Oatmealing and the new practice of ethical bittorenting

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

if it is good art, it's worth waiting for

I find it interesting that almost every major corporation flaunts their own self-proclaimed "cutting edge" nature and understanding of the new social networking and digital landscape and then on the other hand turn around counterpunch, kick, and stab a whole group of willing and eager people in the back and these people AREN'T even early adopters. These technologies and method of media promotion/sales/delivery have been years in the running AND they're highly successful to all copyright holders, content creators, and media outlets who utilize them instead of crying foul and claiming the end of the creative world is coming which most of the media companies balking at these not even new ideas of pushing their products are claiming.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

There are lots of creative artists that do think it makes sense.

Louis CK is a comedian; he tried something new. He produced his own comedy show, and made it available for download for $5. No attempt was made to prevent piracy. It was wildly successful, and he netted something like half a million dollars. Far more than he would have made if he followed traditional distribution channels.

Other artists give away the music, and sell things like autographed pictures, T-shirts, hats, etc. to their fans and make money that way.

So I don't believe you when you say it doesn't make sense from the point of view of a creative artist. I think you mean it doesn't make sense to you.

The evidence supports the idea that piracy is not really hurting artists.

Forbes: Does Online Piracy Hurt The Entertainment Industry?

Quote:

Since the core function of copyright is to incentivize the production of creative works, it’s also worth looking for signs of declining output associated with filesharing. Empirically, it’s surprisingly hard to find an effect. Rather, a recent survey study by Felix Oberholzer-Gee of the Harvard Business School concluded that “data on the supply of new works are consistent with the argument that file sharing did not discourage authors and publishers” from producing more works, at least in the US market.

Forbes: Do Efforts To Crack Down On Online Piracy Threaten Artistic Freedom?

Quote:

[A discussion about whether the issue is morality or economics, followed by:]

But I think the focus should be on the creators themselves.

Did musicians – the vast majority of them anyways – make much off those $20 CD sales? Not really, especially for non-rock-stars.

...

Louis CK’s successful self-produced, self-distributed production is another example of creative types taking control over their work thanks to the internet. New doors for artist autonomy are opening everywhere, in spite of piracy.

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t think piracy itself creates artist autonomy. But the same technology and policies that make it relatively easy to pirate content give artists more autonomy and more creative control over their work than ever before. The problem with these over-broad efforts to curb piracy (such as SOPA, etc.) is that they risk stalling these very positive advances in disruptive autonomy and artistic innovation and collaboration.

When you think about it that way, you can see how the entertainment industry has an agenda that is contrary to the interests of the creative people working within that industry. The big entertainment corporations don’t want to hand over autonomy and creative control or their profits to individual artist. That represents just as much an existential threat to the industry as piracy – perhaps even more so in the long run.

I’m not that interested in defending piracy. I don’t think it’s the same as actual theft, but I don’t condone it either. I do welcome changes that make music and art and video more accessible online such as Netflix and Hulu and streaming services. These might never have existed without the pressure placed on industry by piracy, but I can’t say that for sure.

I’m much more interested in the question of creative freedom, something which I think has evolved in truly important and positive ways in recent years.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

The desire and motivation to create something isn't driven by copyright but the copyright is necessary to the artists survival as a creator.

This statement shows how little you understand about the creative landscape of creation and the potential profitability of the likes of creative commons. Many artists like Jonathan Coulton and Radiohead give away their work free under the Creative Commons copyright clause and they still get paid big bucks when their loyal fans turn around and buy the album after listening to it. And they also end up buying concert tickets and other paraphernalia (t-shirts, etc...) after hearing the artists latest work.

Many artists let loose their albums free onto the internet by streaming or download and they still have a very successful career. In many cases, they have a greater chance of survival then with the old MUST go through the record industry standard of doing things when they find the studios and record companies refuse to invest any marketing money into their projects.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

So I don't believe you when you say it doesn't make sense from the point of view of a creative artist. I think you mean it doesn't make sense to you.

well, you're wrong

I hear about this several times a week from composer/musician/choreographer friends

2 Replies

@tsarstepan,

For the third time: If someone wants to give away their work, fine. I've absolutely no problem with that.

If they want to copyright their work they should, and if they do then people shouldn't just take it.

Just taking "Game of Thrones" as an example (I don't really know anything about this show). HBO (I assume) produces this show. They get the money to produce the show by selling subscriptions to their channel. If you want to see the show you should help pay for the show to be produced. If you don't want to pay you should wait a year or so until it turns up on Netflix. I don't think you have a right to see the show now just because you want to see the show now.

Do I think they'd be smart to sell it episode by episode? Yes, absolutely. But they don't want to. That doesn't mean it's okay for people to steal it.

