PDA

View Full Version : Ethics, BSG, the Internet and You



Solai
November 5th, 2007, 02:08 PM
Let me start this discussion by cutting to the chase:


I do not support nor condone illegal activities.

I cannot speak for the administrators of this board, but I don't think it is a stretch to say they would agree.

The purpose of this thread is to acknowledge the current state of the internet, its potential, its problems and how we address them as fans and as consumers.

So let me begin. I downloaded Razor this weekend. I will not be cute about this fact, nor will I attempt to hide the event with hyperbole. I have never downloaded a movie or television show (outside of Itunes) before, but after seeing a note in Wikipedia that the movie was available I did some research and after a few false attempts got it.

Now I have it sitting on my laptop and I have started to think about the impact of this action. I can rationalize my downloading it by knowing I am not a Nielsen family...it would be irrelevant if I watched the movie when it gets broadcast. I fully intend on purchasing a copy of the DVD when it is released...and this makes me feel ok.

However, I know I am an ethical person. I am sure there are those who do not feel this way, who feel that content is content and if they can get their hands on it they will do so and never, ever pay for it.

This thought gains new resonance with the current writer's strike. The Writers are fighting for their right to a proper piece of the pie out there in "new media". If I were a lesser person I would not buy the DVD of Razor and continue on my merry way...meaning all of the actors, producers, writers etc would not get the money they deserve.

What really gets me is this: If Razor is available online and anyone who wants it can download it, how will the ratings on its air date properly reflect the audience? I don't think there can be any answer besides, "They can't" Razor being out there will impact the numbers and create the wrong impression about BSG's popularity.

So what do you think? I am curious if I am alone with my slight guilt. Do you rationalize the act of downloading content (audio, video, etc) for free? Do you take the attitude that it is the owner's responsibility to ensure proper governance of their content?

I look forward to an insightful discussion. If Chuck, Audra or Sean feel this is inappropriate I totally understand if they remove this thread.

Magnus
November 5th, 2007, 02:16 PM
Downloading tv shows is little different from using a VCR. I don't live in the US, so most of the time we have to wait for months for tv shows. So for me, it's more like I have a friend record a tv show and send it to me. I can't see too many having a problem with that. It would be difficult to keep up with GWC, I'd have to listen to it on a delay of a couple of weeks

On the subject of the razor leak, that's a bit of a greyer area. But I can't see what harm I am doing watching it a couple of weeks early

wubwub
November 5th, 2007, 02:29 PM
What really gets me is this: If Razor is available online and anyone who wants it can download it, how will the ratings on its air date properly reflect the audience? I don't think there can be any answer besides, "They can't" Razor being out there will impact the numbers and create the wrong impression about BSG's popularity.

Every single non-Neilson-Family person could watch the show, but if the Neilsons don't, the ratings will tank. So unless you happen to be a member of the Neilson families, downloading and watching it has no impact on the ratings due to the weirdly distorted "rating system" in use in the US.

On the other hand, it is possible that your download could actually increase the ratings. You could watch the show before air date and rave about it so much that you convince an anonymous Neilson rater to watch it and thus increase its ratings.

Your positive experience with the download watch could also encourage others to download and watch it, which further increases the chance that a Neilson rater will get positive reactions and thus watch it.

So IMHO, so long as you do "come clean" and buy the DVD, downloading it has a slightly positive outcome.


This is not meant to condone download and watching, just to condemn the broken rating system in the US.

Pike
November 5th, 2007, 02:30 PM
This is quite topical, what with the writers striking for a bigger piece of the DL pie, and NBC setting up thier own walled garden for streaming vids with commercials.

I think ultimately they'll have to come up with a way to monetize free downloads (eg, by selling the bug in the corner that now says "SciFi")

Solai
November 5th, 2007, 02:35 PM
This is not meant to condone download and watching, just to condemn the broken rating system in the US.

Well spoke. I agree with many of your points. It could turn into a net gain for the network. In fact...there is quite an interesting parallel out there

American Gangster (http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1573208/20071031/story.jhtml) bootleg DVDs hit the street 1 week before the movie opened. The movie opened at 43 million...a huge weekend. One could argue that perhaps that number would have been much higher if the dvds weren't out there...but I don't know, that is a significant opening weekend gross. Perhaps it is the other way around...you seed the viewership, get word of mouth out there by those who get it early and start talking it up.

