You know, for a long time I was firmly on the side opposed to the overreactions and silly orthodoxies of the media companies and copyright enforcement zealots. Over time, I guess I have moved to the other side of that divide-- not because I have changed my position, but because the default has become so entitled, childish and selfish when it comes to paying for media. People simply don't understand that, yes, it's true, no matter how many utopian fantasies you entertain, the media you enjoy costs money and will disappear if people don't pay for it. I really think a lot of the attitude in the "information wants to be free, so I should never pay more than a pittance for any media I consume, ever" crowd comes from the fact that they literally cannot think of movie studios or record companies or video game makers as anything but all-powerful corporate monoliths. People still really seem to think that, even though they torrent 300 movies a year, they couldn't possibly be making any difference. It's facile.
Anyway, this image has been making the rounds, and people have been posting it as though it is obviously an unassailable argument. What they neglect to mention is that the "free content forever" utopians constantly harp on the possibility of advertising replacing the time tested economic model of making a product and selling it at a profit to people who want to buy it. Strange, then, to see this image, because previews are advertising, and yet here you go, tons of people insisting that watching a preview is simply a bridge too far.
Here's the truth. The truth is that I'm someone who is naturally inclined towards the side of more lenient copyright, against the likes of the DMCA and the RIAA, but I have been pushed to the other side by the absolutely juvenile, "I want it all" attitude of most of the people who pirate and argue the moral legitimacy of piracy. I read the gadget blogs, and I'm really hungry to read a principled argument against restrictive copyright that nevertheless recognizes that if we want to continue to enjoy the music, movies, games and shows we love, there must be a revenue stream. The profit margin can't survive 100% free, 100% of the time. I am convinced that there is some conciliatory philosophy that both stops mistreating paying customers in the race to stop piracy, establishes easy access and affordable price points, but also maintains the rock-solid economics of make for a dollar, sell for two. I want to see an admission from piracy advocates that, no matter how many counterintuitive arguments they come up with to argue the point, the quantity of movies and music being made is gradually eroded by a disappearing profit pool. I want to see a copyright reform movement that recognizes that dedicated amateurs could never have made Lawrence of Arabia or Sgt Pepper or Half-Life 2. I want to see zealous advocacy, but I want it to come from a movement that finally decides to grow up.
But I never see that. I just see more whining, more absolutism, more insistence that somehow everyone has the right to whatever media they want at no cost, without anything resembling a coherent economic strategy for how it's to get made. It's enough to drive a sympathetic moderate like myself right over to the side of harsh restriction. Copyright desperately needs reform-- I think most copyrights should expire at the death of the creator, for example-- but without any protection of media rights, there can be no professional artists or writers or filmmakers or musicians. And even aside from our desire to continue to consume what they make, that is a terrible thing. This should be a culture that values art and creation, and like it or not, as a capitalist system we must reward that value with monetary compensation if it is to survive. When I hear people insist that all of our various media can survive only with dedicated amateurs-- naively, I believe-- I think they are positing a really terrible and depressing evolution in human society. What statement would it make about this culture if we became one where endless numbers of people can be first and foremost investment analysts or realtors, but no one could be first and foremost an artist, musician or writer? Is that what we want our culture to become?
I imagine I've heard them all, the many arguments for how people can and should pirate with no impact on the creation of media. Some are nakedly self-interested. Some are principled but naive. ("People who pirate will turn around and buy the album if they love it!" Will some small number? Sure. For most? No. No, many, many people love the album and never buy it. I know many people like that, and so do you.) The truth is that there's a million arguments from principle, but at the end of the day it is very rarely really a principled stance at all. Usually, it's just give me what I want, and for free, and nothing else. Until piracy advocates recognize that and reform, we're just going to head further and further down the road of less and less cool, moving media for all of us.
(Of course, there is the larger question of whether the capitalist model can survive recent revolutions in technology and demographics at all, but that is for another day....)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
I've got a couple of problems with this, but the main one is that there are plenty of serious commentators who admit the necessity of copyright while still decrying the broken system we have today. One of the most prominent voices in the copyright wars is Cory Doctorow--but I'd challenge you to read, e.g., this and see any hint of entitlement. If you judge the anti-big-media side by their most childish advocates, you're failing to take their arguments seriously (and let's be realistic, nobody in any position of power whatsoever wants to completely eliminate copyrights, Pirate Party notwithstanding).
The other problem, of course, is that there's no evidence (in music at least) that either quantity or quality is measurably declining. Playing music is, for most people, not a good financial proposition--it's a career you do for love, not because you plan to get rich, at least if you're smart. Can't speak for movies or video games, but dedicated amateurs really can make great music (and, for most of history, have). But this is a separate argument, and tangential to the point above.
