[B5JMS] ATTN JMS: File Sharing, Sci-Fi TV and the art of motorcycle

[b5jms at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Derek Balling <dredd at megacity.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 02:34:41 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 156

    [ The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ]

    [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set.  ]

    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

> You mean, aside from the fact that it's massively illegal?

Legality and morality are not equal. There are places in this country
where it is illegal to marry someone whose levels of skin pigment are
different from your own. There are crappy laws just as there are crappy
things people do that are perfectly legal.

> I don't want to get too far into the "it's as if" part of this conversation,
> because in no time at all the conversation becomes about the metaphor instead
> of the thing itself...but to indulge that for just a moment....

You *say* you don't want to indulge in the metaphor, but you then
proceed to use the typical horribly flawed metaphor.

> Let's say you're a big fan of Jonathan Carroll (as am I).  You read all his
> books.  But instead of buying them, you know where there's a blind spot in
> your
> local bookstore where the mirrors can't catch you, so you just go in, grab his
> latest book, shove it in your bag, and leave.  Or, conversely, you borrow a
> copy from the library, go to the office where you work and can use the copy
> machine for free, photocopy the entire book and keep it.
> 
> You CAN do it, sure.  But does that make it right?

No, because you've deprived the store of that *physical property*. It's
no longer there for them to make money on. 

With someone downloading something, there is no "physical loss".

> The place of the artist in society is more fragile than most people really
> ever
> understand.  To stay with writers for a moment, only because I know that world
> a little better -- but with the understanding that this applies to acting and
> directing and other disciplines with equal appropriateness -- the average
> writer in prose earns about $3,000 to $5,000 per year.  They have to keep one
> or two other jobs to sustain them, and that amount is crucial to their being
> able to continue to write.

As an author of a published book, I can wholeheartedly back your
statement up. That's very true.

> [snip explanation of residuals]
> This individual -- and the actors, directors, others -- get nothing from
> internet downloads. 

But... wait... at the moment, that individual isn't getting *anything*
for US-based individuals. It's only treading on the *possibility* of
residuals. And, in actuality, there's a couple other factors:

   o  People who are so fanatic as to spend four hours downloading an
online version of a TV episode are also likely to be watching it again
anyway when it airs
   o  People who aren't that fanatic -- people who download it, watch
it, and then could care less about the actual television airing --
probably weren't going to watch it past the first run anyway. This is
important because the first-run of the show is pretty much a sure
thing. It's paid for, they're going to air it, you're going to get your
residual for that airing. Now, any future airings (and thus, future
residuals) are going to be based upon the network's belief that there
will be repeat viewers. But those people who stole it who "never
watched it the first time" were never going to be a contributor to the
residuals anyway.

In other words, the residuals argument is a red herring. The two main
classes of people who download the video are either (a) people who are
going to keep watching it whenever you air it because they're uberfans,
or (b) people who could get a wet slap about (n>1) viewings of the
show, and were never going to help with future residuals anyway.

Thus, downloaders have *zero* effect on residuals.

Then there's the DVD argument, the people who dupe the crap out of
DVDs. These fall into a couple categories as well:

o  People who dupe everything they can just to dupe everything they can.

   Any studio who believes that the people who have DVD-R collections
with 10,000 movies on them were *really really* going to actually PAY
FOR 10,000 discs need to have their heads examined. This is money the
studios *weren't going to see anyway*.

o  People who dupe individual titles that aren't available in their
market, or which are out of print

   In almost every case, these are people who would *happily* give
money to the studios, but the studios don't want the sale. Since the
product is not available for sale to them, this is - again - money the
studio was never going to see.

o  People who dupe individual titles that are locally available

   In my years, I have yet to meet anyone in this category of
downloaders. I'll admit that they must logically exist somewhere, but
in all my years of travel, I've yet to encounter one.

> So it seems to me an odd statement to say, "Boy, I really love this show, the
> writing, the acting, the directing, so much that I'm going to steal from the
> people who made it and hurt their income and possibly destroy their ability to
> tell more such stories in future, THAT'S how much of a fan I am."

But downloading the show *isn't* actually stealing. As shown above, it
isn't taking a penny from their pockets.

> The problem is that people don't like to be corrected, don't like to be told
> that they're doing something wrong.  They are defensive, and arrogant, and
> pushy, and they feel that the world should give them anything they want
> because they want it, period, and if anybody else has a problem with that, it's THEIR
> problem.

On the flip side of course, we have the studios, the guys who want to
tell me that if I want to watch the latest episode of Lost, which they
aired on TV for free, on my laptop while travelling across the country,
I've got to subject myself to three different levels of DRM to make
them happy.

For a product that they gave away for free over unencrypted and
unprotected airwaves.

