5 ms·

I am no fan of the RIAA or MPAA. But if both of those organizations were magically dissolved tomorrow, people would still be pirating content. Probably to the s

I am no fan of the RIAA or MPAA. But if both of those organizations were magically dissolved tomorrow, people would still be pirating content. Probably to the same extent they are right now. My point is that piracy was an act of convenient theft long before it became an act of supposedly high-minded moral rebellion. And if the impetus for the moral rebellion were removed, the theft would continue. Let's not pretend otherwise.

r0s 15y ago
It has never been theft, that's part of the reason piracy can't be decoupled from the (false) moral rebellion mindset.
sp332 15y ago
It's only "rebellion" because the AA's decided that it should be illegal. There's no moral justification for suing me for distributing music and movies. In fact, the "first-sale doctrine" normally prohibits that kind of behavior. The distributors don't want to compete with pirates, that's the whole problem. If they AA's went away, then who would piracy hurt?
- twainer 15y ago
  "If they AA's went away, then who would piracy hurt?" C'mon - if that's as far as you are looking you aren't really trying;)
  - sp332 15y ago
    Yeah, it's true :) My point is, easier distribution is good for the creators and the customers. Lots of musicians make a living by putting all their music online for free. Podcasters obviously do fine in the face of massive "piracy" of their free shows. It's not that hard to make money when people are sharing your stuff, even on a commercial scale. Every Blu-ray movie is available as a torrent. But millions of people still buy them.
    - davidw 15y ago
      > Lots of musicians make a living by putting all their music online for free No they don't. They make a living doing something else. Putting the music online for free is advertising.
      - sp332 15y ago
        No really, all pronobozo's music is available from torrents that he puts on his website. People who want to give him money can buy the exact same music on Amazon or iTunes. http://www.pronobozo.com/music http://www.pronobozo.com/music *If you download the music for free, at least do me a favor of telling a few of your friends to come to the site as well. If you can afford it please make the 5 minute effort to purchase the album, it’s very much appreciated and lets me know you want to fuel the art. -pronobozo" http://www.pronobozo.com/cred http://www.pronobozo.com/cred
        davidw 15y ago
        He makes money by selling his music on Amazon or iTunes, then. He generates buzz and advertises his product by giving it out for free.
        sp332 15y ago
        It's not advertising. It's the same product. He makes the product, then you can choose to give him money if you want to. "Piracy" doesn't hurt his business model.
        davidw 15y ago
        He does not make money from a free product. He makes money from the product for sale, even if it's the same one. If this is not clear, you can try a thought experiment: how much money would he make if he discontinued selling the product for some amount of money (and did not substitute it with donations or something else)? How much money would he make if he stopped giving it away for free? Arguable less, but > 0, no?

r0s 15y ago

It has never been theft, that's part of the reason piracy can't be decoupled from the (false) moral rebellion mindset.

sp332 15y ago

It's only "rebellion" because the AA's decided that it should be illegal. There's no moral justification for suing me for distributing music and movies. In fact, the "first-sale doctrine" normally prohibits that kind of behavior. The distributors don't want to compete with pirates, that's the whole problem. If they AA's went away, then who would piracy hurt?

twainer 15y ago
"If they AA's went away, then who would piracy hurt?" C'mon - if that's as far as you are looking you aren't really trying;)
- sp332 15y ago
  Yeah, it's true :) My point is, easier distribution is good for the creators and the customers. Lots of musicians make a living by putting all their music online for free. Podcasters obviously do fine in the face of massive "piracy" of their free shows. It's not that hard to make money when people are sharing your stuff, even on a commercial scale. Every Blu-ray movie is available as a torrent. But millions of people still buy them.
  - davidw 15y ago
    > Lots of musicians make a living by putting all their music online for free No they don't. They make a living doing something else. Putting the music online for free is advertising.
    - sp332 15y ago
      No really, all pronobozo's music is available from torrents that he puts on his website. People who want to give him money can buy the exact same music on Amazon or iTunes. http://www.pronobozo.com/music http://www.pronobozo.com/music *If you download the music for free, at least do me a favor of telling a few of your friends to come to the site as well. If you can afford it please make the 5 minute effort to purchase the album, it’s very much appreciated and lets me know you want to fuel the art. -pronobozo" http://www.pronobozo.com/cred http://www.pronobozo.com/cred
      - davidw 15y ago
        He makes money by selling his music on Amazon or iTunes, then. He generates buzz and advertises his product by giving it out for free.
        sp332 15y ago
        It's not advertising. It's the same product. He makes the product, then you can choose to give him money if you want to. "Piracy" doesn't hurt his business model.
        davidw 15y ago
        He does not make money from a free product. He makes money from the product for sale, even if it's the same one. If this is not clear, you can try a thought experiment: how much money would he make if he discontinued selling the product for some amount of money (and did not substitute it with donations or something else)? How much money would he make if he stopped giving it away for free? Arguable less, but > 0, no?