Study Says File Sharers Would Ignore Warning Letters; Recording Industry Gets The Wrong Message
from the let's-try-this-again... dept
The fight in the UK over how the recording industry will deal with future business models continues. The industry has been pushing hard for ISPs to start kicking people offline, believing (oddly) that pissing off a lot of people and making them lose their internet connections will magically make people want to buy music again — rather than the reality: which is that it will piss off even more people and make them even less inclined to spend money on the industry. Yet, UK politicians have so far stood firm against a three strikes policy, sometimes claiming that merely sending warning letters should be enough to scare unauthorized file sharers straight. So, of course, it didn’t take long for a new industry study to come out saying that a high percentage (around 67%) of file sharers would likely ignore such letters unless they were backed up by other measures, such as a three strikes regime.
So, of course, the industry is using this to demand more than just warning letters be mandated by UK law. But, once again, it appears the industry is getting the wrong message. Rather than realizing what the study is actually saying — that unauthorized file sharing won’t stop — it seems to think that if it just finds that magic legal bullet, suddenly file sharing will go away and people will start spending again. What they should have recognized is that this study says that people will go to great lengths to file share, even if they know it’s illegal, because they do not believe it is wrong or unethical. And, as such, if the industry reps were thinking this through, they might realize that this represents a giant opportunity to build business models around embracing such fan activities, rather than trying to hold back the tide.
Filed Under: file sharing, graduated response, recording industry, three strikes, uk, warning letters
Comments on “Study Says File Sharers Would Ignore Warning Letters; Recording Industry Gets The Wrong Message”
Mike, considering the idea of speeding tickets.
If a speeding ticket had no fine attached, no bearing on your future insurance rates, no penalty at all except the time to say “I’m sorry” to the police officer, how many people do you think would speed?
Writing “you are a bad person” letters to people won’t change anything. The industry is right in this case, without teeth behind these warnings, the paper is meaningless.
Re: Re:
Faulty logic making comparison between something which has potential to physically harm and is thus illegal because of the danger, and something that is illegal because “they say so” and not because of a threat to health.
Re: Re: Re:
so replace speeding with parking infractions, spitting on the sidewalk, jaywalking, not cleaning up your dog poop, or wearing white pants after labor day.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And who cares if people spit on the sidewalk?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I do. I would totally send “You’re a bad person” letters to spitters.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And people do speed, park illegally (wrong zone and/or not paying a meter), and jaywalk, and spit on the sidewalk… what point are you trying to make?
Like Mike said, when people don’t find a thing unethical, they will tend to ignore laws banning it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
… and they find it ethical to steal / borrow / infringe / take what they want because nobody is telling them otherwise.
Piracy is like a riot. A group of people standing on the corner doing nothing isn’t an issue – but with a large enough crowd and the cover that this crowd offers, many people will do exceptionally bad things, feeling empowered by the mob. TPB and similar places are the “unruly mob” encouraging this behavior, agressively pointing out that nobody is getting caught.
If people started to pay the true costs of their “infringements”, and it became easier for the copyright holders to extract punishment, you would see the ethical issues shift VERY rapidly. Right now we are in a free for all, and nobody feels compelled to follow the laws. Change that attitude, and piracy goes back down to the levels it was at 20 years ago.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I’m curious. What exactly are the “true costs costs of their ‘infringements'” (sorry I’m not an English major, I don’t know how to properly quote quotes)
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
No, no, you did it correctly – depending on who you talk to, of course.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Right now we are in a free for all, and nobody feels compelled to follow the laws. Change that attitude, and piracy goes back down to the levels it was at 20 years ago.
I think you’re fooling yourself. This isn’t about not getting caught, this is about the new way of doing things. File sharing has been shown to have HUGE potential to help artists who take advantage of it. You and yours are the flagger in front of the automobile of the internet, trying to keep the status quo and making things worse than they need to be.
Re: Re: Re:
Let’s not forget that studies have show that accident rates don’t improve if there is an enforced speed limit.
Re: Re:
I’m sorry – I thought that there WERE penalties for PROVEN copyright infringement. After all, we seem to have been hearing a lot about the various outlet suing the fans over the past few years.
