Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Piracy: The Crime of Revolution

When I was a kid in the early to mid 90's, I remember learning how to plug two VCRs together and record rented VHS tapes onto blank VHS tapes so that I could own a movie for the cost of a rental. At the time, the first thing that would appear on the screen when watching a VHS was an FBI notice letting you know that it was illegal to “steal” movies in this or any other manner.

By the late 90's/early 2000's, we had moved on to DVDs, where the very first thing to hit the screen after putting in the disc was those old Anti-piracy commercials that everyone used to hate. I remember at the time that I first started seeing these ad, I thought it was strange that DVDs had a much more elaborate anti-theft warning, when it was actually harder to pirate a DVD then it was a VHS.

Now it’s 2012 and through the file sharing that has been going on for the past several years, people are able to pirate digital movies by simply sharing them with others over the Internet. And instead of anti-theft commercials or FBI warnings, we have the entertainment industries trying to push bills like SOPA and PIPA through congress while ACTA is being pushed at the global level.

When news first started to break about these “anti-piracy” bills/treaties, I began to wonder what had changed. I know for my own part, I stole far more intellectual property in the cassette days then I do now. And I knew far more people that also pirated media back then. How many of us remember holding our boom-box’s mic up to the stereo speakers to record songs off of the radio? Yeah, that was pirating too. If one were to think about it, making someone else a mix-tape was in fact, file sharing. It was not as advanced as using bit torrents, but it was essentially the same thing. Most people that I know now wont pirate music, films, or anything else for fear of being arrested and/or fined. But I can’t name one person that I have ever met that has never made a mix-tape.

So how did we go from a quick FBI warning at the start of a movie, to legislation that threatens our constitutional rights? Although I have heard of or thought of a few different ideas for why pirating is so much greater of a threat now then it ever was before, the only one that I feel really hits the nail on the head is this: major media companies have begun to realize that they are quickly becoming superfluous in our society.

Think about what a company like Warner Brothers does. At it’s most basic, it fronts the money for major movie titles to be made. Movies that are far too expensive to be made independently. Then it pays for the movies to be advertised so that movie goers will know about it and get excited to see it.

Now think about how far we have come in terms of personal ability to create movies. Many basic and affordable DSLRs now have the ability to shoot HD video. All of the major operating systems that control our computers have video editing software on them at no extra cost. And there is a variety of home software that allows for the creation of CGI and other special effects. And through the use of social media sites such as Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter, getting one’s content to go viral is virtually free (as long as your content is likable enough to actually go viral). Now I’m not suggesting that Joe Shmoe has the ability to create the next Titanic or Avatar in his/her back yard. But that is certainly the direction that we are headed in.

This trend is even more obvious in the music industry. With just a little bit of practice and any standard Apple device with the latest iOS or OS X operating system, a musician armed with Garage Band can record their music at a level that is more than adequate for sale. And distribution of said music has become incredibly simple with applications such as Google Music, which allows artist to sell their music in MP3 format through their Google account. Will music quality be higher if it is recorded in a studio with a full production team? Of course. But at approximately (and by approximately, I mean wild guess) 1/10,000th of the cost, the music files exported from one’s home computer or tablet sound pretty darn good.

Besides the fact that artists’ need for finical backing to create and publicize their art is waning, the major media companies have another problem: complete technological irrelevance. It is no secret that movie and music companies are far behind the times in terms of meeting consumer demands. The era of CDs and DVDs is dead. Why would a consumer drive to the mall and pay $20+ for a DVD or CD when they could download the MP3 from iTunes or stream the film from Netflix. Or better yet, download both for free at an incredibly high speed from a bit torrent site. If the media giants are unable or unwilling to meet the needs and expectations of their customers in the digital age, why would the customers feel any need to be loyal? This issue is perfectly illustrated by The Oatmeal in this comic strip.

There is of course the whole “you shouldn’t steal” line of thinking when it comes to pirating. But the question then has to be asked, who are you stealing from? Most people who feel that piracy is wrong often site stealing from the artist. However, most artist who’s work is produced by major labels make next to nothing from their studio produced art. The majority of their income is derived from shows, endorsements, or other direct contact with their fans. Sure, Lady Gaga and Brad Pitt may have gotten rich through working with the big time studios, but they are the minority. Most artist are not worth millions. The people who make money off of the major labels are the major labels.