[/conspiracy mode on]

...could this be a new Hollywood strategy?

[/conspiracy mode off]

Pike
November 5th, 2007, 02:42 PM
[/conspiracy mode on]

...could this be a new Hollywood strategy?

[/conspiracy mode off]

In some cases, it is. More often, it's TV Shows that are 'leaked' by their creators hoping to get word of mouth going. (I think Torchwood did that.)

darthweef
November 5th, 2007, 04:07 PM
I think the last "movie" i downloaded was revenge of the sith..

I justified that because Lucas has enough money ... just kidding. I did however, buy all three of the new episodes of Star Wars, even though the first two sucked, and I bought them twice (since no DVD comes out in only one version)... so I think I have done my penance for that particular crime...


I look at it the same way I look at software piracy.. It is NEVER EVER OK to take someones work and use it in a way that it was not intended .. It is stealing. Period. Black and White? Sure. Unreasonable? Maybe, but as a software developer, nothing pisses me off more then when I hear someone say "I can get you that app for free, why buy it?"...

I see what you all are saying about the ratings system (which is single handedly responsible for the demise of some our best TV shows ever) but look at it from another standpoint.

Advertisers buy ads based on projections of viewers. So, if razor gets out, and it becomes obvious that a LARGE portion of the BSG fan base out there has already seen it, then what stops them from pulling their ads... or requesting ad space in a different time slot.

I will tell you what will kill a TV show faster then poor ratings, and that is lack of advertising.

The solution is not trying to prevent people from releasing, or downloading stuff from the net.
(cue bald kid : "Do not try and bend the spoon, for that is impossible")

The solution is for hollywood to pull their head out, and realize that "THERE IS NO FRACKING SPOON!"... (OK someone put the bald kid away). Hollywood needs to be beating these people to the punch and releasing content themselves to the net. iTunes is one GREAT way to do this.. The networks are finally getting smart and putting their shows online (with ads) .

When high-quality content is available online, people will more readily "invest" money or time (watching ads) to get the higher quality then get the for free garbage that is out there.. (although the quality has improved considerably over the last couple of years)

Anyway - what's my point, you ask?

If someone works hard to create, and you appreciate that creation, then show enough respect to view it the way it was intended to be viewed, and show enough respect to help compensate that person for their work...

Armando
November 5th, 2007, 04:59 PM
Solai, this is an old article, but it addresses some of your concerns:

http://www.mindjack.com/feature/piracy051305.html

As for my opinion, well, I feel like you. I downloaded "Razor," although because of a software incompatibility I have not been able to watch it. It's no skin off my back, as I plan to watch it when it airs regardless AND purchase the DVD sometime after its release (though likely not immediately). Still, as a creative artist who makes a small part of his living off royalties (okay, okay, it comes down to extra cash that goes into savings every year. No huge amount, but this past year and the next two it's a nice and very welcome chunk of change) and who feels pretty strongly about keeping ownership of his product (I haven't even seriously pursued any publishers for fear of having to give up half of my copyright on my work, let alone pursued commercial recordings, which I simply cannot afford anyway), I'm hesitant to engage in such practices. That said, the business model for media distribution is changing rapidly and the law and commerce are not catching up as quickly as the technology is changing. Eventually this will change, especially as media companies become more savvy about the changing formats and economic models. (Which is another reason, other than the obvious funding ones, that I have not pursued getting a recording together too vigurously: I simply don't know what the most viable format for getting my music to people will be. CDs are still used, but they're becoming harder to find, especially of contemporary classical music, other than online, where you have to know what you're looking for to get it. Downloads seem more viable, commercially, but offer a slightly lower audio quality than CDs and don't offer the nice package that a record does. And either way, the composer gets bupkis in royalties for recorded music, much like writers get bupkis on DVD sales. Hence, the strike.)

Pike
November 5th, 2007, 05:26 PM
Armando, nice find. The lecture version of that article (which I got as a torrent!) is where I got that "bug" idea. I'm surprised nobody has done that yet.

