I think it's important to define piracy and real abuse, the types of people who download EVERYTHING and have absolutely no intention of ever buying a thing, and what I'm talking about, which is people like me who download a few tracks that their friend put up, or who download TV they've missed, or to try out a new show, etc., who then go on to buy some of those things. I'm certainly not arguing that the people who are real, legit pirates shouldn't be punished - omission of argument does not mean tacit approval. I'm talking about myself, and those like me, who do download and who do go out and buy things, and I'm talking about that form of downloading strictly in reference to the RIAA's statement that without the ability to download we'll all go out and buy those things. My argument is that no, we won't, not because we're freeloaders who don't want to spend the money, but because we only have so much money and we're not going to spend it on something we've never had the opportunity to try out.
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
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.