Piracy killed the creative industry

[Aquagraph]

http://www.timeslive.co.za/entertain...g-china-market
Angry Birds company let's the Chinese thieves do it for them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009...buy-more-music
As we all know, home taping has killed the music industry by now.

http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number9...rike-copyright
"Two copy infringements, bye bye internet" deal for pirates was introduced to Germany's legislation by a man with two copyright infringing pictures in his blog. He was quickly called out.
But he didn't lose his internet because it was part of his brilliant plan or something:

I'm grateful that I got the opportunity to show how the warning model works. The use of the two copyright-protected photographs was brought to my attention. The photos were then removed, so the warning model works.

So then the nice policemen understood that silly Mr Kauder didn't do anything wrong, although he continued to break his own law by not deleting the photos from his server.

International Pirate Party is only a few measly years old but check them out at Germany and other countries from this handy list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_...Pirate_Parties
But don't trust what pirates tell you at Wikipedia, it's run by the communist open source hoodoo anyways.

[Capitalist Pig]

[Aquagraph]

Die Antwoord, the band from South Africa started by letting others steal their first album (damn those ******s) and then they got signed to Interscope Records. After building enough capital they said fuck you and founded the Zef Side Records.

[Capitalist Pig]

[Capitalist Pig]

[Aquagraph]

Cpig, are you sure you're not infringing any copyrights by sharing those videos?

[Capitalist Pig]

Cpig, are you sure you're not infringing any copyrights by sharing those videos?

Considering the YouTube account associated with the videos (questioncopyright) has opted for a CC BY license, reuse and republishing is not only permitted, but encouraged. The organization's own web site has a disclaimer at the bottom of every page explicitly stating,

[O]ur content is released to the public and can be considered to be in the public domain: you may copy, share, excerpt, modify, and distribute modified versions of this and other pages from QuestionCopyright.org.

So, yes, I'm reasonably certain I am not infringing upon any copyright claims by sharing these videos. Truthfully, I wouldn't give a damn, even if I were.

[Saberstorm]

Cpig is totally wrong on this. Producing high quality creative content is hard work, money is a major motavation for the creators.

[Beautiful sky]

Piracy does kill the creative industry because how are the many people behind production of films supposed to get paid when they aren't?

[Gilly]

Cpig is totally wrong on this.

I hate it when people make stark declarations of truth or falsehood like this about things that are impossible to be certain about. It makes you sound like an ass.

[Gilly]

Piracy does kill the creative industry because how are the many people behind production of films supposed to get paid when they aren't?

You clearly have no idea how much some films gross in the first night of theatre showings alone.

[Pa3s]

Producing high quality creative content is hard work, money is a major motavation for the creators.

You know what's also hard work? Forest work, garbage disposal, mining, steel casting and most factory jobs in general. But these people get paid only once for doing a job that might be very dangerous, too. Artists who created a music album can sell it over and over again, because the product of their work can be copied infinitely. It allows almost unlimited revenue, even after the death of the artist themselves.

Do you think that's fair?

[xerx]

For a few products, the market will just respond by using an [as yet] uncopyable medium. Cloud gaming is already close to completion; by making new games so graphics intensive that you'd need supercomputers to run them, you can eliminate a major incentive to pirate.

[mu4]

Adapt to the technological advances of the time instead of stifling future technological advances in the name of existing property rights.

Sure, creative people may be unable to make as much money due to changing business circumstances, but as long as you produce a good product and have the wherewithal to sell it to people who want to buy it, there will be naturally a mutually beneficial relationship. However by attempting to preserve existing business practices in the face of technological advancement, and really getting in the way of creating a market for products which follows the most efficient models based on technology is simply a product of greed and the inability to adapt. Now I understand that there is a need to transition these things gradually, which imo is why piracy arises at the level which it does, in order to soften the stranglehold of previous business models as well as introduce experimental models for future business development.

[strangeling]

It seems like these discussions seem to miss the bigger picture, that money is used to represent some normalized and average value that a thing is supposed to have relative to what people value at a given time. If people like a product, they will support it with the amount they think it is worth; and if that worth isn't high enough to stay in business, oh well. Businesses that require copyright piracy to be stopped to stay in business are trying to use their power to influence how other people should value their product; in other words, they want to limit the freedom of the market so they can tell you to a degree what you should value.

And I think that's a load of shit. Perhaps someone could make a convincing argument that they aren't trying to police the market, but I know of none that don't imply a need for policing as self-evident.

[rat1]

Internet piracy is a crime, but it's not taken seriously because what we're stealing is a waste of our time. There isn't an incentive to foster creativity when the creativity serves no real purpose.
There can't be policeman without criminals. So to say piracy is not a crime, then whine about internet policeman; you contradict yourself, it's the piracy which put the policeman there.