The Alpaca Herder
November 5th, 2007, 05:56 PM
Armando, nice find. The lecture version of that article (which I got as a torrent!) is where I got that "bug" idea. I'm surprised nobody has done that yet.

See: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/02/bofh_episode_37/print.html

Such is not safe for BoxeyTheBoxed yet is a great bit of fun.

gafra
November 5th, 2007, 06:10 PM
Solai, my attitude to this is one more of rebelling against the current broadcasters of BSG than anything else.

Let it be known that I have never downloaded a copy of any show illegally. But I am so, SOOOO sorely tempted...

The current "owners" of the current BSG series in Australia do not broadcast it in a reasonable time frame. They have had S3 for months and have given no indication when, or if, they will ever screen it. Lords know when, if ever, Razor will screen. When it suits them they will "fasttrack" (ie stream) material for shows they wish to promote, however at the moment we have a flood of reality shows that, literally, rot the brain. iTunes will not download US content in Australia either so that option is also out. SciFi is in it's infancy in Australia,. broadcasting repeats of BSG s1 and S2 as well as dipping into the bin of Star Trek reruns. The only saving grace is episodes of Firefly but I refuse to subscribe for one show only.

This is why I picked up an illegal copy of BSG S3 while on holiday in Thailand and had no qualms about doing it. Internet downloading is much the same. Quite simply, if Aussie commercial stations wish to retain viewers (the public that views the advertisements they screen), then they must come to the startling realisation that there are alternative means by which we can view the shows we want. As the concepts and techniques of internet downloads become more widely known and accepted in the general public, we may start to see more reaction from the actual owners of some of these shows.

My preference IS to watch on free to air. Downloading and watching copy discs does not give the same picture quality as the original screening. But if the consequence of watching a broadcast is a 12-18 month wait then...sorry, I'll vote with my feet and watch what I choose when I choose.

Broadcasters, YOU have the power to prevent illegal downloads. Simply broadcast within a reasonable timeframe and downloading will disappear.

gaf.

The Alpaca Herder
November 5th, 2007, 07:11 PM
Let me start this discussion by cutting to the chase:


I do not support nor condone illegal activities.

I cannot speak for the administrators of this board, but I don't think it is a stretch to say they would agree.

This is a good thing. I can support that statement, it appears.


The purpose of this thread is to acknowledge the current state of the internet, its potential, its problems and how we address them as fans and as consumers.

This is a tremendous issue. I do think in more than one respect that this requires quite a bit of research. If anything I would imagine much of the discussion that has popped up in the realm of librarianship is probably applicable to this. The only problem is that it has a very interesting jargon that makes it hard for even some practitioners to understand.


So let me begin. I downloaded Razor this weekend. I will not be cute about this fact, nor will I attempt to hide the event with hyperbole. I have never downloaded a movie or television show (outside of Itunes) before, but after seeing a note in Wikipedia that the movie was available I did some research and after a few false attempts got it.

Now I have it sitting on my laptop and I have started to think about the impact of this action. I can rationalize my downloading it by knowing I am not a Nielsen family...it would be irrelevant if I watched the movie when it gets broadcast. I fully intend on purchasing a copy of the DVD when it is released...and this makes me feel ok.

The problem is DVDs themselves. Razor's success is dependent upon people sitting down and watching the ads that come with the show. Advertising revenue is often far bigger than the revenue derived from DVD sales. Going out to pick up a DVD of Razor on or after December 4th is not an effective act akin to that one might undertake in something like carbon off-setting.


However, I know I am an ethical person. I am sure there are those who do not feel this way, who feel that content is content and if they can get their hands on it they will do so and never, ever pay for it.

Take a look at these thoughts from the American Library Association relative to some practices within that profession: http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/codeofethics/codeethics.htm

Item IV is an applicable part.


This thought gains new resonance with the current writer's strike. The Writers are fighting for their right to a proper piece of the pie out there in "new media". If I were a lesser person I would not buy the DVD of Razor and continue on my merry way...meaning all of the actors, producers, writers etc would not get the money they deserve.

