i've been sanguine about music piracy because there's already 10x more awesome music out there than i'll ever hear. and 97% of it is created by people who do it to get laid and free beer from the local bar, not to get rich.
movies still a ways away from being creatable by a waiter in their offtime in their bedroom. at least the interesting kind.
i trust in corporations to get the necessary laws passed to outlaw the problematic hardware though.
The other thing to remember about music is that the artists really don't get very much money per album. The real money is in the live performances. Even if every album sold is pirated, if it gets them popular and selling those concert tickets, they're going to rake the money in.
I wouldn't be surprised if you're sued for putting up the information in this post, as well as every commenter and reader of the site. See the story about the guy who did the Beachles.
re: 2
That depends a lot on the band and the terms of their deal. Artists on indies with good deals or artists who have the sense to negotiate their deals properly and not chuck it all away on advances, huge recording bills and other recoupable stuff can make decent money. Although probably less than a lot of people might expect, I suppose.
And bands with big lineups can lose money or barely break even on tours.
But movies aren't really like music, in that for a lot of people, one viewing is all they need to get all the use they want.
I'm not sure this is the bang-up argument you seem to think it is. Can't you listen to stolen music more than once?
"But movies aren't really like music, in that for a lot of people, one viewing is all they need to get all the use they want. Thoughts?"
Speak for yourself;I have watched "Dogville" at least a dozen times. I have watched "Terminator" three times this summer;at least twice with full concentration. "On Demand", which is an indeterminate but small additional part of the cost for digital cable, with added content for each pay network (HBO) provides a significant library of movies available 24/7 for months to years. 15 Hitchcocks, including letterboxed "Vertigo" and "Psycho". I went digital, not by choice, several years ago, and I don't think a letterboxed "Belle de Jour" has ever not been an option at least once a week. I have probably watched at least part of it every month.
I kinda like the serendipity;and like being out of fashion and not driven to watch the latest releases.
There is way too much content out there, legally free or at miniscule cost..
Oh. And that's not to mention that the lady's TV has DVR or whatever. 50 gig of permanent storage with USB ports for unlimited additional storage. She watches "House" and "Lost" and whatever. I didn't want it. I don't need any more content.
97% of it is created by people who do it to get laid and free beer from the local bar, not to get rich.
This argument bugs me. The people who make music for fun generally wouldn't mind making some money for it (unless they're Angus MacLise). Mind you, I don't think this cuts in favor of the RIAA one bit, since the record companies are doing a much better job of ripping off musicians than music pirates ever could; it's more of a protest against the ideas that clubs and record companies shouldn't have to pay musicians a decent amount of money. (Eugene Chadbourne's I Hate the Man Who Runs This Bar has some interesting stuff on this, especially IIRC in the section on the "Fishing Hole," where he mentions that the musicians get a lot of different kinds of pleasure out of this and the bar owner mostly gets the pleasure of counting the money.)
And I've scabbed here too, I've played music (of a sort) for little or no money when the audience was paying, which makes me part of the problem. I think it's complicated, since people do often like playing in their spare time and will be happy to play in public without being able to make a living at it. But it's not benign if no one ever gets paid for music. Again, I don't think the RIAA is on the side of good here.
About the one viewing, couldn't you view the hacked WMV more than once? I'd think the difference would be that with movies all people want is seeing the particular movie that they've seen, it'd be less common for people to watch a movie exploratorily and be inspired to buy/go out to see other related movies. If that claim is true.
One difference might be that music comes in songs and songs come on CDs, which you can buy, whereas if you've seen the movie you've seen the whole product.
I actually don't quite understand the drive for new content;spent an hour last night at the Valve going over 4 lines from W Shakespeare's "Cymbeline". The world is way too big.
Sure, movie's are good for only one view. But VCRs created this problem decades ago -- you could get a tape,copy it, distribute it -- and yet themovie industry, somehwo survived, even thrived, having some of its best box offices after the widespread introduction of the VCR.
Sure, give tom the credit, even though I already mentioned this in the original unbox thread.
couldn't you view the hacked WMV more than once?
Yeah, of course. I see now that I was totally unclear in the post. Generally, when I listen to something pirated, I put the first listen in the "trying it out" category, and subsequent listens in the "stolen" category. I don't like the "stolen" feeling, so if I have something I'm going to listen to repeatedly, I buy it. Movies aren't really like that because, the mcmanuses of the world aside, most people don't require subsequent viewings, so they don't get that "stolen" feeling to prod them to buy it.
I suspect that the feelings you describe are not widespread enough to have a major impact on the market.
I actually get it on the first viewing. I have no problem pirating copius amounts of music, but for some reason I never got comfortable with even a "trying it out" viewing of pirated film. Netflix has genuinely been a godsend.
