6 ms·

The thing that strikes me whenever I hear those crusty old old-media guys talking is that the reality of the generations growing up today is so entirely differe

The thing that strikes me whenever I hear those crusty old old-media guys talking is that the reality of the generations growing up today is so entirely different. Nobody I know in my generation, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum, gives a shit about copyright. Nobody. Everyone downloads music, movies and TV shows freely and without thinking about it. That's not to say they don't ever pay for stuff, just look at the success of iTunes or the record-breaking opening weekends of popular movies. But the young generations fundamentally do no have any respect for copyright, especially if it restricts their abilities to enjoy consumption of content. The times, they are a-changin', whether "the industry" likes it or not.

acron0 15y ago
I totally agree. I can't help but feel like they're holding on to "the way things were" because they've been through it. Children born today will - as they should - have a different perspective on IP and what it means and that's reflective of the movements that have been made in the last few years. These dinosaurs on stage can't comprehend change because they're so out of touch.
_delirium 15y ago
I find the comments people make on YouTube around this non-understanding somewhat interesting. The "stealing" metaphor seems to have led to the unintended consequence that people are confused by what "copyright infringement" even means, thinking that maybe it only applies to something like plagiarism--- "stealing" a work by claiming that it's yours when it was actually made by someone else. So the solution is to still post the video, but with a confusing disclaimer like, "this video isn't mine, all music belongs to [artist], no copyright infringement intended". Saying "no copyright infringement intended" while still uploading the video is strange thing to be doing, unless you have a nonstandard understanding of what copyright infringement means.
- te_chris 15y ago
  I find it funny that you think that's a misinformed view of copyright. That's exactly what copyright exists for in the first place. Not to provide a sales monopoly, but to provide the artist the right to take a claim against someone else if they pass off that artist's work as their own. If it went back to that and shorter terms we might actually see some innovation....Oh wait, it basically has outside the corporate content industry.
  - Silhouette 15y ago
    You are mistaken. Copyright is exactly about providing a temporary monopoly so creative people have a window to exploit their work commercially. The idea you are describing about credit/recognition is also recognised as a legal right in many places (typically called something like "author's right") but is different to and typically independent of copyright.
    - iwwr 15y ago
      "Temporary"? 100 years is far from temporary.
      - _delirium 15y ago
        I agree it's gotten a bit ridiculous, but I also agree with the substance of the historical correction: copyright was initially about providing a temporary monopoly on copying and distribution, not just for guaranteeing proper attribution. The original monopoly period was considerably shorter, though.
        repsilat 15y ago
        More ridiculous to me than the long terms is the perpetual extension - that copyright terms are increased regularly to prevent works from entering the public domain. The US Supreme Court ruled that protection "forever minus a day" (as Larry Lessig put it) is not incongruous with the definition of copyright as a "temporary monopoly".
        Silhouette 15y ago
        I have a small hope that the recent review in the UK and our government's current political drive to win over small companies will act as some sort of catalyst for at least starting change in the right direction. Even more than the Gowers review a few years ago, this latest survey describes the current copyright system bluntly as being unfit for purpose in the Internet age. Combine that with the disaster on top of a screw-up surrounded by mess that is HADOPI in France (how many laws have they and their agents clearly broken now?) and we might actually make some headway in the coming months. I may actually go and visit my MP to discuss this issue in person (as opposed to writing, which I have occasionally done in the past but which I suspect doesn't make the same impact as someone looking you in the eye and saying you're doing it wrong for reasons X, Y and Z).
MatthewPhillips 15y ago
It's not true that no young people care about copyright. Young people have varying opinions too. One could argue that young people are less supportive of copyright because they don't own anything that can be copyrighted.
- chopsueyar 15y ago
  ...or as more of our culture becomes based around copyrights, what else do young people have to reference that is not syndicated or trademarked? Our commons are the copyrights.
- jokermatt999 15y ago
  I don't know about that. I'm seeing more and more content made freely available for sharing. Take a look at some of the artists on Bandcamp, for example. These are mostly younger people, and plenty of them make their music available for free (thanks Petrychor!). I honestly can't think of a time when I've seen a younger person strongly defend copyright, but that could be my bias.
  - TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
    I only knew 2 my age that defended copyright. And they were 2 brothers. The reason they gave was that it was against the Bible to steal, and it was stealing. They were your standard crazed Jesus-freaks that are found every so often. After their hundredth time telling X person they were going to hell for not believing the same exact way they did, everybody ignored them.
edanm 15y ago
You're right about the times changing. But "the industry" has good reason to be concerned - in a world where people don't pay for their product (or certain aspects of it), they won't keep making that product. And I share their concern - I love movies/music/television/etc., and I'd really hate to live in a world without them.
- chopsueyar 15y ago
  I guess PBS is fucked, huh?
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    If PBS decided to ask for donations through some kickstarter like site (or through kickstarter) I'd be more than happy to donate some money. And, mind you, I don't even live in the US - I would probably have to download their programming.
- rmc 15y ago
  It's 10 years since Metallica sued Napster. We just had a major motion picture (The Social Network), set in the past, where this event is in the past in the film. If piracy could kill the music industry, it would have killed it by now. The music industry is not dead. Ergo piracy will not kill it.
  - Natsu 15y ago
    The MPAA famously predicted that it would die due to home taping because of the VCR, only to go on and make billions from it. The industry has always been short-sighted.
- nate_meurer 15y ago
  Your "concern" is a red herring. Revenues are steadily and broadly marching upward for the content industries, especially in areas where they have (been forced to) adapt to the changing times, e.g. mp3 sales, ebooks, on-demand movies, etc. It happened decades ago with audio tapes and VHS, and it'll happen again. You are sort-of right about one thing: people won't pay for the overpriced legacy products to which Big Content clings, and those products will eventually die. Good riddance.
retube 15y ago
Whether the youth give a shit about copyright - or indeed any other issue - is neither here nor there. Policy should most definitely not be drawn up in accordance with what the young give a shit about. That would be disastrous.
- ericd 15y ago
  The youth become the adults, and if the majority of the voting citizens dislike copyright, then you may see copyright wane in power. In theory, anyway.
  - retube 15y ago
    I'm talking generally here: the fact that youth don't care about copyright is not an argument against copyright. Young people believe all sorts of things and have all sorts of ideals. As they grow up they (hopefully) starts to see the bigger picture: many of these positions will change as they mature.
    - chopsueyar 15y ago
      Who is arguing against copyrights? Please care to enlighten us as to what the "bigger picture" is?
      - retube 15y ago
        I'm not arguing for or against copyright. I'm just saying that basing policy on what young people think/believe is not necessarily a good idea. Obviously as you grow up and learn more about the complexities and subtleties of a particular issue your position on it might change. Things seem very black/white when you're young, when in reality there's a lot of grey areas and a lot of different opinions, agendas and competing demands to account for. Your simplistic stance/solution might in fact be a hopelessly naive one that would in reality do more harm than good. Edit: I cannot believe I am being dv'd for this. Are people seriously telling me they don't believe opinions and attitudes willl change as they get older? Do you think you're as wise as you'll ever be when you're young?
chopsueyar 15y ago
We just need to wait a bit longer for those crusty old-media types to die.
- alexqgb 15y ago
  There's a lot of truth to this. In his seminal work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" Thomas Kuhn pointed out that paradigm shifts (a term he coined) don't happen because lots of people who used to think one way start thinking another. Rather, a very select few who are capable of changing their minds start thinking differently, providing a guide around which new entrants can form their own opinions. This continues until the advocates for the displaced view have reduced themselves to a minority by literally dying off. In other words, you never see a true paradigm shift take place in a single generation. Two or three is the more realistic norm.
- sesqu 15y ago
  No, retire. That said, 20 years is still a long time.
citricsquid 15y ago
I hypothesise it's down to the ease of access to pirated content and the lack of money. I am 19 and make enough that every time I want something (an album, movie, book) I can buy it and I do. I care about copyright, the reason most young people don't is because they don't want to spend their limited income on something they can get for free. If you give a young person the income to purchase everything without meaning they have to limit their spending on something else I suspect the majority would buy it.