As for your speeding fine analogy, If I’m going to pay up I’d want a damn sight better evidence than ‘A Ford was speeding in the area – you were in the area and you own a Ford, so pay up now’ which is the equivalent of what the labels are offering as ‘evidence’.
Re: Re:
Writing “you are a bad person” letters to people won’t change anything. The industry is right in this case, without teeth behind these warnings, the paper is meaningless.
There are teeth. As others noted, it’s called existing copyright law. What they’re looking to do with three strikes is route around copyright law.
Re: Re: Re:
There is no teeth in current copyright law, because the structure is set to heavily favor the infringer rather than the copyright holder. At this point, even if a copyright holder can prove you have a hard drive full of “infringing” software or music, it is almost impossible to even get the process to court, let alone to get a judgement.
How many files traded per day? How many actual court cases?
It is way too easy to “infringe” and way to difficult and expensive to prove it. The copyright holders need to have as easy a route to prove their case as it is to infringe. Until then, it will never be equal.
Oh yeah, RD, screw off. I ain’t a corporate shill. That is the standard refrain as soon as someone starts making a point that actually has merit.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh look, more ignorance. Fun.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no teeth in current copyright law, because the structure is set to heavily favor the infringer rather than the copyright holder. At this point, even if a copyright holder can prove you have a hard drive full of “infringing” software or music, it is almost impossible to even get the process to court, let alone to get a judgement.
I’m inclined to agree. The justice system is just not equipped or designed to handle the new character and scale of torts and crimes enabled by the Internet.
A teacher once told me a story, and I can’t find an authoritative source for it, so it may be apocryphal. But the story is about the dawn of automobiles. According to the story, the advent of the automobile, along with all the social benefits it had, also made it much easier to commit a crime and get away before the authorities could respond.
The strategy to counterbalance this? License plates. By putting a prominent, unique plate on each car, you could substantially increase your ability to track down somebody after they’d committed a crime.
Now I can’t verify whether this is true. After a diligent search on the Internet, I can’t find a single good answer to the question of why license plates were invented. Even the venerable Wikipedia only indicates that they were invented about 100 years ago in Europe and have been evolving ever since, but they seem to be almost endemically associated with cars.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “a motorist has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information contained on his license plate under the Fourth Amendment…The very purpose of a license plate number, like that of a Vehicle Identification Number, is to provide identifying information to law enforcement officials and others.”
What’s funny is that, despite this, nobody seems to give them a second thought. Yet all kinds of similar proposals, when applied to the Internet or anything else these days, raise the ire of people rather effectively.
All the backlash on this site when people actually try to increase the penalties or enforceability of copyright law is sort of amusing to me, because I think it’s quite likely that the same group of people submits willingly to the license plate law without raising an eyebrow. I imagine if the proposal to add license plates to cars were floated today – instead of 100 years ago – there would be cries going up all over this site. “It’s a money grab!” “This is an attack on privacy!” “This is rife for abuse and must be stopped!” “It’ll never work – people who intend to commit crimes will just forge or steal license plates!”
Where is the license plate outrage? I mean, any Tom, Dick, or Harry Policeman can run your plate at just about any time without a warrant – legally. Any citizen with a Webcam, a zoom lens, and some software can probably record every car that drives by their window. If they coordinate with others, they can probably track your movements with impunity.
The answer seems to be that the outrage is only applied to proposals to increase a law’s ability to be enforced, or the penalty for breaking it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
No, license plates were invented to make up yet another reason for you to pay fees to the governmentses.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“All the backlash on this site when people actually try to increase the penalties or enforceability of copyright law is sort of amusing to me, because I think it’s quite likely that the same group of people submits willingly to the license plate law without raising an eyebrow. I imagine if the proposal to add license plates to cars were floated today – instead of 100 years ago – there would be cries going up all over this site. “It’s a money grab!” “This is an attack on privacy!” “This is rife for abuse and must be stopped!” “It’ll never work – people who intend to commit crimes will just forge or steal license plates!”
That’s because the license plate does not cause your car engine to break down; license plates does not cause your brakes to fail; license plates does not open the locks of your car to any Tom, Dick and Harry out there. License plates does not force you to listen/watch warnings on breaking the law everytime you start up your car. License plate does not require to to verify your car keys are real and not copies. It does not automatically send private information on where you drive your car and what you do in your car to third parties.
