8 ms·

Remind me, how many media companies have gone bust due to so called "piracy"? Sony? Warners? Fox? Any? Any artists gone bust provably down to "piracy"? In fact

by alan_cx 14y ago

Remind me, how many media companies have gone bust due to so called "piracy"? Sony? Warners? Fox? Any? Any artists gone bust provably down to "piracy"? In fact many really awful "artists" make millions, seemingly supported by draconian acts of government. I mean, would some one like Rhianna be happy to see her fans potentially get fined or even jailed? Ironically if you fine people they have less cash to spend on these muppets. Any concrete proof that "piracy" is actually costing them actual real money? Is there any proof that the majority of down-loaders would have bought the "art" in the first place? Its mostly grazing. Or is it just that they want to make even more money? All those profits not quite enough? OK, fair enough, capitalism is capitalism, so then cant they invest rather than using government to beat on their customers? Why does government support failing business by using the law to do so? The law is government/public money, its just like pumping cash in to failing businesses. Its stealth socialism. I'm sorry, this whole thing is absurd. Worse still its based on a fundamental lie. The simple truth is that people will willingly pay good money for a product they value. Its that really not enough? It certainly was for Louis CK.

citricsquid 14y ago
> Remind me, how many media companies have gone bust due to so called "piracy"? Sony? Warners? Fox? Any? Why does that matter? > Any artists gone bust provably down to "piracy"? In fact many really awful "artists" make millions, seemingly supported by draconian acts of government. I mean, would some one like Rhianna be happy to see her fans potentially get fined or even jailed? Ironically if you fine people they have less cash to spend on these muppets. If Rihanna wanted people to have her music for free why doesn't she go down the pay what you want route? It's a business decision that she has made (or at least, sold the rights to make that decision to others through contracts and the like). If Rihanna didn't want her fans to be breaking the law by downloading her music illegally she would not make her music illegal to download. She would make it free. > Any concrete proof that "piracy" is actually costing them actual real money? Is there any proof that the majority of down-loaders would have bought the "art" in the first place? Its mostly grazing. Does there need to be? People are taking something for free, something someone is trying to sell and does not want to be taken for free. Surely that is enough for illegal sharing of music to be considered bad? If an artist wants their music to be free they would make it free. > OK, fair enough, capitalism is capitalism, so then cant they invest rather than using government to beat on their customers? huh? Please can you elaborate on what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that the media companies should either develop DRM that can't be broken, or that they should make their product attractive enough that it won't be stolen? If so, doesn't that argument extend to cars? BMW should make a BMW so attractive post purchase ("You can only start the car using finger prints!") that nobody would steal a BMW and if they don't make that the case then they deserve for the cars to be stolen? > Why does government support failing business by using the law to do so? The law is government/public money, its just like pumping cash in to failing businesses. Its stealth socialism. Huh, if a business has a product and people are taking that product without agreeing to the terms set out by the business that owns the rights to that product (eg: downloading a song for free when the business wants $0.99 to download a copy) shouldn't the government protect that? Just like if any business should expect to be able to control their product (within the confines of the law)? > The simple truth is that people will willingly pay good money for a product they value. Its that really not enough? It certainly was for Louis CK. I'm sorry but that's a laughably misguided statement. People pirate media because they don't want to pay for it. The evidence of this is EVERYWHERE, you included an example yourself: people pirated the Louis CK special[1][3]. People pirated "World Of Goo", a DRM free PC game that had ~90% piracy rates[2]. People pirate because they don't want to pay: the only way to prevent that is to include incredibly restrictive DRM (see: Steam) masked as some sort of "extra service"[3]. [1] https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk/torrent/6878474/Louis_ck_-_Louis_C.K___Live_At_The_Beacon_Theater_(2011)_ https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk/torrent/6878474/Louis_ck_-_Lo... [2] http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/ http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/ [3] Even Steam games (eg: L4D) have huge piracy rates and Steam is considered a fantastic service with excellent sales (L4D has been as low as $2): http://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk/torrent/7470070/Left_4_Dead_2-Black_Box_1.62GB http://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk/torrent/7470070/Left_4_Dead_2-...
- mediocregopher 14y ago
  >If an artist wants their music to be free they would make it free. This isn't always the case. MGMT comes to mind as a band who wanted to release their album (Congratulations) for free download but the studio or producer or whoever wouldn't let them. This isn't always the case I'm sure, but it's also not a fair statement to say that if you can't get an album for free it's the artist who wants it that way. There's a lot of people that have their fingers in the pie.
  - citricsquid 14y ago
    MGMT chose to sell their rights to their music and to turn their music into a business. If they remained independent (owned their own music) they absolutely could give their music away for nothing if they wanted to. They made their band a business: they have to deal with the consequences. Using MGMT as an example of how "bad" record companies are is very disingenuous, they chose to sell out.
    - bediger4000 14y ago
