9/18/2012 5:29:27 PM

k

9/18/2012 5:29:38 PM

kk

9/18/2012 5:33:09 PM

don't copy that floppy

9/18/2012 5:35:18 PM

^I actually was going to post that, but I didn't want to disrupt the norm too much

9/18/2012 5:36:46 PM

k

9/18/2012 5:37:03 PM

q

9/18/2012 5:37:26 PM

9/18/2012 5:44:09 PM

I, too, don't believe people should get paid for their work.

9/18/2012 5:46:31 PM

^

9/18/2012 5:51:02 PM

I believe people should get paid for their work... but $1 million+++ for one song that any american idol "top 10" can sing is ridiculous.

If money cooresponds to a person's labor, then the derivation of one song should not produce $1,000,000+++ for that person.

I don't want to impose a limit, but when the limit is exploited, you have to govern it.

$1,000,000 can buy an indentured servant at minimum wage for 50 years for what it took 1 person between 1 night and 6 months to come up with.

9/18/2012 6:07:42 PM

^^^

I too believe people shouldn't have to adapt to market realities. We should keep paying people to drive around daily for ice deliveries and bring the newspaper. Maybe cars can be welded by people instead of robots too!



[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 6:13 PM. Reason : a]

9/18/2012 6:11:48 PM

So if someone creates digital material they shouldn't be upset when people take and use it without permission or compensation because since they still have a copy of that digital material?

9/18/2012 6:28:06 PM

Right, they should find a better model: selling tickets to live shows, merchandising, creating a service model--anything but whining.

9/18/2012 6:42:24 PM

and thread devolves to SoapBox in 3....2....1....

9/18/2012 6:49:08 PM

Well that applies to recording artists/companies. What about the rest of the spectrum that creates digital content. Individuals who create digital content like software, videos, photographs, etc. can only work in a digital market, thus meaning everyone should be free to copy and use their creations at will.

And does it work both ways? It seems to be suggested that its OK for me to download a song by The Decemberists without paying because I like their music and I can do it.

However, (I'm a photographer) is it OK for a company like Fresh Market to take an image from my portfolio and run it in advertisements without compensation or permission?

9/18/2012 6:53:44 PM

^

If you are a software person there are plenty of ways to make money: Work for a company implementing a custom system, market yourself as a consultant by being visible in a community, build a service product that you sell access.

For photography, a company that needs a photo, particularly if they have specific needs has 2 options. One, pay someone with aesthetic to go through thousands of photos to find the right one, which has the cost of both time and money. The other option is to find a photographer capable of providing exactly what you want and pay them lots of money for the custom job. Lots of photographers now sell all kinds of add on services to help them. Get creative... Please don't whine because you can't find a model that fits the modern world. If a bear is trying to eat you do you just say, "oh bother, guess i'm going to get eaten?" or do you kick and scream and try to find a rock or weapon?

You're arguing for edge cases where someone has one brilliant photo that would have made them millions, but now just doesn't have the spark. Horseshit, people are just trying to find handouts instead of adapting. If it was easy to be successful everyone would do it.

Parallel example, do you think Raleigh Denim said, "Hey the textile industry is dead in NC. Everyone is producing denim in China! You just can't compete with the cost of goods!" No! They fucking made a luxury product dumbasses in NY and SF pay $300 a pair for and sell the story of their success to the angry white men working in textiles of bringing textile worker jobs back to NC and the US creating word of mouth referrals.

Christ, no wonder this country is in the shitter, no one has any imagination.


[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 7:15 PM. Reason : a]

9/18/2012 7:12:02 PM

Quote :

"and thread devolves to SoapBox in 3....2....1...."

I didn't do it this time!

9/18/2012 7:31:21 PM

Quote :

"If you are a software person there are plenty of ways to make money: Work for a company implementing a custom system, market yourself as a consultant by being visible in a community, build a service product that you sell access. "

Why would the vast majority of companies want custom software when they can just take it from somewhere else.

The whole concept of anything that isn't a physical good being just "information" and thus should be free is horrible. These are products, they have production costs and man hours poured into them by someone.

9/18/2012 7:46:17 PM

You're parallel example isn't a company that produces digital content. It makes a product which I would be arrested for taking off their shelves without paying. And creating luxury jeans isn't new, people have been creating luxury clothing items for a very long time. Eventually they'll fall out of fashion and some other company will take their place.

Quote :

"If you are a software person there are plenty of ways to make money: Work for a company implementing a custom system, market yourself as a consultant by being visible in a community, build a service product that you sell access. "

This seems to be the opposite advice of your Raleigh Denim example. So instead of creating your own ideas and innovation you advise people to work for large companies that have the resources to create costly security measures to lock out people who would use your work without paying.

Quote :

"You're arguing for edge cases where someone has one brilliant photo that would have made them millions"

I don't think you understand how small digital content companies make money. Most (if not all) people aren't making millions of dollars on photos, songs/audio, software, videos. It's for commissions that cover the cost of the production of that content plus a markup to eek out a profit and cover overhead costs.

