[Stoner]

Kevin Smith: Connects Again, Says Pirates Lead To Converts
http://forums.techguy.org/tech-relat...gain-says.html

Originally Posted by RootbeaR

"A few months back, I wrote about how director Kevin Smith (who's most well known for Clerks, but has done plenty of other stuff as well) is showing how the old CwF + RtB formula works in the movie business as well. Smith has gone above and beyond (and crazy far beyond that) in connecting with his fans in all sorts of ways. Beyond just making cool movies, he has a fun (mostly) weekly podcast, a blog (which he doesn't use as much any more), web forums and he regularly does Q&A sessions that are somewhat legendary and hilarious (check YouTube)."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...32166123.shtml

From that link:

The smart creator these days looks to use "piracy" to his advantage.

uh huh!

[thingamajig]

While I have just browsed quickly over the thread, I would make a few points.

The way in which music is sold is changing. Instead of buying complete CDs, many users are buying one song at a time from sites like itunes and rhapsody. Given the tools to just buy the song you like, of course CD sales are going to go down. Who wants a complete CD anyway?

Moreover, there are more ways for artists to sale their music. They no longer have to sign record deals and don't unless their popularity sores to justify it. Off-labels and self-recorded tracks can be found on the internet sites above but also on internet sites that specialize on this like emusic.

Moreover, every band worth it's salt in marketing will have a myspace account. If you visit musician sites that aren't signed, you'll often see that you can buy tracks directly off of their myspace page. My sons earn money this way. Why sign a contract when you reach a global audience so easily?

Another loss of revenue is direct CD sharing. When a friend visits, you can upload the songs off of their player and they can download yours. Because of the digital perfection of recorded music these days, many copy the CDs owned by their friends.

So, a reduction in revenue for record labels means nothing to me in this debate. You can't really know why that revenue has been affected as there are too many casual variables.

I am not innocent of file sharing but nor am I for or against it. I see it as useful tool when used properly. The fact that it can be abused doesn't mean it should be abolished. A car, gun, and alcohol can be abused but we still have them. I also don't believe we should be criminalizing our teenagers over it or fining their parents. Even when the record industry files a lawsuit in the US, it really doesn't matter since file sharing is global.

[SlackAli]

Originally Posted by Stoner

News articles ( mostly from techdirt )that RootbeaR has been posting in the Tech Related news forum.
Since that forum isn't for debate....(edit: ) I'm bringing them here.

Ah, that explains it. I can generally understand your posts, even if I don't always agree with them. Gleaning meaning from RootbeaR though is like swimming in quicksand.

Interesting article here on the music financial scene here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/ar...indu.html?_r=1
The dynamics of sales has certainly changed a lot since I was a kid.
I think piracy brought a realization to the industry that consumers were losing interest in the filler of albums.
But it doesn't look like online sales are taking up the slack of lost CD sales.

Interesting indeed, if only promoting the business/profit perspective rather than the artistic one...."But analysts say that despite the growth and promise of digital music — in 2003 just 19 million songs were purchased as downloads — the money made online is still far from enough to make up for losses in physical sales." Tough! They seem incapable of grasping the changing nature of consumption: not only that punters are sick of paying for filler, but also that, hopefully, punters are also getting the idea that the music artefact is no longer in itself a physical object of desire, and that popular music is an essentially ephemeral experience.

The fact that live music is gaining ground over recorded is something probably to be applauded (unless one has, as I have, am antisocial personality disorder). Obviously as a source of income this benefits "big name acts" (just when is Mick Jagger going to do the decent thing and spare the world the torture of a geriatric complaining he can't get no satisfaction), but also explains the horrific trend for the reformation of ancient largely forgotten bands - *stop press* Mott the Hoople are to reform, giving the gullible the chance to hear 70year old Ian Hunter singing about All the Young Dudes. Sickening.

If the article is attempting to garner sympathy for the chain stores, it failed with me. Wal-Mart and the like are largely responsible for the terminal decline of the independent record store, at least in the UK, which means that obscure stuff is almost impossible to buy. One reason why people go to torrent sites?