> The technical term for these people is deadbeats.  The kind of guys who come
> to stay at your house for a weekend, end up staying for a month, eating your food
> without paying for it, using your car without sharing gas costs, and get
> pissed off when you ask that they share the burden.

I think I speak for many people when I say that's a load of shite.
First, you feel the need to fall back on the ever-flawed "consumption
metaphor", where your "deadbeat" consumes things which then prevent
their consumption by others.

Second, in many cases, these are people who *want* to give money to the
rightsholders. Who *want* to be viewing the program via "approved"
methods. But the rightsholders do stupid things, like say "well, we'll
only let people in North America view our content." 

If this was about "getting the rightsholders paid their due share" the
rightsholders would be bending over so far backwards that they could
kiss their ankles trying to get the data out there everywhere in
gazillions of formats, charging for all of them, and acknowledging that
the few remaining people who weren't willing to pay were people they
weren't going to get money from anyway because they're the type of
people who just don't pay for things. 

Except, of course, that's not the way the rightsholders behave, is it?
You can draw your own conclusions from that when trying to figure out
what it is the rightsholders *do* care about.

Your mileage may vary.

D



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:07:17 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 219

>Legality and morality are not equal.

No, not always.  But my point, to which you respond, is that it's illegal.  If
you want to argue morality, that's later down in the message.  (Actually, there
are values, mores and laws...the former two eventually morphing into the third.
 Just for any sociology students kicking around.)

>You *say* you don't want to indulge in the metaphor, but you then
>proceed to use the typical horribly flawed metaphor.

> You CAN do it, sure.  But does that make it right?
>
>No, because you've deprived the store of that *physical property*. It's
>no longer there for them to make money on. 
>
>With someone downloading something, there is no "physical loss".
>

Is the matter physical loss or financial loss?  For the writer, there is sure
as heck a physical loss in one fewer check that arrives.  And I would point out
that one of the two models I used did NOT result in physical loss, which takes
out your "horribly flawed" argument on the face of it.  Copying a book and
returning it does not remove the physical book...but most people who think
nothing of downloading a movie get a serious case of the ooks when copying a
whole book.  

So if you were saying the metaphor was false because it relied on physicality,
you're wrong on both relevant cases.

>But... wait... at the moment, that individual isn't getting *anything*
>for US-based individuals. It's only treading on the *possibility* of
>residuals. 

Not correct.  I don't even quite know what you're trying to say here.  Each
time an episode runs, the people who made it get a royalty.  So your point here
doesn't parse.


>People who are so fanatic as to spend four hours downloading an
>online version of a TV episode are also likely to be watching it again
>anyway when it airs

Please show your work here.  Do you have any figures at all to back this up, or
are you just pulling this out of your backside?  Because I've seen plenty of
people who've said, on boards, that they watched a given episode of Jeremiah on
download, and didn't watch it on broadcast.  That is anecdotal, yes, but so is
yours...please back it up or we'll have to dismiss this one.

>People who aren't that fanatic -- people who download it, watch
>it, and then could care less about the actual television airing --
>probably weren't going to watch it past the first run anyway.

And thus they are irrelvant to the discussion.

>This is
>important because the first-run of the show is pretty much a sure
>thing. 

No, it's not.  Where do you get this stuff?  Yes, it's a sure thing to
BROADCAST, sure, but any FUTURE airings or seasons are affected by ratings, and
ratings can be diminished if lots of people have already seen it on the nets.  

Case in point...I know that a lot of British fans didn't watch Jeremiah when it
got there because they'd seen the downloads.  (I know, I saw the discussions.) 
So now we have to parse between the original US broadcast and all the rest of
the world.

>Now, any future airings (and thus, future
>residuals) are going to be based upon the network's belief that there
>will be repeat viewers. But those people who stole it who "never
>watched it the first time" were never going to be a contributor to the
>residuals anyway.

You're simply not making any sense.  Their "belief that there will be repeat
viewers" is based on the NUMBER OF VIEWERS WHO TUNED IN.  If the net has cut
into that, then guess what, their computations are not going to be very
positive.

>In other words, the residuals argument is a red herring. 

No, it's not...if only because you are deliberately confining your argument to
the first broadcast of a given show, not the rest of the time it's on the air. 
You can't support the rest of your argument, so you try to limit it to the
first broadcast.  Residuals specifically refer to subsequent broadcasts.

>(a) people who are
>going to keep watching it whenever you air it because they're uberfans,

The only thing wrong with this is that it ain't so, and is unsupported by you
or anyone else.

>Thus, downloaders have *zero* effect on residuals.

Sorry, you can use "thus" all you want, but you haven't proven anything.  All
you're doing is throwing a lot of verbiage to defend your right to take
anything you want to take, whenever you want to take it.  

