I can't believe how transparent Don Henley's arguments are. How on earth does "everyone who runs a website" have more of a special interest agenda than "the music industry"?
Of course they do. I do too: If I'm on the left side of the road, and a car wants to get by me, I'll get out of their way so they can drive past me in excess of the speed limit. No big deal, and no one gets hurt.
The suggested law is like a police car who can't catch the speeder, so instead takes the easy target and fines the guy who didn't actively stop the criminal. After all, he deserved to catch the guy, so surely he deserves the fine money too? We'll just make whoever is most to blame pay for it.
How many here who live in the states still torrent copyrighted material?
The Internet is an awesome thing but it's killed and killing a lot of industries and jobs. Jobs as Jeff Jarvis has pointed out (http://bit.ly/prM2gN) will not be replaced, rather they are gone forever. From the newspaper industry chain, to the hundreds of thousands of jobs to be lost in the postal service soon, the annihilated music business and soon the cable TV and retail industries.
Millions of jobs are lost and going to be lost. Thus I wonder if you still download torrents in the US how do you justify doing so? Also how old are you?
Q: How does an aspiring artist bridge the gap between distribution and commerce?
A: We have to be very clever about those things. You have to remember that it's only a few hundred years, if that much, that artists are working with money. Artists never got money. Artists had a patron, either the leader of the state or the duke of Weimar or somewhere, or the church, the pope. Or they had another job. I have another job. I make films. No one tells me what to do. But I make the money in the wine industry. You work another job and get up at five in the morning and write your script.
This idea of Metallica or some rock n' roll singer being rich, that's not necessarily going to happen anymore. Because, as we enter into a new age, maybe art will be free. Maybe the students are right. They should be able to download music and movies. I'm going to be shot for saying this. But who said art has to cost money? And therefore, who says artists have to make money?
In the old days, 200 years ago, if you were a composer, the only way you could make money was to travel with the orchestra and be the conductor, because then you'd be paid as a musician. There was no recording. There were no record royalties. So I would say, "Try to disconnect the idea of cinema with the idea of making a living and money." Because there are ways around it.
Who says then the operator of torrents sites have to make money? Which they are making a nice profit running those sites. Name a torrent site that isn't raking in the dough?
Can you answer me why these torrent sites are raking in the dough? What is attracting their traffic and visitors?
> Who says then the operator of torrents sites have to make money?
People willing to give them money.
> Can you answer me why these torrent sites are raking in the dough? What is attracting their traffic and visitors?
Convenience and a catalog that beats any other out there. You'll always have pirates, but the vast majority do it for convenience, not trying to avoid spending a couple bucks.
I downvoted you for the complete non-sequitur of the ethics of torrent indexers making money, in a post about intellectual property laws that would stifle legitimate business and speech.
That perspective takes into account the industries' positions, but ignores the position of consumers. The Internet may have destroyed jobs, but it hasn't destroyed productive work. The work will still be done, in a more efficient, consumer-friendly way. The people who lose jobs will have to find new ones that provide something customers want.
I don't download torrents, and I'm finding a new productive job.
The death of the newspaper industry has absolutely nothing to do with kids downloading pirated music or movies, and absolutely everything to do with the fact that it costs someone precisely $0 to post an ad on Craigslist or read _more_ _timely_ news on any number of websites.
Who gives a rats ass about torrents-- they are but a small drop in the bucket of problems that "middle-man" industries actually have. Seriously, are you going to start blaming Hipmunk for the death of travel agencies? The answer is that nobody is at fault except industries that ignored the gigantic train whistle and massive shining light in the tunnel ahead. Yes, those jobs are lost. No, I really don't care about some sleazy A&R guy losing his job because all he knows is how to get wasted and take advantage of teens and early-20-year-olds who don't know any better. The gigantic level playing field is here, baby, and the only way to survive is to adapt-- which is to say, learn a new skill.
The musicians, portrait artists, and carriage drivers of 1900 would have been glad to stop all progress and prevent recorded music, photography, and cars from "killing" their jobs. I'm glad that didn't happen.
It's surprising that anyone on HN would be such a luddite. The question should be "how can we help these individuals contribute to society?", NOT "how do we halt progress to keep unproductive workers employed?".
In economics, this process is called Creative Destruction[1]--meaning that new/better opportunities generally displace older less efficient industries and methods. Alternatively, what would the GGP or Jarvis have everyone do?
Are you claiming that I or the parent to my post are advocating a lack of progress? Quite the opposite. We're giving example of things that people take for granted today that never would have come about had we blocked progress in the name of protecting existing industry (or industry players).
No, sorry that I wasn't more clear (thought that paul9290 was the GGP) -- My intention was to remove any subtlety and to reinforce the point you had both already made.
I do. I've also spent somewhere around $4k on the iTunes Store in just music and movies, and I spend somewhere around $60/mo on streaming movie/music services, not including what I pay for Amazon Prime. I own hundreds of DVDs, but they're all 3 states away, because moving them makes no sense; it's easier to stream or torrent a movie than to rip the DVDs or move them around every time I decide to pack up and leave. I also frequently torrent albums before they come out, after I preorder them. I see absolutely nothing at all wrong with anything I do -- it's no different from timeshifting content with a TiVo to me, even if it could potentially be illegal. I care far more about ethics than I do legality.
