Media Piracy: Good Economics?

i know that there's no chance in hell i'm going to buy any anime dvds, unless they're not a horrible deal like the kenshin entire series for 90 bucks. i mean seriously, do i really want to pay 25 bucks for four episodes?

anyway, capitalism may suck ass, but communism isn't really any better.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Legato

Surely we will need programmers and scientists, but burger flippers and janitors?

On one level this might be true, at least if it were cost effective to replace minimum wage workers with potentially expensive robots. But for sake of argument, let's say we reach a point where this is the case. So sure, then maybe janitors and fast-food places might have autocleaners and ordering kiosks as their respective replacements for menial laborers. But what about, say, a high-class restaurant? Do you see servers and chefs getting replaced in such establishments as well? Frankly, I don't.

Originally Posted by Legato

I'm just saying that there's going to be significantly less work to go around

Well, that certainly might be true. On the other hand, I suppose the military's always looking for fresh recruits!

(Although this is sort of a joke, when considering the people who end up signing their lives over to an organization to do with as they please, it does stand to reason that desperation at having nothing else that's significant to do plays a part in it. And mark my words, if as you say, jobs do significantly decrease in the coming years, the military will almost certainly have no further problems in meeting their quotas for enlistment.)

Originally Posted by Legato

So do you think it's accurate to say that the amount of work we find ourselves doing today is nearly the same as the amount we would typically be doing, say, a hundred years ago (on any given part of the planet)? Several hundred years ago? Certainly this is easier and less time consuming than foraging for food and trying to find fallen pieces of wood suitable for making fire

Actually, in some regards, we live far more stressful lives today than people did, say, a few hundred years ago. The Industrial Revolution brought people together into cities, ending the largely agrarian based society, and planting the seeds that would eventually lead to many of our modern day problems (traffic congestion, urban crime, overcrowding, pollution). See, a few hundred years ago, while people certainly lacked many of the modern conveniences that we have, life also moved at a much slower pace, which by some people's standards may have actually been "easier" in the sense that it was less stressful.

Oh, and they certainly weren't "foraging for food" or "trying to find fallen pieces of wood suitable for making fire," either. Farming has been around for quite some time, believe it or not, and a few hundred years ago, as I said, society was primarily agriculturally based. Life was slow, and productivity certainly wasn't what it is now, but it wasn't like it was a day-to-day struggle just to maintain sustainence.

Originally Posted by Legato

I don't consider my vision of the future "utopian", I look at it as very scary but realistic.

Originally Posted by Legato

So the end result no sale of information, no sale of physical goods. At that point we'd have no choice but to throw away our selfishness and share what we know, what we've thought of, and what we've experienced.

Maybe utopian wasn't the right word, but you seemed to indicate here that you believe technology will eventually lead to virtually all goods and services becoming free for all members of society--which is essentially utopia from the perspective of a Marxist-Communist.

(By Marxist-Communist, I mean Communism as originally defined by Karl Marx, a society in which all individuals have free access to that which they need and all classes are disolved; Communism as it applies to Soviet Russia or Communist China or other such countries are not included in this definition.)

Originally Posted by Legato

Secondly, I think our workload is reduced constantly thanks to technology. We have the potential to get any song we want for free right off the internet, at our convenience. Previously - say, twenty years ago - how easy was it to get a copy of a book or tape you didn't want to pay for? You might go the library, but that takes physical effort and some time. You might copy a tape by connecting two tape players, but that takes effort and time as well.

Like I said:

Originally Posted by Ridan Krad

Looking at the current trend, if anything, the industrial and information ages have only increased the speed at which things occur, and how efficiently. The workload itself, however, remains constant.

Originally Posted by Legato

You might not be able to take the drive out of the entrepreneurs, but with the right effort you can inadvertently have them shove it up their asses.

How so?

Unless you intend to regulate the market to the point of no longer rewarding people for their efforts as per the capitalist ideal (which has already been shown historically to not work--see Soviet Russia), then besides mild regulations to avoid monopolies and other negative market factors, there's not much that can be done.

