Most people should be aware that these organizations are engaged in a proxy battle against the American people (via Congress) to limit this unauthorized distribution.
The RIAA is fighting hard to get laws passed which will allow them to police the internet (through Internet Service Providers (ISPs)) and the MPAA has already gotten draconian laws passed to punish the evil-doers who might camcord a movie in a theater.
I have an analogy which I believe puts the whole thing into perspective, and shows conclusively, that the RIAA/MPAA are not only wrong, but hurting their own business.
Let's say that I am an artist. A painter. I paint pictures and then I put them out on the street on a rack to advertise them for sale.
People walk down the street, see the paintings, and some of them buy from me.
But then, some people come down the street, see my paintings, and just steal them off the racks.
So, I start attaching cables to the paintings to secure them to the rack. So far, so good.
Then, along comes the '90's and digital technology. So now, people can walk down the street and use a digital camera to take high-resolution pictures of my paintings and "share" them over the internet.
What should I do?
Well, if I was the RIAA, I would lobby hard for laws which would force all ISPs to track when my images were traded so that I could drop in with my lawyers and disembowel the "sharers".
Or, if I was the MPAA, I could try to have digital cameras forbidden on my street.
But, being a lowly street-front artist, all I can do is move my images inside.
But there is a third alternative. I can allow the internet to do its work. By leaving my chained-up images on the rack outside my studio, I can let the "pirates" market for me. And the reason why this works is simple. It can be summed up in one word: Authenticity.
Most consumers fall into three groups - 1)fans/customers, 2)zombies, 3)posers.
Number 1 are the fans. These are people who will not be satisfied with owning a ripoff of my work - they will want to support me. These are people who want something genuine. They are the same people who insist on owning the actual CD/DVD of the music/films they love. (By coincidence, they also happen to be the people the RIAA/MPAA are pissing off due to ham-handed attempts at copy-protection on legitimately purchased products.)
Number 2, the zombies. I will rarely sell anything to these people. They only have copies of my stuff because they're following some trend they noticed somewhere. They don't matter to my business, except, as more advertising! Someone (a future fan) could visit a zombie's place, see one of my (unauthorized) works and vow to own an original.
Number 3, posers. Let's say I'm hot. My images are loft phat, so the poser has to have originals... 'nuff said. But, the poser who pirates will only be able to fake his game so long and eventually, he will get called out. In the meantime, he is marketing for me! Genius!
And that's all that needs be said. Let 'em steal your stuff - digitally. It will bring out the true fans. the zombies and posers don't matter, except as marketing tools. Which is what they are - tools.
However, the movie and recording industries, along with most of corporate America, have alienated so much of the populace through self-serving, bottom-line greed, that authenticity won't work for them automatically. They will need to make initial conciliatory gestures - like:
- stop suing file-sharers, and just tacitly accepting file-sharing as a part of doing business
- Stop lobbying congress against their customers
- Coming out and admitting that file-sharing will happen, but they hope that the American public is "above all that"
This would be a good start.
14 comments:
A'int buy'n It. A paintig has texture, depth of color you can appreciate. The process of creating colors & even the canvas/paper can be touched on an original.
Digital info on a piece of plastic has no more personality when it comes from the original burner or thieves,given the pirates have quality equipment.
Bottom line if I create it, it's MINE to distribute as I see fit for prices the market will bear.
I don't pretend to know how to stop intellectual property theft but unless your a commie ,it's still theft. And this in my opinion is ONE of the protections congress should be tring to enforce under the 4th amendment & copyright laws.
vinnymoe
A'int buy'n It.
You mention "theft", so let me expound on that.
Theft is theft. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. In the first case, if I steal the Mona Lisa then, I've committed theft. However, if I take a picture of the Mona Lisa and try to pawn it off as a legitimate reproduction, I am committing copyright infringement. (Not really, because I think Da Vinci has been dead long enough that he or his descendants have no claim in this case)
However, to continue with your example, yes, if you create it, you own the rights to its distribution, to its "copying".
But,in this age of technology, the danger lies in that restricting the individual's ability to make copies of your work, you inadvertently repress the individual's right to technology.
Just as there is no way to outlaw guns for use in homicides, there is no practical way to outlaw technology for use in copyright infringement.
It's one of those compromises that we, as a democracy, must make.
The same technology that allows me to make a bad-ass compilation CD of my favorite (legally purchased) tunes is the technology that allows the bad-ass gangsters to pump out billions of "copyright infringing" CDs.
In light of that reality, it is up to the industries whose lifeblood consists of copying (RIAA, MPAA) to come to grips with "unauthorized" copying and accept it as an unavoidable evil. Much like the gun manufacturers must basically ignore homicide as an unavoidable evil inherent to their industry.