And that, my friend, is the difference.
Re: Re:
Agreed. If you speed 3 times you lose the right to drive FOREVER.
Oh, wait a minute. Even DUI punishments aren’t that bad! What was I thinking??? Except that when I speed I actually DO endanger people’s lives (to a varying degree).
How do I hurt people by file sharing? Financially? To what degree? To the degree that I should lose my internet connection forever?
Re: Re: Re:
You MIGHT endanger people’s lives. Speed alone doesn’t cause accidents, there’s a lot more that goes into it, including road conditions, weather, car maintenance, and the driver’s state of mind. Many speed limits in the US are arbitrary, and this has contributed to the lack of respect most drivers have for speed limits. Experience shows that most people drive 10 to 15 mph over the limit on nearly all highways.
Re: Speeding Tickets
I love speeding tickets, here in my area, they turn them into parking fines so they can keep the full fine.
Insurance does not go up, and you get no points on your license.
This is all just part of the revenue stream, with little real regard for safety.
Like downloading music it has become a farce.
I like to go back and think of player piano roles.
Then I laugh at the nickelodeon.
Re: Re: Speeding Tickets
That’s funny to imagine:
“Pull the over to the curb!”
—-
“Good afternoon, officer. What seems to be the problem?”
“Sir, you do know that you can’t park here.”
Re: Re:
It is not like a speeding ticket, because no one proved you were infringing. It is like the “report a bad driver” programs that large cities have, where you can phone in a license plate of someone you see breaking traffic laws. In these cases, all the police can do is send a warning letter because you can’t start fining people based on the presumption of guilt.
Already have
“Writing “you are a bad person” letters to people won’t change anything. The industry is right in this case, without teeth behind these warnings, the paper is meaningless.”
Dear Corporate Shill,
They already have legislation “with teeth” in them, its called copyright infringement law, look it up. Sadly, it requires proof, a judge and a hearing, which you and your buddies are trying to circumvent with this lying, fraudulent end-run trying to get ISP’s to do your work for you.
Mike, you made a wrong assumption....
Most of the people I know don’t “file-share” because we think it’s ethical or legal (though some of us do), it’s mostly because we can’t or won’t pay the high price of a game or a movie we aren’t positive we will enjoy (think about the new gamefly commercial where people are upset and destroying things because of a “bad” game). Some of us can’t even afford a game we do enjoy. I myself have a list of games and movies to buy when I do have the money, or when the prices drop (anyone notice even a used version of Call of Duty 4 is still near 50 dollars?). If they stopped raping movie theaters, or the theaters made the movie experience enjoyable, or the game producers drop the prices a few bucks (i’ll pay 30 for a new game, 15-20 for a used) we may actually be able to spend money, but until then my torrent client will be running….
Re: Mike, you made a wrong assumption....
So what you’re saying is that because you can’t afford something, they’re raping you and its ok to steal? Does that mean that its ok to walk into a store and steal a movie from the shelves, or a cd, or a game? Or is it just ok to steal if its just a “digital” version that doesn’t actually require you to get your ass out of a chair and put pants on?
One of the things that amazes me is how some people feel they are “entitled” to everything, regardless of its cost, worth, or their effort. Just because they want it, they should be able to have it with minimal loss, effect, or actual effort on their part.
I believe the markets and corporations have to embrace the new methods and business models that technology is handing them, but I take exception to people saying that they’re being raped so it’s ok to steal.
Fair use, proper compensation of the artist, and improvement of the end user’s experience is where the future is. Ripping a movie off a shelf and hiding it under your coat and downloading a torrent of the movie is still stealing.
Re: Re: Mike, you made a wrong assumption....
Oh look, someone no one has to take seriously because they don’t know what theft is.
Re: Re: Re: Mike, you made a wrong assumption....
Haha and because of that ignorance, apparently the only thing about stealing a physical thing vs digital is the laziness of the thief.
Re: Re: Mike, you made a wrong assumption....
Downloading a torrent isn’t theft. Ask the Supreme Court who ruled that it wasn’t. Just because YOU say it is doesn’t make it so, since the legal definitions have already been provided.
Thank you, move along, I don’t want fries with my order, thanks.
