ergophobe - 1:07 am on Feb 27, 2013 (gmt 0)
Two questions for everyone who thinks it's okay to fileshare:
1. If you were unable to control and profit from your labor, would you work as hard?
2. As a member of a community and society, do you think that it's fundamentally right for individuals to disregard laws because you don't personally believe in them? I'm not asking about civil disobedience, where the point is to get arrested for flaunting the law and thereby challenge it.
From the article:
Practically speaking, this means our content partners will begin sending notices of alleged P2P copyright infringement to ISPs, and the ISPs will begin forwarding those notices in the form of Copyright Alerts to consumers.
What I find interesting about this, is this already happened to us two years ago. Someone renting our downstairs apartment was illegally trying to share HBO films. HBO lawyers sent Cease and Desist letters to our ISP and said they would be liable if they didn't stop it. The ISP lawyers then sent us Cease and Desist letters saying we would permanently lose our service if we didn't put a stop to it.
The movie and music industry needs to realize that those into copying movies would not pay them even if they could not get it online,
I had to laugh at this. Why? Guess the profession of the copyright violator who almost lost us our service permanently? Yep, filmmaker. The conversation went like this:
Me: "You should know better. You make a living from selling your films."
Him "Well people are constantly ripping off my stuff."
Me: "And how does that make you feel?"
Him "That's a totally separate issue."
Seriously... it was like that.
Let's look at this model for the music industry
Yes, let's look at the music industry. I would adjust this analysis. The music industry has lived by a simple model for decades: concerts are loss leaders to sell records. Sharing turns that on its ear. In the new model, recorded music becomes a loss leader to sell concert tickets.
Seth Godin loves to point out that people will no longer pay $0.99 for a recorded song, but Bruce Springsteen sold out three nights in a row at the Montreal Coliseum at $200/seat.
But once you start giving away the content, there's no real role left for the record labels or perhaps more optimistically, record labels cease to be publishers and become music-oriented marketing and event planning (i.e. concert promotion) firms.
From the consumer and the musician point of view, I don't know as a sharing-based model is necessarily bad, but from a label perspective, it means death to the vast majority of them.
For movies, it's even harder since the only real product *is* a recorded medium and they are looking at more and more homes having the same Dolby 7.1 and massive screens as the movie house. They don't really have a "live" experience to sell anymore and movies are prohibitively expensive to make. The money has to come from somewhere.
As societies, we generally say that if people are too poor to buy food, we don't allow them to steal it, but we do find subsidies to make sure they don't starve to death. Perhaps part of the solution is to take a similar approach to art. Alternatively, we could go back to a patronage model like in the Renaissance - art is produced only on demand and mostly just for the rich who may or may not open the theaters to the masses. That's actually a proven model - nobody can say the Renaissance was bad for art.