And let me reiterate here that technology, although it will certainly increase the speed and productivity of society, will not ever eliminate work. We've already got tons of machines that could in theory produce everything we need. And yet, workers are still employed. For instance, why does FedEx still use workers to sift through packages, when a machine could be created to to through the packages and take care of the sorting? I think the answer is that machines just aren't up to the challenge of handling things with too many variables. In the case of FedEx, there are many different shapes of packages that come through its offices, so while yes, it does use machines to help with the workload, it always has workers to make sure that things are running smoothly. You might employ a kiosk at McDonalds, but then you'd want some workers standing by in case the thing failed. In retail stores, humans will always work better at handling customers needs, for reasons I hope should be obvious. A bank will always want humans who are trained to know how to deal with robberies, fraud, and any other sort of problem that might emerge (the ability to act well with people again is key here). And the list goes on.

By and large, the point here is that computers function better as supplementary tools for humans rather than as complete replacements, for the simple reason that computers, while efficient, are, well, pretty stupid.

Originally Posted by Legato

Rant:
I think, if anything, a larger number of people are getting fed up with capitalism and what it's brought about. (I consider the concept of communism every day.) One of those things are $20 CDs with 1-3 good tracks, $9 movie tickets to blatantly shitty ass movies that they practically have no choice to see because nothing better came out that Friday, gas prices, etc. But no one wants to step up their game and make good shit, they just want to sue kids and hope it'll stop if the sue enough people to scare millions of users off of The Pirate Bay so they stop downloading their shitty movies.

Go to a fast food joint and get the same goop on top of goop on wedged between a stale bun with a piece of microwaved soybeef in the middle of it. This is capitalism. You can tell these kids are getting paid well and they haven't lost the will to work because they took turns spitting in my burger.

Can't buy a jar of mayo and a box of toaster waffles without knowing either item is probably paying the same conglomerate that's ultimately going to buy another conglomerate until I'm buying my jeans, tootbrushes, and waffles from the same conglomerate.

Capitalism sucks ass.

No one's forcing you to buy anyone's shit. It's not like you're going to die if you don't see a movie every Friday.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Watts

Neither do I, just trying to get a rise outta someone.



Individual piracy doesn't really hurt the company in such cases since you're not likely to buy the software anyway.



You sound all negative when you say that, like it's a bad thing. Overpriced crap most people will buy just means a enlarged profit margin for the company, and more debt for the consumer. Doesn't seem like such a bad system from where I'm sittin'! What could go wrong?

There's nothing wrong with capitalism per se. But with the United States government giving massive tax breaks and allowing big organizations like the RIAA to flourish undisturbed (and allow themselves to be lobbied by the RIAA and MPAA while ignoring the people they are supposed to represent), it's not good capitalism. anymore. But I digress. I wish copyright law had it's original usage: to prevent plagarism and sale of other's work (while still allowing unofficial distribution).

How ya doing, buddy?

What I know is this:

A. On copy-crippling: I absolutely adamantly refuse to own non-standards-compliant CDs. This means no crappyright protection. And for those wise-asses who mention forms of crappyright protection that fall within acceptable boundaries of standards, I'll simplify: if I cannot copy it, back it up, put it on an iPod, put it into a compilation disc, move it to my portable hard drive, and otherwise have complete freedom and autonomy with the contents of the disc, I will never buy it. Ever.

B. On the RIAA: I don't support businesses that sue. I use the RIAA Radar religiously to find out which of the albums in which I'm interested are safe to buy.

C. For those bands who do right by me, I will attempt to do right by them. If a band puts out good music, does NOT copy-cripple to deny me my Fair Use rights, and is not involved with the RIAA, I will try to buy their album ASAP.