The repeated listenings thing does explain why you might expect libraries to have less of an impact on music sales than on book and movie sales. I was going to say that I've often bought CDs after borrowing them from the library, but come to think of it that's true of books as well. In fact I'm more likely to buy a book new after borrowing it from the library. Just forget I said anything, OK?
Hey, I didn't remember that I had Pink Floyd's Animals on CD!
In fact I'm more likely to buy a book new after borrowing it from the library.
Gosh, I wonder why that might be?
I think 13 is wrong; otherwise people wouldn't buy DVDs. But they buy DVDs constantly, when it would be just as easy to simply rent them once.
Re. Unbox's hackable WMV file, that's what you get when you're trying to beat Apple by pushing out some crappy knockoff version of whatever they're planning to put out in a couple of months, after they've made sure they've done it right.
I don't understand 17. Perhaps I should spell out what I meant by the quoted sentence: The probability that I buy a CD new, given that I have borrowed the CD from the library and that I then buy it new or used, is less than the probability that I buy a book used, given that I have borrowed the book from the library and that I then buy it new or used.
Anyway, Ben, have a good drown, as you go down, all alone, dragged down by the stone.
At least, if not using iTunes 6.
Here is what I understood 16 to say:
1. I've often bought CDs after borrowing them from the library, in spite of what foolish people might believe.
2. I've done this with books too.
3. In fact, I'm more likely to buy a book after checking it out from the library than I am to buy that same book, unread.
17 was meant to be an expression of unsurprise—I'm the same way and I think a lot of others are as well. I see now that 3 isn't really what you meant, but I chalk that up to poor phrasing on your part.
21/23: I'm talking about their planned movie download thingie, not music.
I chalk that up to poor phrasing on your part.
Fair.
I'm pretty sure your intended reading is not true of me for all book sales—in fact often I'll buy a book because it's not in my local library—but it may be true of new nonacademic book sales.
I'm talking about their planned movie download thingie, not music
I'm sure Apple's movie downloads will prove as impossible to hack as their music downloads.
Okay, fine. I've not learned how to hack their music downloads, but that's mostly because I refuse to buy things from iTunes. Because I'm fucking cheap.
What is the world coming to when a bitch can't even make a completely unsupported attempt to start a PC v. Mac war? Hmph.
Apple makes iTunes, and probably will make their movie download thing, available for PCs as well, and Amazon is Amazon.
The point is, Amazon's download thing is only available to PC users, which always annoys Mac people.
Does knowing that Wal-Mart is pressuring studios not to make downloaded movies available for prices below DVD prices affect anyone's thoughts on this subject?
(From the estimable Ezra Klein )
It makes me think even more that Wal-Mart sux.
It makes me think how could that not be anticompetitive behavior? Perhaps it's legal, but it surely shouldn't be.
If we are assuming that having a monopoly, a trust, or a monopsony is legal, as it seems to be nowadays, then virtually anything that any business will do falls into the category of either A) engaging in anticompetitive behavior, or B) going out of business.
I disagree. Calvin Trillin has a piece about the premium ice cream wars, in which Haagen-Dazs tried to put Ben & Jerry's out of business by refusing to supply stores that stocked B&J. This was anticompetitive monopoly behavior because it interfered with the relationship bewteen two other parties, IIRC. (The legal issue was whether H-D had a monopoly; the ruling was that they did, since premium ice cream was a separate market from ice cream in general, and H-D had more than the required share of that market.)
What Wal-Mart is doing strikes me as no different. They're not using their monopsony power to offer lower prices or to buy at lower prices, they're using it to damage anyone who deals with a third party on terms they don't like. It's obvious that this deprives consumers of the benefits that a free market theoretically yields.
It likely isn't illegal to pressure studios to not supply digital versions to other suppliers cheaper than they supply DVDs to walmart. Walmart can say they are just tring to negotiate the best price.
Does Wal-mart deal in consumer electronics as I think they do? Because if so, they could reasonably expect to sell more iPods if movies were available on them for cheap. Right?
Microsoft has already released a critical patch for the WMV exploit. It was particularly remarkable because Microsoft caught flack not too long ago for moving to a slower, monthly patch schedule instead of their previous policy of just releasing fixes as soon as they became available. So security vulnerabilities on customers' machines can now linger. But when DRM and, therefore, partners' revenue streams are threatened? Surprise surprise, Microsoft hopped to it.
This shouldn't be interpreted as permanently fixing the WMV-cracking problem; those committed to it will just refuse to install the patch. There's also a strong possibility that pirates will release packs of rolled-back DLLs that let you install the crack software. But the average consumer with auto-update on will now find that the WMV-cracking software no longer works.