![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kungfuwaynewho...just demonstrates how stupid and out of touch these people are. From this article, some idiot who doesn't understand how causation actually works says that "digital music sales rose after file sharing service Limewire's shutdown in 2010." First of all, who the hell was still using Limewire in 2010? But second of all, how on earth could you say that one led to the other? This is like that whole sea piracy/global warming thing. "Collectively, this evidence strongly suggests that the shutdown of illegal sites helps create a thriving and diverse digital marketplace."
No. What it does is force new alternatives. Napster gives way to Kazaa that gives way to Limewire that gives way to torrents and from there to Megaupload and its ilk, and now that the direct download sites are under attack, something new will pop up. Why?
BECAUSE I DO NOT BUY SHIT IF I DON'T KNOW IF I LIKE IT OR NOT. I don't know why this is so hard for these people to understand. I am not just going to buy a DVD or a CD without having seen or heard it first. I don't have the money to throw around on a whim, and most other people don't, either. I've purchased things I never would have without downloading them first, because I never would have known those things existed. When was the last time you heard Gogol Bordello on the radio? Exactly. But I have four of their CDs and have gone to two concerts, and I guarantee you I never would have even known about them at all if I hadn't been exposed to their music online.
Also, I rarely buy books. I read them for free from the library. How come no one's shutting down the libraries? What's the difference, really?
If I had to actually purchase all the media I consume then I simply wouldn't consume much at all. That's what these imbeciles don't get. I have a finite amount of money. I'm not just going to magically have more because you shut off my access to popular culture. If the only way I can listen to that song that I'm so-so on is to buy it then I just won't buy it. I don't download movies, so if something comes out and it doesn't excite me enough to go out to the theaters, then I just fucking wait till I can watch it for free when the library buys the DVD. The end. I don't even Redbox that shit. BECAUSE I CANNOT AFFORD TO BUY ALL MY ENTERTAINMENT. Sorry, media. Sorry, studio execs and producers and everyone else. That's just the way it is.
They act like it's a zero-sum game and it's not. If I download an episode of American Horror Story because I missed it and I'm so far behind the episodes aren't up on Hulu anymore, I haven't stolen anything. Nothing is missing. I already missed the live airing so I'm not counting in the ratings anyway and whether I watch it six weeks later will have no impact on their ad sales. But if I have the chance to go ahead and watch it by downloading it? I might end up buying it when it comes out on DVD. I certainly won't buy it sight unseen, that's for damn sure. I don't know why they can't see this fact. It's not that hard to figure out.
(I have been thinking countless iterations of this rant since last week. Reading that article finally put me over the edge.)
No. What it does is force new alternatives. Napster gives way to Kazaa that gives way to Limewire that gives way to torrents and from there to Megaupload and its ilk, and now that the direct download sites are under attack, something new will pop up. Why?
BECAUSE I DO NOT BUY SHIT IF I DON'T KNOW IF I LIKE IT OR NOT. I don't know why this is so hard for these people to understand. I am not just going to buy a DVD or a CD without having seen or heard it first. I don't have the money to throw around on a whim, and most other people don't, either. I've purchased things I never would have without downloading them first, because I never would have known those things existed. When was the last time you heard Gogol Bordello on the radio? Exactly. But I have four of their CDs and have gone to two concerts, and I guarantee you I never would have even known about them at all if I hadn't been exposed to their music online.
Also, I rarely buy books. I read them for free from the library. How come no one's shutting down the libraries? What's the difference, really?
If I had to actually purchase all the media I consume then I simply wouldn't consume much at all. That's what these imbeciles don't get. I have a finite amount of money. I'm not just going to magically have more because you shut off my access to popular culture. If the only way I can listen to that song that I'm so-so on is to buy it then I just won't buy it. I don't download movies, so if something comes out and it doesn't excite me enough to go out to the theaters, then I just fucking wait till I can watch it for free when the library buys the DVD. The end. I don't even Redbox that shit. BECAUSE I CANNOT AFFORD TO BUY ALL MY ENTERTAINMENT. Sorry, media. Sorry, studio execs and producers and everyone else. That's just the way it is.
