Learning To Profit From Piracy

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Wired has an interview with Matt Mason, author of The Pirate's Dilemma: How Youth Culture Is Reinventing Capitalism, which discusses how businesses could make money off of piracy, rather than attacking people in a futile attempt to suppress it. And some of his ideas are gaining traction; work is underway on a TV show called Pirate TV, which he describes as 'two parts Anthony Bourdain, one part Mythbusters.' (Heroes executive producer Jesse Alexander is on board.) Also, Mason is pretty good about practicing what he preaches in that you can pirate his book on his own website."

Pirates Attacking People??

Arrr, we know you're 'ere, poppet!!

Article summary

1. Steal doubloons
2. ???
3. Profit!

It's not piracy if it's OK

You are not pirating his book if he picks a license that allows you to copy. Otherwise he is being the pirate, by making available a copyright work.

Re:It's not piracy if it's OK

If it's his own property, placing it online with the intent that you download it probably creates a license. Just because it's not in writing doesn't mean it's not enforceable. And regardless of that, putting it online with the intent that you download it precludes any claim that your downloading it is piracy.

He's definitely practicing one thing that he preaches, though: Finding a way to profit from piracy. In his case, he's profiting by capitalizing on the media attention that talking about copyright piracy gets. If he makes even one dollar, he's profited more from piracy than I have, so I'll give him that.

it could still be piracy

if you make him walk the plank after you read it.

Re:it could still be piracy

if you make him walk the plank after you read it.

Omfg I clicked overrated rather than funny.. I'm so sorry.. (Posting to undo moderation .. ha!)

Re:it could still be piracy

This gets my vote as post of the year. I do not believe I've ever seen anyone. Ever. be polite on slashdot.

Carry on.

Re:Anti-Piracy license!!

1994 to the rescue!!

"If you don't send this book to two of your friends and eleven of your enemies, you will be eaten by the Open Source Version of a Grue".

Re:Anti-Piracy license!!

It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a GNU?

Nitpick

Also, Mason is pretty good about practicing what he preaches in that you can pirate his book on his own website

I dislike the use of the vague and slanted term "pirate" in place of the more exact "copyright infringement".

But the use in the summary is even worse. If he's freely offering the content, then those who download it are not pirating (even by the inaccurate, though generally-used, definition). Then are downloading it with permission.

(It's like someone giving out free food samples at a grocery store, and then saying "go ahead, steal another.")

Re:Nitpick

If you read the article, he's using the word "piracy" in place of the more correct term "network effect". Redistribution is a secondary effect of P2P protocols, if it were a straight download the infringer would be the distributor while the "pirate" is the individual who first ripped and uploaded the "loot".

These things were expressed clearly over 5 years ago, the reason "pirates" don't like him is because he comes over like some PR shill employing reverse psychology. It's either deliberate or he doesn't "get it", which would extend to reading and understanding relevant work in the field.

Re:Nitpick

The problem with the terminology is that words like "theft" and "steal" (which gain merit from the word "piracy," as this was one thing sea pirates did) are deliberately used by the powers that be to confuse people into thinking that the infringement of copyright carries exactly the same consequences as shoplifting or other deprivation of physical property. Only a moron would believe that you can receive spam (the food) through e-mail.

Re:Nitpick

"confuse people into thinking that the infringement of copyright carries exactly the same consequences as shoplifting or other deprivation of physical property"

As it stands, you'd get in less trouble for stealing a CD then copyright infringement

I repudiated copyright, and recommend others do it

I've produced a few bands' records, and asked them to repudiate copyright on their tracks. 2 of them have, and they've skyrocketed the amount of fans that come to shows (in the thousands, on their last tour), and the amount of personalized merchandise they sell. Anything easily duplicated is called "advertising" or "marketing." You don't charge others to receive a show flyer (which could take a few hours to design, plus hours to print and many hours to distribute), so why charge for music?

I repudiated copyright on all my writings over a decade ago. My blogs let others take the content I created, and republish it as their own if they want. The two e-books I've written also are freely distributed, with a request for $20 in the final chapter if the books help them.

My business newsletter used to cost over $1000 per year, but now it is free, and I tell others to photocopy it or email the PDF out to others. It generates traffic for my websites, and it also builds reputation to my expanding customer base.