      Why the narrow, legalistic view? If this band "MGMT" is a business, then they should compete in the marketplace, just like buggy whip manufacturers did in 1915, or radio tube manufacturers did in 1960, or ... If technology renders something unnecessary, we should let the firms making the unnecessary product(s) disappear, rather than totally distorting markets, changing existing laws and reducing civil liberties to keep the markets-as-they-currently-exist around. The only answer to that is to claim something more than "just a business" about making music or movies (or whatever "Intellectual Property" notion you want to push). At that point, you've departed from treating things legalistically. You have to start allowing for philosophical considerations.
      - biot 14y ago
        Newer technology made buggy whips and radio tubes unnecessary in the marketplace so the businesses behind them died. Are you making this analogy because you think newer technology has rendered music unnecessary and you think musicians and recording/distribution companies should no longer be making their unnecessary product? Or is your viewpoint more along the lines that you still want them to make this so-called unnecessary product, but due to your "philosophical considerations", you feel that it's okay to take a copy of the product without paying the asking price?
TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
Simply said from a capitalist point of view: copyright is barrier to free trade, and should be repealed.
paulhauggis 14y ago
"I mean, would some one like Rhianna be happy to see her fans potentially get fined or even jailed? Ironically if you fine people they have less cash to spend on these muppets." Yes, but if you allow piracy to continue, people will think it's just fine and it will eventually drive the price of music and movie down to $0. You are hurting pretty much every artists by pirating..but you just don't seem to care. You must be part of the entitlement generation. "Any concrete proof that "piracy" is actually costing them actual real money?" Why does the HN community get so upset when the GNU is violated and a company uses GNU code in a proprietary application (remember the wordpress thesis themes)? It's the same exact principal as pirating apps. "It certainly was for Louis CK." It worked once..and it may work a few more times. But, when people are used to the cheap prices, the piracy will eat up all the profits again. Ever talk to an app developer? 99 cent apps are pirated all the time...which tells me it has nothing to do with the money (IE: "it's too expensive" is a bullshit excuse). "so then cant they invest rather than using government to beat on their customers?" If copyright/patent laws ever get repealed, don't complain when we only have a few big companies left. I'm going to save my cash..so I can start taking a small company's ideas and use my resources (that I know they don't have) to bring it to the market and put them out of business before they even have a chance. But the truth of the matter is, people like you will still be complaining.... "Why does government support failing business by using the law to do so" If there is no market, then why is the music even pirated? Piracy shows you the legitimacy of a business. Artists that aren't popular will not be pirated as much as the popular ones. "I'm sorry, this whole thing is absurd." So is your rant. I'm not sure why so many people in the HN community wants to put themselves out of business by pushing the $ value of their craft down to $0. When this happens, don't complain and don't try to unionize: you did it to yourself.
- bediger4000 14y ago
  ... wll eventually drive the price of music and movie down to $0. Yes, yes, I went to college, I know how free-market capitalism works. In a competitive marketplace, the price of a good should end up at its marginal cost of production. Technology has changed this cost from $19.99 (or whatever) to some fraction of a cent. Ordinarily, we applaud this sort of thing. Laptop computers cost $300, and have more computing capability than a multi-million dollar mainframe did 20 years ago. A decent car runs about $12,000, and gets mileage and performance that would stun consumers in 1950. Why must we as a society treat movies and music differently? To do so distorts markets, and takes away civil liberties.
zcvosdfdgj 14y ago
Ok.. cool argument. Quick question: are you employed as a software developer? Can you give me a link to your product? I could use some free software. -- Music is protected by copyright.. just like your software. So if you think musicians don't have a right to copyright, your software doesn't have a right to it either.
chc 14y ago
The upper echelon of artists, such as Rihanna, is not where the losses would appear. This is a bit like looking at the CEO seats at Fortune 500 companies and declaring that the job market is as strong as ever because all those guys seem to be doing just fine. Here's a great piece by David Lowery, of Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven fame, on how the Internet is impacting the music business: http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/meet-the-new-boss-worse-than-the-old-boss-full-post/ http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/meet-the-new-...
- rndmize 14y ago
  I found this to be an excellent read. He highlights and breaks down several things that have bothered me for a long time, such as the share of money taken by iTunes, and provides perspective not usually heard in the labels vs. pirates/technologists debate.
Tycho 14y ago
The simple truth is that people will willingly pay good money for a product they value. The biggest pirates I knew would shell out a lot of money for broadband internet access, before there was much reason to have such a thing - unless you were into torrents. Clearly they were willing to pay money to get the content they want. They're morality just wasn't very integrated with their consumption habits.
iy56 14y ago
Tower Records has gone out of business.
- jacobquick 14y ago
  So did Borders. Was it book piracy that did that, or digital distribution?
  - iy56 14y ago
    Piracy is the primary form of digital distribution, and is a major force in driving its advancement.

by alan_cx 14y ago

citricsquid 14y ago

> Remind me, how many media companies have gone bust due to so called "piracy"? Sony? Warners? Fox? Any? Why does that matter? > Any artists gone bust provably down to "piracy"? In fact many really awful "artists" make millions, seemingly supported by draconian acts of government. I mean, would some one like Rhianna be happy to see her fans potentially get fined or even jailed? Ironically if you fine people they have less cash to spend on these muppets. If Rihanna wanted people to have her music for free why doesn't she go down the pay what you want route? It's a business decision that she has made (or at least, sold the rights to make that decision to others through contracts and the like). If Rihanna didn't want her fans to be breaking the law by downloading her music illegally she would not make her music illegal to download. She would make it free. > Any concrete proof that "piracy" is actually costing them actual real money? Is there any proof that the majority of down-loaders would have bought the "art" in the first place? Its mostly grazing. Does there need to be? People are taking something for free, something someone is trying to sell and does not want to be taken for free. Surely that is enough for illegal sharing of music to be considered bad? If an artist wants their music to be free they would make it free. > OK, fair enough, capitalism is capitalism, so then cant they invest rather than using government to beat on their customers? huh? Please can you elaborate on what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that the media companies should either develop DRM that can't be broken, or that they should make their product attractive enough that it won't be stolen? If so, doesn't that argument extend to cars? BMW should make a BMW so attractive post purchase ("You can only start the car using finger prints!") that nobody would steal a BMW and if they don't make that the case then they deserve for the cars to be stolen? > Why does government support failing business by using the law to do so? The law is government/public money, its just like pumping cash in to failing businesses. Its stealth socialism. Huh, if a business has a product and people are taking that product without agreeing to the terms set out by the business that owns the rights to that product (eg: downloading a song for free when the business wants $0.99 to download a copy) shouldn't the government protect that? Just like if any business should expect to be able to control their product (within the confines of the law)? > The simple truth is that people will willingly pay good money for a product they value. Its that really not enough? It certainly was for Louis CK. I'm sorry but that's a laughably misguided statement. People pirate media because they don't want to pay for it. The evidence of this is EVERYWHERE, you included an example yourself: people pirated the Louis CK special[1][3]. People pirated "World Of Goo", a DRM free PC game that had ~90% piracy rates[2]. People pirate because they don't want to pay: the only way to prevent that is to include incredibly restrictive DRM (see: Steam) masked as some sort of "extra service"[3]. [1] https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk/torrent/6878474/Louis_ck_-_Louis_C.K___Live_At_The_Beacon_Theater_(2011)_ https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk/torrent/6878474/Louis_ck_-_Lo... [2] http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/ http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/ [3] Even Steam games (eg: L4D) have huge piracy rates and Steam is considered a fantastic service with excellent sales (L4D has been as low as $2): http://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk/torrent/7470070/Left_4_Dead_2-Black_Box_1.62GB http://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk/torrent/7470070/Left_4_Dead_2-...

mediocregopher 14y ago
>If an artist wants their music to be free they would make it free. This isn't always the case. MGMT comes to mind as a band who wanted to release their album (Congratulations) for free download but the studio or producer or whoever wouldn't let them. This isn't always the case I'm sure, but it's also not a fair statement to say that if you can't get an album for free it's the artist who wants it that way. There's a lot of people that have their fingers in the pie.
- citricsquid 14y ago
  MGMT chose to sell their rights to their music and to turn their music into a business. If they remained independent (owned their own music) they absolutely could give their music away for nothing if they wanted to. They made their band a business: they have to deal with the consequences. Using MGMT as an example of how "bad" record companies are is very disingenuous, they chose to sell out.
  - bediger4000 14y ago
    Why the narrow, legalistic view? If this band "MGMT" is a business, then they should compete in the marketplace, just like buggy whip manufacturers did in 1915, or radio tube manufacturers did in 1960, or ... If technology renders something unnecessary, we should let the firms making the unnecessary product(s) disappear, rather than totally distorting markets, changing existing laws and reducing civil liberties to keep the markets-as-they-currently-exist around. The only answer to that is to claim something more than "just a business" about making music or movies (or whatever "Intellectual Property" notion you want to push). At that point, you've departed from treating things legalistically. You have to start allowing for philosophical considerations.
    - biot 14y ago
      Newer technology made buggy whips and radio tubes unnecessary in the marketplace so the businesses behind them died. Are you making this analogy because you think newer technology has rendered music unnecessary and you think musicians and recording/distribution companies should no longer be making their unnecessary product? Or is your viewpoint more along the lines that you still want them to make this so-called unnecessary product, but due to your "philosophical considerations", you feel that it's okay to take a copy of the product without paying the asking price?

TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago

Simply said from a capitalist point of view: copyright is barrier to free trade, and should be repealed.

paulhauggis 14y ago

"I mean, would some one like Rhianna be happy to see her fans potentially get fined or even jailed? Ironically if you fine people they have less cash to spend on these muppets." Yes, but if you allow piracy to continue, people will think it's just fine and it will eventually drive the price of music and movie down to $0. You are hurting pretty much every artists by pirating..but you just don't seem to care. You must be part of the entitlement generation. "Any concrete proof that "piracy" is actually costing them actual real money?" Why does the HN community get so upset when the GNU is violated and a company uses GNU code in a proprietary application (remember the wordpress thesis themes)? It's the same exact principal as pirating apps. "It certainly was for Louis CK." It worked once..and it may work a few more times. But, when people are used to the cheap prices, the piracy will eat up all the profits again. Ever talk to an app developer? 99 cent apps are pirated all the time...which tells me it has nothing to do with the money (IE: "it's too expensive" is a bullshit excuse). "so then cant they invest rather than using government to beat on their customers?" If copyright/patent laws ever get repealed, don't complain when we only have a few big companies left. I'm going to save my cash..so I can start taking a small company's ideas and use my resources (that I know they don't have) to bring it to the market and put them out of business before they even have a chance. But the truth of the matter is, people like you will still be complaining.... "Why does government support failing business by using the law to do so" If there is no market, then why is the music even pirated? Piracy shows you the legitimacy of a business. Artists that aren't popular will not be pirated as much as the popular ones. "I'm sorry, this whole thing is absurd." So is your rant. I'm not sure why so many people in the HN community wants to put themselves out of business by pushing the $ value of their craft down to $0. When this happens, don't complain and don't try to unionize: you did it to yourself.

bediger4000 14y ago
... wll eventually drive the price of music and movie down to $0. Yes, yes, I went to college, I know how free-market capitalism works. In a competitive marketplace, the price of a good should end up at its marginal cost of production. Technology has changed this cost from $19.99 (or whatever) to some fraction of a cent. Ordinarily, we applaud this sort of thing. Laptop computers cost $300, and have more computing capability than a multi-million dollar mainframe did 20 years ago. A decent car runs about $12,000, and gets mileage and performance that would stun consumers in 1950. Why must we as a society treat movies and music differently? To do so distorts markets, and takes away civil liberties.

zcvosdfdgj 14y ago

Ok.. cool argument. Quick question: are you employed as a software developer? Can you give me a link to your product? I could use some free software. -- Music is protected by copyright.. just like your software. So if you think musicians don't have a right to copyright, your software doesn't have a right to it either.

chc 14y ago

The upper echelon of artists, such as Rihanna, is not where the losses would appear. This is a bit like looking at the CEO seats at Fortune 500 companies and declaring that the job market is as strong as ever because all those guys seem to be doing just fine. Here's a great piece by David Lowery, of Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven fame, on how the Internet is impacting the music business: http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/meet-the-new-boss-worse-than-the-old-boss-full-post/ http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/meet-the-new-...

rndmize 14y ago
I found this to be an excellent read. He highlights and breaks down several things that have bothered me for a long time, such as the share of money taken by iTunes, and provides perspective not usually heard in the labels vs. pirates/technologists debate.

Tycho 14y ago

The simple truth is that people will willingly pay good money for a product they value. The biggest pirates I knew would shell out a lot of money for broadband internet access, before there was much reason to have such a thing - unless you were into torrents. Clearly they were willing to pay money to get the content they want. They're morality just wasn't very integrated with their consumption habits.

iy56 14y ago

Tower Records has gone out of business.

jacobquick 14y ago
So did Borders. Was it book piracy that did that, or digital distribution?
- iy56 14y ago
  Piracy is the primary form of digital distribution, and is a major force in driving its advancement.