Thread: When Will It End?

I really disagree with that. Most home entertainment systems are completely sufficient for reproducing the cinema experience. I think the only exceptions currently are visually orientated films like Avatar, and still, with ever increasing technological development, it's only a matter of time before large 3D screens become ubiquitous as flat screens became, or colour TVs before that.

And what about musicians who create complex music which can't be played live (like Boards of Canada)? Musicians aren't obliged to tour because people can't be bothered to pay for their music.

Also of course this suggests that films no longer in the cinema and bands who are no longer together or able to tour should receive no money.

I have to call bullshit on that. People do not download games, then buy them afterwards. I am sure people say that, but how can you possibly believe that? I mean you download a game, you beat it, then you go to the store buy it for 50 dollars and never play it again? Yeah right.

After a person beats a game, chances are they are never going to play it again. So why on earth would they ever buy? They won't, we all know they won't and they never do.

The only exception, is if the game has a multiplayer version and you can't play multiplayer unless you have some code or a registered verson. In which case, their copy right protection actually worked in forcing someone to buy the game in order to play on their servers.

So some copy right protection stuff does actually work. Pirating does not help software or music companies even slightly. How much stuff that you download do you actually buy afterwards? Maybe 5 percent tops.

We all know the excuses people tell themself, so they feel better about stealing.

Originally Posted by Alric

I have to call bullshit on that. People do not download games, then buy them afterwards. I am sure people say that, but how can you possibly believe that? I mean you download a game, you beat it, then you go to the store buy it for 50 dollars and never play it again? Yeah right.

After a person beats a game, chances are they are never going to play it again. So why on earth would they ever buy? They won't, we all know they won't and they never do.

The only exception, is if the game has a multiplayer version and you can't play multiplayer unless you have some code or a registered verson. In which case, their copy right protection actually worked in forcing someone to buy the game in order to play on their servers.

So some copy right protection stuff does actually work. Pirating does not help software or music companies even slightly. How much stuff that you download do you actually buy afterwards? Maybe 5 percent tops.

We all know the excuses people tell themself, so they feel better about stealing.

Actually, I could go up to Wal-Mart and buy a multiplayer game, take the code out, then either tell them it didn't have a code or for some reason the disc is defective. Voila, they swap it out. Rinse and repeat. I could then take the codes and sell them on the internet or under-the-table for about ten dollars a pop.

By the way, I don't do these type of things though it would be sooo easy. All that is happening is that real customers are catching flak, which they will say "F" it and either not bother wasting their time/money or instead just resort to piracy.

The only thing I think that they can do is utilization of the internet and selling half the data directly to the customer's computer. In order to get the other half of the data, you have to purchase an account/code for $10.00 with a credit card, which the activation will be instant. Don't have the internet? Tough luck. This is probably the approach that the gaming industry will take, though I do not agree with it because you aren't buying the product and the gaming industry could get greedy and easily exploit it. It is highly prone to errors, such as what will happen if data download is interrupted, your computer dies, etc..

I think part of the problem with piracy/copyright is that the entertainment industry has been extremely slow to respond to consumer demand. Even with stuff like iTunes, it has taken them a very long time to remove the DRM. I'd speculate that for many it's become a habit to simply head over to the Pirate Bay because for a long time it wasn't worth bothering with alternative sources, in terms of the restrictions, or because the content in question wasn't available. Reversing such ingrained behaviours is not easy.

Even now, iTunes still has a lot of the more obscure music missing, whereas you can find it much more easily on bittorrent sites.



When it comes to copyright law, then if you have purchased a copy of something (or a license to view the content) then you should be able to freely transfer it in to whatever medium you want, and modify it for personal use as you see fit. If I buy a DVD for example, the ownership is of the copy of the content on the DVD, and the DVD is a means to an end to provide me with a copy. If I own that license, I should be free to obtain it in whatever medium I want by any means.

To use an example from above, I should be free to download Top Gear off bittorrent if have a right to that content with no legal repercussions (though people who do not have any right to the content would not be protected). Ideally the BBC would make Top Gear episodes downloadable for license players (instead of the crippling DRM on the license player which limits what you can do with it, and how long you keep the content for) and so people wouldn't need to resort to bittorrent. I would also distinguish between those using bittorrent to download something they want, which forces such users to share the content in return due to the tit-for-tat model, verses those making copies freely available to people who have no right to it of their own free will.

When it comes to sharing stuff though, that's very tricky; where do you draw the line. For example, I can invite a friend around to watch a DVD, or lend him that DVD myself so he can watch it as much as he wants. Is there really that much difference between that and giving him a digital copy to put on his hard drive to watch? The only fundamental difference I can think of is it allows 2 people separate use of 1 license. So providing you refused to watch the content whilst "lending" the license to a friend, and your friend instantly deleted the content upon revoking the license, nothing wrong would be done. Obviously enforcing this would be completely impractical.

One question I would like to ask everyone is where do you stand on film / game soundtracks, if you already own the film or game in question? In my mind, you've already paid for that content, though I am happy to provide additional support to certain artists on occasions. Also there's nothing to stop you from playing the appropriate part of the game, or watching the right part of the film to listen to the music you want. Having it in soundtrack form is really more a convenience than anything else.

Originally Posted by Xei

And what about musicians who create complex music which can't be played live (like Boards of Canada)? Musicians aren't obliged to tour because people can't be bothered to pay for their music.

Yeah, that's true. Your post reminded me of Simon Posford (of Shpongle)'s story. He started up a successful label in the late 90s I believe to market the new psy-trance music he and his contemporaries were innovating. They were successful for years until their last few CD releases, which made next to no money. Shpongle themselves only do 1 or 2 blow-out shows every year, so there's no money coming from there. The label is essentially broke now, and the only way these artists will survive is by signing on with something more corporate. Keep in mind though, that these bigger labels are notorious for keeping absurd amounts of income for themselves, not to mention stealing intellectual property through contracts that only an entertainment lawyer would understand.

Originally Posted by Xei

Interesting question that has occurred to me by the way: at the heart of this whole thing is how reproducing the physical representation of the non-physical object has become virtually free (when it was difficult and costly there was no issue). As this is the case, why do musicians need publishers? Why can't they just distribute it online?

There have definitely been significant success stories when it comes to using these methods to self-promote, or even to release a CD, but ONLY when the artists themselves are involved. http://torrentfreak.com/pirated-by-i...orrent-080206/. More and more music artists are realizing that proactivity on the online front eliminates the need for these more corporatist labels.

Its all about adaptation. Things are certainly changing, and music artists are entering a time when they can no longer ignore the internet (as I believe many do). Thus they'll have to sink or swim. The film and gaming industries will likely have to undergo a similar transformation, though I lack enough knowledge of either industry to speculate much. Perhaps huge budget stuff will begin to disappear and independent stuff will become more of a focus (it seems to be happening a little bit already).

At any rate I really hope companies are over this DRM thing. It seems to do more harm than good for us as well as themselves. I swore off DRM ever since I bought a few protected albums from iTunes. Christ, its like I don't even own the songs! I just ended up downloading them elsewhere later. I also remember hearing when Spore came out that it was the most pirated game of all time, as well as the most DRM protected. Unbelievable that this still happens.