They act like it's a zero-sum game and it's not. If I download an episode of American Horror Story because I missed it and I'm so far behind the episodes aren't up on Hulu anymore, I haven't stolen anything. Nothing is missing. I already missed the live airing so I'm not counting in the ratings anyway and whether I watch it six weeks later will have no impact on their ad sales. But if I have the chance to go ahead and watch it by downloading it? I might end up buying it when it comes out on DVD. I certainly won't buy it sight unseen, that's for damn sure. I don't know why they can't see this fact. It's not that hard to figure out.
(I have been thinking countless iterations of this rant since last week. Reading that article finally put me over the edge.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 03:36 am (UTC)This is true of movies, of TV shows, of music, and of books. I'm a little more free with my book buying these days, but I still tend to read the first and last chapter of books I'm thinking about buying before I do so. And I tend to buy books more often when I know I love them and will read them again. I tend to buy TV shows when I know I'll watch them multiple times, or movies. Nearly everyone I know feels the same way. They test things out before buying. We can do this with so many other things in life; why can't we do this with media like TV and movies? I just don't get it.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 06:53 pm (UTC)Most people will still buy things, because there are advantages to actually owning them. (And I think there's a primitive impulse to have physical objects - we want to see it, and hold it.) They're doing themselves no favors with this.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 04:26 am (UTC)This statement from Neil Gaiman has been making the rounds lately. I wish more people got it like him!
"When the web started, I used to get really grumpy with people because they put my poems up. They put my stories up. They put my stuff up on the web. I had this belief, which was completely erroneous, that if people put your stuff up on the web and you didn’t tell them to take it down, you would lose your copyright, which actually, is simply not true.
And I also got very grumpy because I felt like they were pirating my stuff, that it was bad. And then I started to notice that two things seemed much more significant. One of which was… places where I was being pirated, particularly Russia where people were translating my stuff into Russian and spreading around into the world, I was selling more and more books. People were discovering me through being pirated. Then they were going out and buying the real books, and when a new book would come out in Russia, it would sell more and more copies. I thought this was fascinating, and I tried a few experiments. Some of them are quite hard, you know, persuading my publisher for example to take one of my books and put it out for free. We took “American Gods,” a book that was still selling and selling very well, and for a month they put it up completely free on their website. You could read it and you could download it. What happened was sales of my books, through independent bookstores, because that’s all we were measuring it through, went up the following month three hundred percent
I started to realize that actually, you’re not losing books. You’re not losing sales by having stuff out there. When I give a big talk now on these kinds of subjects and people say, “Well, what about the sales that I’m losing through having stuff copied, through having stuff floating out there?” I started asking audiences to just raise their hands for one question. Which is, I’d say, “Okay, do you have a favorite author?” They’d say, “Yes.” and I’d say, “Good. What I want is for everybody who discovered their favorite author by being lent a book, put up your hands.” And then, “Anybody who discovered your favorite author by walking into a bookstore and buying a book raise your hands.” And it’s probably about five, ten percent of the people who actually discovered an author who’s their favorite author, who is the person who they buy everything of. They buy the hardbacks and they treasure the fact that they got this author. Very few of them bought the book. They were lent it. They were given it. They did not pay for it, and that’s how they found their favorite author. And I thought, “You know, that’s really all this is. It’s people lending books. And you can’t look on that as a loss of sale. It’s not a lost sale, nobody who would have bought your book is not buying it because they can find it for free.”