Quote :

" If a bear is trying to eat you do you just say, "oh bother, guess i'm going to get eaten?" or do you kick and scream and try to find a rock or weapon?"

That's exactly what the copyright law is for. It's my weapon against those who would take advantage of me, use my work without paying, and keep me from having to pay mountains of money to keep people from copying and pasting my images all across the internet.

If I understand the argument correctly, digital content should be free, for the sole reason that it's so easy to take it and use it. Furthermore companies/individuals that want to protect their work should do so at their own cost and/or sacrifice rather than saying it's illegal for someone to use something they didn't create or pay for.

9/18/2012 8:02:10 PM

^fuck off, noob

9/18/2012 8:02:46 PM

Quote :

"You're parallel example isn't a company that produces digital content. It makes a product which I would be arrested for taking off their shelves without paying. And creating luxury jeans isn't new, people have been creating luxury clothing items for a very long time. Eventually they'll fall out of fashion and some other company will take their place."

In their case they are battling cheap jeans from China. My example is that they didn't give up and demand a trade embargo with China--they innovated, much like Radiohead, Louis CK, and the new media artists do tours and sell non-DRM content online with the expectation it will be pirated.

Quote :

"If I understand the argument correctly, digital content should be free, for the sole reason that it's so easy to take it and use it. Furthermore companies/individuals that want to protect their work should do so at their own cost and/or sacrifice rather than saying it's illegal for someone to use something they didn't create or pay for."

Apparently you don't understand the argument at all. The actual argument is that in light of media being easy to copy you should adapt your business model to the realities of the marketplace.

Quote :

"Why would the vast majority of companies want custom software when they can just take it from somewhere else. "

The expertise and value as a service provider comes at using things that are taken form elsewhere and building a working product or workflow. In the same way not just anyone can take paint and make a Picasso, software that models a business product is hard to make in a lot of cases. If it were that easy to model a unique business process in software everyone would copy it. There are plenty of tools given away for free which helps create unique work flows, but the real value is in someone that can implement an elegant solution to a well defined model.



[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 8:45 PM. Reason : r]

9/18/2012 8:44:25 PM

It's one thing to enter the market with the expectation that you're gonna face piracy, whether you want to deal with it through some kind of goodwill campaign or with effective DRM. It is another thing to make the leap to copying anything digital being okay in all cases.

Not every type of media and entertainment has the luxury of live performances.

Copying might not be theft, but it isn't harmless either. The best analogy is counterfeiting money. You aren't actually taking the money from anyone, but every person who does it hurts the market a little bit, and if enough people did it (or worse, if it were legal) it would crash the entire economy.

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 9:02 PM. Reason : ]

9/18/2012 9:00:07 PM

^ I think that's the best case for this argument yet.

People steal, from walmart, target, the boutique around the corner and they all expect it. That doesn't make it legal or ethical. Stealing is stealing and we all pay extra for our goods because of the loss. The market reality is that people steal, the rest of us pay the difference.

And Raleigh Denim isn't special because they compete against cheap imports (though I agree they are a very cool company who makes a great product) every industry has to compete against cheap products both from international and domestic competitors.

Quote :

"Radiohead, Louis CK, and the new media artists do tours and sell non-DRM content online with the expectation it will be pirated"

That's because they are millionaires with gigantic fan bases who can afford to lose income to piracy because it helps bring in revenue elsewhere. You can't compare the rich and famous to the average digital content creator not everyone has the resources or following to give away work for free and expect an alternative revenue source.

9/18/2012 9:51:15 PM

They don't compute with cheap goods! It's an entirely different business model! That's my whole point. They were creative enough to find a niche space. There are many different strategies these companies can use but theya're expecting hand outs instead.

9/18/2012 11:29:34 PM

Quote :

"In their case they are battling cheap jeans from China"

Quote :

"They don't compute with cheap goods"

9/18/2012 11:41:15 PM

What are these hand outs you're talking about?

9/18/2012 11:42:35 PM

Compete was the wrong word there. Raleigh Denim uses a different strategy. The goal here is a viable business and DRM and making money selling records alone is not a viable business. Whining about it and trying to get laws passed that punish thieves will never save you. Figuring out another model, strategy or market will.

9/19/2012 12:13:17 AM

"People steal, so just do something else"

9/19/2012 12:17:29 AM

Pumping money into an unsolvable problem and enacting laws that hurt those businesses and consumers not involved is a better idea.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110707/03264014993/riaa-accounting-how-to-sell-1-million-albums-still-owe-500000.shtml

Such a better solution for the artists!

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 12:34 AM. Reason : a]

9/19/2012 12:31:39 AM

Lots of people ITT are argue that copying is stealing. They don't get it.

Once you copy something the original is still there.