I would still purchase such. Why? A total shutdown of an area of activity like retail video sales of things like Razor might doom such. It is very hard to restart something like that. Having some sales still there in progress allows the whole thing to keep going until at least some settlement is reached.


What really gets me is this: If Razor is available online and anyone who wants it can download it, how will the ratings on its air date properly reflect the audience? I don't think there can be any answer besides, "They can't" Razor being out there will impact the numbers and create the wrong impression about BSG's popularity.

The ratings will be skewed. That's why the thread on the forum disturbs me. Just because you can do something does not necessarily mean you should. If I watched the telemovie now I know my family would have a pretty good excuse to pull me away from watching it on-air.


So what do you think? I am curious if I am alone with my slight guilt. Do you rationalize the act of downloading content (audio, video, etc) for free? Do you take the attitude that it is the owner's responsibility to ensure proper governance of their content?

My thought is simply: Don't do it! There is a cost involved in the downloading. Whether or not proper governance of their content is an appropriate issue is a very novel concept relative to copyright from the way I have seen digital pioneers frame it. Until copyright law is reformed the only way to "take responsibility" is to take action RIAA style with lawsuits as that is all that is possible under the law.


I look forward to an insightful discussion.

My thought was a notion from the end of the third season with the cover-up of Starbuck's reappearance that more "cover and deception" operations will take place. Fake things will be released. Are we quite sure what is out there is truly authentic? Or is it merely a nasty wee bit of misdirection prior to the actual canonical airing? That's my insight to add.

Armando
November 5th, 2007, 08:08 PM
Armando, nice find. The lecture version of that article (which I got as a torrent!) is where I got that "bug" idea. I'm surprised nobody has done that yet.

One idea which was floating around the internets back when Arrested Development was being cancelled that I thought was a good one, if anyone cared to invest in it, was of a direct to internet/DVD series. Episodes could be produced for online streaming, which would be free (though available for a limited time) and come out once a week. Then, at the end of each month (or, say, 6 weeks) a DVD "digest" with that month's 4-6 episodes would be released on sale. At the end of a certain period you'd have a complete season, which could either be replaced with a higher priced but with added premiums (the usual special features and bells and whistles) or, so as not to alienate your existing customers, make an "extra features" disc available at the end of each season to supplement the "digest" discs.

That sounded like a pretty fantastic idea to me, and one I would certainly buy into. But, I guess its time is yet to come.

wubwub
November 6th, 2007, 10:00 AM
The ratings will be skewed. That's why the thread on the forum disturbs me. Just because you can do something does not necessarily mean you should. If I watched the telemovie now I know my family would have a pretty good excuse to pull me away from watching it on-air.

But the ratings won't be skewed since the ratings only sample the audience. Unless you are a member of the Neilson panel, whether or not you actually watch the show on-air is irrelevant. Like I said earlier, everyone in America could watch Razor, but if the Neilson families don't, the ratings will tank.

Of course, Neilson tries to account for this, but their system is inherently biased towards "average" and is all but blind for anything outside of the central peak of the bell curve.

Not watching the ads does nothing to BSGs bottom line under the current ratings scheme (again, unless you happen to be a member of the Neilson panel).

Google for "neilson ratings problems" for any number of papers about why Neilson statistics overemphasize the average at the expense of everything else.

Nickname Boomer
November 6th, 2007, 02:44 PM
Well for me; I See it as theft, the creators and production staff put Blood sweat and tears into making a show and they should be compensated just as on a side note so should the writers, and it does have a large effect on the content makers.

Now this is not to say I’ve never downloaded a song for free, I have in the past, I used to make excuses I was a poor college student, I was only hurting multi million dollar corporations who could afford to loose just one possible CD sale, but it was all just excuses, it was easy and free, with little too no chance of repercussions for it. that is why I used to do it and why people still do, in mass numbers.

But in the end I knew it was stealing. And I was doing wrong, so I started to pay for my downloads, it was still relatively cheap, and no guilt.

If your getting a service, that the owners intend to sell, than you should have to pay for it if you just take it without payment it’s stealing.