As for entitlement, the industry thinks it’s entitled to massive penalties for copying a song they sell online for under a buck? Screw that. Those penalties were for INDUSTRIAL infringement. Private, personal infringement should not cost hundreds or thousands of times more than the /price/ of the work in question. Price, not value, because the value is about a penny to me.
Re: Re: Mike, you made a wrong assumption....
He said, “If they stopped raping movie theaters,” likely referring to the fact that theatres get almost nothing out of ticket sales because of the high charges that the movie studios place on each showing. Movie theatres have to make all their profits on concessions… which tend to be so high that most people I know skip them entirely.
He did not say that he was being raped because video games are $20+ too expensive, and so it’s OK to steal.
Link Misquote
Mike quote:
“…this study says that people will go to great lengths to file share, even if they know it’s illegal, because they do not believe it is wrong or unethical.”
Another example of a link that is misquoted. The BBC link only uses the word “unrepentant”. Pretty hard to get from unrepentant to “because they do not believe it is wrong or unethical”.
Look up the word unrepentant and it has plenty of connotations that the person recognizes something is wrong or unethical and chooses to not “repent” their actions.
If for some reason Mike you have seen an advance copy of the June 16 report or have another link to back up the above statement then please share that with us. Otherwise this is a clear putting words into the BBC mouth that do not exist.
Apologize for the misquote or be “unrepentant”- your choice.
Re: Link Misquote
I can’t think of any reasons that someone would not repent their actions unless they thought their actions were justified. If you feel justified, there is a good chance you probably don’t think you’re doing unethical, morally wrong things.
Re: Link Misquote
Mike wasn’t quoting anyone. The first paragraph talks about what was reported. The second paragraph is Mike’s interpretation and analysis of the report. This is where Mike adds more value than a Google search. He says that the Industry should recognize what the report really says — and then gives his impression of what that is. We don’t pay Mike to parrot the BBC.
Re: Link Misquote
Tired, Mike was interpreting what he believes the results of the study suggest.
The other solution
We seem to all be forgetting the other option. I personally have been boycotting movie theaters and only watching movies at friends houses when they get the movie. Also, I pulled back and stopped playing the console games because the price tags got too steep.
I have gone back to reading books and watching tv. (I’m usually even disgusted by the inanity of the programming available on tv. Until there is something worth the price, I’ll just be saving my money.
Re: The other solution
Watching movies at a friend’s house is copyright infringment, too. The Studios just haven’t found a way to enforce it yet.
Additionally, by not buying the new consoles and games you’re robbing the publishers of their due. Don’t you think those code monkeys deserve to be paid for their work?
Your time will come, scumbag.
Wow...massive FAIL
“Fair use”
Big Media Content/RIAA/MPAA dont believe in such a thing. They have said so straight out many times. They believe EVERY use MUST be authorized AND compensated. To the degree that, if they could get away with it (and they have stated this too), they would charge PER VIEW/LISTEN to the consumer, EVERY time you viewed their content.
“, proper compensation of the artist,”
This is market driven. Produce something people will pay for, they will pay you if they think its worth it. No new laws are needed for this, as you already have the system to attempt to sell your stuff. Also, Big Media Content doesnt give SQUAT to the “artist” they almost always (and this has been proven over and over) find ways to NOT compensate the artists and keep the money for themselves.
” and improvement of the end user’s experience is where the future is.”
Bwahahaha where have YOU been? Big Content Media has NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in providing ANYTHING of value to the consumer, especially not anything that “improves the user experience.” They have been quite actively engaged in doing the exact opposite of this since the internet age began. They have to be DRAGGED into this, or end up with someone like Apple making iTunes, something the labels ALL OPPOSED, then tried to rape with 2.5x price increases as soon as it proved viable.
” Ripping a movie off a shelf and hiding it under your coat and downloading a torrent of the movie is still stealing.”
No its not. It may not be right, or even legal, but its NOT THE SAME. Making a COPY is INFRINGEMENT, not theft. Look it up. When you steal, you deprive someone of that item (note, NOT just the “potential sale” but the ACTUAL item). These are not the same thing, and no amount of yelling “thief!” and “pirate!” will make it so.
Sorry, FAIL.
