3 ms·

In collage someone passed around a pirated DVD of "Shawn of the Dead" in class. Everyone just put in their dvd-rom (feels so weird saying dvd-rom / disc drive)

In collage someone passed around a pirated DVD of "Shawn of the Dead" in class. Everyone just put in their dvd-rom (feels so weird saying dvd-rom / disc drive) copied it, and then passed it along to the next person till most of the 80 guys in the room had it. Not to mention the sharing that went on over home wireless networks. Each student would share their music / video / software folders and make them public to anyone on their LAN. You could then browse their collection and copy over whatever you wanted. That's not something stoppable. Sharing is an evolutionary trait among humans, we have an inner instinct to share the things we find useful with others. Despite the bullshit excuses and justifications and delusional utopian ideology that many file sharers babble about, it can and does cause damage. However, p2p file sharing is an extraordinary distribution platform. Maybe even the most efficient, effective, wide reaching distribution platform for anything digital. If we can design with it in mind and find a way to monetize around it / despite it, I think we can all live happily ever after. For instance, Star Wars made more money from the merchandise than it ever did with the films. Even if all the star wars films were made free to the public, it still would have still made massive amounts of profit. Not all movie franchises can follow that path but it is a creative alternative and proof-of-concept that you can make money from movies without charging for the movie itself. In other worlds, use freely distributed digital content to advertise and solicit sales of real world products & services.

cookiecaper 14y ago
The reality is that the classical concept of copyright, where it is illegal to make a copy of a covered work without authorization from the rightsholder, cannot be enforced in a digital world. The further reality is that people are not motivated by the moral argument that consumer-facing copyright law is an intrinsic good that must be universally respected. Together, this means that no one is going to heed that aspect of copyright law. We have to adapt. There are still plenty of ways to make money on intellectual property, but it's time to just let go of this concept that piracy can or should be fought. It's an outmoded idea that has been shown irrelevant in a world of instantaneous, perfect replicas. Big media is throwing a fit because it doesn't know what else to do and causing all kinds of collateral damage to both legal and technical systems in the process. We need to face facts and just tell them to calm down, grow up, and accept that their old business model doesn't work in the new frontier of widespread content digitization. I think there is still a place for commercial copyright. I think that one can still make a bunch of money selling access to copyrighted material. It's still enforceable and reasonable to sue Studio A if they use content from Studio B in their latest blockbuster without a license. This is much, much different than downloading a movie instead of driving to the rental store. Old media is constantly screwing themselves over by choosing to pour money into legislative influence and lawsuits instead of innovative content delivery platforms that could be bringing in $50+/mo/user. Right now, all that potential revenue is lost because the studios are so busy hoarding their material that often unauthorized channels are the only places that content is easily available. The attempts that have been made suck; the TV people don't want to let go of ads as a revenue stream, prohibitive DRM and lockdown everywhere and on everything, forced to use Flash Player to watch video, forced to use special adapters to access content as desired, etc. It seems these people are just incapable of an objective analysis of the consequences and realities of digitization. Are there any ways we can help inform and create meaningful distinctions, or do we just have to wait until everyone with an irrational attachment to the old tricks of the trade retires?
- netcan 14y ago
  I'm not sure exactly why, but we have a tendency to tie together three not necessarily connected issues. One is the question of whether there are viable alternative business models complimented by free distribution of traditionally copyright protected content. The second is whether we can sustain copyright in the digital age. The third is the moral questions. People are always mixing and matching from these. Objecting to a morality point with a business one or somesuch. I'll grant that often there are legitimate cross-overs, but a lot of the time its just absurd. If someone thinks copying art is like stealing from someones house, how can you retort with an alternative business model. Would you suggest that if passers by keep stealing oranges from a tree the owner should accept it & try to sell them orange juice subscriptions? If new technology made rape much harder to prevent and prosecute, would we suggest women readjust their sexual expectations? I think copyright is doomed by reality. I think the industries built around copyright will be rattled, resized & otherwise changed but ultimately survive in some new form. I think that copyright infringement is not exactly the same as theft: it's an artificial system of rules that were engineered around a technological & political reality that no longer exist. I also think that the public does not see piracy as morally wrong. These all conveniently unanimous for me. But, they don't have to be. Sometimes conflicts exists. I believe that heroine criminalisation is morally problematic, creates terrible drug crime. I also think that legalization it would probably lead to increased use and associate problem. It's a conflict.
  - skymt 14y ago
    It can be relevant to answer the moral question with a business argument because the moral question often has economic underpinnings. The idea that copying is equivalent to theft is based on the idea that pirates would otherwise have bought the work, making piracy an indirect financial loss. Creating a new business model that accommodates piracy with equal or better returns resolves the fundamental moral issue. (Whether that's possible is beyond me, though.) There is, of course, the completely separate moral issue of the rights of artists to control their work. Business arguments are inappropriate there.
    - netcan 14y ago

