Here's a video on the matter, that I found very enlightening:
My thoughts:
I have questioned the "rights" of corporations to own any IP for some time now. The day I was made aware of this was during an Iron Maiden concert some years back (can't remember which tour it was, it was to promote a new CD of theirs though). During the show, Bruce Dickinson (singer) gave a speech about how they had been working very hard the past year to bring out an album, and that was about to be released. What he said next however, kinda stunned me at the time he said (paraphrasing): "I know a lot of you will download this album, and to those of you who will do so, and to those of you who aren't I say this: Do it! Download it as much as you like, share it with all your friends, do with it whatever you like. However, promise me one thing. If you like it, and if you think it is a good album, please also buy it. Better yet, buy tickets to our shows, because what we really like is seeing you guys out here going crazy with us."
I think he meant that they made more money from people going to see their shows, than they did from selling cd's. I later found out this was the case anyway. And this made me wonder. What right do these corporations have to the money that should go to the artists instead? Sure, if they invested in the band, helped them along, they should see that money returned, with a fee for the risk they took, but all those billions of dollars? No fucking way.
In short, "intelectual property" isn't actually intellectual property, it's corporations trying to make billions, when they should be content with making millions, instead.
The obvious problem you have with this argument is that if MGM's output could be legally copied and easily distributed for free, they would sell only one copy and everyone would get it for nothing.
But distributing and obtaining free copies is already incredibly easy, and yet people still go to theatres and still buy dvds. If you are trying to argue that the only reason people do this is because it is illegal to get these free copies, I'd like to point out that in my country, it is perfectly legal to download movies and music, and yet, people still go to the theatres and still buy dvds here as well. In fact, the theatres never made more money than they did last year in a country where it is legal to download movies.
You have to put yourself into a world where there is no copyright protection. If you think about Lethal Weapon 18 being released into that world and being available for free with no legal consequences why would anyone pay for a copy? Can you think of a good reason why they should? To have a nice DVD case on the shelf? Not in a digital world where this stuff is increasing on your hard drive and can be written to DVD anyway. No way, if free became normalised, everyone would take it, not just the relative few that do it now.
For the same reason people in my country still pay for movies and music, even though it is legal for anyone here to download them for free. Because people like to support things they enjoy, because they realize, that if they don't, nothing more will be made. Or because they enjoy the value going to see a movie in a theatre adds in contrast to watching it at home (like seeing avatar in 3d in an IMAX theatre). According to you, people in my country wouldn't go see movies, wouldn't buy dvds or music anymore, because everything is available for free. Well guess what, turns out, people still buy dvds and music, and still go to movie theatres in spite of everything being legally available online for free. Guess stuff being available for free doesn't mean nobody can make money with it.
You are in the Netherlands? If so, the laws of copyright are virtually identical to everywhere else in the Western world - you signed the Berne Convention. Your government currently sees downloading (file sharing) as fair use, but it's not clear how long they'll be able to hold that position.
Irrelevant, it is legal right now, and yet people still buy movies and music here.
In any case, it seems that the downloading of music and movies is now practiced by 30% of the Dutch population. I'm betting that that proportion is the majority of consumers of those products. If your law doesn,t change, how many people do you think will pay for a free product in say 10 years time?
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that nothing much will probably change, even if the people are still able to download stuff for free in ten years time. Like you said, 30% of the population are downloading stuff legally right now, and yet, music and movies are still being sold, and profits are still being made.
As for cinemas, they will continue to flourish - as I say, people enjoy a night out and they add value. But currently the cinemas pay a royalty to MGM for LW18. If you abolish copyright, they will get nothing.
Why? What makes you think people are unwilling to pay for content? They're paying right now, even though they can get it for free far more easily. Like a friend of mine put it, "by the time I get into my car, drive to the store, pay for the movie and drive back home, only to find my dvd player won't play it, I've downloaded ten movies, that I can watch anywhere". And yet, from time to time, he still buys movies and music. You know why? Because he wants to support the people who made those movies and music he really enjoys.
There is absolutely no doubt that if copyright is abolished, LW18 will not get made. That may be a good thing......
Of course there's doubt, the results from my country directly contradict this. Movies and music are available online for free, yet people still buy them, profits are still being made. What makes you think this will change? Why would people stop paying in the future, when they're paying right now?
I'm not going out on a limb; I can guarantee with 100% certainty, that if downloading of all movies and music was freely and easily available in Holland in 10 years time it would have become the norm. It would have been adopted by almost everyone - there would be absolutely no reason to buy it. As far paying the artist - that's bonkers, no-one is going to feel a moral obligation to pay MGM...