Why would I download a torrent of a movie if I have already ripped it off a shelf?
Re: Re:
The disc got scratched when you ripped it off?
Re: Re: Re:
…they should really stop gluing those things on…
Jammin to the 80's!
I am sitting here jamming to the 80’s on You Tube. I could never go back and buy all those great songs so I can’t wait until they invoke a music tax on my broadband connection. Then I am going PIRATE all the way. But wait, I won’t really be a pirate because I will be paying a tax on it. ;>)
Think outside the square and there is plenty of money to make
I think most people would be happy to spend a couple of dollars to watch a movie. The problem with a per-view model is basically one of service delivery. Very few movies are available online legitimately. If someone wants to watch a movie after midnight then they basically have to have a copy of it already. This is why people feel like they need to pirate movies and store them in big collections.
I think a lot of movie piracy would go away if studios provided downloads with DRM that prevent a movie from being played 24 hours after the download. The download would have to be not counted towards your monthly limit. Such services already exist (here in Australia) but the number of movies available is very small.
I’d quite happily do away with my AVI collection if my online movie service had a big range and was reasonably priced.
The movie companies have the wrong attitude when it comes to maximising profits. If they made legitimate use easy and affordable then people would stop pirating movies. It is a lot less effort to download a movie illegally than it is to walk to the video library – people naturally do the easiest thing.
Re: Think outside the square and there is plenty of money to make
I’d go one step further. If a site would allow customers to download high quality videos, had a user friendly interface, and a general good experience, and a library that included nearly any movie anybody would want to watch, people would pay. Piracy doesn’t beat convenience. Piracy is only winning because of inflated prices, and a lack of convenience.
Re: Re: Think outside the square and there is plenty of money to make
Piracy beats convenience often enough that it is still an issue. The truth is if file sharing because dangerous, risky, and inconvenient, then most people wouldn’t do it. Right now, it isn’t risk or dangerous, and the inconvenience factor is there only if you want something RIGHT NOW.
People will always take what they can get for free, to “stick it to the man” as it were. When you make the act of sticking it to the man risky, the stop doing it.
The current rules on copyright, reporting, and the process to get people to court is so long and complicated, that most copyright violators get away with it, and they know it. Change that situation, and file trading becomes a more underground situation, rather than the overt act it currently is.
AC #1
Ha ha
unskippable acusitory commercials
Because of the unskipable “you wouldn’t steal a car…” commercials, I have in excess of 20 unopened DVD’s. I like the movie, so I buy it.(under a theory of economic democracy–If It’s profitable to make things I like, they will make more things I like).
I refuse to sit though these indoctrination commercials, so after I buy– I visit Piratebay.
Nope, STILL FAIL
“There is no teeth in current copyright law, because the structure is set to heavily favor the infringer rather than the copyright holder. At this point, even if a copyright holder can prove you have a hard drive full of “infringing” software or music, it is almost impossible to even get the process to court, let alone to get a judgement.”
What world are YOU living in? Are you seriously that deluded? The copyright laws are heavily in favor of the COPYRIGHT HOLDER. Duh! Otherwise, there would be NO NEED for a copyright law! Who do you think wrote these laws, copyright abusers? Come one…do you think before you write?
“It is way too easy to “infringe” and way to difficult and expensive to prove it. The copyright holders need to have as easy a route to prove their case as it is to infringe. Until then, it will never be equal.”
They already have everything they need. They have the force of law on their side. They have the courts on their side. They have congressmen in their pockets. There are reasons why laws arent “easy” in the manner you are inferring. It would lead to massive abuse and complete destruction of any rights for the consumer.
The solution isnt MORE laws, that just makes criminals out of all consumers, with an assumption of guilt. Plenty of things got created before there ever was copyright or patent laws, and with or without these laws, there is nothing stopping people from engaging in creative works.
“Oh yeah, RD, screw off. I ain’t a corporate shill. That is the standard refrain as soon as someone starts making a point that actually has merit.”
No, you ARE a corporate shill, even if its de facto. The standard refrain of someone who has no counter-argument is to hurl a vulgarity at the opposing party as if they just defeated their argument.
