SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the you-wouldn't-download-a-speech dept.
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
The entertainment industries are growing increasingly frustrated with major Internet platforms that, in their view, are not doing enough to tackle online piracy.
This was also the topic of a speech given by MPAA chief Charles Rivkin, during the TPI Aspen Forum yesterday.
[...] "I want to address one of the most vibrant and interconnected ecosystems in human history. That, of course, is the internet. And as we meet, the healthy and vibrant internet that we all want is in serious jeopardy," Rivkin says.
[...] While the complaints about Internet piracy are not new, the MPAA ties piracy in with more recent debates about fake news, election meddling, and hate speech. From Cambridge Analytica to Infowars.
Rivkin calls for a national conversation on how to return the Internet to a place of vibrant but civil discourse. A place where fake news, hate speech, and piracy are properly dealt with.
Eventually, this leads the MPAA's boss to Silicon Valley. Rivkin sees a major role for Internet platforms to do more to stop piracy and other types of abuse. If that doesn't happen voluntarily, the US Government could step in, he suggests
[...] The widespread problem of online piracy is a sign of worse to come, the MPAA chief suggests.
"Online piracy is also the proverbial canary in a coal mine. The same pervasive theft that my industry faces is part of a continuum of toxic developments that harm all of us in this ecosystem – consumers, creators, and commercial operators alike," he says.
In his speech, Rivkin refers to the "broken windows" theory to illustrate his point. This theory suggests that an atmosphere of lawlessness is created when small crimes are left unpunished. Seeing broken windows in the streets makes it more likely that others will start vandalizing as well.
Source: https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-is-the-internets-canary-in-the-coal-mine-mpaa-chief-says-180821/
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday August 26 2018, @10:30PM (3 children)
First off, the meanings of words change. Deal with it. "Piracy" is now understood by the vast majority of people who know anything about copyright to refer to copyright infringement.
And also, uh... this usage is not new [etymonline.com]. In fact, the meaning of taking another's work without permission dates back to the early 1700s.
Well, that's all well and good, but in the meantime, your "protest" (or whatever you want to call it) isn't really hurting those who made the bad laws at all. It's disrespecting content creators since 1989 -- not just the executives either, but the actual artists.
Now, I know the typical pro-pirate (yep, I'm using that word -- deal with it) reply: "Most piracy is not lost sales." Absolutely true. But it does represent SOME lost sales. I don't think any reasonable person (and anyone who has ever pirated a few things) can dispute that there are SOME things they might have paid for if they were required to. And yes, illegal copying can help to "spread the word" in some cases, which can create more popular interest and lead to profits for artists.
BUT -- according to copyright law -- the choice to do that (e.g., to share some content for free) is within the artist's choice, not yours to make for them.
Look, I'm not going to defend lawmakers who changed these laws. I've already explicitly condemned them. And I'm not going to defend studio execs who profit off of other's labor while lobbying elected officials to create those laws.
BUT again, there are lots of people who get paid royalties, and the vast majority of them get only a small amount. Your stance is that the don't get anything because they're stuck in a corrupt system. And I'm not just talking about people whom you might say, "Huh, you should just go independent -- and choose your own terms! Distribute your own way!" It's not just writers and producers... it's gaffers and sound engineers and editing assistants, etc., many of whom need to make a living. Many of them may not get royalties if they're far enough down the food chain, but they get paid based on royalties that were made on the previous movie or album or whatever.
I want you to look those people in the eye and explain why you don't think they deserve to be paid, even though you apparently like the content they make enough to take it without their permission.
There are ways to lodge a more reasonable protest. I consume very little "mainstream" media from Hollywood or major recording labels or whatever. I wouldn't say I boycott them completely, but the last time I was in a movie theater to see anything made by a major studio was several years ago.
Instead, what you're doing is saying, "The system is corrupt; therefore it justifies my lawlessness." And that's your choice. I'm not judging you if you want to just say, "I don't care about creators or whatever -- I just want MY STUFF, so I will TAKE what I WANT and screw them!" It's not an ethical choice, but it's at least consistent.
But you seemingly want to pretend you have an ethical and moral rationale that supports your piracy. You don't. You're mad at Congress for passing unjust laws, so you take it out on a different party. That's not justice -- nor is it good logic.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday August 26 2018, @10:38PM (1 child)
Also, if you want to see what moral protests look like, as well as ethical uses of civil disobedience, you might have a look at stuff like Thoreau and Martin Luther King and Ghandi discussing civil disobedience. You protest an unjust law by targeting that law in particular.
Yet I suspect that despite your claims to the contrary, even if everything created in 1989 and before went into public domain tomorrow, you'd still want to pirate a bunch of stuff. Right? Be honest. Isn't that true?
(Lastly, I should note that I think we need more significant copyright reform too. I don't know the 1790 act could be workable anymore either. But arguing for copyright reform is different from arguing for lawlessness and punishing creators who didn't make the laws.)
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 30 2018, @05:51AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 30 2018, @05:39AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves