- In 2001 I downloaded five songs by a now-defunct "folk rock duo" from the internet. The band was obscure, its albums not stocked at the small-town music stores nearby or the Walmart 25 minutes up Route 1. iTunes didn't exist yet. Amazon was still a bookstore. So I fired up LimeWire and snapped them up for free.
It was the last time I pirated something. And more and more, it feels like the last time I wasn't the punchline to a bad joke.
This author shouldn't be supporting these parasitic industries if he feels so badly about doing so. Most of those artists never see a penny from those sales, so his "respect for the people who make it" is misplaced. He should use his money to drive innovation, and reward those who really deserve it. When distributors are so unwilling to take customers' money, it shouldn't be unethical to 'pirate' the content.
I believe he's in the majority when it comes to his feelings on this. However, I don't think that paying for content is the answer, nor is it the moral high-ground. It's acquiescence. The distribution of music, books and film needs to be significantly disrupted. However, the current system is protected by politicians. IMHO the best path to change is piracy.
I can't really see piracy as being a morally defensible act. If you want to disrupt the distribution of content, stop buying it, but don't start pirating it. Instead, write to content creators explaining why you don't want to buy their content despite thinking that they are talented etc. Buy content from people willing to take risks with newer distribution models. Go to shows, readings, etc. No one benefits from you pirating content except for you.
It's a good point, and I'll concede, possibly a higher moral ground. However, I have very serious misgivings about our mainstream ideas of content ownership, and copyright. I see piracy as a useful pressure on ill-devised models. What you suggest are good alternatives, but I don't think they will seriously undermine these models. I created a roleplaying game, and the PDFs are for sale at http://rpgnow.com. However, I am also aware that the books are on torrents, and traded on forums like 7chan. I don't have a problem with this. PDFs can be infinitely copied with ease. Is copying PDFs wrong, or is my feeling that I should be compensated for each one misguided? That said, I actually make it a habit of paying for content when able. But I think some grey area and some piracy is a good thing. I'd rather people pirate my PDFs than not pirate or buy them.
I recently spent a good amount of money on a running jacket. I could have spent less money and bought a moderately priced running jacket or I could have gone to the Good Will store and gotten one almost for free. The one I bought is far superior to the free one and decidedly better than the middle of the road one. When people talk about pirated content, they are usually talking about music and movies. You can find free music, legally, all over the internet. (shameless self promotion) -- Here -- but it's not going to be the big named artists. You can also stream movies for free on sites like Hulu, YouTube etc --but it's usually not the latest or best movies. Places do exist where you can pay a small fee to download select movies/music for a moderate fee, NetFlix for example -- but they may not have exactly what you like. So you rationalize that steeling is a necessity, when in fact you have a number of avenues to get music or movies at a moderate price or even free... but you want the best! You're entitled to it. How is that any different than stealing the expensive running jacket? In both cases other options existed and in both cases the item purchased or stolen is not a necessity. -Far from it. Is the argument, "it's inevitable so we might as well embrace it"? -That's a weak argument.
If infinite jackets could be produced without effort, I probably would be fine with everyone having one for free. There are important differences between taking a physical jacket from a merchant, and making a copy of a file. In fact, in the not too distant future when we are going to have home fabrication, blueprint files are going to be shared, and some people are going to try to restrict that. As I alluded to, I don't think that piracy is completely ok, but I'm not saying it is inevitable so we should embrace it either. First off, it isn't piracy, and it definitely isn't stealing. Piracy is its own beast with unique positive and negatives. What I am saying, is that in the current framework of copyright law, media distribution, and DRM, I think piracy is somewhat justifiable. First off, I am not even sure if copyright makes sense. We went most of human history without it. I can imagine a healthy world without it. My gut tells me that some copyright is ok, but that current copyright is harmful. Assuming I live 90 years, current copyright says that my RPG PDFs can be sold by me alone, and then someone else, until 2135. That is utter nonsense. Under the original US copyright law, the Beatles music would be public content now. Michael Jackson Thriller would hit the public sphere next year. That sounds reasonable to me. I don't believe that current creative ownership is reasonable, and I also don't think that it is going to change. Coupling current creative ownership laws with DRM, proprietary format, and a lack of freedom to make personal copies or to carry them to other devices, and the system is even less defensible. I bought a book for my Kindle. I can't sell it at a used bookstore, and I can't loan it to a friend that doesn't have a Kindle. Have you made a mix CD for a friend? That is piracy. I do think I am entitled to share my book with friends, give it away, resell it, or to copy it to another device. These issues aren't as clear cut as a jacket in a store. A danger of piracy might be a place where artists don't get money for what they create because everyone copies thier work without paying for it. However, I don't think that is a real risk at this time. I think the much greater risk is the state of media conglomerates dictating what creative ownership is, how work is distributed, and to the extent that it can be owned. I see piracy as a useful foil in the fight against this madness. It's not ideal, but IMHO in some aspects it is more reasonable than the system that it subverts. Perhaps if artists employ this current system, some blame falls on them. There are other options, like creative commons, etc.How is that any different than stealing the expensive running jacket? In both cases other options existed and in both cases the item purchased or stolen is not a necessity. -Far from it.
There doesn't appear to be an easy, broad brush solution. This is a very complicated case, mk. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in my head, man. Lotta strands in old Duder's head I'll mail the Coen Brothers a quarter for use of that line ;-)If infinite jackets could be produced without effort, I probably would be fine with everyone having one for free.
-That would be nice, but they wouldn't be free. There will be a cost to people not paying for content and that cost would be an erosion of the content. Why create a show like Game of Thrones for many millions of dollars if you cannot see a sizable profit. We may not be at this stage yet but the amount of "piracy" is only increasing. As grabbing your favorite jacket off the rack and stuffing it down your shorts becomes more acceptable, nobody will be paying for them.
I don't buy this. Some might just do it for the promise of riches, but I think history has shown that people create great things for other reasons. Also, I have no idea how many times my PDFs have been copied. That says something. I honestly don't see that as a real danger. IMO there are probably very reasonable distribution systems between what we have and total piracy that can allow for Game of Thrones. Interestingly, a new movement in RPGs has been crowdfunding. A pretty well known author Monty Cook decided to start making his own game. He was looking to raise $20k. Regarding musicians, I could imagine a band that tours, builds a following, and releases each album as a kickstarter, sending copies and shwag to the funders of each round.That would be nice, but they wouldn't be free. There will be a cost to people not paying for content and that cost would be an erosion of the content.
Why create a show like Game of Thrones for many millions of dollars if you cannot see a sizable profit. We may not be at this stage yet but the amount of "piracy" is only increasing.
I like crowd funding for art/music projects and perhaps even for small to mid budget films but if piracy was no longer taboo, regardless of the distribution system, big budget productions would no longer be feasible. Especially if copyright and TM were no longer honored. Game of Thrones t-shirts and lunch boxes could be made by anyone, eroding profit margins and making it next to impossible to get the sort of ROI that garners such a sizable up front investment. Would GoT still be made in to a TV show? Perhaps. Would it look the same? Probably not. I don't think that the producers, actors, writers and other creatives on the project made GoT for the promise of riches but in order to make it to the level they envisioned, it took riches. [edit] The First season cost between 50 and 60 million ] The kind of riches that a kickstarter program can't currently provide. Maybe crowd sourcing is the future, and I definitely find that appealing, but as it is we are in some strange middle ground. dude.