I bought 7 albums in the past couple months.
Therion-Lemuria/Sirius B
Therion-Deggial
Leaves' Eyes-Lovelorn
Leaves' Eyes-Vinland Saga
Epica-Consign to Oblivion
Epica-The Phantom Agony
Lullacry-Be My God

These are CDs I would NEVER have bought had I not downloaded them first. Lullacry was an impulse buy on recommendation from a friend, and in all honesty, I can do without it now that I have it and have heard it. If I'd downloaded it first, I probably wouldn't have bought it. It only ran me $9, so I'm not really that upset, but I intend to download the rest of Lullacry's work before I decide whether or not to buy. As for Therion, I stumbled across them by accident on a DC hub and they promptly became my favourite metal band. I'm working on getting their entire post-death-metal discography.

Also, I downloaded After Forever's "Remagine" album, immediately fell in love with the band, and headed straight to Amazon to order it...only to find out that the CD was crippled. There's not a single song on that album I don't like. I would love nothing more than to have it in my collection. But I will NEVER buy it, unless they come out with a non-crippled version. Do you hear me, Transmission Records? DRM WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.

As for movies, I don't see movies in the theatre anymore, as it's really not worth the price of tickets when I have an HDTV and decent sound system, with the ability to pause/rewind/etc. As for renting movies, I try to get them from the library so as not to have to pay, but I'll occasionally rent from a video store if the library is behind on a title. I always make sure to rip & copy anything I rent from the video store, though, and watch a few times to decide if I want to buy. Movies I rent from the library that I really enjoy and think are well-done, I buy. I usually buy used for the price break. If it's a Sony film, I will ONLY buy used in an effort to punish Sony for the XCP rootkit and their plans (at one point) to implement per-console licensing for PS3 games.

The ONE exception to the theatre/Sony rule may wind up being Silent Hill. I have a lot of respect for Christophe Gans after seeing Brotherhood of the Wolf, and SH might prove to be something truly special.

Independent films are the general exception to these rules. I'll buy them new, and occasionally see them on the big screen (if they're playing, doesn't always happen depending on niche status).

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by CelticWhisper

B. On the RIAA: I don't support businesses that sue.

So...what businesses do you support? I imagine even Ben and Jerry's would sue you if you stole their formula for Chunky Monkey.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Ladies and Gentlemen



Since I have your attention, I'd like to take this opportunity publicly congratulate KrazyTaco for actually posting something in direct response to the stated topic.



Legato and Ridan Krad: You have a good discussion going. By all means, let's have technological progress and the human workload as topics for a new thread; but please, let's not derail this one.



By and large, I think the sentiments expressed in this thread reflect the ideals of a free market. The organizations that currently control consumer distribution of media are attempting to use legislation to create a monopoly for themselves. This is the opposite of a free market; they are making an enormous effort to ensure that they control the market.

In the 17th century the Westminster assembly formulated the documents that for a long time became an important influence in western law. Because it is of particular interest, I'll offer an abridged excerpt:

Q. 142. What are the sins forbidden in the eighth commandment? (Thou shalt not steal.)

A. The sins forbidden in the eighth commandment... are, theft, robbery,... fraudulent dealing, false weights and measures, removing land-marks, injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of trust; oppression, extortion, usury, bribery, vexatious lawsuits,... ingrossing commodities to enhance the price;... and all other unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbour what belongs to him, or [unjust or sinful ways] of enriching ourselves...

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by www.sega.co.jp

There's nothing wrong with capitalism per se.

I wouldn't be so sure of that if I were you. Nothing is perfect.

Originally Posted by www.sega.co.jp

But with the United States government giving massive tax breaks and allowing big organizations like the RIAA to flourish undisturbed (and allow themselves to be lobbied by the RIAA and MPAA while ignoring the people they are supposed to represent), it's not good capitalism. anymore.

That's just a "good" democracy. :biggrin:

Originally Posted by Gwaehir

The organizations that currently control consumer distribution of media are attempting to use legislation to create a monopoly for themselves. This is the opposite of a free market; they are making an enormous effort to ensure that they control the market.

Your misconceptions about a "free market" are simply wrong then. For example, how is the "invisible hand" at work when the Federal Reserve is setting the interest rates? Think about it.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Watts

your misconceptions about a "free market" are simply wrong then. For example, how is the "invisible hand" at work when the Federal Reserve is setting the interest rates? Think about it.