You know what would be really cool, if you could support that assertion with some evidence. I guess I'll have to reiterate it again: Right now it is legal and very easy for people to download movies and music for free of the internet, and yet music and movies are still being sold. Now, if you've got any evidence that this is going to change in the future, I'm willing to listen to it. Until then, the actual reality in my country is contradicting your 100% guarantee.
It would be interesting to see some figures on the Dutch market. I wonder if how much revenue has been lost when 30% of the population get it for free. Do you actually know?
Of course I do. And while revenue has been lost (though if this is purely because people are downloading, or because in recent years, there's simply been more shit produced), profits are still being made, and it's nowhere near as devastating as the entertainment industry would like you to believe. At most, people have become more selective in what they buy, opting not to pay for the utter crap that is sometimes produced, because now they can sample it for free. In the olden days, you'd kinda have to hope that that new CD you bought wasn't a schlockfest filled with mediocre songs and shitty arrangements, now, you can find out before you buy it. While this may technically be lost revenue, I don't think it was deserved revenue. In short, we're moving towards a more aware and selective audience, and the entertainment industry should adapt to that, producing quality, instead of quantity.
With your cinema example, you are confusing the personal downloading of content with the business use of it. Cinemas pay MGM for LW18, they can't download it and screen it (even in Holland), if they could, in your world without copyright, MGM would not make the film because they would get no revenue from it. (People would still want to go to cinemas and be prepared to pay, but if MGM got no royalties, they wouldn't make the film.)
Cinemas are only able to make money if there are movies for them to show. If there's no movies being made, they can't show them. It would therefore be in their own self interest to pay MGM for the movies it produces, or else, they'd go out of business themselves.
I have. 15 years ago there was no downloading, now 30% of the Dutch population do it. We also know that there is a shift from physical content to digitally distributed content, we know that there is a shift to increasing penetration of broadband and to faster broadband. We know that there is increasing connectivity between the internet on the devices used to play music and movie content.
From 101 Economics we also know that demand increases as price decreases and when a valued good is available for free, demand is theoretically infinite.
So, I'm willing to bet you the hand of my virgin daughter, that if copyright law is abolished and some multibillionaire lunatic still produces digital content, then more people will blag it than pay for it. What will you bet?
Which is not what this is about. This is about whether or not no one will pay for content when it is freely available. Not if less people will pay for it. According to you (at lesst at first), no one would pay for content if it was available for free. It seems that now you've shifted it to that less people will pay for it. Well yeah, because they can now sample it. And if they don't think it's worth their money, they won't spend their money on it. This doesn't mean however that they won't spend any money at all on content. And so far, the facts from reality show that people are willing to pay for content, even if it is available for free, so long as they think it worth paying for. Like the example I gave with the Iron Maiden show. I downloaded the CD, but you know what, I felt like supporting them, so I also bought it, I also went to every concert by them ever since, that was in my country, or reasonably close by in neighbouring countries (I live close to the border of Belgium and Germany). Might not fit your "economy 101", but that's the reality of things.
can you present some then please.
I could, but they are all in Dutch, so I don't know if they'd be any use to you. Anyway, here's one report. Chapter 2.2 would be relevant here. In fact, the entire report is rather interesting.
Which is rather my point.
Don't quote mine me please. My point was that even if there was no copyright law, cinemas would still pay for the movies they'd show, because if they didn't there wouldn't be any movies for them to show. Making your point moot.
It's not even clear that less people do pay for it. I think more people are now paying for music than ever before, because it's easier to buy music than it has ever been. But, for some reason, outfits like the RIAA and MPAA believe that people should be punished for choosing to patronize the artists they enjoy.
Well, the numbers from that Dutch report I linked say that less people do pay for it. But again, I think this is because people are now more aware of what they are willing to pay for, whereas in the past, you kinda had to pay for a CD or DVD, even if it turned out that it was utter garbage afterwards. You couldn't walk back into the store and go "Uhm yeah, that cd I bought of generic boy-band number 4? Yeah, that really sucked balls, so I'd like a refund". Now, you can sample the music, and if you think it's worth your money, you'll buy the CD (or concert tickets, or whatever). If you think it's utter schlock however...
The obvious problem you have with this argument is that if MGM's output could be legally copied and easily distributed for free, they would sell only one copy and everyone would get it for nothing.
You have to put yourself into a world where there is no copyright protection. If you think about Lethal Weapon 18 being released into that world and being available for free with no legal consequences why would anyone pay for a copy?
There is absolutely no doubt that if copyright is abolished, LW18 will not get made.
