Piracy

[xechnao]

Success in arts and entertainment is different than other jobs. You can't expect to pay a novelist or a singer a flat rate for the work, because it's a crapshoot. The more people who read/listen to it, the more they should get paid. It's a merit system. If you paid a person a flat one time fee, either the company funding it couldn't afford to pay a decent rate (because there are too many failures and not enough successes.), or the creator would feel ripped off as the publishing companies would make all the money and not give some back.

You have to also understand how entertainment media works. For every 1 success there are 100 failures. I think people focus on the really big guys, the corporations, the millionare artists, and don't realize that there are a lot of little guys.

It is much more complicated than this. Think about marketing, investment, training and what not. Even in scientific research & development you face similar problems. Individual merit is a difficult thing to value with standards in a society and economy with the time function dynamics as complicated as the ones of our times. One thing is clear though: the current system fails. As even yourself puts it out here, there is a bunch of millionaires and myriads of tiny guys. It seems something is not working properly IMO.

 

[JohnRTroy]

It is much more complicated than this. Think about marketing, investment, training and what not. Even in scientific research & development you face similar problems. Individual merit is a difficult thing to value with standards in a society and economy with the time function dynamics as complicated as the ones of our times. One thing is clear though: the current system fails. As even yourself puts it out here, there is a bunch of millionaires and myriads of tiny guys. It seems something is not working properly IMO.

The problem though xechnao is that you seem to be arguing for something other than capitalism, which I believe it outside of the scope of the argument we're having. (I suspect you're from another country). I think arguing for a different economic system is off topic, since that's a lot harder to change, and gets into politics.

 

[xechnao]

I think arguing for a different economic system is off topic, since that's a lot harder to change,

I see your point. But what about the current crisis? What about globalization? What about the rise of China's economy and its financing of the debt of US? What about the nationalizations that have to happen right now? Things are changing or can change right now. Accountability standards and laws are about politics. Not about economy but rather about politics. Now they want to change the old model for a "new" one and most probably the ways of the stock exchange markets. Of course global politics have their say in this. But as we go on right now it seems to me that modernization of the economic system is the most relevant topic to think about.

 

[Chaos Disciple]

Oh, I see. It's our responsibility to work our asses off for society's sake, even if the people of that society aren't willing to pay for work that they're enjoying?

I assume you also believe that doctors should treat people for free, and that actors should entertain for free, and that lawyers should defend people for free? That cops should serve for free, and firemen put out fires for free? There's a word for where that's leading; that word is "socialism." Nothing at all wrong with you being a socialist, if that happens to be your view of society, IMO, but come out and say so, so I understand your starting point, instead of arguing it piece by piece.

Im not advocating a political position, Im just pointing out the reality that technology has made purchasing a "product" to enjoy art, unnesecary.

As for doctors, lawyers, fireman, etc, working for free; if technology makes their jobs obsolete than they can probably expect the same eventual demise now being experianced by the "paid artist".

 

[JohnRTroy]

Im not advocating a political position, Im just pointing out the reality that technology has made purchasing a "product" to enjoy art, unnesecary.

As for doctors, lawyers, fireman, etc, working for free; if technology makes their jobs obsolete than they can probably expect the same eventual demise now being experianced by the "paid artist".

Technology can still be regulated. Just because the technology exists doesn't mean it will be adopted or can't be restricted. Don't delude yourself and think that. Here are some examples.

We have nuclear weapons. Outside of testing they haven't been used in war since Nagasaki. We have the technology, why haven't we used it? (Rhetorical question, in case anybody tries to answer).

We have the technology to counterfeit money. Does that mean we throw the money system out, and give up? No, we improve the protections, and heck, the government even got Adobe to create algorithms in the software to prevent counterfeiting of monetary patterns.

We have Cable TV. You can tap the cable TVs from the line. You can also hack into scrambled sats. Does that mean they can't enforce the laws and prevent this?

And speaking of TV, Radio and TV should have done what you suggested, make it possible to not have to purchase a product to enjoy art. But we still do, and TV and Radio setup rules to compensate the artist, and commercials is what pays for most TV.

You see what I am getting at? Technologies are regulated and controlled. Laws are setup to regulate technology.

Don't delude yourself and think that the Internet is going to always be the wild west of piracy. I dislike forms of DRM, but I also think they might be necessary, and as long as they are regulated and controlled so we don't suffer from lost purchases, and as long as they are as good as Valve's Steam and Apple's iTunes, I think we'll see more of this, not less. Some people object to DRM "on principle", but if people keep justifying piracy and profits go down, I doubt that you'll see this go away. It's hard to be anonymous when there are only so many ISPs and even fewer backbone networks.

 

[Chaos Disciple]

Technology can still be regulated. Just because the technology exists doesn't mean it will be adopted or can't be restricted.

Well, the technology for P2P file sharing has existed for at least a decade, in that time its been adopted by more people, and still remains completly unregulated.

 

[xechnao]

Technology can still be regulated. Just because the technology exists doesn't mean it will be adopted or can't be restricted. Don't delude yourself and think that.

Unless the state builds their own clients (from browsers to what have you) and runs the internet themselves what you are advocating for is never going happen. And this is nothing strange to me. We do understand that the automobile traffic policing you are talking about is done by a police which is a public institution in every state in the world, right?

 

[Cadfan]

Well, the technology for P2P file sharing has existed for at least a decade, in that time its been adopted by more people, and still remains completly unregulated.

Lawsuits are a form of regulation.

 

[Nifft]

Lawsuits are a form of regulation.

Yep. More specifically, laws which allow certain parties to sue for damages are quite obviously government regulations.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Chaos Disciple]

Lawsuits are a form of regulation.

When file sharing decreases because of a rash of lawsuits, let me know.