[Stoner]

There seems to be a misconception about this thread

It's not about the act of legal file sharing.

It's not about how successful the music business is in making money, nor the movie industry, nor the artist or producers/promoters.

It's about rationalizing piracy and illegal file sharing.

[thingamajig]

Originally Posted by Stoner

There seems to be a misconception about this thread

It's not about the act of legal file sharing.

It's not about how successful the music business is in making money, nor the movie industry, nor the artist or producers/promoters.

It's about rationalizing piracy and illegal file sharing.

Yes but in this thread and others, the impact on music industry sales is always mentioned - the supposition that file sharing increases sales. My post was meant to take that out of the discussion since we can't possibly know the causal relationship.

As for piracy of software, the industry brings much of this on themselves. How can one train for Adobe Create Suite or many other products to get a job when they can't afford the software that they desire to learn until they have the job? However, I say that we should allow companies that don't produce learning editions to fall because would-be students don't have the money to learn the product. They should loose market share because of their own lack of foresight and/or greed - not piracy.

Hence, I see no rationalization for piracy. It's illegal and takes away from the ones who create intellectual works. I have my own copyrights so empathize with artists, developers, cartoonist (a rule still violated here without concern or consequence), photographers, etc. I agree, that if creative works can be had for free, what motivation would one have in creating them? The availability and quality of such things will suffer (and I don't mean sound quality).

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Stoner

There seems to be a misconception about this thread

It's not about the act of legal file sharing.

It's not about how successful the music business is in making money, nor the movie industry, nor the artist or producers/promoters.

It's about rationalizing piracy and illegal file sharing.

but if it's about rationalizing it, then it IS about the rest of it, imo....and i believe that rationalization is borne from looking at the rest of it through the lens of "us" vs. "them"...."us" being the first entire generation of consumers who's been told since birth what is cool, what they need, and who to admire -and why....and "them" being -not the artist- but the system that makes them and their work the object of their desire.

file sharing is not considered a "legal" issue, imo, because it is percieved as simply a means to fulfill that desire within one's group.....to share it with others....a thoroughly selfish motive....but as entreprenurial and competitive as it gets

and computers have pushed this along by extending the traditional boundaries of the mind/world barrier....further demonstrating the value of thought, but also reconnecting it to this new dimension of the "physical" world.

the change from barter to money was the first step in this process, and has brought us to the very real situation today where the value of the mind is far more than than the value of the labor that it precipitates.....it is commonplace today to argue that the action of thought makes the action of labor possible.....

and this is at work somewhere in this whole thing, i believe.....a reason why so many young aspiring artists take their work to the internet first, and the savvy older ones have websites that are both a convenience for their fan base and a way to self-promote.

so it appears, at least, that this new dimension of the physical world is realigning thought and action once again, providing both the artist and the consumer with a new form of connection between the two....one less wedded to the idea that a mind -in the form of a ceo, for example....or an entertainment industry mogul- shoud be extraordinarily well compensated for his/her thought processes, while the action -in the form of labor....or artistry- is considered a necessity dependant on the moment.

to label it "communist" or "illegal" misses the point, imo -even while it's certainly possible to argue either one because file sharing does change the notion of "proprietary" and threatens existing relationships between the actions of thought and the actions of the labor in the physical world.

it does this by empowering the consumer, imo.....raising within them a question about "forced march" of consumerism, that exists in spite of the gazillion choices that are out there to consume.....it allows them the opprotunity to choose -outside of the codependant relationship between corporate thought and consumer action- what matters to them.

in the most selfish sense of the idea.

not paying for it -and the point you make about it hurting the artist- is an important concern....but the changing model of consumerism should -if the capitalist manifesto is a valid one- provide a marketplace where producers find adequate compensation through the respect that their demand engenders in the consumer creating a more direct and symbiotic relationship between the two.

tho something less of the riches it now enjoys.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by thingamajig

Yes but in this thread and others, the impact on music industry sales is always mentioned - the supposition that file sharing increases sales. My post was meant to take that out of the discussion since we can't possibly know the causal relationship.