How is what you are doing, or defending, any different than going into a
library, borrowing a book, making a bunch of copies of the book for your
friends, and giving it away free?  It isn't.  Not in the smallest regard.  

Let me be straight: IT'S NOT YOURS.  Okay?  Are we clear on this?  The book is
not yours to duplicate for others because you can hold one copy in your hand
and photocopy it.  It's not your RIGHT to do so.  You are NOT a publisher, you
are NOT a distributer.  You can have what's yours, but you can NOT go around
making copies for other people or uploading it.

You mention morality...yeah, we all have competing moralities...but from my
moral persepctive, as well as the law, it's wrong, pal.  Pure and simple.  You
can dance around it all you want, but that's the core of it.  It's wrong, and
it's illegal, and it's theft.

Period.

>Then there's the DVD argument, the people who dupe the crap out of
>DVDs. These fall into a couple categories as well:
>
>o  People who dupe everything they can just to dupe everything they can.
>
>   Any studio who believes that the people who have DVD-R collections
>with 10,000 movies on them were *really really* going to actually PAY
>FOR 10,000 discs need to have their heads examined. This is money the
>studios *weren't going to see anyway*.
>

We're not talking about individuals duping 10,000 copies...we're talking about
individuals who digitize movies and TV eps and put them ON THE NET for 10,000
people to individually download.  If you're going to keep changing the
parameters of the discussion to make your case easier, we can't really have a
conversation, now can we?

>But downloading the show *isn't* actually stealing. As shown above, it
>isn't taking a penny from their pockets.
>

You have NOT s hown this, sorry.  And it IS stealing.  You don't want to THINK
of it as stealing because that would mean thinking of yourself as a thief, and
you don't like that...people don't like to be told when they're being bad, but
you can use all the soft language you want, it doesn't make it any less theft.

>On the flip side of course, we have the studios, the guys who want to
>tell me that if I want to watch the latest episode of Lost, which they
>aired on TV for free, on my laptop while travelling across the country,
>I've got to subject myself to three different levels of DRM to make
>them happy.

So it's okay to steal if it's from a big company?  Is that your moral position?
 And if you're talking about one ep which you digitized for your own purposes,
not for uploading, then again you're changing subjects to cloud the argument.

>For a product that they gave away for free over unencrypted and
>unprotected airwaves.
>

Yeah, she was wearing a short skirt, she deserved what she got.

>I think I speak for many people when I say that's a load of shite.
>First, you feel the need to fall back on the ever-flawed "consumption
>metaphor", where your "deadbeat" consumes things which then prevent
>their consumption by others.

What a narrow definition you have of theft..and again, you haven't shown it's
shite, or disproven the point.  When you cut into something that puts residuals
in the hands of artists, sorry,b ut that's a physical harm.

>Second, in many cases, these are people who *want* to give money to the
>rightsholders. Who *want* to be viewing the program via "approved"
>methods. But the rightsholders do stupid things, like say "well, we'll
>only let people in North America view our content." 

Stupid.  Really?  Studio A has the RIGHTS for North America ONLY.  So they make
a deal with a foreign distributer, sooner or later.  The foreign distributer
then -- wait for it -- pays the studio money which GOES TO THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE
THE SHOW.  That's the way the system WORKS.  It's not a "stupid thing," it's
each company having their own bite of the market.

>If this was about "getting the rightsholders paid their due share" the
>rightsholders would be bending over so far backwards that they could
>kiss their ankles trying to get the data out there everywhere in
>gazillions of formats, charging for all of them, and acknowledging that
>the few remaining people who weren't willing to pay were people they
>weren't going to get money from anyway because they're the type of
>people who just don't pay for things. 

But they can't because there's competing markets.  The studios have as many
arms in as many countries as they can, and where they have arms, they
distribute, which defeats your point.  Where they DON'T have arms or deals they
CAN'T distribute.  It's not like they come in offshore with pirate masks saying
"Arr, beger, here's our shows, matey."  They need to have someone in that other
country who will distribute it, or it can't be shown.

What part of that baffles you?

But the thing of it is...and this is the part that gets me...all your arguments
are very philsophical and self-congratulatory, but leaving aside entirely the
issue of legality (which is one hell of a lot to leave aside), and morality
(ditto), and physicality....

THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE THESE SHOWS, the people like those on Galactica who started
this conversation, people like me and others, the people you say you respect,
HAVE ASKED YOU TO STOP DOING IT...have been pleading with you, don't do
it...don't you understand that you are hurting the field, hurting jobs...this
isn't theoretical, this is the real, honest to god people who MAKE WHAT YOU SAY
YOU LIKE, asking you to PLEASE not do this.

And your message back to them is: fuck off, I do what I want.

Nice.  Real nice.

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)