Piracy is Good?

[James Fee]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.mindjack.com/feature/piracy051305.html' target='_blank'>http://www.mindjack.com/feature/piracy051305.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"October 18th, 2004 is the day TV died. That evening, British satellite broadcaster SkyOne — part of NEWS Corp's BSkyB satellite broadcasting service — ran the premiere episode of the re-visioned 70s camp classic Battlestar Galactica. (That episode, "33," is one of the best hours of drama ever written for television.) The production costs for Battlestar Galactica were underwritten by two broadcast partners: SkyOne in the UK, and the SciFi Channel in the USA. SciFi Channel programers had decided to wait until January 2005 (a slow month for American television) to begin airing the series, so three months would elapse between the airing of "33" in the UK, and its airing in the US. Or so it was thought. The average viewer of the SciFi network is young and decidedly geeky. They are masters of media; they can find ways to get things they shouldn't have. Thus, a few hours after airing on SkyOne, "33" was available for Internet download. While you might assume the SciFi Channel saw a significant drop-off in viewership as a result of this piracy, it appears to have had the reverse effect: the series is so good that the few tens of thousands of people who watched downloaded versions told their friends to tune in on January 14th, and see for themselves. From its premiere, Battlestar Galactica has been the most popular program ever to air on the SciFi Channel, and its audiences have only grown throughout the first series. Piracy made it possible for "word-of-mouth" to spread about Battlestar Galactica."</i><br /><br />This makes compete sense to all us here, but why can't the RIAA or MPAA listen to someone like us? This article on Mindjack is one of the most sensible I have read on the subject.

[gdoerr56]

The RIAA and MPAA don't want to listen because they represent the publishers of the content, not the authors. If they 'allow' alternate distribution channels to flourish, they will become less influential over time. Imagine a world where MOST content authors are able to publish directly to their audience, say through iTunes, Napster or what have you. It is coming, it is inevitable, it is going to be a transition and it will be painful for some (those with a vested interest in the status quo).

Remember, many people have a very difficult time accepting change. Throw financial gain or loss into the equation and it gets really interesting...

[Felix Torres]

Being contrarian by nature, here's an alternative view:

The article is mostly raising a strawman rationalization by mixing three separate issues to hide the one fact he doesn't like.

First, he uses the fact that word-of-mouth viral campaigns work well to promote products. Duh! Yeah, just ask Microsoft and Burger King about ilovebees and our colony and the internet chicken. Or the granddaddy of the business, the Blair Witch Project.

Second, he focuses on the availability of alternative distribution channels with the proliferation of broadband technologies and how companies are so scared of piracy they are leaving money on the table and alienating (some) potential customers, which is true. However, last time I looked, it was perfectly legal and acceptable to act against your own best interests out of ignorance or fear and being *forced* to act in a way you don't desire to "for your own good" is a wee bit too dictatorial for my tastes. Or the laws of most western countries. (Issues of legal competemnce aside, of course.)

Third we come to the gist of the matter: piracy. Or, less colloquially, the unsanctioned, unauthorized publishing of somebody else's copyrighted content. That is still very much illegal. And unethical. Hiding behind the argument that "it is good for them" is just rationalization.

If you want to persuade somebody their course of action is against their own best interests, by all means, try to persuade them. But the moment you move from talk to action you just crossed a line; you are no longer the good guy, intentions or not.

Finally, lets be honest here, the folks posting this stuff aren't doing it for the producers/owners of the content; they are doing it for themselves.
Post free stuff so somebody else will post something else back and you, personally, come out ahead, right?

You want to recommend a show, recommend it.
If your worth has any value, your "friends" will believe you.
But doing *exactly* what the content owners fear is no way to assuage those fears; piracy doesn't breed liberalization, it breeds restriction.

Anybody want to bet that when the US Congress starts to debate the broadcast flag, the Dr Who and Galactica incidents will be front and center?

I *don't* want the broadcast flag any more than anybody else, but these "samaritans" are making it inevitable!

Talk about acting against you own best interests...