As for piracy of software, the industry brings much of this on themselves. How can one train for Adobe Create Suite or many other products to get a job when they can't afford the software that they desire to learn until they have the job? However, I say that we should allow companies that don't produce learning editions to fall because would-be students don't have the money to learn the product. They should loose market share because of their own lack of foresight and/or greed - not piracy.

Hence, I see no rationalization for piracy. It's illegal and takes away from the ones who create intellectual works. I have my own copyrights so empathize with artists, developers, cartoonist (a rule still violated here without concern or consequence), photographers, etc. I agree, that if creative works can be had for free, what motivation would one have in creating them? The availability and quality of such things will suffer (and I don't mean sound quality).

Yes but in this thread and others, the impact on music industry sales is always mentioned

I've noticed a preponderance of that also, but it's not an exclusive reason for rationalizing the crime. Software and movies are also element of the illegal file sharing issue.

the supposition that file sharing increases sales.

Well, I think the typical argument goes more to trying to show that the whole of the music industry benefits from piracy which we don't know because of the changing dynamic of the business model.
As far as music sales.....it's not a stretch to note that over all sales are down and piracy increasing.....your claim : we can't possibly know the causal relationship. isn't accurate. There is an established relationship.....of course there are other factors to consider like a declining economy......but that likely further drives piracy and illegal downloading along with reduced sales.

As for piracy of software, the industry brings much of this on themselves.

Thanks....I was looking for exactly that type of rationalization for stealing.

Hence, I see no rationalization for piracy.

Well, you just posted a partial paragraph of it.

As for piracy of software, the industry brings much of this on themselves. How can one train for Adobe Create Suite or many other products to get a job when they can't afford the software that they desire to learn until they have the job?

Good example of a rationalization for a criminal act.

I agree, that if creative works can be had for free, what motivation would one have in creating them? The availability and quality of such things will suffer (and I don't mean sound quality).

More to the point, if piracy and illegal transfer becomes legally acceptable, there is no motivation for the industry in question to provide .....and 'free' becomes a standard that usually compares poorly in a value system.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Stoner

It's about rationalizing piracy and illegal file sharing.

That's easy.

www.stealingisillegal.com

If you can rationalize that, you can have a lot of free things.

[wacor]

Originally Posted by thingamajig

Hence, I see no rationalization for piracy. It's illegal and takes away from the ones who create intellectual works. I have my own copyrights so empathize with artists, developers, cartoonist (a rule still violated here without concern or consequence), photographers, etc. I agree, that if creative works can be had for free, what motivation would one have in creating them? The availability and quality of such things will suffer (and I don't mean sound quality).

Bring that up to Tech Guy and Lan is gonna be singing the blues

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by iltos

but if it's about rationalizing it, then it IS about the rest of it, imo....and i believe that rationalization is borne from looking at the rest of it through the lens of "us" vs. "them"...."us" being the first entire generation of consumers who's been told since birth what is cool, what they need, and who to admire -and why....and "them" being -not the artist- but the system that makes them and their work the object of their desire.

file sharing is not considered a "legal" issue, imo, because it is percieved as simply a means to fulfill that desire within one's group.....to share it with others....a thoroughly selfish motive....but as entreprenurial and competitive as it gets

and computers have pushed this along by extending the traditional boundaries of the mind/world barrier....further demonstrating the value of thought, but also reconnecting it to this new dimension of the "physical" world.

the change from barter to money was the first step in this process, and has brought us to the very real situation today where the value of the mind is far more than than the value of the labor that it precipitates.....it is commonplace today to argue that the action of thought makes the action of labor possible.....

and this is at work somewhere in this whole thing, i believe.....a reason why so many young aspiring artists take their work to the internet first, and the savvy older ones have websites that are both a convenience for their fan base and a way to self-promote.

so it appears, at least, that this new dimension of the physical world is realigning thought and action once again, providing both the artist and the consumer with a new form of connection between the two....one less wedded to the idea that a mind -in the form of a ceo, for example....or an entertainment industry mogul- shoud be extraordinarily well compensated for his/her thought processes, while the action -in the form of labor....or artistry- is considered a necessity dependant on the moment.