In the case of MPAA/RIAA, they can simply out-market the infringers, whereas the road for the armorers is a bit tougher.
la vida vegas is absolutely right, that is one of the best arguments i've read about the stupidity of the recording industry and it makes common sense. my thought is that the recording industry has no idea of the concept of a depreciating asset. a brand new car loses value from day one. a 15 year old honda with low mileage is worth 1/10 the price of a new honda. what makes the recording industry think that a 15 year old song is worth the same as a new song? a 15 year old song is just about worthless, should sell for maybe a penny or two. in fact, a year old song is just about worthless, might be worth 10 cents. songs are intangible assets that depreciate much faster than physical assets like cars. they're worth almost nothing after a few days, yet the recording industry tries to prop their "value" up by lawsuits and such. some things don't have much value and music is one of those things.
a live performance or concert, that i would pay for. that's the musicians putting in their labor and cost of production and they should get paid whatever the market will bear. but the market has already told the industry that the recorded music itself is worth nothing, that's why no one pays for it. does anyone pay for yahoo or google? does yahoo or google come after individual users and sue them for not paying to use yahoo mail or google search? no, they try to get other revenue streams. so the riaa has to get other revenue streams and let the mp3s be their marketing material. let the rolling stones make money with their concerts, but if they depend on selling music mp3s they should rightfully be in the poorhouse. name another normal occupation (other than the wacko entertainment world) where you show up once and demand to get paid in perpetuity.
to the first anonymous, if you create a painting with you can rightfully sell it to whoever you want at whatever price you want. that's what van gogh did or tried to do and he died penniless. in 1987 one of his paintings sold for $50 million. did van gogh if he were living, get any of it? no, he gets nothing because the profits accrue to the collectors. but if he were living, his selling prices for new artwork would go up. so artists have to continually create art, and musicians have to continually put on concerts to make money, not just rest off their recording session. the existing body of work helps increase the prices they ask, if the existing body of work is well recognized by the public, and one of the ways to do that is to let the public see the art for free or hear the music for free, then if the public wants to buy their new art or see their new concerts, hey, that's how the artists make money, by labor, just like ordinary people who have to work every day.
Yeah, and you guys are never going to get paid for these posts, 'cause no one knows who you are!
:)
To Lavi d & annonomi
Again the painting analogy holds no merit.No texture or depth. With recodings; if you have original Capiol-apple-motown vinyl,
this has phisical value.
Once they are digitized & some would argue "cheapened"- believing the vinyl sound is pure, the recordings of Chuck,The Beatles or Patsy Kline has only that distinction from the original. If you want to fondle the packaging it has yet to be seen if cd's will hold the value of vinyl ,or 8 tracks for that matter.
To Lavi D, If your right to steal is"repressed" when using readily available technology, then my right to pop a cap in a niggaz ass is also, especially given gun tech. is hundreds of years ahead of digital pirates.
The people who make it possible for you to snatch off tunes in return for advertizing I HEREBY DUB "CYBER-FENCES"! (R)
To the Annonomi,
& you know ho you are.
Again as with Lavi, your analogy uses a physical object,a car.
Some car values go up & up depending on the physical make up of the metallic art work of your choice. Those pieces are rented to celebs,movies & photo shoots as a matter of course.
The value of a good tune can be licenced,leased& or rented for profit by anyone at fair market value,just like an AC Cobra.
As to your contention that music is worth less as it ages, your argument is (1) proven false by the Madison Avenue lust to use emotion provoking tunes to sell to boomers (almost as good as sex & sometimes the same) & (2) your self fulfilling prophecy , If you give somthing away after having stolen it ;of course it will have no value.
To continue with the last & address the other anonomunch; you stated "the recorded music itself is worth nothing" Then why would you want worthless 1's & 0's ?
The turth is; it's out there, you want it & it's easy to steal/share. I guaran-damn-tee of the hundreds of maybe thousends of tunes you have, you either (1) have it on vinyl or mag. tape & just want to update (that's cool) or are just grabbing & will never buy.Don'tchoo lie!
Lastly , Yes Polliana, someone does pay for Yahoo & Google they are called.. adverizers..Why do you thinnk they are on the front page of "FORTUNE 500" & are Wallstreet Jornal faves.
There once & sill is a way for the pubic to "here the music for free" it's called RADIO; I know it sucks & is about 6 mo. behind. But I yearn for the days of D.J.'s out of control & the X. even with the pay offs & such.
Asfar as a normal occupation being paid in perpetuity 1(investments,stocks, bonds& funds can be as timeless & succsessful as music) 2 (novels, poems,all literature) 3 (marrying a rich old man whose abou to croak)
VINNYMOE
To Lavi d & annonomi
Again the painting analogy holds no merit.No texture or depth. With recodings; if you have original Capiol-apple-motown vinyl,
this has phisical value.