What you’re actually doing is advertising. You’re reaching more people, you’re raising awareness. Understanding that gave me a whole new idea of the shape of copyright and of what the web was doing. Because the biggest thing the web is doing is allowing people to hear things. Allowing people to read things. Allowing people to see things that they would never have otherwise seen. And I think, basically, that’s an incredibly good thing."
no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 06:55 pm (UTC)There's been a huge paradigm shift in the way people access entertainment, and the expectations they have. The old guard just hasn't caught on. I used to be hopeful that they would some day - with stuff like Hulu, it seemed they were - but with all that's happened recently, it seems we're heading sharply and quickly in the other direction.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 08:17 pm (UTC)I think the problem they realized with Hulu is they just don't make *as much* money with that model as the old standard. So they decided Hulu isn't worth it. And then they all started doing the mindblowingly stupid thing where they wait 8 days to put a new episode of something onto Hulu. I mean what the fucking use is that? You will be eternally behind. Is it some sort of punishment? In the end, it just *guarantees* people will download instead, so they can be caught up in time.
The outdated ways of thinking and complete inability to try and adapt just blow my mind. Every other industry on the planet understands change is inevitable. I personally don't get why the industry isn't teaming up with Netflix. Despite people's complaining about price changes, I would honestly pay upwards of $30/month for Netflix if it included new episodes of airing shows, and I bet I wouldn't be the only one. And that is just one of many, many ideas for how to integrate technology and tv.
JUST, ARGH. Lol. It's so frustrating.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 08:33 pm (UTC)I remember that! I paid $5. XD I think that's such a great way to do it, too, especially when no one's buying a physical product, just the files themselves.
And then they all started doing the mindblowingly stupid thing where they wait 8 days to put a new episode of something onto Hulu.
God, I know. I KNOW. When I first discovered this I cursed my monitor out, like it was its fault. Like, unless you're watching something that can be watched out of order, you're now completely stuck. And since I'm now four episodes behind on Fringe, I'm feeling that. I haven't even tried downloading last week's episode yet. Sigh.
I would honestly pay upwards of $30/month for Netflix if it included new episodes of airing shows, and I bet I wouldn't be the only one.
Me too. Hell, I'd pay $50 a month if I could just watch everything through that. It would be so much easier.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 08:40 pm (UTC)Yes, exactly! I really side-eye the industry when a digital cd costs $20. Bitch, don't even act like a *fraction* of the costs associated with a real cd are involved with a digital one! lol
Aw man, 4 episodes behind on Fringe! D: Catch uuuuup! XD But yeah, it's awful. I actually stopped using Hulu entirely once they did that. I didn't purposely go "fuck those guys" but I just have no use for them anymore. *facepalm*
It would be so much easier.
Yesssss, which reminds me of another point: consumers want things easy, not necessarily cheap (or free). Most people don't download because they enjoy getting something for nothing, or don't think it's worth paying money for. They do it because it's way damn easier than waiting forever for Hulu to have it, or to buy it on DVD, or whatever. For me, I've become addicted to Netflix instant watch, and pretty much all my tv is watched through that now. A service *I pay for!* Because it's so much easier to just pick up the remote and click to play something than going through the trouble of downloading, hooking my computer up to my tv, blah blah.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 08:45 pm (UTC)When the Writer's Strike was on, I read a great article breaking down just how much it cost to make a DVD, how much a consumer was charged for it, and how much of that money made it back to the writer. The upmark or whatever in cost was in the thousands and thousands of percents, it was ridiculous, and the writers were making 1/5 of a penny on each sale. They wanted 2/5. AND WERE DENIED. That's how much these people are douchebags, and that's why I'm not going to cry in my coffee over anyone illegally downloading their shit.
Yesssss, which reminds me of another point: consumers want things easy, not necessarily cheap (or free). Most people don't download because they enjoy getting something for nothing, or don't think it's worth paying money for.
Yes! (The level of absolute agreement in all these comments is killing me.) I download because if I'm behind on a show, it's generally the easiest way to catch up. I'll absolutely just watch it on Hulu if it's available there, like I do with Modern Family, since I work Wednesday nights. It's up the next morning and I watch it while I eat breakfast. It's perfect.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 08:49 pm (UTC)The level of absolute agreement in all these comments is killing me.