[Gilly]

Internet piracy is a crime, but it's not taken seriously because what we're stealing is a waste of our time. There isn't an incentive to foster creativity when the creativity serves no real purpose.
There can't be policeman without criminals. So to say piracy is not a crime, then whine about internet policeman; you contradict yourself, it's the piracy which put the policeman there.

You're still sucking this hard on Big Brothers dick?

[rat1]

The point is if we didn't pirate shit, there wouldn't be justification to police us on the internet. We would still have a free internet. We're the ones that form big brother, then for added irony sit back and moan about it. Yeah I pirate shit but I'm not surprised they're policing the internet now. If I'm going to complain about something you can be damn sure I'm not the one responsible for making it happen. And that doesn't mean I believe policing is the best solution. It just means we're the ones who gave them the justification to police us.

[Capitalist Pig]

Cpig is totally wrong on this. Producing high quality creative content is hard work, money is a major motavation for the creators.

Piracy does kill the creative industry because how are the many people behind production of films supposed to get paid when they aren't?

Why do you both make the assumption that artists or inventors would never be able to fund or profit from their work in the absence of Intellectual Property laws?

The point is if we didn't pirate shit, there wouldn't be justification to police us on the internet. We would still have a free internet. We're the ones that form big brother, then for added irony sit back and moan about it. Yeah I pirate shit but I'm not surprised they're policing the internet now. If I'm going to complain about something you can be damn sure I'm not the one responsible for making it happen. And that doesn't mean I believe policing is the best solution. It just means we're the ones who gave them the justification to police us.

Isn't it a little naïve to think that efforts to police the Internet would stop if piracy was gone tomorrow? There are plenty of other reasons the government wants to dig its grubby little claws into cyberspace; hackers, terrorists, child pornography rings, etc.

[Crispy]

Piracy only effectively gives consumers the chance to see the quality of a good before paying for it, at no expense to the creator. If the consumer doesn't like the product, the consumer now has the freedom to not support it, whereas before they had to pay to even come to a conclusion over the quality. If a consumer does like the product, he still has the same incentive to pay, in order for the artist to be able to make more products the consumer will similarly enjoy. The only damage piracy has caused is to companies that try to polish turds with false extravagant advertising.

[rat1]

Isn't it a little naïve to think that efforts to police the Internet would stop if piracy was gone tomorrow? There are plenty of other reasons the government wants to dig its grubby little claws into cyberspace; hackers, terrorists, child pornography rings, etc.

Is that what I think? No.

Let's remove all implied context:

The point is if we the general public didn't pirate shit, there wouldn't be would be less overall justification for the authorities to police us on the internet.

[woofwoofl]

The point is if we didn't pirate shit, there wouldn't be justification to police us on the internet. We would still have a free internet. We're the ones that form big brother, then for added irony sit back and moan about it. Yeah I pirate shit but I'm not surprised they're policing the internet now. If I'm going to complain about something you can be damn sure I'm not the one responsible for making it happen. And that doesn't mean I believe policing is the best solution. It just means we're the ones who gave them the justification to police us.

Absolutely retarded. No reason to analyze this really. Burn your standards to the ground and piss on the ashes. There's more "us" than there is "them". Fight relentlessly. Seed. Leech. Win.

[rat1]

My 'standards', what? That's a description of reality. Reality - what actually happened.
We pirate games (among many other things) > they begin policing the internet = there goes our freedom. Hypothetical alternative: We don't pirate games (among other things) > ??? Nothing changes.
WOOO COMPLICATED.

Or, if I want to be a tool:
We pirate games > they police the internet > we fight back (what?) > We win (....) > the man is gone, we are free to pirate games and the internet is still free and unpoliced. I cannot picture this ever happening, I don't even know what this is really. But then again I'm an idealist with the too-high standards, I should get on to burning those into ashes and pissing on them.

Wait, how about this one:
We pirate games > they police the internet > we "fight" back in various ways, evading the laws etc. > they continue further cracking down on the internet > the internet evolves into something like a high security prison compound.
^what will actually happen.

It amazes me how the simple, obvious truth is called retarded and cock sucking. Rather cling to the fantastic delusions of self importance.
WOOHOOO REVOLUTION MAN! Put on your V masks and make yourself anonymous! Fuck yeah.
Wait... who are we fighting against? Oh shit, the global elite. You know, the people who run everything.
Strange why the occupy movement got such large scale funding from the beginning.
Why does the CIA ship drugs into this country? For the same obvious and simple reason: problem > solution = government expansion.
Your brilliant solution... create more chaos.
I want it on the record from the beginning I knew government expansion was the end result of this revolution bullshit.
I wonder how hard they're laughing at all of you.

[JWC3]

Cpig is totally wrong on this. Producing high quality creative content is hard work, money is a major motavation for the creators.

Not really, most artists I know realize that there is almost no money in any creative industry save for the top whatever small percent. Artists generally art because they like to art but if someone wanted to pay me exorbitant amounts of money to art I wouldn't say no.