Once they are digitized & some would argue "cheapened"- believing the vinyl sound is pure, the recordings of Chuck,The Beatles or Patsy Kline has only that distinction from the original. If you want to fondle the packaging it has yet to be seen if cd's will hold the value of vinyl ,or 8 tracks for that matter.
To Lavi D, If your right to steal is"repressed" when using readily available technology, then my right to pop a cap in a niggaz ass is also, especially given gun tech. is hundreds of years ahead of digital pirates.
The people who make it possible for you to snatch off tunes in return for advertizing I HEREBY DUB "CYBER-FENCES"! (R)
To the Annonomi,
& you know ho you are.
Again as with Lavi, your analogy uses a physical object,a car.
Some car values go up & up depending on the physical make up of the metallic art work of your choice. Those pieces are rented to celebs,movies & photo shoots as a matter of course.
The value of a good tune can be licenced,leased& or rented for profit by anyone at fair market value,just like an AC Cobra.
As to your contention that music is worth less as it ages, your argument is (1) proven false by the Madison Avenue lust to use emotion provoking tunes to sell to boomers (almost as good as sex & sometimes the same) & (2) your self fulfilling prophecy , If you give somthing away after having stolen it ;of course it will have no value.
To continue with the last & address the other anonomunch; you stated "the recorded music itself is worth nothing" Then why would you want worthless 1's & 0's ?
The turth is; it's out there, you want it & it's easy to steal/share. I guaran-damn-tee of the hundreds of maybe thousends of tunes you have, you either (1) have it on vinyl or mag. tape & just want to update (that's cool) or are just grabbing & will never buy.Don'tchoo lie!
Lastly , Yes Polliana, someone does pay for Yahoo & Google they are called.. adverizers..Why do you thinnk they are on the front page of "FORTUNE 500" & are Wallstreet Jornal faves.
There once & sill is a way for the pubic to "here the music for free" it's called RADIO; I know it sucks & is about 6 mo. behind. But I yearn for the days of D.J.'s out of control & the X. even with the pay offs & such.
Asfar as a normal occupation being paid in perpetuity 1(investments,stocks, bonds& funds can be as timeless & succsessful as music) 2 (novels, poems,all literature) 3 (marrying a rich old man whose abou to croak)
VINNYMOE
VinnyMoe,
To Lavi D, If your right to steal is"repressed" when using readily available technology, then my right to pop a cap...
Copyright infringement is not stealing. It's copy right infringement.
Once you have demonstrated you understand this concept, then we can try to deal with the rest of your demented ravings.
But I'm not holding out much hope.
Don't. Only because of pioneers like Gutenberg,Marconi & that goofball who invented the cathode ray tube only to set it on a shelf believing his supervisor was rihgt in telling him it was useless, do we have a myriad of media that nesessitated distinctions like COPY RIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
This is only polite legalese to separate purse snatchers & bank robbers from professionals who easily could have comitted the crime of theft inadvertently.
Once you understand this conce....
1450 - Gutenberg's printing bibles.
1662 - The unlicensed copying of books leads to the licensing Act of 1662 which is a forerunner to copyright.
1886 - Berne Convention the beginning of modern copyright.
1897 - Marconi sends first wireless communication.
1923-1930 Farnsworth/Zworykin simultaneously invent/patent television-like devices.
Average people couldn't record (copy) radio broadcasts until the 1940's and couldn't record television until the 1970's.
So, no. Copyright was not brought about because of radio and television recording (which I think is your point) and it has nothing to do with theft - AT ALL
Both the recording and movie industries have been trying hard to convince people that copyright infringement and theft are the same thing, but it's just not true.
Stop drinking Hollywood's Kool-Aid.
What's the difference between taping it off the radio to hear again whenever you want, which is what people did before the computer age, and digitizing it off a computer connection to hear whenever you want, which is what people do in the computer age? Anyone other than a die-hard fan just wants a adequate fidelity copy for pennies. Music just isn't worth much to normal people. The fair market value is nil, stop trying to prop up the value of music with old stupid arguments from old stupid people trying to defend their old stupid industry. Technology lowers costs in all industries, the music industry is the only industry that tries to keep pricing at economically indefensible levels.
Technology lowers costs in all industries, the music industry is the only industry that tries to keep pricing at economically indefensible levels.
Excellent point.
I should probably clarify something.
Unauthorized copying is illegal. It is a crime.
The problem is that it's a crime that is nearly impossible to control without severely limiting legitimate access to technology.
Littering is also a crime, but putting an end to all littering would require some serious intervention - electronic monitors on all disposable items tied to an individual's DNA, for instance. Most sane people would admit that that's a bit extreme.
And that's my point about trying to eliminate illegal copying - it can't be done without a healthy dose of technological insanity.
Post a Comment