cookiecaper 14y ago

The reality is that the classical concept of copyright, where it is illegal to make a copy of a covered work without authorization from the rightsholder, cannot be enforced in a digital world. The further reality is that people are not motivated by the moral argument that consumer-facing copyright law is an intrinsic good that must be universally respected. Together, this means that no one is going to heed that aspect of copyright law. We have to adapt. There are still plenty of ways to make money on intellectual property, but it's time to just let go of this concept that piracy can or should be fought. It's an outmoded idea that has been shown irrelevant in a world of instantaneous, perfect replicas. Big media is throwing a fit because it doesn't know what else to do and causing all kinds of collateral damage to both legal and technical systems in the process. We need to face facts and just tell them to calm down, grow up, and accept that their old business model doesn't work in the new frontier of widespread content digitization. I think there is still a place for commercial copyright. I think that one can still make a bunch of money selling access to copyrighted material. It's still enforceable and reasonable to sue Studio A if they use content from Studio B in their latest blockbuster without a license. This is much, much different than downloading a movie instead of driving to the rental store. Old media is constantly screwing themselves over by choosing to pour money into legislative influence and lawsuits instead of innovative content delivery platforms that could be bringing in $50+/mo/user. Right now, all that potential revenue is lost because the studios are so busy hoarding their material that often unauthorized channels are the only places that content is easily available. The attempts that have been made suck; the TV people don't want to let go of ads as a revenue stream, prohibitive DRM and lockdown everywhere and on everything, forced to use Flash Player to watch video, forced to use special adapters to access content as desired, etc. It seems these people are just incapable of an objective analysis of the consequences and realities of digitization. Are there any ways we can help inform and create meaningful distinctions, or do we just have to wait until everyone with an irrational attachment to the old tricks of the trade retires?

netcan 14y ago
I'm not sure exactly why, but we have a tendency to tie together three not necessarily connected issues. One is the question of whether there are viable alternative business models complimented by free distribution of traditionally copyright protected content. The second is whether we can sustain copyright in the digital age. The third is the moral questions. People are always mixing and matching from these. Objecting to a morality point with a business one or somesuch. I'll grant that often there are legitimate cross-overs, but a lot of the time its just absurd. If someone thinks copying art is like stealing from someones house, how can you retort with an alternative business model. Would you suggest that if passers by keep stealing oranges from a tree the owner should accept it & try to sell them orange juice subscriptions? If new technology made rape much harder to prevent and prosecute, would we suggest women readjust their sexual expectations? I think copyright is doomed by reality. I think the industries built around copyright will be rattled, resized & otherwise changed but ultimately survive in some new form. I think that copyright infringement is not exactly the same as theft: it's an artificial system of rules that were engineered around a technological & political reality that no longer exist. I also think that the public does not see piracy as morally wrong. These all conveniently unanimous for me. But, they don't have to be. Sometimes conflicts exists. I believe that heroine criminalisation is morally problematic, creates terrible drug crime. I also think that legalization it would probably lead to increased use and associate problem. It's a conflict.
- skymt 14y ago
  It can be relevant to answer the moral question with a business argument because the moral question often has economic underpinnings. The idea that copying is equivalent to theft is based on the idea that pirates would otherwise have bought the work, making piracy an indirect financial loss. Creating a new business model that accommodates piracy with equal or better returns resolves the fundamental moral issue. (Whether that's possible is beyond me, though.) There is, of course, the completely separate moral issue of the rights of artists to control their work. Business arguments are inappropriate there.
  - netcan 14y ago