Evidence for the possible success of artists without any backing by a major label was given to us by Louis CK late last year. Mr. CK recorded his own comedy special and released it to the web at a heavily discounted price. With no large company to take chunks out of the profit and extremely easy online access for the customers, Mr. CK’s experiment was a major success. It was so successful in fact, that Jim Gaffigan has decided to do the same thing later this year. This experiment showed that the new forms of media available to artists make it possible to connect directly to the public with out the assistance of a major studio as well as offering their work at a much cheaper price to the customers.

At the end of the day, the large media companies are really nothing more than middle men. They allow art to be created and then distributed in mass. But in this modern age of mobile technology, social media, and high speed data consumption, middle men simply aren’t as necessary as they once were. And they are only getting more unnecessary as time passes. Their outdated modes of thinking actually slow down the process of culture consumption by the public. It makes perfect sense then that the major players of these industries would attempt to fight back against the technological trends that are slowly destroying them. The problem is, the trends that they are attempting to fight, and the means by which they are fighting, have the potential to destroy all of the opportunities for a better world that the digital age creates.

The same tools that allow for the pirating content, also allow for an unprecedented amount of sharing and communicating throughout the world. The technology that lets one person download a copyrighted movie from another, also allows independent artists to self-publish their work to a world that would have no idea who they are otherwise. It allows for the rapid dissemination of information and ideas throughout the world. It allows kids in countries that have no access to educational materials to find books, films, and knowledge that can give them opportunities to learn that they would never have otherwise. Should we be willing to sacrifice all of this, just to protect the outdated institutions that are the major production studios? And if not, should we stop pirating content? It may not be a popular point of view, but I believe that the only way to get away from the influence of these companies, is to refuse to play by their rules.

Post Note:
Some of the people reading this may ask, “What about pirated books, video games, and software? Are you going to just ignore those in this discussion?” Unfortunately yes. For two reasons. First, the two industries that are putting up major money, time, and effort to fight piracy are the music and movie industries. While the other industries may not like piracy of their content, they are not fighting it with the same tenacity. And second, the pirating of each of these other industries content comes with a variety of other technical, moral, and philosophical quandaries that would have extended this post into a small book. While I am more than happy to discuss said quandaries, it will have to be over the course of several more posts.

2 comments:

  1. Great summary. Personally, I still pirate movies but not music. It's a personal choice because I think musicians are at a greater disadvantage when it comes to pirated content.

    The business model for musicians is that they get paid on the amount of units sold - in most cases, while actors get paid a large sum in advance and the number of tickets sold has less of an effect on their income, plus, Hollywood is grossly overpaid and morally deficient so I have very little incentive not to rip their content.

    The question you seem to be asking here, other than, should we pirate media, is what happens to the MGM's, Disney's, and Paramount's of the world? In my humble opinion, they need to adapt and adjust to this new technology.

    A great first step would be to create platforms to download their content at a reasonable price. The fact that we can find a new release torrent before it's available on DVD or any other media, provides very little incentive to go see the movie in a theater - these studios should look at Amazon's business model and push new releases to the public sooner at a fair price.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think what the Louis C.K. business model is showing us is that the future for entertainers seems to be in cultivating a personal direct relationship with their audience.

    To some extent, I think the reason some people feel comfortable with piracy is because it seems an impersonal, and in some ways victimless crime. At this point, most of us know that the money we spend to purchase movies or music goes primarily into the pockets of CEOs, and very little of it goes to the content creators. We also know that those same CEOs will have the consumers overpay as much as possible, so that they can turn as large a profit as possible.

    The people supplying us with "legitimate" means of accessing entertainment treat the consumer impersonally and the consumer in turn thinks of the production companies impersonally. There's an underlying antagonism many consumers feel is inherent in a system where a middleman steps between fans and the artists and makes money off of both parties, without making a substantive contribution to the final product (and I'm sure there could be a long argument about how substantive the movie and music industries contributions are, but the doubt still lingers in public opinion).

    But if the middleman is removed, I wouldn't be surprised to see people who had previously pirated all of their entertainment begin to contribute financially to the direct support of their favorite artists. The content these artists create is and has always been a part of our lives. Our relationship with them, conversely, is extremely personal from the outset. And now that more and more artists are breaking down the wall between themselves and their fans through things like Twitter and Facebook, not only do fans connect to the artist's work, but the personal connection of day-to-day living is felt all the more.

    Who knows if, with the studios' restrictions of mass appeal removed, the quality of content will rise or fall, but either way I think the future will show more and more artists venturing out away from the big studios and more and more fans following eagerly, their wallets, like their hearts, open.

    ReplyDelete