Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Nov 18, 2010 - 8:11 AM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

For those who think that piracy is basically a victimless crime:

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/129741-the-qrealq-victims-of-online-piracy?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4ce4d898c6128839%2C0

Despite assurances that the many sites pirating my work were doing me a favor with their “free advertising” I never saw a single incoming link from them, saw no increase in traffic, and made virtually no money.

Frequent original content (often pirated the day I post it,) increased my traffic, not pirate “advertising”. Pirates draw traffic from my site, and cost me millions of hits annually, which cuts my advertising revenue.

Readers assume they are only nickel and diming rich corporations with their bit torrent naughtiness, but I am a middle class artist and farmer for whom a few thousand dollars a year in lost income means I can’t afford health insurance.

Each of these pirate sites is a de facto publisher, yet they have no responsibility toward my work. They ignore takedown notices. Few creators can afford to sue.

Convicted felon Gregory Hart, who ran the site htmlcomics.com, threatened me with legal action when I asked him to remove my work from his site. After wrangling for a year, a coalition of major publishers and the FBI took him down.

To add insult to injury, angry readers turned on creators and publishers for enforcing their legal rights against a felon. This is the reality faced by artists in every creative pursuit all over America.

 
 Posted:   Nov 18, 2010 - 8:30 AM   
 By:   mgh   (Member)

I will take this one step further. The final victim (loser) in all of this will be you.
When the pirates take enough money away from Lukas, Doug, and Bruce, they will have to shut down. They can't keep their labels going if they don't make money.

 
 Posted:   Nov 18, 2010 - 8:46 AM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

This problem is solved very easily - make ISPs accountable for the downloading traffic unless they're willing to give up the people doing it. Of course, no one wants to pass that law because no one wants the ISPs to lose money and idiots think that by protecting intellectual properties is somehow censorship.

 
 Posted:   Nov 18, 2010 - 8:51 AM   
 By:   Sirusjr   (Member)

Well the difference here is this guy already offering his work for free supported by ads. I don't see why anyone would bother uploading or even separately downloading his work when it's already available for free. I tend to link to creator's web sites if they are offering content for free (especially with full tracks posted from upcoming albums in good quality). Most webcomics like this sell merchandise or other physical goods that the fans can buy to support the creator. This is how Penny Arcade get's their money.

 
 Posted:   Nov 18, 2010 - 9:08 AM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

This is how Penny Arcade get's their money.

This may be driving nails into the coffin - but have you ever seen PA's fanbase? These are not people that make a good example for anything but how *not* to be.

 
 
 Posted:   Nov 18, 2010 - 9:32 AM   
 By:   Marko   (Member)



It will probably take the end of something for people to finally understand, and even then most people will shrug their shoulders and try to blame someone else.

 
 
 Posted:   Nov 18, 2010 - 6:52 PM   
 By:   Thgil   (Member)

I just don't get why it's so damn inconvenient for people to BUY music, movies, books, etc. I guess that the Internet Age is only demonstrating that this animal called man is little more than a child.

And I'm ecstatic to see that I'm not the only one who hears the "free speech" argument and actually knows the difference between censorship and enforcement of copyright. The fact that the so-called argument has lasted this long shows just how ignorant people on both sides of the law must be regarding legalities.

 
 
 Posted:   Nov 19, 2010 - 12:11 AM   
 By:   riotengine   (Member)

For those who think that piracy is basically a victimless crime:

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/129741-the-qrealq-victims-of-online-piracy?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4ce4d898c6128839%2C0

Frequent original content (often pirated the day I post it,) increased my traffic, not pirate “advertising”. Pirates draw traffic from my site, and cost me millions of hits annually, which cuts my advertising revenue.

Readers assume they are only nickel and diming rich corporations with their bit torrent naughtiness, but I am a middle class artist and farmer for whom a few thousand dollars a year in lost income means I can’t afford health insurance.

Each of these pirate sites is a de facto publisher, yet they have no responsibility toward my work. They ignore takedown notices. Few creators can afford to sue.

To add insult to injury, angry readers turned on creators and publishers for enforcing their legal rights against a felon. This is the reality faced by artists in every creative pursuit all over America.


Thanks for posting that. I meant to do it myself, but you beat me to it.

This is a wonderfully written piece by Colleen Doran that perfectly lays out how much piracy can hurt the artist. I've seen some of the pages for her upcoming (in 2012) Vertigo graphic novel, Coming To Amerikay, and it's breathtakingly gorgeous work.

Greg Espinoza

 
 Posted:   May 16, 2011 - 7:12 AM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

Review of the Social Science Research Council's report Media Piracy in Emerging Economies: http://rivkat.dreamwidth.org/307918.html

Just FYI

 
 Posted:   May 16, 2011 - 7:27 AM   
 By:   Souchak   (Member)

What's hurting an artist more, copyright infringements/piracy or proper, legal corporations? Or to put it differently: Why should I as a freelance writer care about when&how my work is pirated when the media outlets I work for force me to sign away secondary uses (online, sister print publications) for free?

Oddly, it's almost always major companies complaining about copyright infringements and almost never smaller operations or creative individuals. Look at the music industry: Supposedly it's dead (or: undead. Or: not feeling too good), but you still have a lot of independent labels which do (sufficiently) well, piracy or not.

Enough rambling already...

 
 
 Posted:   May 16, 2011 - 8:08 AM   
 By:   Francis   (Member)

If you look at Youtube, basically one big copyright violation, is now starting to offer movies for rent on their site. I had to think Howard Stern was right when he said that youtube would probably sew anyone who'd take that rented material and share it online someplace else, something youtube basically has been doing for ages and makes little apology for.

It's a F***ed up situation. And I doubt that any of these small artists have the means and time to combat the online piracy.

They don't all have the funds to get an agent like Chris Rock did, who can remove the worst pitch ever on television completely from the net. wink

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2024 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.
Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.