

I created "Sons Of Anarchy". Here's why I hate Google's stance on copyright. - k-mcgrady
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/03/sons_of_anarchy_creator_kurt_sutter_google_s_copyright_stance_is_bad_for.html

======
mwally
As I've said before, Copyright is an obsolete concept that no longer benefits
society, and needs to be abolished entirely.

The whole concept that Piracy is somehow stealing is utterly ridiculous. The
kind of bullshit only senior citizens can be hoodwinked into believing, and
even that only with considerable effort.

Hollywood is a cesspool of greedy pigs who are bitching up a storm because
their industry is finally being disrupted by technology -- something very long
overdue.

If someone enjoys a show, or book, or movie, or other creative work, they are
free to donate to the appropriate parties -- but to force such payment,
specially before the content is even evaluated, is fucking insane. Why the
hell has society put of with this asinine nonsense for so long? HOW THE FUCK
did the copyright system even ever get started in the first place!?

When Kim Dotcom released his first album a few months ago, I choose to pay for
it, only after listening to it all day and deciding that it was worth my
money. This "voting with the pocketbook" is what makes the most sense. I
expect that, before my lifetime is over, people will look back on this era as
a dark-age. I imagine grandparents explaining to children how College
Textbooks used to cost money and how people had to pay for a movie before they
even saw it.

FUCK COPYRIGHT. Burn it to the fucking ground. The Copyright system is a lot
like debt-collectors, it only continues to operate because people keep paying.
The sooner we all stop paying for content, the quicker the system will go
away.

If you value free information and open-source theology, please stop paying for
content. If we all stopped paying for content tomorrow, then the debate would
be over a hell of a lot quicker.

I'm sure Kurt Sutter would make plenty of money if he would collect donations
from people instead of spew hatred towards Google, the single greatest company
the world has ever seen. Google has done more for the world than a million
Kurt Sutter's could ever do.

~~~
gaius
Ah, the RMS model of economics, "this is free but you are allowed to attempt
to charge for it, so long as you tell your customers that they can have it for
free. By the way I have a $1M grant from the MacArthur foundation, another $1M
from the Takeda foundation, and tenure at MIT, I don't need money".

------
M2Ys4U
>But the big G doesn’t contribute anything to the work of creatives. Not a
minute of effort or a dime of financing.

I see the Mr Sutter is completely forgetting about YouTube. YT as a platform
has enabled millions of creatives to publish their works and have them be
available to the entire (or at least a very large proportion of the) world at
next to no cost.

>Convicted felons like Kim Dotcom generate millions of dollars in illegal
revenue off our stolen creative work.

"Stolen work"? Is he really sugesting that he has been deprived of his wok,
that he no longer has his copies of the works?. I think not. He doesn't
understand what "theft" actually means.

>People access Kim through Google.

A search engine that allows people to _gasp_ search for things? Oh the
humanity!

>And then, when Hollywood tries to impede that thievery

Again, not thievery. Infringement of an exclusive right, but that doesn't have
the same emotional attachment, does it?

>it’s presented to the masses as a desperate attempt to hold on to antiquated
copyright laws that will kill your digital buzz.

But that's _exactly_ what it is. The old business model is broken. It's the
job of business and entrepreneurs to conduct business and make money given the
constraints of technology, society and the law, _not_ to infringe on the
fundamental rights of us all to make a buck.

Technology and society has changed, the business models of the past no longer
work. Get with the programme, don't try and break one of the greatest pieces
of technology ever invented because you're uncomfortable with change.

> If you want to know more about how this works, just Google the word
> “parasite.”

Hah! Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.

>And if you think I’m exaggerating, ask yourself why Google spends tens of
millions of dollars each year to hire lawyers and lobbyists (like Marv) whose
sole purpose is to erode creative copyright laws.

Perhaps because the copyright industry is spending hundreds of millions of
dollars each year to push copyright maximalism up the political agenda in
order to enshrine their failing business models in the law.

>Every writer, producer, actor, musician, director, tech wizard, and fine
artist working today needs to be aware of what this all means for our
future—we will lose the ability to protect and profit from our own work.

Bullshit. Creative created works and made a profit before copyright existed.
They created and profited from it when it only lasted 14 years. They'll
continue to create and profit even when copyright is restored to a sane level.

>Every kid out there who aspires to be an actor or musician or artist: This is
your future that’s at stake.

Future creatives should be worried about the dwindling public domain. Do you
think the likes of Disney would be where there are today if they couldn't use
stories that were in the public domain?

>At this point, we are not talking about legislation or throwing handcuffs on
any single party. We don’t want blood. Voluntary agreements are simply a place
to start.

Start? The copyright industry has been cranking the ratchet of ever-more-
draconian law for decades. It's time to stop.

>No one benefits from piracy except the criminals and the portal that opens
its doors to them.

Mr Sutter seems to be conveniently forgetting that those who download the most
also spend the most. Criminalising your own customers is not a good business
model.

>Stealing content

Again, nope.

>Stealing content may feel like a win, but supporting piracy will ultimately
diminish the quality of the content you’ve come to love and depend on.

This makes it sound like piracy is something new. Did home taping kill music?
No, it didn't, and industry profits have been going up and up. It was one of
the few sectors that bucked the trend of the global financial crisis for
fuck's sake.

TL;DR: This article is horseshit.

------
PebblesHD
Good article, but it kinda misses the fact that his beloved works are
unavailable to probabl 50% of its audience through legal means. If the choices
are wait a year or more then pay triple the US price for a DVD or pirate it,
what choice will users take?

~~~
lafar6502
You certainly got that sense of entitlement, that the users MUST be able to
access all artists' creations. Why? Maybe the creators are fine with giving
access only to those who pay? Some users will choose to pirate, of course, and
some will not buy. Fine - why fight for it? This is not limiting access to
food or fresh air, just some freaking movies you can live without.

~~~
Khaine
Because TV and Movies enter the common culture. How often do people quote, or
reference something from a film or movie? New movies and TV shows are often
the first thing spoken about around the water cooler. If you cannot access
these things easily and affordably through legal means, are you just going to
wait, and miss out on interacting with your peers? Or would you just pirate
it?

What do you think people do? Artists make works that are _supposed_ to be
enjoyed by the public. Why make art if no-one can enjoy it?

~~~
lafar6502
Oh really? I don't watch TV and rarely see 'mainstream' movies or listen to
'popular' music. And don't suffer any isolation symptoms because of that.
Culture is not about watching evertyhing that's new and hot. There's enough of
it accessible without having to pirate anything. 'Free for all' means turning
everything into commercials and concentrating on mass market only.

PS think about games and what happened to them in the free or almost-free mass
market, centralized and totally controlled by Apple or Google. Everything was
simplified and stupified beyond reason and the revenue comes from tricking
users into additional payments or from commercials. And creators not wanting
to play according to Apple's rules have will be f __ked and refused access to
the platform, which is a new for of censorship. Generally it 's now better to
make 100 shitty games than one great and I dont want the same to happen to
books, music or movies.

------
tehwebguy
My impression is that TV show creators should have the least to complain about
with regard to piracy.

Advertising isn't the only revenue stream for a show, for many it's not even
the biggest. DVD sales have dried up but that's a market that has only
_really_ existed since 2003.

Netflix and other streaming services are not only new revenue for new shows,
they earn more money for old IP. Bonus: I've read that Netflix uses piracy
tracker data to gauge demand and make bids, so in this way piracy literally
probably increased his Netflix payout.