FAIL
re: Nope, STILL FAIL
“They already have everything they need. They have the force of law on their side. They have the courts on their side. They have congressmen in their pockets. There are reasons why laws arent “easy” in the manner you are inferring. It would lead to massive abuse and complete destruction of any rights for the consumer.”
Any idiot can see that millions of people are pirating media. Millions have been traced doing so. Millions have not been prosecuted or even fined.
In my book, this means the balance is still very heavily on the side of the infringer. Call that protection of the rights of consumer if you like.
Re: re: Nope, STILL FAIL
So, in essence, what you are saying is that anyone who opts, for whatever reason, *not* to sue to redress a given greivance is taking power away from the courts and placing it into the hands of criminals? That this inaction somehow tilts the law in favor of the criminal? Hogwash!
You sir, are a troll, and you shall not be fed anymore. Good day.
tickets
But even with the ticket people still speed. The record industry needs to wake up and smell the coffee. The industry puts out albums and I only like one song. I will not buy a whole album for one song, I will download it. Right wrong good or bad I don’t spend my money like that anymore.
Close, but not quite...
“Any idiot can see that millions of people are pirating media. Millions have been traced doing so. Millions have not been prosecuted or even fined.
In my book, this means the balance is still very heavily on the side of the infringer. Call that protection of the rights of consumer if you like.”
If MILLIONS of people are violating a law, then that law needs to be re-examined and possibly done away with. Laws are not absolute, and can change or go away as the society changes. That many people violating copyright means that copyright is the problem. MORE copyright isnt the answer, and will not only be ineffective (since millions are already doing it, the barn door is already open) but will only serve to incite the public even more against it.
And dont bother to trot out a “if millions killed people….” comparison, because that kind of thing will simply never happen.
Speed limit laws are a good example. Millions routinely break this “law” and some enforcement is done. One partial solution was to raise the limit in many states to something more reasonable and in line with what people were already collectively doing. People still speed, but now less of them are “criminals” for doing it, but even so, some still get caught and prosecuted (fined). Your solution is to criminalize everyone who drives, because many or most “break the law.” This is not a solution, this is insanity and goes against hundreds of years of how laws are made.
re: Nope, STILL FAIL
“So, in essence, what you are saying is that anyone who opts, for whatever reason, *not* to sue to redress a given greivance is taking power away from the courts and placing it into the hands of criminals?”
No, I am not saying that at all. The record companies seem keen to push ahead with as much litigation as possible but are not able to even scratch the surface on the number of people who are infringing their copywrite.
I agree with RD that it is silly to consider every person who downloads a movie to be a criminal but you also have to see the point of view of the movie makers who are entitled to a return on investment for the movies they produce.
The answer lies in sensible pricing and sensible fines for avoiding payment.
Re: re: Nope, STILL FAIL
Paul, you are right, but until mass copyright violations (aka theft of services) are more easily dealt with, you will likely not see lower movie prices.
It is just like Mike’s magical “give away the music, charge more for other things” mentality, but on a smaller scale. The more people pirate a movie, in theory the higher the price has to be on the rest of the sales to make up the lost money. “shiny plastic discs” sold retail could be sold for as little as $7-$10 and be profitable enough to all involved to stock, transport, produce, whatever. But at that price, they would have to double sales over the $15-$20 discs they sell today. WIth widespread piracy, that isn’t going to happen. It’s just like concert tickets, if that is the only place to make the money back that is lost through piracy and free give aways, the prices will be higher.
It’s the reason more people should support tougher application of the current copyright laws. that doesn’t mean higher fines or whatever, but a better system to deal with the current piracy wave. Kill the piracy, drop the prices retail down to a number similar to a single ticket to the theater, and it is good for everyone.
The problem of piracy is that there are enough people out there who feel entitled to everything for nothing. With little risk that they would face a fine or other legal action, they feel empowered. Removing that empowerment would make that small subgroup very unhappy, but lower prices for all would be a nice reward for the rest of us.
Every action has a reaction. The pirate types don’t give a crap what they do to you, they just want their free stuff.
Re: Re: re: Nope, STILL FAIL
The trouble is that if you kill piracy, there’s no one competing with the studios and so no reason for them to drop their prices. You want the movie? You’re going to pay $20 because we say so. They aren’t trying to maintain profits, they’re trying to maximize profits. They won’t half their price if they double their sales, they’ll just take in more money.