Jobs that could be done faster, better, and for much less by a website are inefficiencies that need to be ironed out so that those people can do something that helps humanity and isn't, basically, a waste of their time. Busywork is not the way forward.
Indeed busy work is not the way forward and the Internet is going disrupt more industries and kill a lot more jobs! Which is great for those thinking ahead and disrupting.
Though the millions and millions of busy workers are needed to drive economies. The pace in which the disruption is happening is swift and the pace the displaced workers finding work in this new digital workforce/economy isn't. Thus these displaced workers are a drag to society and the economy.
Yes but should millions of busy workers be needed to drive economies? For future humanity's sake I think the answer should be no, but I haven't a clue how to get there from here.
It's going to require a whole lot of social reform, I think, especially if we find ways to successfully and cheaply make computers that can interact with the physical world as well as or better than a human. At that point, the skill of moving things around without thinking about them critically will suddenly be a whole lot less valuable, just like organizing info by hand became a much less valuable skill with the advent of Google. That removes most jobs one can do without an education of some sort, or at least the ability to think critically and/or creatively.
But maybe robotics on that level is still a long ways off.
Personally, I can't wait to have a computer chauffeur, and to know that the trucks around me are driven by computers that know of my car's presence and exact location by sight, networking, lidar, and however many other sources of data they have.
I don't anymore. I stopped when the combination of Pandora and iTunes became good enough to provide the convenience I wanted. Almost everyone I know has done the same. It never was about saving a few lousy bucks.
Yes and this question was more posed to those living in the US who have access to the Hulu(s) and the Spotify(s).
I stopped downloading many years ago after the content industries provided legal and enjoyable alternatives.
thus I wonder why anyone still living in the US is still downloading copyrighted material when the content people bended and gave us some very good legal alternatives?
This argument is patently false. Money that did not flow to one industry went somewhere else: another industry or service, into savings or it was eaten by interest on some debt or another.
The record industry is appallingly inefficient. Millions are wasted or squandered on marketing, bribes, promotion and extravagances that serve no practical purpose. Smaller labels are often able to produce better quality music with tiny budgets. The recording industry is not particularly profitable at the moment because many incumbent players are so utterly wasteful with their capital.
Many other industries are presently under pressure because they are inefficient. Retail is unsustainable and cannot compete with internet-based competitors. Newspapers are suffering a crisis of identity in most regions due to their editorial directions. Many newspapers have moved towards sensationalist tabloid journalism which turns many people off spending actual money on them because they are not as crazy as actual cranks on the internet or they are offering inferior journalism when compared to the news outlets that didn't race to the bottom.
Then you try to claim that torrenting is the problem and not the fault of the companies themselves. How many people who download media do you think would buy it if the price and service was right? I would say near 100%. Many people who pirate music, movies and tv I know do it because they have no money for discretionary spending. Think students, the working poor, and those who cannot afford foreign prices on local wages. Region coding is probably the second biggest reason I know of for people to pirate things. Either the content is not available because of censorship, or it is unfairly priced or media companies place long delays on making it available. I would say my biggest reason for getting all my content legitimately was getting a US credit card. Prices in Australia are often twice what the exact same product costs in the US. There is no justification for this. Companies are capitalizing on artificial barriers to competition to wring additional profits out of their customers.
Capitalism isn't a charity, corporations don't get money simply for existing. If they cannot compete they should pull their funds out and invest in something that can turn a profit.
Those who are downvoting me because I am saying downloading copyrighted material is not the civil and intellectual/moral thing to do ... please make sure you live in the US before downvoting this post!
If I lived in countries that did not have access to hulu, netflix and other alternatives hollywood and the music business offers the US I would still be downloading!
Who gives a shit what Don Henley thinks about the Protect IP act? Why not ask Ja Rule or Kim Kardashian what their opinions are? Bad form, Ars. Bad form.
There is no First Amendment right to infringe intellectual property rights.
Neither is IP a constitutional right, only the congress' ability to create IP laws.
I still find it fascinating how a single industry that's currently experiencing the same 'problem' as hundreds of industries and markets before them - namely, being made obsolete by technological advancement - is the first that thinks it is entitled to some sort of special rights to save their failing business model.
I wonder if Don Henley knows the record companies are now trying to define musicians legally contract employees. All that music Don Henley recorded wouldn't belong to musicians. Musicians would be contract labor. Those rights would all belong to the record companies.
36 comments
[ 5.3 ms ] story [ 136 ms ] threadThe Internet is an awesome thing but it's killed and killing a lot of industries and jobs. Jobs as Jeff Jarvis has pointed out (http://bit.ly/prM2gN) will not be replaced, rather they are gone forever. From the newspaper industry chain, to the hundreds of thousands of jobs to be lost in the postal service soon, the annihilated music business and soon the cable TV and retail industries.
Millions of jobs are lost and going to be lost. Thus I wonder if you still download torrents in the US how do you justify doing so? Also how old are you?