[Perry Reed]

Well, I was one of those who downloaded the Sky One episodes and watched them on my laptop (running S-Video into my HDTV...) and thought that the new BG was one of the best shows I've seen in a long time. And then when it came out on Sci-Fi I recommended it to several friends, many of whom watched it, and I TiVo'd and watched every episode again. And now that it's in reruns on Sci-Fi, I'm watching them a third time. And the other night when my car broke down and I was waiting for a tow truck I passed the time watching the season finale on my Jornada Pocket PC.

Okay, so maybe I've gone a bit too far, but it is my favorite show on right now.

And the truth is, while piracy is bad and all that, word of mouth and viral marketing does work! Letting people have a little freedom with their content is a good thing and will trigger people to consume more of it, something you'd think the RIAA and MPAA would want.

If they make it too restricting to deal with their music or shows, I'll just give them up entirely. And yes, I'd even do that with Battlestar.

[Felix Torres]

Is puting up Episode III, available everywhere right now, a good thing for *anybody*?

http://news.com.com/Final+Star+Wars+film+leaked+to+the+Internet/2100-1026_3-5713546.html?tag=nefd.pop

[Mr. MacinTiger]

I am still POed that my Bittorent sources for the new Dr. Who episodes have been shut down :x
BTW, the new BG is some of the best TV ever, science fiction or not! Some of the episodes from the first season have amazed me on the level of seeing Empire Strikes Back or the Godfather or Fellowship of the Ring for the first time. Incredibly epic TV, but with amazing detail to character and script. We can only hope that the upcoming live action Star Wars TV series will be HALF as good! :twisted:

[Philip Colmer]

The problem with "unofficial" distribution of programmes is that it ducks the issue of broadcasters having paid for the rights to show the programme in their country. Yes, in the case of BG, it helped to promote the series, but that won't always be the case. For example, I started watching some episodes of a series from BitTorrent because the series wasn't being broadcast in the UK. That series then starts being broadcast - the net result is that I didn't watch the episodes again because I'd already seen them.

Official distribution, however, could be just as tricky. I recently posted how the BBC accidentally left their stream of BBC1 open over a weekend, allowing global Doctor Who viewers who were in the know to watch the stream of the Dalek episode at the same time as the UK viewers. This turned out to be so popular that several people posted that they would be prepared to pay regular money to continue getting the stream.

But, again, rights come into play. If the BBC pays for the rights to show a film in the UK, it won't be able to stream that film to the world. Similarly, if they stream their own programmes, like Doctor Who, what does that do to their market of selling the programmes to other broadcasters like those in Canada and Australia that have bought the series?

Ultimately, we will see the boundaries merging and rights evolving. The pigopolists won't get their way forever.

--Philip

[Jason Dunn]

If you want to persuade somebody their course of action is against their own best interests, by all means, try to persuade them. But the moment you move from talk to action you just crossed a line; you are no longer the good guy, intentions or not.

I hear what you're saying, but let's be honest with ourselves here: if CD ripping software and Napster never existed, would be have legitimate online music stores now? Absolutely not - the music industry wants to keep things they way they were, with people buying CDs. Sometimes industries have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the next paradigm...

[Felix Torres]

I hear what you're saying, but let's be honest with ourselves here: if CD ripping software and Napster never existed, would be have legitimate online music stores now? Absolutely not - the music industry wants to keep things they way they were, with people buying CDs. Sometimes industries have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the next paradigm...

Ah, the old "we meant no harm, your honor" defense.
I might buy that but the judges, so far haven't.

As much as I enjoy my digital toys, and as much as I enjoy watching my mother with her ebook reader and riot, reading and listening to legally obtained music in full 21st century regalia, I do wonder under what moral or legal authority were the pirates empowered to publish the fruit of somebody else's labor for free. And if *that* is a necessary step to foster technology adoption, then maybe the technology is not really mature and ready for adoption.
(certainly ebook piracy has done nothing to foster adoption of viable ebook publishing models.)