acron0 15y ago

I totally agree. I can't help but feel like they're holding on to "the way things were" because they've been through it. Children born today will - as they should - have a different perspective on IP and what it means and that's reflective of the movements that have been made in the last few years. These dinosaurs on stage can't comprehend change because they're so out of touch.

_delirium 15y ago

I find the comments people make on YouTube around this non-understanding somewhat interesting. The "stealing" metaphor seems to have led to the unintended consequence that people are confused by what "copyright infringement" even means, thinking that maybe it only applies to something like plagiarism--- "stealing" a work by claiming that it's yours when it was actually made by someone else. So the solution is to still post the video, but with a confusing disclaimer like, "this video isn't mine, all music belongs to [artist], no copyright infringement intended". Saying "no copyright infringement intended" while still uploading the video is strange thing to be doing, unless you have a nonstandard understanding of what copyright infringement means.

te_chris 15y ago
I find it funny that you think that's a misinformed view of copyright. That's exactly what copyright exists for in the first place. Not to provide a sales monopoly, but to provide the artist the right to take a claim against someone else if they pass off that artist's work as their own. If it went back to that and shorter terms we might actually see some innovation....Oh wait, it basically has outside the corporate content industry.
- Silhouette 15y ago
  You are mistaken. Copyright is exactly about providing a temporary monopoly so creative people have a window to exploit their work commercially. The idea you are describing about credit/recognition is also recognised as a legal right in many places (typically called something like "author's right") but is different to and typically independent of copyright.
  - iwwr 15y ago
    "Temporary"? 100 years is far from temporary.
    - _delirium 15y ago
      I agree it's gotten a bit ridiculous, but I also agree with the substance of the historical correction: copyright was initially about providing a temporary monopoly on copying and distribution, not just for guaranteeing proper attribution. The original monopoly period was considerably shorter, though.
      - repsilat 15y ago
        More ridiculous to me than the long terms is the perpetual extension - that copyright terms are increased regularly to prevent works from entering the public domain. The US Supreme Court ruled that protection "forever minus a day" (as Larry Lessig put it) is not incongruous with the definition of copyright as a "temporary monopoly".
        Silhouette 15y ago
        I have a small hope that the recent review in the UK and our government's current political drive to win over small companies will act as some sort of catalyst for at least starting change in the right direction. Even more than the Gowers review a few years ago, this latest survey describes the current copyright system bluntly as being unfit for purpose in the Internet age. Combine that with the disaster on top of a screw-up surrounded by mess that is HADOPI in France (how many laws have they and their agents clearly broken now?) and we might actually make some headway in the coming months. I may actually go and visit my MP to discuss this issue in person (as opposed to writing, which I have occasionally done in the past but which I suspect doesn't make the same impact as someone looking you in the eye and saying you're doing it wrong for reasons X, Y and Z).

MatthewPhillips 15y ago

It's not true that no young people care about copyright. Young people have varying opinions too. One could argue that young people are less supportive of copyright because they don't own anything that can be copyrighted.

chopsueyar 15y ago
...or as more of our culture becomes based around copyrights, what else do young people have to reference that is not syndicated or trademarked? Our commons are the copyrights.
jokermatt999 15y ago
I don't know about that. I'm seeing more and more content made freely available for sharing. Take a look at some of the artists on Bandcamp, for example. These are mostly younger people, and plenty of them make their music available for free (thanks Petrychor!). I honestly can't think of a time when I've seen a younger person strongly defend copyright, but that could be my bias.
- TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
  I only knew 2 my age that defended copyright. And they were 2 brothers. The reason they gave was that it was against the Bible to steal, and it was stealing. They were your standard crazed Jesus-freaks that are found every so often. After their hundredth time telling X person they were going to hell for not believing the same exact way they did, everybody ignored them.