Q: How does an aspiring artist bridge the gap between distribution and commerce?
A: We have to be very clever about those things. You have to remember that it's only a few hundred years, if that much, that artists are working with money. Artists never got money. Artists had a patron, either the leader of the state or the duke of Weimar or somewhere, or the church, the pope. Or they had another job. I have another job. I make films. No one tells me what to do. But I make the money in the wine industry. You work another job and get up at five in the morning and write your script. This idea of Metallica or some rock n' roll singer being rich, that's not necessarily going to happen anymore. Because, as we enter into a new age, maybe art will be free. Maybe the students are right. They should be able to download music and movies. I'm going to be shot for saying this. But who said art has to cost money? And therefore, who says artists have to make money?
In the old days, 200 years ago, if you were a composer, the only way you could make money was to travel with the orchestra and be the conductor, because then you'd be paid as a musician. There was no recording. There were no record royalties. So I would say, "Try to disconnect the idea of cinema with the idea of making a living and money." Because there are ways around it.
http://the99percent.com/articles/6973/Francis-Ford-Coppola-O....
Can you answer me why these torrent sites are raking in the dough? What is attracting their traffic and visitors?
People willing to give them money.
> Can you answer me why these torrent sites are raking in the dough? What is attracting their traffic and visitors?
Convenience and a catalog that beats any other out there. You'll always have pirates, but the vast majority do it for convenience, not trying to avoid spending a couple bucks.
I don't download torrents, and I'm finding a new productive job.
Who gives a rats ass about torrents-- they are but a small drop in the bucket of problems that "middle-man" industries actually have. Seriously, are you going to start blaming Hipmunk for the death of travel agencies? The answer is that nobody is at fault except industries that ignored the gigantic train whistle and massive shining light in the tunnel ahead. Yes, those jobs are lost. No, I really don't care about some sleazy A&R guy losing his job because all he knows is how to get wasted and take advantage of teens and early-20-year-olds who don't know any better. The gigantic level playing field is here, baby, and the only way to survive is to adapt-- which is to say, learn a new skill.
In economics, this process is called Creative Destruction[1]--meaning that new/better opportunities generally displace older less efficient industries and methods. Alternatively, what would the GGP or Jarvis have everyone do?
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction#Schumpeter...
Though the millions and millions of busy workers are needed to drive economies. The pace in which the disruption is happening is swift and the pace the displaced workers finding work in this new digital workforce/economy isn't. Thus these displaced workers are a drag to society and the economy.
But maybe robotics on that level is still a long ways off.
Personally, I can't wait to have a computer chauffeur, and to know that the trucks around me are driven by computers that know of my car's presence and exact location by sight, networking, lidar, and however many other sources of data they have.
I stopped downloading many years ago after the content industries provided legal and enjoyable alternatives.
thus I wonder why anyone still living in the US is still downloading copyrighted material when the content people bended and gave us some very good legal alternatives?
The record industry is appallingly inefficient. Millions are wasted or squandered on marketing, bribes, promotion and extravagances that serve no practical purpose. Smaller labels are often able to produce better quality music with tiny budgets. The recording industry is not particularly profitable at the moment because many incumbent players are so utterly wasteful with their capital.
Many other industries are presently under pressure because they are inefficient. Retail is unsustainable and cannot compete with internet-based competitors. Newspapers are suffering a crisis of identity in most regions due to their editorial directions. Many newspapers have moved towards sensationalist tabloid journalism which turns many people off spending actual money on them because they are not as crazy as actual cranks on the internet or they are offering inferior journalism when compared to the news outlets that didn't race to the bottom.
Then you try to claim that torrenting is the problem and not the fault of the companies themselves. How many people who download media do you think would buy it if the price and service was right? I would say near 100%. Many people who pirate music, movies and tv I know do it because they have no money for discretionary spending. Think students, the working poor, and those who cannot afford foreign prices on local wages. Region coding is probably the second biggest reason I know of for people to pirate things. Either the content is not available because of censorship, or it is unfairly priced or media companies place long delays on making it available. I would say my biggest reason for getting all my content legitimately was getting a US credit card. Prices in Australia are often twice what the exact same product costs in the US. There is no justification for this. Companies are capitalizing on artificial barriers to competition to wring additional profits out of their customers.
Capitalism isn't a charity, corporations don't get money simply for existing. If they cannot compete they should pull their funds out and invest in something that can turn a profit.
If I lived in countries that did not have access to hulu, netflix and other alternatives hollywood and the music business offers the US I would still be downloading!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKWaCOQre4A
To think that I've been reduced to such things. Say it ain't so, Don Henley!
Music is the only business where you can get away with calling potential buyers of your product "criminals".
Really, anything digital.
Personally I thought it was slightly interesting to see an actual musician's opinion rather than a nebulous "music industry" representative.
I still find it fascinating how a single industry that's currently experiencing the same 'problem' as hundreds of industries and markets before them - namely, being made obsolete by technological advancement - is the first that thinks it is entitled to some sort of special rights to save their failing business model.
That was already happening. It is (or was) rare for artists to own the rights to their own works.