the copyright owners failed to make it available to them in a convenient way.

    If America continues down the current path of creating legislation that stifles innovative new ideas in order to attempt to preserve outdated business models then we will continue to let our leadership in technology and media slip through our fingers.

    Stop implementing even more draconian policies that strengthen the government-granted monopoly of copyright and start looking at the real problems caused by it. I'm not saying eliminate copyright but try to find a balance between the rights of the original copyright holders, the consumers of that media and those that would make new art based on previous works.

    Sincerely,

    Robert Shaver"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Deirdre (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 3:45pm

    Ah, Deebs AKA Wolff. I see exactly what her problem is. There's been a serious dip in Mass Market Paperback Sales, even romances-- in fact romance readers seemed to have embraced ereaders with passionate abandon. *I honestly tried to work in a reference to burgeoning man lance, but couldn't do think of a way to do it.* Her current publishers appear to be Harlequin-- which has the monopoly on category romances, rarely pays well (their digital royalty rate until recently was 6% of the cover price)-- and NAL whose digital books are wildly over priced.

    I went to see if anyone was even pirating her books and was not surprised to see that she had less than a 1000 completed downloads of torrents that were just her books-- not for example all the Harlequin Superromances from 2011 that happen to include one of her books. There were not new torrents either. Most recent was 5/2011, oldest was April 2009.

    If she is losing her publishers due to lack of sales, I would submit its not because of piracy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Tom Landry (profile), Aug 10th, 2011 @ 4:16pm

    "Adding comments has been disabled for this video."

    Of course they have....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gwiz (profile), Aug 12th, 2011 @ 8:36am

      Re:

      "Adding comments has been disabled for this video."

      Of course they have....


      Right. They are basically saying this:

      "We really don't want to hear what you think, we are only interested in telling you what to think."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    TN, Aug 11th, 2011 @ 2:14am

    Wow! Fun post to read.. forensic, even :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Mobile Unit, Aug 11th, 2011 @ 2:18pm

    Dear Krista Betts...

    If all the 20 or so seeders I can count and the (let's count generously) 400 people who downloaded it from them over the last three years had instead bought the movie at 9.01 USD from Amazon.com you would indeed have made 197 USD in your check instead of 8. Well, provided you had a contract allowing you 5% of the gross. (off Amazon's retail price)
    Of course, that would make you more than twice the negotiator that Lawrence Olivier was which begs the question why you wasted your talent in what appears to be a pretty shitty movie.

    *******
    Or that's at least what I'd love to say to Krista.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This