Piracy is not a direct attack on sales. I routinely buy movies out of the bargain bin because there’s real value and convenience to having a DVD that downloaded movies don’t match, and $7-$10 is a fairly resonable price for such things. If the studios dropped their prices they’d be doing better because more people would buy their disks — but this doesn’t mean they’ll ever see the profits of the 80s and 90s again.
just buy your music used
no money goes to the record labels then
Re: just buy independent music
no money goes to the record labels then
Re: just buy your music used
Nah, they’ll just take a page from the game publishers and start claiming that the second-hand market is infringement, and they should get a cut of that, too.
IMHO, I think almost everyone here is missing the point, at least the main point.
“Piracy” isn’t file-sharing. “Piracy” is making money out of duplicating copyrighted items.
File-Sharing isn’t about making money. At most is about saving money, money that will be spent somewhere else, maybe improving economies locally, instead of comglomerates.
Entitlement, is what copyright holders feel about their items. They created it. Found a way to monetize their creations. And then they feel entitled to receive in perpetuity plus a day, royalties from that creation, without producing anything else more.
What file-sharers do, and, they will keep doing, is not recognize that entitlment. You can argue all you want with laws, and infringment and whatever else, but anyone learning that it is being abused, and finding a way to not remain in that position, will take it. Whatever what you may call it.
Prices, availability, DRM’s, Openness, all that is fruitless, as long as the entitlment remains. “Rightfull compensation to authors” is the main reason everyone is invoking. That is the main problem. No one should be entitled to be compensated for creating something for commercial purposes. If you are doing it for artistic and not commerce, you don’t feel entitled.
If any of you starts a businness, and many of you have, you don’t expect that your businness will be “Rightfuly compensated”. You will work, and demand payment, and will be paid, or law will be at your side. But, no one guarantees that you will keep receiving after the job is done. In perpetuity.
Why “creative” work should be “Entitled” to that?
File-sharers have reached that conclusion, and found that they also have the right to some entitlement of their own. Call it what you want, as mike stated, the horse is out of the barn. People realized that they were being abused, and found a way to fight back.
Sending letters, fines, sueing, cutting access… and whatever else you may do, or demand done in the name of your entitlement, will only create more on the file-sharers side. Ultimately, file-sharing will never stop, and it will be higher at every effort made to quelch it. The sooner everyone realizes that, and find a reasonable way to deal with it, either embracing it, or removing the reasons for it to exist, the sooner everyone will proffit from it.
Just my oppinion, as file-sharer, as father, as educator, as creator, as author, as human being. Peace…
Re: Re:
File-Sharing isn’t about making money. At most is about saving money, money that will be spent somewhere else, maybe improving economies locally, instead of comglomerates.
For individual file-sharers it is not. For the Pirate Bay, it’s $100,000 in revenue (according to the Pirate Bay themselves, not even those who oppose it).
I support your desire to save money. The way you save money is by not spending it. The consequence of not spending it is that you don’t get anything. But of course you don’t want that. You want to have your cake and eat it too.
Entitlement, is what copyright holders feel about their items. They created it. Found a way to monetize their creations. And then they feel entitled to receive in perpetuity plus a day, royalties from that creation, without producing anything else more.
In general, they were paid nothing to create their “items.” They have taken a significant risk. Maybe nobody will want their items and they will legitimately get nothing. That’s fine.
If you work a salaried job, you get paid at the end of the day. The company can’t come back to you and say “geez, we didn’t make enough money this week, so we’ve decided we’re not going to pay you.” If you actually own the business, you might take that risk, but there is a compensating factor: you also can reap a greater reward. Content creators make the same sort of bargain.
Why should the owner of a company get paid more than any of his employees if the company does well? After all, they may both work roughly the same amount of hours. The owner’s job is probably not appreciably harder than some of the employees’.
No one should be entitled to be compensated for creating something for commercial purposes.
Fine, I will make you a bargain: I will not force you to buy the content I create. Likewise, you don’t get to have the content I create without buying it from me, OK?