I'm afraid you'll have to elaborate on this. First of all, how is it conducive to a free market to say that a commodity ("information") which is all over the place and easily available, is legally owned by one person or corporation, and only they have a right to decide what happens with it? Imagine if this were done with, say, coffee mugs for example: everyone had mugs, and everyone had the equipment to be able to reproduce them cheaply, but then it was legislated that only company X was allowed to do it. Anybody caught making a mug for themselves or for someone else would be shut up in jail. Now company X controls supply, even though there's no real reason they should.

As per the second part of your comment, I think I know what you're referring to, but you'll have to explain what you mean, as I don't live in the US.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

First of all, how is it conducive to a free market to say that a commodity ("information") which is all over the place and easily available, is legally owned by one person or corporation, and only they have a right to decide what happens with it

Except that we have a thing called copyright law which means that if you write a book, produce a TV show, record a song, that you have the sole right to distribute it in whatever way you want.

The example you provided isn't an accurate representation of what's really going on.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Fatt

I like to buy all of my media legit, as I have some satasfaction knowing that the industry is becoming stronger. If I buy more hip-hop music, the hip-hop industry becomes stronger.

Not to attack you or anything, but you're really naïve.

Do you really think you're helping a musician when you buy a CD? The real answer is: no it doesn't. A majority of the sales in a CD goes to the record label, and maybe a few dollars goes to the band/musician/artist.

The numbers have proven this. Reports about it have been out for years. The music industry is easily the most broken industry in America, and we've let it go to that. To say you buy an album to support an artist is almost mocking them.

This is why I refuse to buy any CD's. It not that I don't want to support muscians that I like, it's that I know it's not really helping them regardless. I'm using my wallet to send a message that I don't like how the record industry does things.

Artists who really want to make something stay on an independent label, specifically, one that isn't owned by a major record label (aren't they referred to as "The Big 4" or something?). They may not get all the glory as other artists, but they still at least control what they produce. And when you buy a CD, you really do support them. Usually you have to buy it right from the artists themselves.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Fatt

I like to buy all of my media legit, as I have some satasfaction knowing that the industry is becoming stronger. If I buy more hip-hop music, the hip-hop industry becomes stronger.

Notice that he didn't say it was actually helping out the individual musician directly.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

So...what businesses do you support? I imagine even Ben and Jerry's would sue you if you stole their formula for Chunky Monkey.

Okay, walked right into that one. Let me clarify.

I don't support businesses that are litigious bastards. Lawsuits on proper legal grounds are one thing. Mass-filing hundreds or thousands of "John Doe" lawsuits against IP addresses, for unreasonable amounts of cash, hoping to use intimidation tactics to coerce private individuals into paying up even if they haven't done anything wrong (simply because they don't have the money to defend themselves in court) is quite another.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Gwaehir

I'm afraid you'll have to elaborate on this.

What I'm basically saying is that the "free market" concept is pretty much bullshit. We can talk about supply and demand, and ignore resource scarcity and depletion. We can talk about the free market, when really all the world's economists base their decisions upon the flow of equidity coming out of the Federal Reserve. Thanks to the dollar's status as the reserve currency.

With the Federal Reserve wielding that much power and influence I'd say it's a pretty visible hand. Not the "invisible hand" of the market.

Originally Posted by Gwaehir

First of all, how is it conducive to a free market to say that a commodity ("information") which is all over the place and easily available, is legally owned by one person or corporation, and only they have a right to decide what happens with it?

Most Western countries regulate alcohol in such ways. Yes, I know we're talking about information; and more or less the free flow of it on the internet. But in the capitalist system commodities are commodities to be bought, traded, and sold.

Originally Posted by Gwaehir

Imagine if this were done with, say, coffee mugs for example: everyone had mugs, and everyone had the equipment to be able to reproduce them cheaply, but then it was legislated that only company X was allowed to do it. Anybody caught making a mug for themselves or for someone else would be shut up in jail. Now company X controls supply, even though there's no real reason they should..