I FEEL LIKE IF WE COULD JUST GET AN INDUSTRY EXECUTIVE TO READ ALL THE COMMENTS ON THIS PAGE THEN WE COULD CONVINCE THEM. OR SOMETHING!
no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 05:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 06:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 05:55 am (UTC)LOLOL I never used Limewire in my life and I consider myself an internet person. LOL seriously! If they think the sales rose after Limewire, they are: a-)Either stupid b-)Lying.
Seriously, they destroyed Kazaa and what happened afterwards? We got more than one way of file sharing.
All I know is: Shutting down file sharing sites or even baning the whole internet won't make me buy more movie tickets or music albums. It's not going to happen. If they think people will go and suddenly start their money on them, they are being delusional.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 06:58 pm (UTC)All I know is: Shutting down file sharing sites or even baning the whole internet won't make me buy more movie tickets or music albums. It's not going to happen.
Precisely.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 06:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 06:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 10:19 am (UTC)Also, I rarely buy books. I read them for free from the library. How come no one's shutting down the libraries? What's the difference, really?
Made me laugh SO MUCH! Maybe we should start a petition to demonstrate how incredible ridiculous it is what they are doing.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 07:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 09:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 11:24 am (UTC)I remember taking a flyer on music with no idea what it sounded like beyond what the bin in the record store was labelled. I read a lot of reviews in newspapers and trade magazines in those days. But mostly it was radio or word of mouth or the cheaper 45's that got you to give some new act a shot. Summers were fun because they showed a lot of potential tv shows, failed pilots which might get a second chance as mid-season replacements and previews for the fall alongside the inevitable re-runs.
Miss an episode and you waited until the summer. Ick.
Of course there were no dvd's. And vcr's were wicked expensive. The only ones I knew of that were privately owned were used for porn. :) The leading edge of every technological advance, porn is.
The guys in Monty Python decided to forego DMCA'ing their stuff on YouTube, instead insisting that a link to a place to buy their cd's, books, and dvd's be shown next to each clip. Sales went up. Huh.
And I know my own renewal of interest in music has come from fanvids and fanmixes. I view them as sampling, really, like the tiny snippets on Amazon or the free downloads on radio websites or the one free song on the band's website. I buy downloads and cd's. My casual dvd buying is almost non-existent at this point due to space issues, but if I love something I want a hard copy. Or two.
Gaiman is wrong in one way. Copying is not lending. It just isn't. It's new, this ability to perfectly record and broadly distribute content. But you are right that it is also not a lost sale. And as long as the artist gets rewarded enough to keep making art/music/stories, the brave new world is going to win out.
I just hope the dinosaurs don't break the internet with their flailing about trying to fight it.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 07:05 pm (UTC)Miss an episode and you waited until the summer. Ick.
Horrifying memories of my childhood and missing episodes of The X-Files! Nothing was worse. NOTHING.
The guys in Monty Python decided to forego DMCA'ing their stuff on YouTube, instead insisting that a link to a place to buy their cd's, books, and dvd's be shown next to each clip. Sales went up. Huh.
That seems to happen anytime an artist tries this out. Joss Whedon put all of Dr. Horrible up for free to start with, and it's certainly still sold very well. Because people knew what they were going to get, and like the Louis C.K. comedy special that came out recently, people are definitely willing to shell out the money when it's an easy transaction, when it's not exorbitant, and when they know it's going to the actual people who made it. (And Louis C.K. said everyone told him his sales would be hurt by piracy, but he did it anyway, and sold like gangbusters. I'm sure some of the people who pirated it ended up buying it, too.)
I just hope the dinosaurs don't break the internet with their flailing about trying to fight it.