to label it "communist" or "illegal" misses the point, imo -even while it's certainly possible to argue either one because file sharing does change the notion of "proprietary" and threatens existing relationships between the actions of thought and the actions of the labor in the physical world.

it does this by empowering the consumer, imo.....raising within them a question about "forced march" of consumerism, that exists in spite of the gazillion choices that are out there to consume.....it allows them the opprotunity to choose -outside of the codependant relationship between corporate thought and consumer action- what matters to them.

in the most selfish sense of the idea.

not paying for it -and the point you make about it hurting the artist- is an important concern....but the changing model of consumerism should -if the capitalist manifesto is a valid one- provide a marketplace where producers find adequate compensation through the respect that their demand engenders in the consumer creating a more direct and symbiotic relationship between the two.

tho something less of the riches it now enjoys.

but if it's about rationalizing it, then it IS about the rest of it,

I see a distinction between arguing the facts of a situation to presenting a rationalization for an act.
In this case, the financial facts don't drive the criminal act, but rationalization of them does.

file sharing is not considered a "legal" issue, imo, because it is percieved as simply a means to fulfill that desire within one's group.....to share it with others....a thoroughly selfish motive....but as entreprenurial and competitive as it gets

That is a rationalization for the criminal act......but it's not complete.......there is an element of consideration for the act of receiving, as there is a reciprocal offer of giving....at the exclusion of the right's holder.
The concept of 'illegality' is rationalized away.

and computers have pushed this along by extending the traditional boundaries of the mind/world barrier....further demonstrating the value of thought, but also reconnecting it to this new dimension of the "physical" world.

You really mean that computers work a lot better for copying _

the change from barter to money was the first step in this process, and has brought us to the very real situation today where the value of the mind is far more than than the value of the labor that it precipitates.....it is commonplace today to argue that the action of thought makes the action of labor possible.....

and this is at work somewhere in this whole thing, i believe.....a reason why so many young aspiring artists take their work to the internet first, and the savvy older ones have websites that are both a convenience for their fan base and a way to self-promote.

But this merely circles back to a thought I presented earlier.........why does a business model that allows free examples to be legally distributed .....have to incorporate piracy and illegal file sharing as with techdirt articles posted in TSG's Tech Related News
forum?

so it appears, at least, that this new dimension of the physical world is realigning thought and action once again, providing both the artist and the consumer with a new form of connection between the two.

Well....you appear to be addressing a business model that doesn't incorporate piracy and illegal file sharing.
I don't see the relevance in this thread.

to label it "communist" or "illegal" misses the point, imo -even while it's certainly possible to argue either one because file sharing does change the notion of "proprietary" and threatens existing relationships between the actions of thought and the actions of the labor in the physical world.

Actually, I threw anarchy into the mix.........but what you don't seem to realize is I'm not using those terms as descriptions of business models or the people involved in the product.....they are descriptive of the elements of society that are rationalizing the removal of laws designed for society's own protection .......for the rationalization piracy and illegal file sharing for no cost pleasure.
If it was about only legal free distribution, there wouldn't be an issue, imo.

it does this by empowering the consumer, imo.....raising within them a question about "forced march" of consumerism, that exists in spite of the gazillion choices that are out there to consume.....it allows them the opprotunity to choose -outside of the codependant relationship between corporate thought and consumer action- what matters to them.

in the most selfish sense of the idea.

I think you just described a consumer base with out will power and a lack of ethics and morality
It rationalizes ......that what it can not afford, or lacks the ethics to resist......the mechanism for achieving.

not paying for it -and the point you make about it hurting the artist- is an important concern....but the changing model of consumerism should -if the capitalist manifesto is a valid one- provide a marketplace where producers find adequate compensation through the respect that their demand engenders in the consumer creating a more direct and symbiotic relationship between the two.