Oh, wait, not OK with you. You want to have my content on your terms. See, that is not how it’s supposed to work. As people repeatedly point out ad nauseum on this site, “something is only worth what someone will pay for it.” They nearly always neglect to mention the other side of the coin: if you don’t pay, you don’t get. You get a choice: pay the price I’m asking and get the content, or keep your money and get nothing. You want option 3: keep your money and get the content anyway.
If you want to talk about entitlement, then option 3, sir, is the definition of entitlement.
If you are doing it for artistic and not commerce, you don’t feel entitled.
If you create content “for artistic” and don’t want any compensation, then give YOUR content away. I don’t really care one way or the other. Please don’t dictate how I need to feel about my content.
You will work, and demand payment, and will be paid, or law will be at your side. But, no one guarantees that you will keep receiving after the job is done. In perpetuity.
As I said, content creators generally don’t get paid when they work. They get paid only if their content sells, or if they find another way to get people to pay them. I’m sure if you offered a steady salary to content creators, you’d have a steady stream of applicants for the job. If you could assess the value of content reliably in advance and just pay the content creator in a lump sum, I’m guessing many would take that deal.
But you can’t, and so you won’t.
People realized that they were being abused, and found a way to fight back.
Nobody was being abused. Nobody was forcing you to buy that book, or that CD, or that DVD, or to go see that movie.
What happened is people found a way to get something for nothing, with infinitesimal risks of getting caught. If you thought all that stuff cost too much, then the appropriate response is not to buy it, and do without it.
RE: Doctor Strange
“As I said, content creators generally don’t get paid when they work. They get paid only if their content sells, or if they find another way to get people to pay them.”
Uhh…. no. Most content creators (authors, artists, directors, actors) they are paid to create the content, and then the big companies take the rights to that content and distribute it, and take most of the money garnered by sales. This link, although dated (but hey, we all know how much the music industry loves to change their ways of doing things) shows how they work. Also, I can’t remember the name of the band, but I distinctly remember hearing about a band who, upon leaving their label after a very well selling record, was told that they owed some ridiculous amount of money.
So your argument is wrong… the big content creators are payed to create their content, and not much if anything when they sell it. And as for the smaller creators (such as indie artists), they can’t be pirated very easily (if at all), and the fans of those artists wouldn’t pirate them anyway.
Watunes, The New Music Industry!
To help alleviate issues with P2P file sharing whereby artists & record labels lose major revenue, we offer a service that allow the artists & record labels to collect all their revenue. As representatives for the largest digital distribution in the world, we will show you how to benefit from a Digital Distribution relationship. Gone are the days of selling your music through a physical means. Statistics say 48% of teenagers purchased their music online in 2007 with that number increasing from 32% a year prior. If you are still slanging CD’s, you are quickly falling into the dinosaur arena. We can help you change all that.
Watunes offers services for the entire independent music community, whether you already have digital representation or are just getting started in the digital world. We make it easy to distribute your content to digital outlets, promote your content using our innovative marketing systems, and manage your catalog and sales using our first-class technology.
WaTunes is a social media distribution service that enables artists, groups, and record labels to sell music, music videos, and audiobooks through leading online entertainment retailers, including iTunes,ShockHound, and eMusic. Artists and labels can sell unlimited music and earn 100% of their profits – ALL FOR FREE! In fact, as of Tuesday June 9th, we signed NBA Legend and Hall of Famer Earl ‘the Pearl’ Monroe who owns record label Reverse Spin Records. The link is listed right below & you can either click on it and/or copy & paste into your browser. I’ve also attached a PDF file of all the other services we’re affiliated with should you choose to upgrade to our VIP service! Please direct any further inquires, comments, questions, or concerns to us. We’re more than elated to serve you anyway we possibly can.
Best,
Sammie
Earl “the Pearl” Monroe link:
http://news.google.com/news?client=safari&rls=en&q=watunes&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn
—
watunes.com
Sammie Houston
SVP, Client Services
e-mail: sammiehouston@watunes.com
Skype ID: sammie.houston
Office: 678-598-2439
Sneak Preview: http://tinyurl.com/dh3mum
Youtube advertisements:
http://www.youtube.co/watch?v=vJhsSKB2-u4
http://www.youtube.comwatch?v=O2AYrcDVhCs
Check out our Reviews, add your comments & feedback too:
http://www.rateitall.com/i-1125252
watunes.aspx