I mostly agree, but, yes, what Dan Miller said. MP3 distribution is essentially free advertising (I wouldn't have heard half of my favorite bands if not for finding their stuff online for free), and many people really do buy the records afterwards. Music sales are down for many other reasons (as various articles have shown); and it's mainly the huge labels that are suffering, i.e., labels with horrible music, so I'm not sure what the loss is there.
The most pirated film of 2008, The Dark Knight, was also the top grossing film of 2008. Video games ... well, you have a point. But companies like Valve are doing online distribution (i.e. no game CDs to pirate) and making far more money.
Today's Penny Arcade strip is strikingly appropriate to this discussion:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/2/19/
Well, I think you're somewhat missing the point of the pic. It's not that advertising is bad, it's that they're advertising to the people who have already paid for the movie. If they didn't pay for the movie, they likely wouldn't complain about the advertisements.
The most pirated film of 2008, The Dark Knight, was also the top grossing film of 2008.
But this is a specious argument. There's no contradiction between saying that the Dark Knight was a massively successful movie, and also that it could have made more money short of piracy.
As I recall the full article included a poll of people who had downloaded the movie, and something like 50% of them went on to see it in the theater more than once; 90% saw it once (which is important supporting information, obviously).
I don't claim entitlement or believe tat studios are evil corporate monoliths. I'm poor and can't possibly afford media. I've got just enough for the internet and so I pirate.
Nothing grandiose or moral, just desire and lack of means.
Well, not Robin Hood, I think it's time we fixed that root cause, your lack of economic means, rather than taking minor steps with piracy.
I very much agree with your points Freddie. There has to be some balance. "Rebelling" childishly against media monoliths- well it's no rebellion at all when you are helping yourself to the cultural production of others, settle back and enjoy the song or the movie you got for free. That's rebellion? That's taking a stand?
We do need to value cultural production, artists and musicians and programmers and writers. No offense to Dan Miller commenting here, but you can go enjoy "dedicated amateurs" all you like. There is something to artistry, and craft, and years of hard work for artists and writers and musicians, that means quality, development of talent, depth. And yes, real art. Not fledgling student fumblings.
If you want to spend your life listening to amateur demo tapes rather than symphonies, fine. It would indeed be a bereft culture we're left with when there are no symphonies left, or talented artists end up going into banking or real estate because a creative life- never easy- has been made impossible.
And Cory Doctorow is a self-promoting fool, a very middling writer of young adult fiction. He has every reason for fake- humbly proposing giving his works away for free.
I think people like to flatter themselves, that stealing is some sort of protest, when it's really just them sitting on their fat asses watching a torrented movie. Maybe there's also a psychological resentment against artists too, not just conglomerates. People in their dark hearts resent talent, they think it's an Easy Street life while they have to work 9-5. Never mind that it takes years for most, of poverty, discipline and effort to get to the point of being recognized for talent, and even then it's a crapshoot as to whether a living can be sustained. People feel free to steal from artists because in the US, creative people are disliked. Perhaps that sounds a bit much, but I think it's true.
"Who do they think they are? "
Not Robin Hood: "I don't claim entitlement or believe tat [sic] studios are evil corporate monoliths. I'm poor and can't possibly afford media. I've got just enough for the internet and so I pirate.
Nothing grandiose or moral, just desire and lack of means."
From "Love Among the Ruins," a piece on Haiti in the latest issue of The Weekly Standard:
"When I ask [Jean Yves Raitt] where he eats, he laughs. 'Eat?' like that's a luxury he's forgotten about. He drinks two small packets of water a day. His baby is getting dehydrated. Two weeks after the earthquake, no aid has come. ... I point to a sidewalk market right across the street, where some produce is for sale. I ask him why he doesn't steal out of necessity. He shakes his head disapprovingly: 'That's not my way.'"
I wrote a whole post in response to this.
http://mrgood1000.blogspot.com/2010/02/piracy.html
Cheers,
Judd
Sonny - Don't be moronic. Stealing is not the same as infringing copyright, claiming it is is obvious nonsense. Copying an object is not an identical process to removing it & claiming it as your own.
"Well, not Robin Hood, I think it's time we fixed that root cause, your lack of economic means, rather than taking minor steps with piracy."
What the hell is this even supposed to mean? You're actually going to help him out, are you? I find this prospect doubtful. As someone who's been can-we-afford-bread-this-week poor, I can tell you that copyright infringement made my life bearable for a number of years.
Do I feel ashamed about that? No. That's just how stuff went for a while. If you think that it was wrong, demonstrate why. I'm not going to assume that I'm unethical, regardless of my Catholic upbringing.
Post a Comment