So Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is released this week. I've also been downloading a lot of music in my spare time since the PlayStation network has gone down, so now seems like an appropriate time to discuss piracy. Specifically the music and movie variety.Without getting into too much of the whole right vs. wrong morality angle of the whole thing, I'm pretty much going to rant about how awful the music industry has handled this situation.
So downloading music illegally has been pretty mainstream since Napster. And before that people just used cassettes to record their favorite songs off of the radio. Not wanting to pay for music is nothing new, but technology has reached a point where it's never been easier to "steal" stuff. I mean, EVERYONE knows what an mp3 is.
Whenever a new development affects a particular industry, it's forced to adapt. That is, unless it's the music/movie industry when it comes to the whole piracy issue. Instead of saying, "People aren't going to stop, maybe we should find other ways to make profits. At least they're still interested in listening to our songs," they've basically said, "This is so fucking illegal. How can people get away with this? How about we sue the pants off of a few people who we'll randomly pick out of a hat to make an example of?"
That seems like a great strategy.
How many people have actually been deterred from downloading because they were afraid of legal action? Probably no one. Or at least no one I know. Clearly it's not an effective course of action. And it makes the industry heads look like selfish dicks. I understand "you" made the music and there's copyright laws, but how greedy can you be to sue some Average Joe for hundreds of thousands of dollars?
The whole point of technology is to make information more easily accessible to people. And entertainment labels/studios/whateverthefuckyouwanttocallthem are trying to fight against that flow. It's just completely unnatural. Sure it might be wrong to steal something, but there's really nothing they can do about it. Instead of wasting time on lawsuits, think of a different strategy. This may sound crazy, but maybe they should embrace this "new" trend.
I have a lot of bands and artists on my iPod that I can honestly say I wouldn't have downloaded or cared about if I had to pay to hear their music. It's just not a reasonable use of my money to try to listen to every song out there. There's too much. So if I hear something I might like, I'll download a song or an album. If I paid for this on iTunes, I wouldn't be able to afford it. So sure it's "stealing," but I wouldn't have heard of your band if I couldn't pirate these songs. And if I like what I hear I'll become a fan. And if you're stuff is really catchy and good I'll share it with other people. And if they happen to like the same stuff and you're on tour, we'll pay massive amounts of money to see your concert. That's how you make money off of this, and that's how the cycle of information is supposed to work.
Now let's say I did buy a song from some random artist I heard on the radio and thought was good. I have one song. Even if it's great, I won't spend $13 on an album. I won't tell my friends this band is awesome. I won't be going to any concerts. So I could download the music for free and pay a hundred dollars to see a concert, or I could pay $1.29 for a song on iTunes and that's it. Which would you choose?
Obviously this example isn't sustainable for all musicians in every situation, because people can't go to every concert of their favorite bands, but that's when the best artists and bands will win out. You get to sample a lot, choose a few that you like, and focus your money on the best. It goes to show that people can still make a profit from making music. Just embrace the change and adapt. Everyone else is forced to.
How many times do you see a video on your Facebook news feed that you listen to? Or you hear about a song that's good and listen to it on YouTube? Well if the music industry had it's way this wouldn't happen. Which just seems strange to me because when artists are up and coming they'll give their music to anyone and everyone who'll listen. Just to get exposure. But if they happen to make it big? Then you can only listen if you pay. That just seems unnatural.
Now this relates to the movie industry because YouTube is starting a movie rental service. Some studios have signed up for the paid service (basically Netflix), but some won't. They're protesting because there's already pirated content on YouTube. Hmmm that makes total sense. Because there's a two minute clip of Step Brothers on YouTube, you won't allow them to show movies that people pay for. Ok. Let's take away legal alternatives, because fans of previous movies posted clips to share with others. Why would anyone be interested in watching a funny joke from a clip on YouTube if they hadn't seen the original anyway? I mean if you won't allow me to pay for a good quality movie, then I'll just download a shitty version and not enjoy it as much. All because the clip that they showed in all the trailers was posted on a website designed for sharing information.
I'm not saying I know everything or anything close to it, but it's this kind of flawed logic and refusal to consider any type of change that creates more problems than piracy does.
P.S. Why is the rum always gone?
No comments:
Post a Comment