[JWC3]

Piracy does kill the creative industry because how are the many people behind production of films supposed to get paid when they aren't?

*shrugs* I'll work crew for art. Working crew for art can be fun.

[Beautiful sky]

*shrugs* I'll work crew for art. Working crew for art can be fun.

My point exactly; you work on one production and it doesn't make enough to pay you a decent salary because as soon as the film is out it gets pirated; that's so encouraging for people who need to make a living (sarcasm).

There's a reason why it's illegal now because it undermines the people who work hard.

[Pa3s]

vs.

[Aquagraph]

Current situation:
Copyright legislation is practically not enforced in the internet. All that is enforced can be outmaneuvered by anyone who wants to take a little time doing so. The ones that get caught are made an example of with ridiculous prison sentences and fined an arbitrary estimate of lost revenue, which they won't be able to pay in their lifetime.

There's also the possibility of taking away the connection of the offenders. Being without access to internet is definately a hindrance in your everyday life. It just might kill your career, make you not meet your S.O. and reach important emails about increasing your penis size.

It's not uncommon to be a copyright violator without being aware of it. Are you absolutely sure that your avatar, wallpaper and the meme you just posted is not a copyright violation?

All attempts to control the data transfer give a better access to violate the right to free speech. All attempts to enforce laws set against piracy are either futile, compromise our rights or result in absurd sentences.
Say that it isn't so.

Norwegian study says that Pirates are ten times more likely to buy music:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009...buy-more-music

The Norwegian study looked at almost 2,000 online music users, all over the age of 15. Researchers found that those who downloaded "free" music – whether from lawful or seedy sources – were also 10 times more likely to pay for music. This would make music pirates the industry's largest audience for digital sales.

Wisely, the study did not rely on music pirates' honesty. Researchers asked music buyers to prove that they had proof of purchase.

It is true that a pirate downloads much more music than he buys but if he pays more than the average customer then pirates are a huge resource for music industry. I know that correlation does not imply causation but it seems to me that people who are against piracy should be downloading music themselves to help out the record companies artists.

Internet is and should be as a free field in all ways. The factions that run sites should be given the right to do whatever they want within their sites. In a way, the internet is the most valuable artifact humanity has. It's holy in it's chaos. From the internet we can watch where ideas clash and innovate everything resulting in progress. To me, progress is the way society learns and adapts in to the world we live in. Never has the humanity been so well in touch with one another and yet driven apart. The windows are open: observe, absorb and evolve. We are ready to learn from the success and the failure of mankind all over Terra. Our only enemies are misinformation, misinterpretation of information, misevaluation of the importance of information and, finally, drowning in information.

[Gilly]

Not really, most artists I know realize that there is almost no money in any creative industry save for the top whatever small percent. Artists generally art because they like to art but if someone wanted to pay me exorbitant amounts of money to art I wouldn't say no.

This is true, but most artists also secretly hold out that they will become wildly successful.

[Gilly]

http://bandcamp.com/

Best thing evar

When I want music from rich, famous artists, I pirate it. When I want music from artists who are new or not on a label or still trying to make it, I buy. Just...use your head, do the right thing when you can.

[JWC3]

This is true, but most artists also secretly hold out that they will become wildly successful.

Optimism is pretty awesome.

[JWC3]

My point exactly; you work on one production and it doesn't make enough to pay you a decent salary because as soon as the film is out it gets pirated; that's so encouraging for people who need to make a living (sarcasm).

There's a reason why it's illegal now because it undermines the people who work hard.

Most people I know have accepted the fact that they're going to be destitute no matter what. That's why art happens at night, so you can get a day job.

[Gilly]

Optimism is pretty awesome.

Hey man, if the first few birds didn't try to fly, and keep on failing until they got it right, then there wouldn't be no damn birds.

[JWC3]

Hey man, if the first few birds didn't try to fly, and keep on failing until they got it right, then there wouldn't be no damn birds.

I know I already clicked like but I got quite the chuckle out of this, just sayin'

[Gilly]

[Aquagraph]

I want more opposition in here.

[xerx]

The real battle for freedom of the internet hasn't even begun. Just wait till large, sophisticated 3D printers become widely available and people start "pirating" Ferraris and Jet Fighters from downloadable schematics. Even becoming self-reliant on your own manufactured trinkets is going to pose a huge threat to the powers that be.

[JWC3]

I want more opposition in here.

I refuse.

We could fight about that if you want?

[tcaudilllg]

There is a very clear antidote to IP restrictions: clone, clone, clone.

[tcaudilllg]

Not really, most artists I know realize that there is almost no money in any creative industry save for the top whatever small percent. Artists generally art because they like to art but if someone wanted to pay me exorbitant amounts of money to art I wouldn't say no.

Thanks for that. You just substantiated one of the dual-type hypotheses., I believe. To wit, the creative function's approach to the role function (in the IM chain) is an unshakable prerogative. But why is money so important to you?