I see no reason for copyright any longer. For items that are costlier to create (TV shows, movies), product placement is a fine way to profit from the distribution of the product. Subscriptions also can work, just like a chapter-by-chapter written blook that continues as people fund the author's writing.

Those who hold onto the statist idea of intellectual property will be left behind. They'll find their market swamped by amateurs with the same amount of talent, and with more drive to distribute their creations as artists always have.

I like this idea, and I recommend others consider going that route when they create content that is easily duplicated. To support it, there are always ways to create value added items (t-shirts, in-person signings or shows, etc).

Re:I repudiated copyright, and recommend others do

For items that are costlier to create (TV shows, movies), product placement is a fine way to profit from the distribution of the product.

"Mommy.. why is Gandolf drinking a coke?"

"Never mind, dear."

Re:I repudiated copyright, and recommend others do

And cinematic gems like this one:

Elrond: The ring must be destroyed. It must be cast into the fires of Mordor whence it was forged! The path will be long and treacherous, but with the aid of Google Maps, you may find your way.
Aragorn: We will need supplies for our journey. Doritos, to replenish our strength. Adidas, to outrun the Nazgul. Skittles, that we may taste the rainbow of victory. A Honda, to travel long distances with above-average fuel efficiency.
Elrond: And these you shall receive.

Re:I repudiated copyright, and recommend others do

The wisdom in this probably depends on which one or more of the following are your "product":
1. Recordings of your music
2. Merchandise with your logo on it
3. Attendance at your live performances
4. Promotion of other products (for instance, Miley Cyrus's music is mostly about getting you to watch her on TV and buy her lunch boxes)

For a music act whose real product is #3, giving away #1 counts as advertising. For an act whose real product is #1, giving it away, including giving up copyright protection of it, is bad management. It really does depend on your product and the market for it. That said, I wish more music acts considered live music to be their product and everything else to be promotion of the same.

Re:I repudiated copyright, and recommend others do

...we're not going to have time for many live performances, while recording can even be done long distance.

I'm not trying to be snarky here, and I'm also a musician who has played in a few bands and even recorded a few albums, but here's the thing: if you're not willing or able to put in the time to gig, maybe you don't deserve to make money at it.

You see, too many people think that just because they created something, they deserve to be paid for it. That's simply not true. Being in a band should be a job, not just something you do for a few weeks or months and then expect to sit back and let the royalty money flow in for the rest of your life.

You have every right to try to make money off your music. However, if it doesn't work, then too bad. Nobody owes you just because you decided to record an album.

Re:I repudiated copyright, and recommend others do

I see you're falling into the trench of "I have it figured out for $medium, therefore copyright is moot." Unfortunately, not everything falls under those banners.

For items that are costlier to create (TV shows, movies), product placement is a fine way to profit from the distribution of the product.

And what about movies or TV shows where such product placement would be horribly out of place? A medieval movie with GM/GE/Pepsi placements? Hell even my favorite hobby, anime, was getting into it with Code Geass, which was packed FULL of Pizza Hut ads which were distracting and ended up being the butt of jokes there were so many.

Subscriptions also can work, just like a chapter-by-chapter written blook that continues as people fund the author's writing.

I recall Stephen King trying this and giving up.

Those who hold onto the statist idea of intellectual property will be left behind.

Or they'll give up, when they find that they can't recoup the costs of production, much less make a profit.

They'll find their market swamped by amateurs with the same amount of talent, and with more drive to distribute their creations as artists always have.

You can't eat drive and talent (well you can, but it's considered anti-social...) I don't see people making entire movies and TV series that they just toss up on the internet unless they've got some greater source of funding to ensure they won't go broke in the process.

To support it, there are always ways to create value added items (t-shirts, in-person signings or shows, etc).

Which is pointless, since if you repudiate the copyright on your works (ALL of your works) then someone else might as well hang at your shows and sell knockoffs of what you're selling. And signings have limited effectiveness beyond single authors/bands, I'd like to see how you would fund the creation of an entire TV series with that.

Copyright is a very effective tool to allow for the creation of easily duplicated works without sticking it to the creators and essentially punishing them for making the investment. It needs to be reworked and it needs respect. However, the internet audience is extremely insular, rude, and just as selfish and greedy as the MPAA/RIAA (and member companies) when it comes to these things.