Solai
November 6th, 2007, 03:02 PM
Nickname Boomer, I agree and disagree with you. With music and movies the only way to experience them is for a price: through purchase of an album or going to the theater (yes, I know you can listen to songs on the radio, but given the random nature of song selection we can leave it out of this discussion...you can't listen to songs on the radio on demand)

Razor is a made for tv movie. In essence I have simply accelerated the process by which I have experienced it. If I waited and simply watched it I would not have paid a dime for it. I am not a Nielsen family, so my watching it has no real impact.

My gut tells me that I agree with you that I am stealing a product...but what I am having trouble wrapping my head around is that I am stealing something that is free. How is that wrong?

Pike
November 6th, 2007, 04:00 PM
If your getting a service, that the owners intend to sell, than you should have to pay for it if you just take it without payment it’s stealing.

A distinction that gets lost because of definitions is that between copying and stealing. Stealing something deprives someone of that thing. Copying something is a different matter, since nobody is deprived of anything.

You might say that they're deprived of advertising income, but that's not necessarily the case. As I noted earlier, creators routinely leak their own content in order to generate word of mouth that will, in turn, drive up audience numbers. (Of course, that doesn't always work. I got the pilot for Flash Gordon free on iTunes, and decided that it was craaaaaaap.)

Now, there are obviously a bunch of issues there, but my main point is that copying does not equal stealing.

darthweef
November 6th, 2007, 04:11 PM
My gut tells me that I agree with you that I am stealing a product...but what I am having trouble wrapping my head around is that I am stealing something that is free. How is that wrong?

One could argue that since SciFi channel is a pay-only channel (unlike the networks), that watching a made for SciFi TV show off of SciFi would be stealing...

Solai
November 6th, 2007, 04:24 PM
One could argue that since SciFi channel is a pay-only channel (unlike the networks), that watching a made for SciFi TV show off of SciFi would be stealing...

Even if I currently pay for it? Meaning, Sci-fi is part of my cable package?

darthweef
November 6th, 2007, 06:24 PM
Even if I currently pay for it? Meaning, Sci-fi is part of my cable package?

Well, mine is not to judge, so I wasn't necessarily speaking to your situation in particular, just that the view that "since it is on TV means that it is free" isn't necessarily the case.

Nickname Boomer
November 6th, 2007, 07:18 PM
Well for people who do subscribe to Sci-fi or whatever channel runs on in there own country, okay so your one person, it doesn’t do Sci-fi harm but looking at a bigger picture, just say whatever torrent is running with Razor, is downloaded 50 000 times (just pulled that number out of my butt, but it seems reasonable) and they watch it and say they show a friend or family member it as well. As a whole it will affect ratings and will hurt the show. It’s not one person it’s the cumulative affect of it.

But for those who don’t subscribe to Sci-fi are just getting a free ride I’m pretty sure we just can’t trust the public as a whole on the honor system, here. We’ll let you all download but make sure you buy the DVD when it comes out.

Now to the difference between Coping and stealing, I think that may be semantics, we are talking the creators are being deprived of revenue advertising and DVD because of downloading. (And not in the cool gooey cylon way) So instead of people subscribing to the sci-fi channel or buying the DVD’s they are in fact just getting it for free.

And if Sci-fi had put it or part of it on Itunes for free to get buzz, that would be one thing, but that isn’t the case.

Just one man’s opinion here, I know I’m in the minority about this.

Cami's mom
November 7th, 2007, 03:43 PM
... I used to make excuses I was a poor college student, I was only hurting multi million dollar corporations who could afford to loose just one possible CD sale, ...

My friend the comic-book expert adds to this argument "if I download a song rather than buying the CD it's because I'm not sure I want to pay fifteen bucks for a CD that has one good song on it. If I like the bootleg song(s) I'll buy the CD. So the MMDC's* are gaining business ... [part of the rant edited for brevity] ... if I don't have the disposable income to buy a CD the MMDC's still aren't losing business 'cause I can't afford their product to begin with. So they haven't lost a sale... "

YMMV, it sounde like a good argument to me. FWIW, I have never downloaded music from a file-sharing service but I do loan commercial CDs to friends. Also never downloaded/bought a bootleg movie/tv show. But I'm lucky I have money now. When I was a poor college student I probably would have if the technology had existed back then.