Yet now you say it's about enough people paying. Ok, fine, we agree then that there will always be people willing to pay for content, whether it is freely available or not. Now, as to the issue that "enough" people will pay for it. You contend that there won't be. Ok, great, got any evidence? And I don't mean you talking about "economy 101", I mean actual evidence that if content is available freely, not enough people would pay for it.
In a world without copyright law, mass and near instant access plus good content, of course they won't pay for it.
And we're back to nobody paying again. Must I point you once more to the situation in my country where the content is available freely and easily? Why are you not addressing this? it's very simple, people can get anything they want here for free and very easily, and yet, people still pay for content. What makes you think they won't in the future?
There are lots of examples like Iron Maiden, but Iron Maiden got globally famous by the traditional music industry who paid them advances and promoted their events and music and made a profit by selling their protecting material. They are already a known brand.
Ok, another example, Esmee Denters is a Dutch singer who became famous because she herself placed videos of herself singing on youtube. Only after she got famous did she get picked up by a record company. Free content actually made her career, and people bought her CD, despite all of the material being available online for free. No money was spent by any company to make her famous. In fact, if SOPA had passed, stories like these would become impossible.
In a future world of no copyright plus digital distribution, small independent artists can self-publish and will attract an audience, some of whom will feel the desire to pay them something and some of them will make a living from sales and performances. It might even be a better business model than the old - i certainly hope so. Those artists can do it now and they are - there's nothing stopping them and i think it's great.
But I'll keep saying this until you get it. it can't and won't work for MGM and all similar companies. It may work for small, independant artists that have low to zero costs of production but you'll never see a blockbuster movie that needs ten of million of dollars invested up front again - because there's no way to get your money back.
Why not? They're making their money back now, aren't they? Zwartboek, which is the most expensive Dutch film ever made (at 18 million Euros, equivalent of a hollywood blockbuster over here, in fact if you look at the number of citizens per Euro, it's even more expensive), is considered a box office hit, being the first Dutch film ever to attract 1 million viewers in Dutch cinemas. Again, despite the movie being available for free online! It made even more money in subsequent DVD sales. So no, there is a way to get your money back, and even make a profit, even when the movies are available online for free. I really don't see you bringing in any evidence to support your position. You just keep asserting and asserting it over and over again, never supplying a single shred of evidence that what you say will actually be the case.
You're not getting it at all. The movie industry depends on a flow of income. It goes:
Theatrical release (ie cinemas) Premium TV (ie pay to view) Satelite and cable DVD Rental Terestrial broadcast Then re-releases, special editions and follow-up
At each point they get income. The income pays the initial advance - which can be hundreds of millions but is typically $20m. When they make the movie they have no idea whether it's actually going to pay back.
And for all those examples I point to the same reasoning as for cinemas. If they don't pay the production companies, there won't be any films for them to release. Not paying them would mean they would all go out of business themselves! It is in their best interest to pay the production companies, if only to keep their own companies from going under.
If the studios can't guarantee that income because as soon as they release their blockbuster it's available to everyone globally in hi-def for nothing, no investor is going to invest. You'd have to be a raving idiot to put your money up.
But the movies are available in hi-def for nothing, and yet they're still making money. Why do you keep saying things that we can see are not true? The movies are available in hi-def absolutely free, and yet money is still being given to the production companies.
And as for video games - apart from paying for playing a game on line, that industry would die overnight as every kid in world piled in. (Playing online only, is the equivalent of copyright protection, as everyone that wants to play it has to pay for it.)
Look, I can repeat myself again, but until you show some evidence, I don't think there's a point to it. Please show your assertions to be the case, I tried to give you evidence of mine. (I showed you a person who got famous without any investment, and is now making money for a record company, I showed you that the most expensive movie ever made over here was a total success, and yet, all you do is assert that what I say cannot be the case).
Unfortunately, it feels like much of the debate about copyright law over the past few decades has been based on claims about the state of an industry that simply don’t match up to reality. Rather than decrying the state of the entertainment industry today and seeking new laws to protect certain aspects of the industry, we should be celebrating the growth and vitality of this vibrant part of our economy -- while consumers enjoy an amazing period of creativity.
We hope that this report will help shift the debate away from a focus on a narrow set of interests who have yet to take advantage of the new opportunities, and towards a more positive recognition of the wide-open possibilities presented by new technologies to create, promote, distribute, connect and monetize. We’re living in a truly amazing time for the entertainment industry, and it’s time that our national debate reflects that reality.
In a time of disruptive change, it is important that any regulatory efforts be supported by actual data. Instead of reflexively trying to protect traditional entertainment businesses, this research should provide a starting point for many to rethink some of the assumptions that have been made in the past about the state of the industry.
