Learning To Profit From Piracy 275
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Wired has an interview with Matt Mason, author of The Pirate's Dilemma: How Youth Culture Is Reinventing Capitalism, which discusses how businesses could make money off of piracy, rather than attacking people in a futile attempt to suppress it. And some of his ideas are gaining traction; work is underway on a TV show called Pirate TV, which he describes as 'two parts Anthony Bourdain, one part Mythbusters.' (Heroes executive producer Jesse Alexander is on board.) Also, Mason is pretty good about practicing what he preaches in that you can pirate his book on his own website."
I repudiated copyright, and recommend others do it (Score:5, Interesting)
I've produced a few bands' records, and asked them to repudiate copyright on their tracks. 2 of them have, and they've skyrocketed the amount of fans that come to shows (in the thousands, on their last tour), and the amount of personalized merchandise they sell. Anything easily duplicated is called "advertising" or "marketing." You don't charge others to receive a show flyer (which could take a few hours to design, plus hours to print and many hours to distribute), so why charge for music?
I repudiated copyright on all my writings over a decade ago. My blogs let others take the content I created, and republish it as their own if they want. The two e-books I've written also are freely distributed, with a request for $20 in the final chapter if the books help them.
My business newsletter used to cost over $1000 per year, but now it is free, and I tell others to photocopy it or email the PDF out to others. It generates traffic for my websites, and it also builds reputation to my expanding customer base.
I see no reason for copyright any longer. For items that are costlier to create (TV shows, movies), product placement is a fine way to profit from the distribution of the product. Subscriptions also can work, just like a chapter-by-chapter written blook that continues as people fund the author's writing.
Those who hold onto the statist idea of intellectual property will be left behind. They'll find their market swamped by amateurs with the same amount of talent, and with more drive to distribute their creations as artists always have.
I like this idea, and I recommend others consider going that route when they create content that is easily duplicated. To support it, there are always ways to create value added items (t-shirts, in-person signings or shows, etc).
The most stolen book (Score:3, Interesting)
It's been said that the most stolen dead-tree-form book is the Christian Bible.
Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm."
Re:Nitpick (Score:5, Interesting)
If you read the article, he's using the word "piracy" in place of the more correct term "network effect". Redistribution is a secondary effect of P2P protocols, if it were a straight download the infringer would be the distributor while the "pirate" is the individual who first ripped and uploaded the "loot".
These things were expressed clearly over 5 years ago, the reason "pirates" don't like him is because he comes over like some PR shill employing reverse psychology. It's either deliberate or he doesn't "get it", which would extend to reading and understanding relevant work in the field.
Re:And the price of everything goes up... (Score:5, Interesting)
You seem to be confusing "produce art" with "make a living". That's a common fallacy. Artists have never been guaranteed a living solely on the basis of the art they produced. Many famous painters, composers, etc. have died as paupers even when they were famous in their own time.
For what it's worth, in a capitalist system nobody else is guaranteed a living for what they do either. You might be the world's best Parcheesi player but I doubt you could make a living doing just that.
Re:I repudiated copyright, and recommend others do (Score:1, Interesting)
Those who hold onto the statist idea of intellectual property will be left behind.
Suppose I take the copyright-free versions of your songs, form my own band, and start performing those songs live (in front of paying audiences), releasing my own records of those songs, and selling my own merchandise. I don't claim them as my own necessarily, but I never give your bands credit, and I certainly never send along any of the money. What would you suggest your bands do about that?
Re:I repudiated copyright, and recommend others do (Score:3, Interesting)
I recall Stephen King trying this and giving up.
And the Red Hot Chili Peppers shouldn't give their music away for free either, at least not in an attempt to make money. For people who are already extremely successful in the traditional methods, they're not going to see the same amount of money using this new technique. However, for people like Brandon Sanderson [brandonsanderson.com] who are just getting into it, letting out free works can be a good way to get entrenched and build good will.
Re:I repudiated copyright, and recommend others do (Score:1, Interesting)
Those who hold onto the statist idea of intellectual property will be left behind. They'll find their market swamped by amateurs with the same amount of talent, and with more drive to distribute their creations as artists always have
It is interesting I saw this same effect in the emulation scene.
2 dudes had the corner on NES and MasterSystem emulation.
Then suddenly others figured out the same things. Their emus were not as good at first. So they attacked the emu on not being 'pure' or 'as good as'. They are but footnotes in the history of emu now. They wanted 25 bucks a copy. Others didnt think it was worth that.
I was reading some online comics a few days ago and wondering would these dudes have been able to get into a paper 15 years ago? Probably not. Would they have even BOTHERED to keep doing it?
emerging black markets and working business models (Score:5, Interesting)
Black markets emerge for commodity goods when there are significant discrepancies between marginal costs and market price. This is exactly the case for digital entertainment media, where technology has eliminated the ability of major media producers to (technically) control the means of distribution of their product, and the marginal cost of distribution is orders of magnitude less than the price to legally buy the good. The development of the black market / piracy is expected in this case.
But - there is a middle ground. There is not just "selling media" vs. "pirating media"...
We have built LegalTorrents to get around the "dilemma" we have a working business model that both incorporates emerging technology and ALSO provides financial supports to Content Creators. The answer is simple: give away what you can't control, and provide value when customers choose to pay.
All the media we host can be downloaded without paying for it, but Content Creators can ask for Sponsorship - voluntary payments. Why would a user pay for media they can get with out paying for it? The answer is give them more: Give them more. Give public credit and community props for those users who pay for the media they love. Give them access to the Content Creators. Give them extra material not easily found online. Give them early access to concerts, private events, etc. Enable the Content Creator to build up a community around their work that is available for those users who pay to support it.