1 Reply

@tsarstepan,

The only form of ethical bit torrent is downloading open source software, or books/ movies/ music where there is no copyright or the copyright is expired.

What is described in the cartoon is not ethical, legally speaking.

Does that mean people don't break the rules? No, almost everyone I know when attending college will just cross their fingers and hope they don't get a letter of warning from their internet provider.

I personally saved money (more than a couple of thousand $) on buying books, from torrenting almost all of the expensive textbook pdf files from the different available torrents. (My excuse was I was broke and in debt, although I doubt lawyers will take that excuse in court....)

Bit torrent was originally invented for Linux distributions, because it's the cheapest way to transfer huge files.
Currently, my main use of bit torrent is to get new genuine distributions of Red Hat.
From time to time I torrent books (If I like it I'll buy it and add it to my library collection... so the author has something on his/her table to eat), but I stay away from movies and music, because such businesses have the money to sniff you out.

It's one of those gray border lines where if you're caught you get slapped in the hand first, second time though, if you don't heed the warning, you'll be crushed by the corporate lawyers.

0 Replies

Another impetus for this discussion:

Quote:

Take My Money, HBO!
We pirate Game of Thrones, we use our friend's HBOGO login to watch True Blood…
Please HBO, offer a standalone HBOGO streaming service and Take My Money!

http://takemymoneyhbo.com/

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

I didn't say that people who infringe copyrights are sociopaths, Mr. Hyperbole. I'm not "demonizing" anyone. I am pointing out that trying to make them out to be ethical because they claim they intend to pay someday is nonsense. I am saying that comparing them to civil rights and women's suffrage activists is wild hyperbole.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

I hear about this several times a week from composer/musician/choreographer friends

And photographers and print makers and graphic artists.....

The big companies that fight for copyright protection protect all the little guys that don't have armies of lawyers.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

I've not vilified Tsar nor anyone else, Captain Hyperbole. I haven't used the term tantrum, but i do find the argument from impatience to be facile and childish. It appears that when i discuss the ethics of this matter, i'm misbehaving, but when others (with whom you agree) do so, they are just displaying sweet reason. Who is attempting to "demonize" whom here?

0 Replies

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

I don't think you have a right to see the show now just because you want to see the show now.

Allow me to once again emphasize why i think all of the arguments which seek to make the case that this not unethical behavior are facile, false and self-justifying rationalization. Boom's right here.

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

seems like another version of "I want it and I want it now".

I don't find that a compelling argument.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

The big companies that fight for copyright protection protect all the little guys that don't have armies of lawyers.

I think the big companies should see copyright as a guideline but not a strict and linear law with harsh judgement because innovation in the technology field will be lost.

Strict controls could lead to greater stifling of innovation and free speech, since it restricts what people can use their computers for and not.

The law needs to shift a bit to put the rights of the citizens over those of the copyright monopolists.

And I agree that this issue is not simple because spelling out a fair law would most likely lead to something that resembles the tax code in all its complexity.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Again, I find the vilification attempt interesting from a psychological standpoint, but it is ultimately shallow and unconvincing.

Yep.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
So I don't believe you when you say it doesn't make sense from the point of view of a creative artist. I think you mean it doesn't make sense to you.

well, you're wrong

I hear about this several times a week from composer/musician/choreographer friends

The fact that some creative artists want more copyright is not a compelling argument that creative artists cannot survive without more copyright protections.

Nor is it a compelling argument that a generic creative artist cannot see that the landscape is changing and that they must change with it.

Some artists can see a way to move forward. Some artists want to protect their current monopoly.

But don't try to claim to speak for all creative artists; clearly some creative artists are able to adapt.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

seems like another version of "I want it and I want it now".

I don't find that a compelling argument.

Who needs a compelling argument? There's nothing wrong with doing what one wants and doing it now. The wrongness only arises when people hurt others in doing what they want. And it's the allegedly-wronged party's job to prove it has suffered unjust harm.

In the scenario TsarStepan suggests, the user uses the copy of the product, refuses to pay for other products that this copy comes bundled with and that he isn't using, but promises to pay for just what he's using as soon as the producer lets him. I fail to see injustice or immorality in that.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

I agree with you.
But if you tell that to the frenzied HBO lawyers, they'll devour you...

Keeping my head down and mouth shut in front of them big shots because apparently anything you say (I shouldn't have said I agreed with you) or do (download copyrighted materials) can and will be held against you in a court of law. Surprised

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Who needs a compelling argument?

Um... the folks in favor of harsher copyright protections?

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Oh, right. I forgot about those.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Who are those folks? People who are posting here, or someone you dreamed up?

1 Reply

Oatmealing and the new practice of ethical bittorenting

Quick Links

My Account

able2know