Earlier this week I came across this comic from The Oatmeal. It is worth looking at. Go ahead and read it, then come back. I will wait.
Okay, back? Good.
I thought it did a pretty good job of describing one reason that piracy is growing, so I shared the link on Facebook and Google+ with the following comment:
Then later that same night I came across Andy Inatko's blog post commenting on the comic. I thought he had made a few good points in his commentary. His post is also worth the read and I suggest going over there to read it as well, but here is a quote from it:
That's right, it seems that Andy is wanting to wholly blame the consumer and their sense of entitlement. I agree that it may be partially correct that the consumer has a false sense of entitlement, but it fails to look at all the responsibility.
Most of the time this conversation comes up, it seems that each party is trying to blame one of two parties. The distributors or the pirates. I think that both these parties are responsible. I am one of them. I have and perhaps will again pirate content. But I rarely hear of anyone giving any responsibility to the artists for all this.
Many people think that the whole system needs to be changed, which I whole heartedly agree with. I think it needs to be scraped and we need to start over. I also think the problem is largely a political one. The distributors will not give us the content in a way we want it when it first becomes available. So we pirate.
Distributors, consumers, artists, and the system that we keep feeding are all to blame.
Distributors want a free-market system. A free-market system means that parties who distribute a product need to compete with all available methods of distribution. Suddenly piracy is available method of distribution when it comes to intellectual content. In this one special case the distributors now want socialism. They want the means of distribution governed. But only in this one special case.
Consumers want content. They want content that they like from the artists regardless of the distribution medium but also want a reasonable means of distribution. There is not any clear way for consumers to show the distributors that they are failing to satisfy consumer needs except refusing to purchase that content. But they like this content and would like the artist to continue producing this content, so instead they show that the content is popular by pirating it and the distributor rightly loses their share, but the artist and anyone else who might be involved in creation also lose their share unjustly. Consumers are realists. They realize that this is a capitalist system and do their best to abide by that system for the most part. When the system fails them some of them show their true desire for socialism, sharing content freely using torrents.
This is where the questionability of ethics come in. However, who can really say that it is unethical for consumers to refuse to be part of a dysfunctional capitalistic system that they had no choice but to be put into? Consumers could create their own system that exists within the same society at the capitalist system. However, two economic systems running alongside one another without having a negative effect on one another is just as dysfunctional a theory, if not more so, than the current capitalist system in place. Capitalists cannot find a reasonable way to rectify with those who did not choose and actively choose not to be a part of it, so they label them as unethical. They then fine them in attempt to force capitalist ideas on them or in extreme cases they jail them as an example for other potential descent.
The responsibility of the artist can be looked at here. Andy mentioned Louis C.K. in his article, which I think is a great example of where the artist took control of distribution in his most recent standup special and bypassed traditional distribution. He publicly stated that this was a success for him far beyond his expectations. The artist does have responsibility of choosing the best means of distribution to make them the most money, and right now it appears, at least the case with Louis C.K., the most cost effective method is no longer traditional media distribution.
Artists are a mix of capitalists and socialists. Some artists distribute their content freely, making money to exist in the capitalist system either with advertising or by a means that has nothing to do with the content they produce such as flipping burgers. While part of this blog is a journal of what I do with my family, there are posts such as this one which are meant for larger audiences. At this point I do not make any money from blogging. I have no current intention of doing so. I write on this blog as a means to get thoughts out so that they can be evaluated in the public domain. I have a different financial arrangement wherein my wife works and I take care of the kids and the house. Some artists of this type also live on donations from users of the content. This is popular with some open source software solutions.
Other artists are capitalists who want to sell their content at a premium and forego the advertising, but as I stated want certain methods of distribution governed by socialism as in the case of piracy. Some of those artists do not care about the piracy so much because they see it as another form of getting content out there while still bringing in some compensation from traditional distribution. Those artists realize that the current system is chaos and mostly just want to try to get what they can. For the most part, I think the artists just want to make sure that they can get their content to their audience and get compensated for it by the best possible means.
As previously stated, the distributors, consumers, and artists each have a role and interests they want to protect. The current system is obviously not suited to properly compensate for these interests, so until it does, piracy will grow.
One obvious factor of a new economic model is that distribution will be largely downsized. This means less jobs in distribution. However, we cannot expect to keep old systems in place simply because of employment. The music industry does not, for example, still widely produce phonographs because some factory workers would be out of jobs. Those workers had to find something else to do with skills they already had, educate themselves in another field, create another field, or starve.
I have some pet ideas on possible solutions to this whole conundrum which perhaps I will elaborate on in a future post. For now I am going let what I have written sink in and be up for others to possibly point out flaws in the reason or logic of what I have already said.
Okay, back? Good.
I thought it did a pretty good job of describing one reason that piracy is growing, so I shared the link on Facebook and Google+ with the following comment:
This is why piracy exists. The studios continue to drag their feet at offering competitive or reasonable methods to acquire the media. The studios are just as guilty of the loss incurred by the artist if not more so than the customer who pirates. The artist is also responsible for finding a reliable distributor who is not going to make it difficult for customers to acquire the content. Piracy happens because it has the competitive advantage, not monetarily, but by ease of access.
