So MGM, what I see is someone who doesn't have a horse in the race telling people who do how they should operate.
I'm actually exploring self publishing on Amazon. As a comparable example, you can give your novel away for free on Amazon. That's functionally the same thing as piracy. People find doing so worthwhile. Plus I don't see the reason why my personal stake has any bearing on my actual arguments.
You define the system so you are always right. Which is great, but there's not much to discuss since you are now the holder of the definition. I agree that by your rules, you are correct, and the winner.
I'm trying not to be blunt but piracy and theft are legally considered different things and the removal of actual ownership is a very real difference. Theft has existed since before human civilization. Copyright has only existed for a few hundred years. You want to equate them with real world physical examples. I'm just pointing out why such examples are flawed on basic fundamental levels.
Then you go on to make Magic your primary argument.
You're dismissing the key differences you don't like. Want to call this magic? Well that's what online piracy would look like in an accurate real world example. You create a duplicate where none existed before. I make that analogy precisely to illustrate the significant difference between actual theft and copyright infringement.
Then you (incorrectly) claim I'm using Magic, which now isn't fair so my argument is invalid. Again, there's little room to discuss.
You are the one insisting we equate copying with theft with real world examples. I'm sorry but if you insist on doing that then I will keep pointing out the lack of loss of ownership.
You seem to think that just because you equate piracy with theft that I have to agree. I don't. Each time you provide a real world example, I will point out key differences and to make your real world example accurate, we have to somehow make it possible to make physical copies without an actual loss of the original. That's an undeniable and fundamental fact of copyright infringment. That doesn't go away just because you want copyright infringement to be the same as theft.
Anyways, back to reality, what we've got still is this very simple dichotomy:
Creators who create things like to be paid for their work.
Some people think that creators shouldn't get paid.
Choose your own reality. I support the reality that doesn't lead to a world filled with no creators and only consumers. You may choose to support whatever reality you prefer.
Since there seems to be a fundamental disagreement on what reality is, and what our different belief structures will lead to, it seems we've gone well past the point of effective communication, and for this I apologize for failing. I hope other's are able to better bridge this gap.
My position is that you're arguing a false dichotomy. This isn't either/or. Creators find ways to get paid even as their world's are pirated. Fans pirate created works and continue to pay for legitimate goods. It's a point of historic fact that creative arts flourished before copyright was even invented and creators continue to thrive in markets with very high piracy rates.
This is all economics to me. Supply and Demand. There is a demand for created works and it's the creator's job to find efficient ways to monetize their efforts.
To borrow from history again, you're repeating the same doomsday scenario that media providers have been repeating for the past few hundred years. You're saying there's a threat of being in a world with no producers and only consumers. As I mentioned earlier, Edison once pirated his favorite music artist when he invented the monophone. The artist said that Edison invented something that would ruing all musicians because he reasoned that no one would even attend a concert if they could just listen to their words at home. Today we found a way to monetize that and the same recording industry is crying that piracy is killing music. Xerox technology had the same scare for book publishing and it went all the way to the Supreme Court IIRC. Media companies tried to ban Tape recording VCRs saying people could fast forward through commercials and TV would die. Today every huge media company touts high DVR rates as a badge of success. So yeah... I simply don't buy these doomsday scenarios. The market is very efficient and these new technologies in the long run benefit everyone, including artists. Everyone has to adapt.
IMHO MGM makes some rational arguments here that have gone unanswered. I feel there's an emotional undercurrent to some responses, which is fine of course, but it feels unfair to pick and choose what to respond to.
What I perceive to be the main disagreement/misunderstanding, is that:
1. Copyright (as applied to Intellectual Property: ideas, patents, music, books) and it's subsequent infringement (unauthorized duplication) is in legal terms different from physical removal and theft of physical objects, or zero-sum property (e.g. a bike or money in your account). And I mean legally, not in perception (although that may also be true). It's not to troll, but I believe that in order to truly look objectively at this you need to define the terms used as clearly as possible. (and this is my attempt, by no means without flaws).
2. Theft in general is understood as the latter: appropriating zero-sum goods from the rightful owner. Piracy or theft of IP or copyright infringement, is legally called..infringement.
Both trespasses (1.copyright infringement/piracy and 2. Zero-sum theft) 'remove' a potential sale from the creator's pocket. That is both why one side maintains piracy is unequivocally theft, and also why the other side does not: because of the 'potential' nature (and the sampling effect I think).
I will be branded a coward but I can see good arguments on both sides.
The loss of a sale is a loss for the original creator whether that is zero-sum or IP. Someone appropriated your creation, or a copy thereof etc, without giving you due recompense.
Or, like said above me, someone wanted to try-before-you-buy, and made sure the product was to their liking before buying. Here you could argue that they could also use the 'send sample to kindle' feature, but if you don't have a Kindle or there isn't a sample you're out of luck. Still, I think this is a nice way of countering piracy among a certain group of ppl who might have pirated the books instead to sample them.
And there's the group of ppl that pirate because they don't have enough money to buy all the content/media they want. The 'benefit' to the author is that they expand the fan base and hopefully spread the word. They might buy the books later if they loved the experience (illegally obtained). The detrimental consequence is that in spreading the word they might advocate the pirated copy, or buy less of their less-than-favourite-authors, because why spend on those when you've spent all your money on your favourite author already? That sounds like the marketplace at work, and I can see this highly disfavors authors with a small fanbase. Then again, that would also be the case in a world where piracy isn't possible? (Or am I missing something?)
Pirates who pirate just for the sake of hoarding have other issues and I'm not sure where they fall tbh. Would they ever really buy the book, do they even read them? I agree it's unfair, but do these ppl, just by hoarding (not reading), hurt an author? (Disregarding the fact that they help perpetuate an underground/illegal marketplace).
Those that try to sell the material are criminals because they try to make a profit out of someone else's creative efforts.
End of late night rant.
Sent from mobile using Tapatalk
Show Posts