*MMDC = multi million dollar corporations

Hannibleking
November 8th, 2007, 04:10 AM
Well, I skipped a bit of the posts admittedly but I doubt my post will be negated by one of those posts.

This is a tough subject, no doubts on that. There were quite a few specific queries put forth within the broader topic of rights-control, I'll try to talk about them all but, it won't be in any order what so ever.

So, my personal viewpoint as both a movie maker (and writer as far as the WGA is concerned) and a consumer of media in all its forms is thus. I have no problem with my own movies being downloaded as torrents for free, had I any that people would want them that badly, heh. Even in the future where I am directing big budget films I still wouldn't care. I have a couple points to bring up on this and this may boggle your mind but I hope to explain my reasoning.

First lets start with one of the most crucial points. Inevitability... as we have learned in the past if their is a better way, people (some not all) are going to take it legal or not. We learned this during prohibition, if people want something so badly and an attempt is made to restrict it. Well, in prohibitions case, so comes something like the mafia. A manifestation by the will of the people to get what they want so badly. So as we know they learned that it was ineffectual and would in the end serve no purpose but to be something else tax payer money is used towards ridding us of. So, as we know the government found they would just have to get with the program earlier rather than wait for more violence on the part of mafia, and so prohibition was eventually repealed. As is with free downloading. (some)People are going to do it no matter what, they will always find a way. Eventually no one and nothing will be able to fight it because it is Human Nature. So Find a way to deal with it rather than making it illegal outright.

The next point connects with the first, just wait for it. People are still going to want to see it in theaters, or buy it on DVD. I have downloaded movies illegally admitedly. Strangely enough I eventually met and talked with the person whos movie I downloaded and they of course didn't care so that made me feel better (Hint their first name begins with K, last with S, and they made a movie about people who work in a certain convience store). But I always end up buying the DVD's because well I will always buy it for the box cover and nostalgia things like that (im a material girl, in a material world). I know im not alone, you don't have to be a movie buff to really want some case art or something. People will still see it in theaters. Because I my-self treat going to see a film like an event and social event. Well those who say well the arist wont make enough from those few who will do or buy those things, but it is the job of the artist to do a well enough job that people will want it. And in some of the movies I've seen lately its time writers upped their game and the consumer asked for more than just. "ok..."

Thats what I have , I have but I'm just to tired to finish tonight. Just hope I didn't make any large mistakes. Don't judge it yet.

wubwub
November 8th, 2007, 07:30 AM
A manifestation by the will of the people to get what they want so badly. So as we know they learned that it was ineffectual and would in the end serve no purpose but to be something else tax payer money is used towards ridding us of.

All prohibition does is punish people who obey the law. People who still want to do it badly enough wont have much trouble getting it from other sources.



People are still going to want to see it in theaters, or buy it on DVD [or buy the cd or go see the band in concert, ed].
...
People will still see it in theaters. Because I my-self treat going to see a film like an event and social event.

Edzackery. You don't go to the theater to see a movie (you could do that at home), you go to the theater for the whole entertainment experience. The huge screen, the seats, the popcorn, the shared experience of hearing the whole audience gasp. Theater owners and movie makers who realize they are not selling a movie they are selling an entertainment experience will do just fine no matter how many people download.



Well those who say well the arist wont make enough from those few who will do or buy those things, but it is the job of the artist to do a well enough job that people will want it. And in some of the movies I've seen lately its time writers upped their game and the consumer asked for more than just. "ok..."

There may be a small fraction that will be happy with the download/watch-at-home experience for some movies, but there will also now be a fraction download/watch it and then go on to either see it in theaters and/or rave about it to encourage others to see it and/or go on to seek out more work by that artist and thus increase the number of potential viewers.

If the entertainment experience is good enuf, the fraction that they lose will be less than the fraction they gain.