I just think it's a losing argument. They're never going to convince a populace that has trouble making ends meet that we're horrible people for not shelling out tons of money when we can see executives making millions and millions of dollars off the work of people who are also quite wealthy.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 07:28 pm (UTC)As for the dinosaurs, it's a losing battle all right. I just don't want the web to be collateral damage. Fooling with the DNS system is bad damn news. I was hoping the Eurozone would pick up the ball and take over while we come to our senses, but they seem to be falling apart too. Balkanized, and censored, internets, picking your website menu by provider, different speeds depending on who you're using to access what... DO NOT WANT.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 08:35 pm (UTC)I think everyone's scrambling to try and control the internet now because they're realizing that if they don't make it happen, before too long it will be entirely out of their hands.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-26 12:39 am (UTC)I hope, hope, hope, the 'net gets away from everyone and roams free forever.
that's a lovely icon, btw. *is distracted*
I think I'll try the March no-buy thing too. Do I have to stop streaming Netflix? *whine*
no subject
Date: 2012-01-26 05:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 11:28 am (UTC)It's not over by a long shot.
Is it lame to say I couldn't agree more with your entire pot? Because I do.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 07:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 03:16 pm (UTC)This. So much this. Especially if it's something that's only available via purchase because it's been out for so long. I mean, the WB has season one of B5 up on their site for instant viewing (that they cut off the last five minutes of the first episode is another matter); but if they hadn't - downloading the episodes was going to be the only way that I had a clue that I was going to enjoy the show.
And the reality is, a lot of people I know end up buying the shows they've downloaded...even if they've downloaded them in full. Because they love them so much and want to rewatch them away from their computer or they want the bonus features or what have you. If people like stuff, they're going to buy it. But for a lot of things, there's no way to know if you like it until you download it.
Your point about AHS is perfect. It's such a ridiculous system that's online now, where some series' only allow sites like Hulu to show five episodes at a time (regardless of how many episodes are up that season), or even don't allow Hulu to show any current season episodes at all. What happens if you miss that week because you're on vacation, have a date, sleep through it, etc.? Not everyone has a DVR.
For that matter, not everyone has cable. I don't shell out for TV because I know that I can get everything I might possibly want to watch via the internet, and mostly legally. I wouldn't be counted in any initial viewings anyway.
From a television standpoint, what they need to do is make everything available, globally, immediately. This bullshit about airing some things in the UK six months before the US (Downton Abbey, I'm looking at you), and some things in the US six months to a year before the rest of the world (pretty much our entire exported lineup) is ridiculous. People will find a way to watch these shows the day they air in their respective countries. Stop making things available online in country-specific sites; make it global. Stop making things available the day after or the week after; make it immediate. And if you offer it for a relatively cheap subscription - or even stick Hulu-type ads within it - people will go there to get their entertainment cheaply and easily.
No one's downloading things because "ooo look at me I'm being illegal it's so deviant hehe." People are downloading things because it's the only viable option.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 07:15 pm (UTC)Yep. I started watching B5 by checking it out at the library. I had heard it was a good show, and I decided to try it out. It never would have occurred to me to just buy the first season without knowing if I would like it or not. If I hadn't had free access to the show, I never would have watched it.
Of course, I have gone on to buy all five seasons and most of the movies. YET ANOTHER CASE IN POINT.
And the reality is, a lot of people I know end up buying the shows they've downloaded...even if they've downloaded them in full. Because they love them so much and want to rewatch them away from their computer or they want the bonus features or what have you. If people like stuff, they're going to buy it. But for a lot of things, there's no way to know if you like it until you download it.
Exactly! It just seems so obvious, I don't know why they can't understand this. Go after the people who put up all the movies and make money off of it, fine, whatever, but the average person who downloads an episode of TV or the occasional song? Please.
From a television standpoint, what they need to do is make everything available, globally, immediately. This bullshit about airing some things in the UK six months before the US (Downton Abbey, I'm looking at you), and some things in the US six months to a year before the rest of the world (pretty much our entire exported lineup) is ridiculous. People will find a way to watch these shows the day they air in their respective countries. Stop making things available online in country-specific sites; make it global. Stop making things available the day after or the week after; make it immediate. And if you offer it for a relatively cheap subscription - or even stick Hulu-type ads within it - people will go there to get their entertainment cheaply and easily.