Since when are companies able to legislate anything for themselves? That's what lobbyists are for. And enforcement of such legislation? At this point you're not talking about the "free market" at all.

Hope that helps illuminate my perspective a little bit more.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Notice that he didn't say it was actually helping out the individual musician directly.

lollerskates

I'm gonna go on a leap here and say that we all can agree that the music industry would be pretty boring if no musicians were in it.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Watts

What I'm basically saying is that the "free market" concept is pretty much bullshit. We can talk about supply and demand, and ignore resource scarcity and depletion. We can talk about the free market, when really all the world's economists base their decisions upon the flow of equidity coming out of the Federal Reserve. Thanks to the dollar's status as the reserve currency.

With the Federal Reserve wielding that much power and influence I'd say it's a pretty visible hand. Not the "invisible hand" of the market.

Heh, I see what you mean. And while I do, personally, hold to largely libertarian viewpoints, by no means would I assert that we are currently operating under any ideal sort of free market. Obviously, I would say that we would be better off trading in a monetarized wealth medium. A currency directly tied to the reseve would be a little better than what we have now, but even this has problems I don't need to mention.

Originally Posted by Watts

Most Western countries regulate alcohol in such ways. Yes, I know we're talking about information; and more or less the free flow of it on the internet. But in the capitalist system commodities are commodities to be bought, traded, and sold.

Exactly. What I meant to get at, was that music, movies, games and such are available in a basically unlimited supply at essentially zero price. In a natural state, without the historical anomaly that has become copyright law, what value does it have as a commodity? The answer to this is the reason that, more and more, it is necessary to regulate it artificially to create value for the enormous amount of business built up around it. And personally, I don't think it will be born out in the long run. (Now I may very well be wrong on this - controlled economics often sustains itself in cycles for quite some time.)

Originally Posted by Watts

Since when are companies able to legislate anything for themselves? That's what lobbyists are for. And enforcement of such legislation? At this point you're not talking about the "free market" at all.

You're right. I was actually talking about copyright law.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Gwaehir

Heh, I see what you mean. And while I do, personally, hold to largely libertarian viewpoints, by no means would I assert that we are currently operating under any ideal sort of free market.

Just as long as you don't make the mistake that these are largely capitalist ideas from a cynical yet slightly eccentric capitalist. :biggrin:

Originally Posted by Gwaehir

Obviously, I would say that we would be better off trading in a monetarized wealth medium. A currency directly tied to the reseve would be a little better than what we have now, but even this has problems I don't need to mention.

In essence we have that already. First it was gold, now it's 'black gold'. The trade in oil only take's place in USD. So the Federal Reserve is free to print as many dollars as it pleases. Well up until recently... as in roughly sometime this month. Ahh interesting times we live in.

Originally Posted by Gwaehir

Exactly. What I meant to get at, *snip!* The answer to this is the reason that, more and more, it is necessary to regulate it artificially to create value for the enormous amount of business built up around it. And personally, I don't think it will be born out in the long run. (Now I may very well be wrong on this - controlled economics often sustains itself in cycles for quite some time.)

Regulation is impossible in such a... how should we say... "pure democratic enviroment" such as the internet. Since commodities are information which can flow freely on the internet.

Originally Posted by Gwaehir

You're right. I was actually talking about copyright law.

I know, just more food for thought over my original point about a "free market" being a joke that we tell school children on a daily basis. Did I mention I was cynical? heh.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Merv Burger

lollerskates

I'm gonna go on a leap here and say that we all can agree that the music industry would be pretty boring if no musicians were in it.

But what I figured he was saying is he's supporting a specific branch of the industry. If the RIAA sees that hip-hop sales are doing well, then the industry will continue to promote hip-hop artists. If he likes New Age Fusion Improvisational Jazz, then they would see that there's interest in that part of the market and perhaps try to get more artists exposure to the mainstream than would have otherwise had that opportunity.

There's nowhere I can't reach.