All I see in that is .....the business model is outdated and needs to readjust.
Technology has outpaced the current model and technology is likely needed to be implemented to bring correction along with new business ideas.

tho something less of the riches it now enjoys.

Ah....another rationalization ( ).......the abuses of the past negate the ethics of the situation?

Nothing like a little bit of polarization to sway a discussion .......

[Stoner]

aka Brett posted this humorous video in the TechRelated News forum.

.....pretty funny imo.
(caution....if bad language offends you ...skip it, it's only 3 or 4 words, however )


Kid Rock........Steal everything
http://www.youtube.com/v/KUgB0hNf0bs&hl=en&fs=1&

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by valis

That's easy.

www.stealingisillegal.com

If you can rationalize that, you can have a lot of free things.

Indeed......acceptance goes a lot further than music and arts. It merely sets the stage for other material issues........see above video.

[thingamajig]

You have a way of twisting posts Stoner

Originally Posted by Stoner

As far as music sales.....it's not a stretch to note that over all sales are down and piracy increasing.....your claim : we can't possibly know the causal relationship. isn't accurate. There is an established relationship.....of course there are other factors to consider like a declining economy......but that likely further drives piracy and illegal downloading along with reduced sales.

Yes, but I do believe file sharing to be minor in comparison to the overall change that technology has brought to the industry.

Originally Posted by Stoner

Thanks....I was looking for exactly that type of rationalization for stealing.

I then opted that the developer should suffer the consequences but I did not say that it would be from file sharing. There will be consequence when there is a lack skilled workers that are familiar with the software. A company will give up on a development tool if they can't find anyone that can use it. MS knows this well, they cater to developers and offer free "express" editions for learning. Before the express editions they had student versions.

Originally Posted by Stoner

More to the point, if piracy and illegal transfer becomes legally acceptable, there is no motivation for the industry in question to provide .....and 'free' becomes a standard that usually compares poorly in a value system.

If one out of two teenagers participate, how would you propose to proceed? Should we lock up half of our children? Since file sharing has a legitimate use can you justify punishment of those who produce the software? Since the developers are worldwide, how would you enforce it? If we follow this to an extreme, the Internet is also guilty of this global conspiracy.

Reality will speak. What is the point of passing laws that cannot be enforced? We can't turn back the clock and we should want an open Internet. Hence we must have new business models that adjust to the times.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Actually, I threw anarchy into the mix.........but what you don't seem to realize is I'm not using those terms as descriptions of business models or the people involved in the product.....they are descriptive of the elements of society that are rationalizing the removal of laws designed for society's own protection .......for the rationalization piracy and illegal file sharing for no cost pleasure.
If it was about only legal free distribution, there wouldn't be an issue, imo.



I think you just described a consumer base with out will power and a lack of ethics and morality
It rationalizes ......that what it can not afford, or lacks the ethics to resist......the mechanism for achieving.



All I see in that is .....the business model is outdated and needs to readjust.

i read it all down to here.....and find no huge difference in our pov.....your's (typically) is just more well thought out
wrt to what you infer is my condoning the rationalization of breaking the law, the very fact that you agree that the biz model is outdated is itself an arguement for the illegal behavior.

and on that, we stand in two different places....

Technology has outpaced the current model and technology is likely needed to be implemented to bring correction along with new business ideas.

here you seem to be ok with the possibility that what's needed is just a new layer of technology plastered over the existing business model, to protect it's interests....i know you to be a firm believer in the premises of society, and in the idea that the existing legal structure is meant to support those premises....it's why i attempted to take a deeper look at the idea of rationalizing illegality in this context.

consider.....there are plenty of people who pay a monthly fee for cable tv access and an additional couple of bucks for a machine that will let them download series and movies for free, so they can watch them at their leisure.

if i pay a monthly fee for access to the internet, and i have a machine that will allow me to download stuff off of it.....the legal difference, imo, is in the perception of the different corporations involved, not the mind of the end user....some result of contractual negotiations and technological innovation.

is cable tv considered to own the information and entertainment transmitted by their networks?.....how is it that they can legally claim control of the same content that verizon, for example, provides through its network....and that it's legal to take it from cable tv, but illegal to take from verizon?