OMG, I know. Like, sorry, but we downloaded Sherlock, because we didn't want to wait till May to see it. It was out there, and waiting five months is ridiculous. Will we buy it as soon as the DVD is available? Of course we will. In the meantime, we want to at least see it. If the episodes had been made freely available, I still would end up buying it. If the BBC wanted to put up a website where you could subscribe to all their programs for a flat rate, I'd hit that shit like nobody's business. But no one wants to change their distribution model. They act like it's still a couple decades ago or something. The internet has changed everything - EVERYTHING - and the horse is so long out of the barn at this point that TPTB are a bunch of idiots bleating about closing the door.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 05:22 pm (UTC)It doesn't help that some of my favorite bands - Runrig, for instance - are not even sold in my country. Ditto half my favorite TV shows (hi, Borgen!) and even some of my favorite films. How else am I supposed to get a hold of them?
Nnnngh. So much love for you.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 07:18 pm (UTC)Yeah, there's a lot of British TV I've watched that's never been released in the US. Unless I wanted to travel to England, the only way for me to watch it is to download it. It's like such a duh-doy, I can't even.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 08:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 08:37 pm (UTC)Control control control. That's all it comes down to.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-26 08:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-28 05:07 pm (UTC)Yeah, most of the stuff I love I've discovered through downloading and then have subsequently bought. It makes me sad that they just won't understand that.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-28 09:09 pm (UTC)Exactly, same here. I wonder if nobody has ever really told them that, or if people are telling them, and they just don't believe it. Can they really be this stupid? Really?
no subject
Date: 2012-01-28 02:13 pm (UTC)I'm not lecturing anybody here, I'm like everyone else here in that I download a hell of a lot on a trial basis, and if I like it I'll buy it because I want the actual tangible thing. But I don't think you can honestly say that a large chunk of pirates aren't just freeloaders.
Okay, the internet is a great source of publicity and it's given artists the opportunity to cut out the corporate marketing/publishing middlemen and get their stuff straight to the audience. What they need to be doing is having a strong web presence and communicating with fans, giving them a legit source of the convenience they get from an illegal download, free samples, an easy-to-access product that's of better quality than the pirated stuff. When/if this becomes the norm, though, when the excuse for piracy is gone, will piracy vanish? I doubt it.
And come on, Radiohead and Neil Gaiman are both huge, established artists and neither were doing too badly for themselves before the digital revolution. I wonder if fledgling creators trying to build their fanbase see it the same way.
100% with you about SOPA etc being about corporate greed more than intellectual property :)
no subject
Date: 2012-01-28 05:17 pm (UTC)I don't have a problem with the industry going after the folks who upload tens of thousands of files and who make tons of money off of it. I do have a problem with the industry going after people who download a handful of songs a year and episodes of TV that just aired for free. I'm not sure how it's helpful to conflate the two under the overall umbrella of "piracy." And that's what I'm arguing about, that the RIAA and other organizations and studios and such are conflating the two, which I think is ridiculous.
The problem is that media isn't like it was even just ten or fifteen years ago. A ton of artists have no way to establish themselves. They won't get air play, they won't show up on things like MTV because MTV doesn't introduce new music anymore. Publishers are publishing fewer books, there are a million TV channels. Yeah, Gaiman and Radiohead are established and aren't hurting, but they came from a different era entirely. A band like Gogol Bordello gets heard by word of mouth, not by being played on mainstream radio. Besides, if I go out and buy an album from GB (and I have, all of them), they're not actually seeing much of that money at all. It's going to their label. That's why Radiohead was able to make so much more money by putting their albums up on their own terms, letting fans pay whatever they wanted, or even just downloading it for free. I think that internet downloads are inevitable, and are leading to a new distribution method that actually fits the world we live in today. Piracy is only truly frightening if you're clinging to the old dinosaur way of doing business.
I don't mean to be grr argh and argumentative, because I think we basically agree. I'm really just saying that less piracy =/= more purchases, because I honestly do believe that most people who download do purchase what media they can afford, and if those avenues dry up, they aren't going to be out there buying more. They'll be buying the same amount, or buying less, because they no longer know what to buy, having never experienced it before.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-30 12:46 am (UTC)