Writer's Block: Stop Online Piracy Act

[eowyn_315]

Today, Congress holds hearings on the first American Internet censorship system.
This bill can pass. If it does the Internet and free speech will never be the same. [Learn more here.]

Do you support this bill?

First, let me say that this question is absurdly biased.

Second, yes, I support the bill, and not just because I'm being paid to. :) I generally

Comments

[boot_the_grime]

I've said before, and I'll say it again - I'm not going to lecture anyone about how downloading stuff illegally is wrong. For one thing, I'd be a hypocrite, because I'm not totally innocent on that front, either. But that's a moral decision that has nothing to do with the bill.

My moral stance is that illegal downloading is not just *not wrong* but right and absolutely necessary.

Illegal downloading (and piracy in general) is the only thing that allows a huge chunk of the world to have any access at all to the music, film and TV works and other cultural works that are completely unavailable in those countries and areas at the time, or only available several months or a year or several years later (e.g. new episodes of seasons of favorite shows), and often just at the higher cost that includes shipping and customs (when you order things online), not to mention that buying something at US or UK prices is not the same thing for people from a country with much lower average income.

Second, insisting on copyright would mean that relatively poor people would be at disadvantage because of financial issues, even when the said goods are technically 'available'.(if you have enough money).

In other words - all the anti-piracy laws are nothing but another attempt to help the rich and keep the poor away from any cultural goods.

[eowyn_315]

How exactly will artists suffer? Any artist is allowed to put their own work online for free - that's how MySpace has operated for years. They can offer downloads or streaming on their own websites, or distribute free copies to blogs for promotional use. Nothing in the bill restricts distribution by the copyright holder in any way.

But just because some artists want to distribute their work for free, why should artists who want to get paid for their work have to suffer? Why shouldn't they be allowed to protect their intellectual property from people who want to make money off someone else's hard work?

And, you know, free advertising only works to a point. People aren't going to just keep making things for free without any compensation. Eventually, they will have to pay their bills.

[eowyn_315]

My question, though, is why can't artists do everything you suggest without digital piracy? Nothing is stopping them from distributing their music for free. It's incredibly easy to throw a song up on YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, etc. or offer downloads via a number of sources - I've downloaded free tracks from iTunes and Amazon, which introduced me to new artists. There's no reason to maintain websites that are dedicated to copyright infringement when they can get all the publicity they want from legal distribution.

I am only keen on seeing an end to those people who burn CDs, DVDs and sell them on the street and the moneys that fund drug trade and crime. Those are the targets we need to see more work done, not your avaerage kid our young adult who hears an artist from another country, in another language

To be clear, we're NOT targeting the average kid here. We're targeting the digital equivalent of those people who burn CDs and sell them on the street. The sites that host all these copyrighted works aren't doing it for the greater good. They're in it to make money, whether it's via subscriptions or ads. And it's not fair that those people should make money off of someone else's work, which they stole. I don't understand what about the internet makes it different - when you buy a CD, you're not paying $15 for the physical disc. That costs maybe 10 cents. You're paying for the digital content ON the CD, so why would it be any different if you bypass the CD and buy the digital files directly? Why, if you download it instead of getting a physical disc, should it suddenly be free? There's this weird sense of entitlement that everything on the internet should be free simply by virtue of it being on the internet, which I honestly don't understand.

I think many a trip to the music and vid store to order copious product as a result of one or two unsanctioned downloads is not such a bad thing when the income derived from such a transaction results in sales that will last years, what is generated en masse therefore is not so undesirable when viewed in that light.

If that were the case, I would agree with you. But 95% of all downloaded music is illegally downloaded. That's a HUGE amount to be giving away for not much return - especially when you consider that hard goods sales (CDs/DVDs) have been dropping rapidly and online sales (through iTunes, Amazon, etc.) haven't been growing nearly fast enough to make up for the loss. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't listen to a download and then go out and buy the CD. They just download the rest of it from the same infringing website. And they'll do the same with the next album, and the next...

I agree that the market should evolve. But I don't think the solution is letting digital theft run rampant. I think the solution is finding new and better ways to get content to more people legally. And I fully admit that I don't think the record labels and movie studios have done enough to provide that access, but they're not the ones digital piracy hurts the most. It's the artists, the ones who don't have steady jobs and count on residuals to get by until the next gig comes along, they're the ones who get hurt the most. And unfortunately, they're the ones who tend to get forgotten in discussions like these, because everybody is focused on sticking it to the big corporations that are still making a profit.

[eowyn_315]

Well, I would point out again that this bill does nothing to affect piracy in other countries - it only blocks American consumers from accessing it. So if that's the only way for people to access work that's unavailable in other countries, they'll still be able to do that.

I do think that the entertainment industry should do a better job of providing legal online access (streaming, download, etc.) to their content. But, in their defense, it's pretty hard to come up with a business model to compete with "as much as you want for free."

Second, insisting on copyright would mean that relatively poor people would be at disadvantage because of financial issues, even when the said goods are technically 'available'.(if you have enough money).

I'm not sure I understand your argument. Because it sounds like you're saying that people have the right to everything, and they should be allowed to have it for free if they can't afford it. So, does that mean you shouldn't be arrested if you steal DVDs from Walmart because you can't afford them? Are we extending that to things beyond entertainment? I can't afford Jimmy Choo, does that mean I'm justified in stealing myself a new pair of shoes? And if you can just get stuff for free, why would anyone pay for anything?

[boot_the_grime]

If the alternative is to have ridiculously high prices that the majority of people can't afford, then yes, by all means, making them free is a much better option! (Disclaimer: I have no idea if they're ridiculously high for an average American. But they sure as hell are for an average Serbian, but over here we have the exact same or higher prices. If we weren't using pirated software, few people would even be using computers or going online, since you'd have to spend all your salary just on getting licensed software).

How to make culture not a privilege for the rich: just make the prices more reasonable. We're not talking about paintings or luxury editions of books or other things that makes sense to be just for the rich folks.

[eowyn_315]

I.... honestly don't even know how to respond to that. Maybe if we lived in some communist utopia where everyone shared everything and money was meaningless, I'd be all for giving everything away for free.

But... we don't. Actors and musicians and cameramen and writers still have to pay the bills. They can't just work for free because some people can't afford to buy their stuff. I don't know what you do for a living, but how would you feel if someone said to you, "I'm sorry, but you're going to have to work for free because these people in this country over here can't afford to pay you. Ninety-five percent of the work that you do, you won't get paid for, so figure out how to live on the other 5%"?

[boot_the_grime]

Funny then that it's the artists who, more often than not, don't have a problem with people sharing their music for free, and are even encouraging it? With exceptions like Metallca - poor guys, they must be having trouble paying their bills...While it's usually those artists who aren't famous and rich (but not just them) that want to share their music for free. Interesting, eh?

They only have an interest in spreading their music so more people would hear it, and some to their live gigs.

[eowyn_315]

Sorry, but I am extremely skeptical that "more often than not" artists want their work stolen. Particularly since I work for an organization that represents artists, and the vast majority want us to support this bill. I have only gotten ONE phone call from a member opposing this bill. One, out of around 80,000.

And, as I have said at least three times now, there is absolutely nothing stopping artists from sharing their music for free if they want to do that. But just because they give their stuff away fro free doesn't mean that EVERYBODY should, whether they want to or not. I really don't see why we shouldn't protect the artists who DO want to get paid.