Armando
November 8th, 2007, 08:18 AM
My friend the comic-book expert adds to this argument "if I download a song rather than buying the CD it's because I'm not sure I want to pay fifteen bucks for a CD that has one good song on it. If I like the bootleg song(s) I'll buy the CD. So the MMDC's* are gaining business ... [part of the rant edited for brevity] ... if I don't have the disposable income to buy a CD the MMDC's still aren't losing business 'cause I can't afford their product to begin with. So they haven't lost a sale... "

YMMV, it sounde like a good argument to me. FWIW, I have never downloaded music from a file-sharing service but I do loan commercial CDs to friends. Also never downloaded/bought a bootleg movie/tv show. But I'm lucky I have money now. When I was a poor college student I probably would have if the technology had existed back then.

*MMDC = multi million dollar corporations


Strange thing is that when I was a poor college student I spent more money on CDs and (as a poor grad student) DVDs (those didn't exist when I was an undergrad) than I do now that I ostensibly have money (HA!). Not that having responsibilities to a family justifies anything, obviously, nor that I have completely stopped purchasing media, I've just been forced to become more selective. Over the past two years I have been lucky enough to work as a college professor in a school with a pretty decent CD collection which has allowed me to explore music that is becoming increasingly hard to find as brick and mortar stores fold and/or consolidate their music to the lowest common denominator in order to increase profitability (there just isn't much of a market for avant garde classical music, and even though the internet has theoretically made more music available, it has also made it more difficult to find unless you know exactly what you're looking for. Talk about a catch-22!). So, even though I am opposed to downloading or copying (since what you're essentially buying when you buy media is a license to use that media, not the contents therein. The music/movie/game/whatever does not legally belong to you once you buy it) I've relied on fair use (since I'm an educator. If I cease to work in education, which may very well happen next year, I'm back to square one) to acquire music that I would otherwise not be able to get my hands on.

Anyway, no one is going to be able to stop this new paradigm of media distribution. The law simply will catch up as technology progresses. Heck, BSG is a prime example of this as a show that has benefitted tremendously from new media exposure even while the old ratings-based model suggests that it is, in fact, a failed cult show.

Armando
November 8th, 2007, 08:25 AM
[QUOTE=Hannibleking;5571]

The next point connects with the first, just wait for it. People are still going to want to see it in theaters, or buy it on DVD. I have downloaded movies illegally admitedly. Strangely enough I eventually met and talked with the person whos movie I downloaded and they of course didn't care so that made me feel better (Hint their first name begins with K, last with S, and they made a movie about people who work in a certain convience store). But I always end up buying the DVD's because well I will always buy it for the box cover and nostalgia things like that (im a material girl, in a material world). I know im not alone, you don't have to be a movie buff to really want some case art or something. People will still see it in theaters. QUOTE]


You know, I was just talking to my wife about this very fact the other day when I purchased a copy of an album I'd assigned for a class. I could've easily downloaded it (legally, from iTunes), but there's something about having the case with the cover art and liner notes that still very much appeals to me. That is one thing I miss very much in the "new media."

And yes, I'm sure "K.S." is glad to have his work seen, whether legally or not. I imagine it's similar to sending out a "calling card" DVD/demo disc. If it gets people interested in your work, leading to more work and, thus, more money, then it's all good.

But then, Metallica had a good argument too. Hmm...

Pike
November 8th, 2007, 04:10 PM
You know, I was just talking to my wife about this very fact the other day when I purchased a copy of an album I'd assigned for a class. I could've easily downloaded it (legally, from iTunes), but there's something about having the case with the cover art and liner notes that still very much appeals to me. That is one thing I miss very much in the "new media."


Interestingly, I know of at least one artist who's ONLY going to sell CDs at his shows (otherwise, the albums will be available digitally.) Thus the physical CD becomes a collectable.

Armando
November 8th, 2007, 05:42 PM
Interestingly, I know of at least one artist who's ONLY going to sell CDs at his shows (otherwise, the albums will be available digitally.) Thus the physical CD becomes a collectable.

Yeah, this is something we've come up with in my ensemble. We've gotten to a point where we need to start thinking of making a studio recording (although with all of the legal and financial loopholes involved, expect to see it sometime in 2025). Most of us see the reality of things and think we should make it available only online, but then we run into the need to provide a physical product to sell at concerts (this came up early in our history when a possible future residency was proposed by Arizona State). Them's the breaks for living in a transitional period, I guess.