Not too long ago we had a semi-loss for The Pirate Bay in The Netherlands, which was convicted 'by default' because the defendants did not show up in court to plea their case. Today, The Netherlands once again saw a ruling in a high-profile piracy case, and again, there's a loss for the defendants. Update: Oh, and by the way - thought about putting some lyrics you like on your website or blog? Think again. We live in a crazy world, people.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:1997-10-01
And there's nothing wrong with media companies or any other business interests being in it just for the money. If they think they can make money distributing culture, then great for them, even if they don't care about the culture. What's wrong is that we allow our laws to be tilted to benefit them disproportionate to the benefit to the creators, consumers, and our overall cultural heritage.
And it's true, the kind of vacuuming and hoarding that most file sharers do really distorts the actual economic harm that file sharing causes. But on the other hand, if you're a band in the 21st century, you can't count on selling CDs as a major source of your revenue anymore. You just have to hope that your fame spreads peer to peer based on your music's merits and you can find other ways to capitalize on that. I would have rather been a musician in the pre-internet age.
Member since:2005-06-29
I'll clarify my statement about laws/people.
The full quote goes like this: laws should exist for people - people should not exist for laws.
What I mean by this is that laws should be a reflection of the people they govern. For instance, in The Netherlands, we are a relatively progressive people when it comes to drugs and sex - the majority believes that what you do in your bedroom or what substances you choose to use is your problem, not society's. As long as you do not harm others, it's really none of our business.
Our laws reflect this. We have relatively loose drug laws, and we were the first country to legalise same-sex marriage. This means that our laws on marriage and drugs reflect who we, as a people, are.
The United States, however, is a different country. The majority of the American people have different ideas about drugs and sex, and as such, American laws reflect this. As a Dutchman, I find those laws barbaric and idiotic, but I still respect them because they reflect who the American people are and what they stand for.
When it comes to copyright, as David eloquently explained, copyright law quite clearly no longer reflects the people - quite the opposite. The people have decided - with a massively overwhelming vote - that they do not wish to respect copyright law.
What should have happened is that copyright law was altered to reflect this change - similar to drugs and marriage laws. However, because of the powerful position of the multimedia industry, this has not happened. We, as people, have handed over control over copyright law to Disney & Co.
What you see going on currently, with the advent of Pirate Parties and the ineffectiveness of the RIAA/MPAA/BREIN/etc., is that the people are doing what they should be doing in case laws become out touch with the people: ignore them.
In 50 years, I will have to explain to my grandchildren how e could've been such idiots back then about copyright. They'll think we were backwards, in the same way I already find countries where gay marriage is banned to be backwards.
BREIN and the RIAA can blow their horn all they want, but in a few decades, maybe even sooner, the multimedia landscape will be completely different from what it is now. Artists will have to find different ways of earning income, and they may have to settle for 10 million EUR instead of 12 million EUR. Big whoopdeedoo.
I advise everyone to download their assess off when it comes to copyrighted content. If the usual, democratic measures no longer work, then it's time for the people to initiate changes in laws via other means. I personally still buy most of my multimedia (I never download music or movies, only some TV series), but then again, I like those boxes and jewel cases.
Member since:2005-07-08
Yes. And why have people let it happen, especially in the USA? Because of people being fooled into blindly believing in the almighty power of greedy capitalism as a solution to all problems in a society.
I disagree and fail to see how there would be nothing wrong with media companies or other businesses serving their own greedy interests only, and not caring for their customers, artists, culture, environment and other such values. Like in any other field of life there are both good and bad ways to make business. Plain selfish business greed has simply never served the interest of customers best, usually quite on the contrary.
It is only a natural result of the religious belief in the almighty power of laissez-faire capitalism if the laws or big companies don't serve the interests of people anymore. Actually, people could only blame themselves if they let big greedy corporations rule their lives instead of taking power into their own hands by the means of democratic and balanced law making where you have to discuss with and listen to all parties and interest groups.
And, by the way, the same ultra capitalistic ideology based on greed is the reason for the current financial crisis in the USA too, or for the ever growing income gap between the small ultra rich minority and the ordinary American citizens, or for there not being much government supported social security for ordinary US citizens (unlike in most European countries, for example), etc.etc...
Edited 2009-08-27 04:17 UTC
Member since:
2005-07-08
A good and insightful comment, David.
Laws should guarantee some kind of a balance, not let some party and their greed become the ruling principle in a society but protect all parties from the greed of others.
There are lots of myths surrounding the discussion related to piracy.
In many cases when people download pirated movies or music, they probably would not have gone buying that stuff if the torrent sites didn't give it to them free. Piracy may, of course, hurt business to some extent, but the big figures usually presented as lost money because of piracy are an exaggerated myth.
Or, is it really so that when someone reads Bob Dylan's lyrics for free online, Bob Dylan just lost a lot of money because of that? Of course not, that idea is just ridiculous. In fact, reading Dylan's lyrics online could also be seen as a good advertisement for Dylan, encouraging people to buy his music and writings too.
In fact, there are cases when publishing commercial video content online for free has actually encouraged the sales of that material, like when the Monty Python group put much of their material online for free:
"Monty Python's free web video increased DVD sales by 23,000 percent"
http://boingboing.net/2009/01/23/monty-pythons-free-w.html
People, both the entertainment/software industries and individual downloaders of pirated content tend to see things from their own narrow perspective only without considering the wider circumstances and context. People tend to be greedy, both ordinary consumers and the industry giants. Piracy can be wrong, but neither is the entertainment industry always a pure white angel serving the interests of the public and artists only. All too often they seem to be in the business only for the money, big money, giving not much consideration to the real interests of artists or consumers.
There are many examples from the past. Let's take Jimi Hendrix as an example. The guy was a true artist and musical innovator but both during his life and even after his death he was constantly ripped off by the greedy entertainment industry who didn't seem to give any respect for his music and artistic standards and ideas. He was not allowed to concentrate on making new music but was pushed to long tours that finally seemed to have burnt him out completely. After his death all material left from him like very low class rehearsal tapes etc. have been sold as genuine Hendrix material by the greedy music industry.
Is the music industry really serving the interests of the artists in cases like this? Certainly not, and I don't think the situation has gotten any better since then, considering, for example, the (IMHO) awful quality of most popular music today.
Edited 2009-08-26 16:28 UTC