Re:I repudiated copyright, and recommend others do

And the Red Hot Chili Peppers shouldn't give their music away for free either

That's not related at all to Stephen King's attempt. He tried doing the suggested pay-by-chapter method where readers could optionally pay if they liked it, and it ended up being a waste of his time. I don't know if he bothered to wrap the novel up and publish it the regular way or just gave up on it.

And I never said they shouldn't give their music away for free, that's entirely -their- call. My issue is with the OPs suggestion that they repudiate their copyright, which is needless self-punishment that opens the door for someone else to make use of it without ever acknowledging the source (thus defeating the point of said "promotion" entirely.)

For people who are already extremely successful in the traditional methods, they're not going to see the same amount of money using this new technique.

On the contrary, they are the only ones who will likely see any sort of success from it as the hard part, promotion, is already paid for. Everyone knows who Radiohead is, so people flocked in server crushing numbers to their website for their new album. However for new artists like the one you linked, it'll give him goodwill among small circles but it doesn't have nearly the punch as getting on the radio (another jar of worms) or your music on some movie soundtrack (which is what the giant labels do.)

And again, releasing one's music has nothing to do with OPs suggestion of releasing without copyright. Said movie studio will just have some famous name cover your song and leave you out to dry.

Free != Piracy

If he is such a strong believer in piracy, why is he allowing users to download it for free? Shouldn't he force them to pay for a DRM version while he secretly leaks a free torrent on the side? Now THAT would be hardcore.

Couldn't download it, must pirate it now!

So I tried to download the book from the website right, it has an initial value of $5.00 but you can set the price to whatever you want. I set it to $0.00 as I like to "try before I buy." But unfortunately, the "free download" amount has reached it's limit for the day and I was told to try again the following day.

So, for those of you wondering how you can pirate a free book... if I get it in a torrent, well there you go.

But on the other hand, some people like myself can't escape the pirate label, since my great grandfather was in fact a pirate. It's like like the geico commercials, "so easy a cave man can do it."

:P

emerging black markets and working business models

Black markets emerge for commodity goods when there are significant discrepancies between marginal costs and market price. This is exactly the case for digital entertainment media, where technology has eliminated the ability of major media producers to (technically) control the means of distribution of their product, and the marginal cost of distribution is orders of magnitude less than the price to legally buy the good. The development of the black market / piracy is expected in this case.

But - there is a middle ground. There is not just "selling media" vs. "pirating media"...

We have built LegalTorrents to get around the "dilemma" we have a working business model that both incorporates emerging technology and ALSO provides financial supports to Content Creators. The answer is simple: give away what you can't control, and provide value when customers choose to pay.

All the media we host can be downloaded without paying for it, but Content Creators can ask for Sponsorship - voluntary payments. Why would a user pay for media they can get with out paying for it? The answer is give them more: Give them more. Give public credit and community props for those users who pay for the media they love. Give them access to the Content Creators. Give them extra material not easily found online. Give them early access to concerts, private events, etc. Enable the Content Creator to build up a community around their work that is available for those users who pay to support it.

Re:And the price of everything goes up...

You seem to be confusing "produce art" with "make a living". That's a common fallacy. Artists have never been guaranteed a living solely on the basis of the art they produced. Many famous painters, composers, etc. have died as paupers even when they were famous in their own time.

For what it's worth, in a capitalist system nobody else is guaranteed a living for what they do either. You might be the world's best Parcheesi player but I doubt you could make a living doing just that.

Re:Screw the pirates

In college the biggest pirates I knew were the guys who had enough money to buy most of what they got illegally.

They may have been *able* to pay, but how do you know they *would* have paid? This is the thing - you can't prove that a download is a lost sale any more than you can prove all the people that take free newspapers handed out at the station in the morning are depriving the broadsheets of sales. There simply isn't a 1-to-1 substitution going on. If it's there for free, most people will take it. But if it wasn't for free a great many would never bother to pay in the first place because it's not as if music (or news) is essential.

If the music and movie industries are so bad, stop downloading their shit. Ignore them, make them irrelevant. I swear, it's like a bunch of rich kids crying about exploitation, while they shop at the Gap and A&F.

Er, by your own logic, I think they ARE ignoring the music and movie industries. They are instead paying attention to the artists. Can you see the difference?