9/19/2012 8:31:42 AM

the real question is...if you had no intention of buying it in the first place, is copying even "wrong"?

i mean, the copy deprives the owner of nothing...if a physical thing is not stolen and you haven't deprived an IP owner of income (either by purchasing the copy or selling your own copies), in what way has the "owner" been wronged?

not saying i believe this to be true, just throwing it out there

9/19/2012 8:39:46 AM

If the world operated by the OP's video standard, we'd have nothing.

9/19/2012 8:46:18 AM

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/m-e-hart/12/132/3b1

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 8:52 AM. Reason : CINE Golden Eagle Award for Don’t Copy That Floppy]

9/19/2012 8:50:18 AM

Quote :

"if you had no intention of buying it in the first place"

Assessing prior intention is rather impossible because it depends on the overall state of the world we live in.

The core issue here is liberty behind business models. On the one hand, there's hardware. No manufacturer of copying technology has complained that their products are getting copied (yet). I mean, Kingston can sell its SSDs with little fear of it being copied exactly at lower price. So technology that enables copying is a firm business. It's the content that is more tricky.

One could say that I have a right to buy DMR software. Sure, I just hope that everyone maintains the right to buy non-DRM software. But do I have a right to live somewhere where non-DRM anything is banned? If you had the consent of everyone living there, no just a majority vote, then I would agree that you do.

On the other hand, we could just say fuck it, and live with complete unbridled digital anarchy. No protection for any data anywhere. I'm not talking about the entire world, but why not a small nation or two? Then we'll see what happens. Why not?

9/19/2012 8:53:46 AM

I have no intention of buying a BMW, so I'll just steal it.

9/19/2012 9:16:32 AM

you didn't watch the video did you

when you steal a bmw someone loses a bmw

that's wrong

9/19/2012 9:22:19 AM

So if someone writes a book, and sells one book, and everyone else copies it, how does the writer, the editor, the publisher, and all of the manufacturers involved get paid?

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 9:31 AM. Reason : .]

9/19/2012 9:30:54 AM

write a better book next time that people want to pay you for

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 9:34 AM. Reason : stop writing shitty books]

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 9:35 AM. Reason : fucking nanny state taking care of shitty writers]

9/19/2012 9:34:35 AM

great answer.

9/19/2012 9:36:07 AM

Quote :

"Whining about it and trying to get laws passed that punish thieves will never save you"

The only people arguing for a change in laws is the OP video. There are already copyright laws on the books, and every content creator I've ever had a discussion with is happy about them because they're fairly airtight.

Quote :

"if a physical thing is not stolen and you haven't deprived an IP owner of income (either by purchasing the copy or selling your own copies), in what way has the "owner" been wronged?"

It's wrong in that an artist/author/creator has rights in how his works are used. By copying something without permission and using it without consent or compensation you're breaking the law. It's call copyright for a reason, giving the creator the exclusive rights to copy.

And no one here is arguing that businesses and individuals shouldn't consider the fact that people are going to steal from them. The argument is that copying without consent from the copyright holder is unethical and illegal. There's copyright laws, and violating them is illegal.

If you remove copyright laws and make copying without consent legal, there would be no incentive to create as a profession. You can argue all you want that performers can just hold more concerts and rake in the millions, but what incentives are there for the song writers who's work she copied without payment, the photographers whose pictures are used in ads for her without payment. Software creators can lock out potential non-paying users with licensing keys, subscriber models, etc. but as soon as 1 teenager with an understanding of how to circumvent those measures frees the software, what recourse would the developers have?

9/19/2012 9:37:52 AM

it's pretty simple - their recourse is to stop sucking

why don't you people get that

9/19/2012 9:39:38 AM

The issue isn't bad content. People steal good content, too. The OP's video doesn't distinguish good and bad content; it's proposing that any content that can be copied should be free to copy by anyone, no matter its quality.

Do you honestly think that if someone has a choice between paying for a copy or copying for free, any content, good or bad, that most will pay? I sure as heck wouldn't.

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 9:42 AM. Reason : .]

9/19/2012 9:41:12 AM

people are much more likely to pay for good content

9/19/2012 9:42:42 AM

[unless they can legally get it for free]

9/19/2012 9:43:05 AM

Why would anyone pay for content they can get for free?

9/19/2012 9:43:19 AM

I pay for all of the free apps on my phone.

9/19/2012 9:44:05 AM

to compensate the creator for the value received from the content

^^ creators of free apps haven't set up a way for me to compensate them

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM. Reason : see: in rainbows]

9/19/2012 9:44:21 AM

sounds like a socialist utopia
^bullshit. I've seen several free apps with donate features or donate/pay for versions.

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM. Reason : .]

9/19/2012 9:45:08 AM

it sounds like the government needs to leave me the fuck alone and let me live my life

^ are all free apps set up like that? you said all free apps

also, i'm going to get together with my neighbors and we'll build our own roads and hire our own police

9/19/2012 9:45:38 AM