Then later that same night I came across Andy Inatko's blog post commenting on the comic. I thought he had made a few good points in his commentary. His post is also worth the read and I suggest going over there to read it as well, but here is a quote from it:The single least-attractive attribute of many of the people who download content illegally is their smug sense of entitlement.
...
Here’s the terms of use for commercial content: you have to pay for this stuff. This means either you need to wait for it to become commercially available, or if you torrent it today you need to buy it when it gets released. So long as you buy it as soon as it’s possible to do so, I can confidently reach for my “No Harm Done” rubber stamp. Some content is commercially unavailable because the publisher or distributor has no desire to ever release it. I’ll even go so far as to say that downloading it illegally is a positive thing; you’re helping to keep this creative work alive.
That's right, it seems that Andy is wanting to wholly blame the consumer and their sense of entitlement. I agree that it may be partially correct that the consumer has a false sense of entitlement, but it fails to look at all the responsibility.
Most of the time this conversation comes up, it seems that each party is trying to blame one of two parties. The distributors or the pirates. I think that both these parties are responsible. I am one of them. I have and perhaps will again pirate content. But I rarely hear of anyone giving any responsibility to the artists for all this.
Many people think that the whole system needs to be changed, which I whole heartedly agree with. I think it needs to be scraped and we need to start over. I also think the problem is largely a political one. The distributors will not give us the content in a way we want it when it first becomes available. So we pirate.
Distributors, consumers, artists, and the system that we keep feeding are all to blame.
Distributors want a free-market system. A free-market system means that parties who distribute a product need to compete with all available methods of distribution. Suddenly piracy is available method of distribution when it comes to intellectual content. In this one special case the distributors now want socialism. They want the means of distribution governed. But only in this one special case.
Consumers want content. They want content that they like from the artists regardless of the distribution medium but also want a reasonable means of distribution. There is not any clear way for consumers to show the distributors that they are failing to satisfy consumer needs except refusing to purchase that content. But they like this content and would like the artist to continue producing this content, so instead they show that the content is popular by pirating it and the distributor rightly loses their share, but the artist and anyone else who might be involved in creation also lose their share unjustly. Consumers are realists. They realize that this is a capitalist system and do their best to abide by that system for the most part. When the system fails them some of them show their true desire for socialism, sharing content freely using torrents.
This is where the questionability of ethics come in. However, who can really say that it is unethical for consumers to refuse to be part of a dysfunctional capitalistic system that they had no choice but to be put into? Consumers could create their own system that exists within the same society at the capitalist system. However, two economic systems running alongside one another without having a negative effect on one another is just as dysfunctional a theory, if not more so, than the current capitalist system in place. Capitalists cannot find a reasonable way to rectify with those who did not choose and actively choose not to be a part of it, so they label them as unethical. They then fine them in attempt to force capitalist ideas on them or in extreme cases they jail them as an example for other potential descent.
The responsibility of the artist can be looked at here. Andy mentioned Louis C.K. in his article, which I think is a great example of where the artist took control of distribution in his most recent standup special and bypassed traditional distribution. He publicly stated that this was a success for him far beyond his expectations. The artist does have responsibility of choosing the best means of distribution to make them the most money, and right now it appears, at least the case with Louis C.K., the most cost effective method is no longer traditional media distribution.
Artists are a mix of capitalists and socialists. Some artists distribute their content freely, making money to exist in the capitalist system either with advertising or by a means that has nothing to do with the content they produce such as flipping burgers. While part of this blog is a journal of what I do with my family, there are posts such as this one which are meant for larger audiences. At this point I do not make any money from blogging. I have no current intention of doing so. I write on this blog as a means to get thoughts out so that they can be evaluated in the public domain. I have a different financial arrangement wherein my wife works and I take care of the kids and the house. Some artists of this type also live on donations from users of the content. This is popular with some open source software solutions.
Other artists are capitalists who want to sell their content at a premium and forego the advertising, but as I stated want certain methods of distribution governed by socialism as in the case of piracy. Some of those artists do not care about the piracy so much because they see it as another form of getting content out there while still bringing in some compensation from traditional distribution. Those artists realize that the current system is chaos and mostly just want to try to get what they can. For the most part, I think the artists just want to make sure that they can get their content to their audience and get compensated for it by the best possible means.
As previously stated, the distributors, consumers, and artists each have a role and interests they want to protect. The current system is obviously not suited to properly compensate for these interests, so until it does, piracy will grow.
One obvious factor of a new economic model is that distribution will be largely downsized. This means less jobs in distribution. However, we cannot expect to keep old systems in place simply because of employment. The music industry does not, for example, still widely produce phonographs because some factory workers would be out of jobs. Those workers had to find something else to do with skills they already had, educate themselves in another field, create another field, or starve.
I have some pet ideas on possible solutions to this whole conundrum which perhaps I will elaborate on in a future post. For now I am going let what I have written sink in and be up for others to possibly point out flaws in the reason or logic of what I have already said.
Comments
Post a Comment