this was a part of the arguement verizon was using in it's "tier user" idea for dsl access, as well as it being used in those FCC hearings where verizon argued for ownership of its network...and by implication, the content it provided.

if they can make that arguement successfully, then they have the right to block all p2p sites because of the risk of illegal downloads.....

is this a new business model you would condone?
it's one corporate solution that would solve the problem....and all it would take is a tweak of the current definitions within the legal system

Ah....another rationalization ( ).......the abuses of the past negate the ethics of the situation?

the big rationalization that i see is that the existing corporate business model operates on the premise that it controls all product preparation and output....from the contract that musicians sign, to the packaging of both the artist and the music....and the arguement is that since that's the way it is, that's the way it must remain.

kid rock's amusing, but misguided, humor aside (he didn't advocate going into tower records and stealing CDs.....nor stealing the production drawings of a new lexus and building one yourself), this boils down to protecting your investment.....and the business model that has served the industry since somebody heard the grateful dead in golden gate park and realized the potential market for their music.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by thingamajig

You have a way of twisting posts Stoner



Yes, but I do believe file sharing to be minor in comparison to the overall change that technology has brought to the industry.




I then opted that the developer should suffer the consequences but I did not say that it would be from file sharing. There will be consequence when there is a lack skilled workers that are familiar with the software. A company will give up on a development tool if they can't find anyone that can use it. MS knows this well, they cater to developers and offer free "express" editions for learning. Before the express editions they had student versions.



If one out of two teenagers participate, how would you propose to proceed? Should we lock up half of our children? Since file sharing has a legitimate use can you justify punishment of those who produce the software? Since the developers are worldwide, how would you enforce it? If we follow this to an extreme, the Internet is also guilty of this global conspiracy.

Reality will speak. What is the point of passing laws that cannot be enforced? We can't turn back the clock and we should want an open Internet. Hence we must have new business models that adjust to the times.

You have a way of twisting posts Stoner

Well....let's look at how you do the twist.

Yes, but I do believe file sharing to be minor in comparison to the overall change that technology has brought to the industry.

The issue isn't about the technology of file sharing and what that technology has brought....it's about crime with technology being a mechanism for achieving it.
Thus, it's really more a social issue .

I then opted that the developer should suffer the consequences but I did not say that it would be from file sharing.

Why should a developer be made to suffer any further consequences beyond the criminal act?
His business stands to prosper or suffer on it's own merits....irrelevant to this thread.

There will be consequence when there is a lack skilled workers that are familiar with the software.

Again, outside the scope of this thread.

A company will give up on a development tool if they can't find anyone that can use it. MS knows this well, they cater to developers and offer free "express" editions for learning. Before the express editions they had student versions.

That's interesting, but I don't see how it justifies piracy and illegal file sharing.
This really addresses the success of business models.

If one out of two teenagers participate, how would you propose to proceed? Should we lock up half of our children?

Are you proposing that?
I haven't proposed any model for correction.
Not my argument in this thread, anyway.
But I have mentioned it will likely be a tech related idea along with new business models that reduce the piracy and illegal file sharing.
Sorry to blow you off......but it's irrelevant in this thread as to what the punishment is for stealing.......to the point.....I'm addressing the bogus rationalizations for committing the crimes.

Nice try for a diversion, though

Since file sharing has a legitimate use can you justify punishment of those who produce the software?

Sorry...again irrelevant to the bogus rationalizations for committing the crimes.
But to answer your question, I do not see a reason to punish a software writer when his/her work is used inappropriately.

Again....just an attempted diversion.

Since the developers are worldwide, how would you enforce it?

See above statement.

You are persistent with diversions, I'll credit you that

If we follow this to an extreme, the Internet is also guilty of this global conspiracy.

LOL!
I think you out did yourself

Reality will speak. What is the point of passing laws that cannot be enforced?

Reality check!!!!!
This thread isn't about enforcing laws or creating new ones. Don't believe me?
Go back and read the thread for the first time .............