edanm 15y ago

You're right about the times changing. But "the industry" has good reason to be concerned - in a world where people don't pay for their product (or certain aspects of it), they won't keep making that product. And I share their concern - I love movies/music/television/etc., and I'd really hate to live in a world without them.

chopsueyar 15y ago
I guess PBS is fucked, huh?
- rbanffy 15y ago
  If PBS decided to ask for donations through some kickstarter like site (or through kickstarter) I'd be more than happy to donate some money. And, mind you, I don't even live in the US - I would probably have to download their programming.
rmc 15y ago
It's 10 years since Metallica sued Napster. We just had a major motion picture (The Social Network), set in the past, where this event is in the past in the film. If piracy could kill the music industry, it would have killed it by now. The music industry is not dead. Ergo piracy will not kill it.
- Natsu 15y ago
  The MPAA famously predicted that it would die due to home taping because of the VCR, only to go on and make billions from it. The industry has always been short-sighted.
nate_meurer 15y ago
Your "concern" is a red herring. Revenues are steadily and broadly marching upward for the content industries, especially in areas where they have (been forced to) adapt to the changing times, e.g. mp3 sales, ebooks, on-demand movies, etc. It happened decades ago with audio tapes and VHS, and it'll happen again. You are sort-of right about one thing: people won't pay for the overpriced legacy products to which Big Content clings, and those products will eventually die. Good riddance.

retube 15y ago

Whether the youth give a shit about copyright - or indeed any other issue - is neither here nor there. Policy should most definitely not be drawn up in accordance with what the young give a shit about. That would be disastrous.

ericd 15y ago
The youth become the adults, and if the majority of the voting citizens dislike copyright, then you may see copyright wane in power. In theory, anyway.
- retube 15y ago
  I'm talking generally here: the fact that youth don't care about copyright is not an argument against copyright. Young people believe all sorts of things and have all sorts of ideals. As they grow up they (hopefully) starts to see the bigger picture: many of these positions will change as they mature.
  - chopsueyar 15y ago
    Who is arguing against copyrights? Please care to enlighten us as to what the "bigger picture" is?
    - retube 15y ago
      I'm not arguing for or against copyright. I'm just saying that basing policy on what young people think/believe is not necessarily a good idea. Obviously as you grow up and learn more about the complexities and subtleties of a particular issue your position on it might change. Things seem very black/white when you're young, when in reality there's a lot of grey areas and a lot of different opinions, agendas and competing demands to account for. Your simplistic stance/solution might in fact be a hopelessly naive one that would in reality do more harm than good. Edit: I cannot believe I am being dv'd for this. Are people seriously telling me they don't believe opinions and attitudes willl change as they get older? Do you think you're as wise as you'll ever be when you're young?

chopsueyar 15y ago

We just need to wait a bit longer for those crusty old-media types to die.

alexqgb 15y ago
There's a lot of truth to this. In his seminal work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" Thomas Kuhn pointed out that paradigm shifts (a term he coined) don't happen because lots of people who used to think one way start thinking another. Rather, a very select few who are capable of changing their minds start thinking differently, providing a guide around which new entrants can form their own opinions. This continues until the advocates for the displaced view have reduced themselves to a minority by literally dying off. In other words, you never see a true paradigm shift take place in a single generation. Two or three is the more realistic norm.
sesqu 15y ago
No, retire. That said, 20 years is still a long time.

citricsquid 15y ago

I hypothesise it's down to the ease of access to pirated content and the lack of money. I am 19 and make enough that every time I want something (an album, movie, book) I can buy it and I do. I care about copyright, the reason most young people don't is because they don't want to spend their limited income on something they can get for free. If you give a young person the income to purchase everything without meaning they have to limit their spending on something else I suspect the majority would buy it.