This is not a victimless crime; Tommy Mottola and Madonna and Paul McCartney are going to get their money no matter what, but the garage band one-hit wonders aren't. Not all musicians enjoy singing for their suppers, relying on live performances or t-shirt sales to survive (not that I see too many t-shirts with the pictures of session musicians whose royalties are reduced or tv producers whose business model is torpedoed by piracy). Some shows *need* foreign sales so their production companies can stay in business at *all*.

The key question behind piracy, of music, video, software, or books is not one of technology but of ethics. Just because technology enables us to do something does not mean that it is good and proper to do so.

The day of might making right, of the (technologcally) strong preying on the helpless is supposed to be long gone.
Do we really need to be making excuses for unscrupulous hypocrites who never created anything worth buying but seek to devalue the fruit of other's labors just because they can?

There's a reason they call it *piracy*, you know; the mentality is pretty much the same of Blackbeard and company. They can, so they do, with no regard for whoever they might hurt in the process.

Bringing up the sins of the studios is just one big red herring; there is no law of man or nature that says anybody is to be compelled to adopt any process or technology.

Me, I despise luddites.
But if I can't make a reasoned case good enough to convince them to move to a newer tech, I'm not about to put a gun to their heads and empty out their pockets to force them to my views.
I like to think I'm a bit better than that.

Plus, I don't own a gun... :wink:
Personally, I think Heinlein had it right when he said "man is not a rational creature, just a rationalizing one..."

TINSTAAFL!

[gdoerr56]

We can debate the timing of the legitimate sites but I believe the true cataylst for this is good old capitalism. Some people believe there is money to made and they're going to pursue it.

Sometime soon someone is going to start a new 'music label', recruit talent, record some music and publish it through an on-line service. I also believe some artists will seek to bypass the 'music label' completely and publish their music directly to the service (they are in effect their own label, just like today).

Over time, new, digitally savy companies will win more and more of the distribution work from the current group. They will promote content and artists, help support concerts and even help support selling t-shirts.

Don't be suprised if the companies that end up replacing Warner Bros., Island and Reprise have names like Apple, Napster and MSN.

[Jason Dunn]

Well, since you went and got all philosophical on us... ;-)

The key question behind piracy, of music, video, software, or books is not one of technology but of ethics. Just because technology enables us to do something does not mean that it is good and proper to do so.

By the same token, just because some judge says "You can't do that, it's against the law" (speeding) or "You can do that, it's legal" (abortion) doesn't make it ethical or unethical. It might have been legal to put Jews in a concentration camp in 1930's Germany, but that doesn't mean it was ethical. People who equate legality with morality exist in a lower level of moral understanding, though it's pretty common in our society now. I believe in absolute morality that is unchanging in the face of what mankind decides.

I'm not looking to start a debate about what's truly moral in our world (the above are just examples and I don't want to see this thread discussing them), but I'll say this: when I buy a CD and rip it for personal use, that is not immoral regardless of what the law says anywhere. By the same token, even though the Canadian legal system ruled that mass file sharing is legal, if I were to put my 13,000 song collection online with Limewire, I wouldn't see it as a moral act - I'm definitely harming the artists by sharing all that music.

Who knew CD ripping what such a complex topic? :lol:

[BugDude10]

Who knew CD ripping what such a complex topic?

I just wanted to hear "Seasons in the Sun" without buying the whole CD... 8O

[Jason Eaton]

Here is a curveball. Someone had to do it... so it might as well be me.

Regarding legality here and laws to help the creators, I bring up the recordable media tax. These are taxes on recordable cd-roms, dvds, and in some places music storage devices.

If you have to pay this 'tax' , that in turn is supposedly supposed to go to the authors (even if you don't pirate their materials), Do you now have a legitimate ability to use p2p networks to trade music? I mean the tax is paying for it, so you are no longer stealing, just paying in a round-about way?

[Jason Dunn]

If you have to pay this 'tax' , that in turn is supposedly supposed to go to the authors (even if you don't pirate their materials), Do you now have a legitimate ability to use p2p networks to trade music? I mean the tax is paying for it, so you are no longer stealing, just paying in a round-about way?

An excellent point! That tax assumes that we're all guilty, and punishes us accordingly. :?