Re:Nitpick (Score:3, Interesting)
But the use in the summary is even worse.
The intentional abuse of the word by the IPR proponents and industries have made it pointless to argue anymore. Better to just accept that 'pirate' has become a synonym of 'copy' and treat it like that, further debasing the expression, thus reducing the incentive for the intentional abuse.
Re:I repudiated copyright, and recommend others do (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I repudiated copyright, and recommend others do (Score:5, Interesting)
Subscriptions also can work, just like a chapter-by-chapter written blook that continues as people fund the author's writing.
I recall Stephen King trying this and giving up.
King's 'experiment' should be a lesson in how NOT to sell subscriptions.
He wanted people to pay for each chapter AFTER it was released, not before.
That was so stupid that it makes me wonder if his intent (or whomever proposed it to him) was to deliberately fail.
A good subscription based system will give away a few chapters/episodes/songs and then start requiring a minimum amount of money in the bank before the next chapter/episode/song is released because such systems are all forms of the 'ransom' business model - no kidnapper would be stupid enough to return the kid and then demand a ransom, but that's the equivalent of how King ran his experiment.
The 'ransom' model actually has a lot of benefits all around - it reduces the risk of losing money to nearly zero since the money is in the bank before production work even has to get started. For consumers, it takes the middle-man, the guy who treats all content as just another product to be packaged up and resold, out of the middle. It allows people to much more accurately vote with their dollar for what productions they want to see get made.
Re:It's not piracy if it's OK (Score:3, Interesting)
And therein lies the rub. Copyright should be less about people making copies, as it is (semi) controlling distribution. So I ask: Why don't we create a means of allowing to get stuff for free, but still force them through a distribution channel to get it. The channel can then generate revenue through ad supported, value-add supported, micro-payment supported, et all means.
The flip side is, how can you make money giving stuff away for free without control of its distribution?
Re:emerging black markets and working business mod (Score:2, Interesting)
Black markets emerge for commodity goods when there are significant discrepancies between marginal costs and market price.
The problem is that the marginal cost of media is now roughly zero. The whole price of production is fixed up front costs. Obviously nobody can make a profit selling at a price of zero.
I think that voluntary payment has a future but it will require a cultural shift. People worship their favorite artists/authors/actors. People will send them money. It will just take an effort to make the transition. We're not used to it yet. We need a new attitude/psychology.
It should also be noted though that only a small fraction of the advertising money paid for a TV show actually goes to the production of the programming. If a producer could get just the equivalent of the price of a couple thirty second adds (using product placement, little sponsor logos where network logos currently go, or just a sponsored by X at the beginning and end), they could independently produce the media and then distribute it costlessly through bittorrent.
It might not work for a really expensive show but it could definitely work for something that was maybe 500k to 1m per episode. Although bittorrent distribution might restrict the audience some (probably not by much for a show targeting an audience under 40).
Re:I repudiated copyright, and recommend others do (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want to paid, provide something to people that is in limited supply. Digital music is infinite in supply. Current laws create an artificial scarcity, but that is no longer something that benefits society, and I believe those laws will not last.
Perhaps if copying their music freely was legal, they wouldn't be so heavily marketed, and other bands with comparable talent and less money would be able to compete for fame.
Copyright is not for the benefit of artists. It is for the benefit of society at large. It is to encourage the creation of new works, so that everyone has music to enjoy. We've reached the point where the supply is virtually limitless. If copyright was no longer valid, there would be no shortage of new bands and recordings. Therefore society at large benefits most from the right to freely copy music.
Besides touring, I think bands should retain rights to profit. They can sell tshirts and special edition recordings of their music, as well as sell CDs for any profit they can get from those people who want physical media. This creates avenues for the listeners to support the band even if they can't see them live.
Re:Nitpick (Score:3, Interesting)
"The problem with the terminology is that words like "theft" and "steal" (which gain merit from the word "piracy," as this was one thing sea pirates did) are deliberately used by the powers that be to confuse people into thinking that the infringement of copyright carries exactly the same consequences as shoplifting or other deprivation of physical property. Only a moron would believe that you can receive spam (the food) through e-mail."
well, is closer to counterfeiting than stealing (since we are deciding that it isn't a physical object), and it's worse for the copyright owner.
One person downloading one copy might not result in a direct loss in sales, but if everybody online can search google and get to a pirate copy of your software before getting to your website, it will devalue your software over time. After all, digital goods are only worth what people are willing to pay.
You need to ask yourself, if piracy didn't result in any loss in sales, why would a software company waste their money or time trying to stop it?
Re:Nitpick (Score:2, Interesting)
I have no problem with the use of the word piracy. I rather kind of like it, actually, and think it fits in with the broader historical context quite well.
Remember, please that the old school sea-faring pirates did knock over slave ships, steal the loot and let the slaves free. Remember, too, that in several places in the world (yes, some of them in the Caribbean) pirates set up semi-permanent enclaves outside the rule of nation states -- places where the adventurous, or at times option-less people could go and live, free of taxes, slave masters, or husbands seeking reprisal. Remember that pirates democratically elected their captains. Remember that on many ships, before you walked the plank, you were given the option of becoming a pirate.
In fact, the suppression of piracy (in history, as today) may well have had just as much to do with the antisocial customs of pirates and their contempt for ordinary institutions, as the crimes they committed. We can't know - history was written by the victor -- that is to say, kings and corporations.
And here, now - in a new millennium - kings, corporations and pirates still battle over property, and our freedom to create new social customs in a new world.
I am not so sure, friend, that these different uses of the word "pirate" are, in fact, so different.