I don't think that's true. I don't think there's that many people who know how to pirate well.
Really? It's as easy as installing one program on your PC, going to a website, use a search function like google, and clicking on a link. You can't tell me there are people who are to supid for that (well, ok, there might be some people who are, but for the overwhelming majority, this shouldn't pose a great challenge at all). Or even if they're not too aware of all this, there's surely someone in their vicinity who is. It would then becomes as easy as clicking on a bookmark, performing the search and clicking the link. If you're incapable of doing that, well, why the fuck do you have a PC to begin with?
There is more involved than you think. Perhaps the difference is related to the two countries we live in, but here, at least, pirating stuff (especially bigger things like movies) does require a little bit of computer savvy.
Wait, what's preventing you guys from installing a bittorrent client, going to the pirate bay and clicking on "get torrent"? There's nothing that is preventing us from doing this over here.
Even now that two ISP's over here have been forced by the court to block the piratebay, you can still get to it so easily, it's become really rather sad for the anti-piracy guys. They can do whatever they wish, but short from going after indivdual downloaders (something even they don't want to do), there's absolutely nothing they can do to stop anybody from downloading whatever the hell they please.
It's the people who do just that who get busted. The less tech savvy idiots who think it's that simple. Not sure about the laws in The Netherlands, but it's people who share (uploaders) get busted here in the U.S., not the downloaders.
Well, yes, it's illegal to upload stuff here too (downloading is legal), but as long as you're not doing terrabytes per month, nobody's going to care over here either way. And yet, it's not like it's terribly hard to alter a setting in your bittorrent client. But fair enough, less tech savvy people will probably not know this.
But I'm not going to divulge trade secrets round these parts.... I say let the morons keep getting busted so they don't spill the beans on the tricks of the trade.
Hehe. Indeed. On the other hand though, I think the pirates have won. I think it's far too late for anybody to stop them now.
For instace, the example I've given. The anti-piracy lobby in The Netherlands, represented by "stichting BREIN" (literally: BRAIN foundation, it's an acronym), have won a court case against two ISP's, which means they have to block the pirate bay website, and IP adresses. The blocade went live yesterday, and yet, even the people who use those two ISP's have been handed so many tools to still access the piratebay, it's nothing more then a minor inconvenience to them, at the very worst, they'll need to wait a few seconds more before the page loads. As youcan tell, this was a real victory for the anti-piracy guys.
Just because its easy doesn't mean people know how to do it.
Well, ok. But one search in google will tell you everything.
Too, there's surrounding issues of burning the movie onto a DVD so you can watch it on TV - again, not difficult but still something that would have to be learned.
Burn movies to watch them on a tv? It's called a media player and streaming. Pff, you live in the 2000's
I'm thinking about people like my parents here... they don't really "get" computers.
But they've got you, don't they? You're telling me you couldn't teach them: "Push this button, enter search term here, click on link", after you set up their computer for them?
Yeah, 100 yards from my parents house is where I got my free copy of Skyrim. But my buddy ain't gonna sit around and burn them DVD's all day.
Who's talking about DVD's, digital copies man, it's the future! Or rather, the present.
But when the Red Box came to town and they found out they could rent a movie for only a dollar, they were all over it. And I'm sure they'd love to watch all their movies for totally free and would if they were capable.
But right now they can't, and they pay for them. They don't care about patronizing the artists, or anything. They just "have" to pay for it so they do.
If I could rent all movies, digitally and in HD, for a dollar (that's like 75 cents over here), I'd stop downloading, immediately
I didn't see this taken into account in Crash's position.
Ok, fair enough. But really, A dollar? A dollar is too much to pay for a movie?
What's the good software and sites these days? I haven't pirated anything in years. I never got into the bit torrenting... the last software I used was peer-2-peer stuff like Limewire. It all started for me with the Scoure Exchange freshman year in college on the uber-fast T1 lines they had set up.
We got "0-day" movies... saw American Beauty on a monitor in a dormroom the day it hit the theaters. Hadn't even heard of it. It took a minute for that one to get traction and I remember someone being all: "Have you seen this movie yet!" and I go: "Uh, didn't I see that a couple months ago".
OH! Or Tony Hawk Pro-Skater on a modded playstation. Holy shit did we have blast with that game from day 0 to... shit... that was a long one.
Well, not sure if I should lay out pirating ways on the forum for all to see. Search on google for "Bittorent", or "how to torrent", and it will all be made clear. Just get the program they tell you to, go to the pirate bay, and download away. Might also want to google for "how to turn uploading off in my bittorrent client" though, seems people in the US get hammered rather quickly.
™ Version 4.2
