

Jonathan Coulton on MegaUpload and piracy - dpkendal
http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2012/01/21/megaupload/

======
warfangle
> don’t yell and scream about how you’re losing business to piracy when your
> stuff isn’t even available in the box I have on top of my TV.

I ran into this a few months ago. I was bored and slightly drunk from brunch
on a Saturday afternoon, and got it in my mind that I’d catch up on the final
four Harry Potter movies. Whatever. That it was Harry Potter isn’t necessarily
the point. Three of these films - Order of the Phoenix, Half-Blood Prince, and
Part 2 of Deathly Hollows - were available on Amazon video for rental. Score!

Of course, I didn’t realize Part 1 of the Deathly Hollows wasn’t available on
Amazon when I started this drunken marathon. But you can believe after the
first two, I was in the mood for more. And I wasn’t about to ruin the series
by watching Part 2 before Part 1. I won’t say what route I took to watch it,
but these were my legal options after scouring Netflix Streaming, Hulu+,
Amazon OnDemand and iTunes:

* Wait two-to-three days for a DVD to arrive from Netflix

* Go to Blockbus..oh.

* Go to a DVD sto..oh. I mean, I suppose I could’ve taken the train 20 minutes to Best Buy at Union Square, bought the DVD of a film I was only going to watch once, take the train 20 minutes back home and … shit. I don’t have a DVD player anymore.

I won’t tell you the course of action I took. Only that the entire experience
was exasperating, annoying, and thoroughly made me want to not watch the rest
of Harry Potter. _And I wanted to give them money._

I don’t get how this is hard to understand.

~~~
moe
I have a nice story, too.

Just the other day my Macbook died; "green light of death", i.e. it's not
charging and not turning on anymore (presumably the battery is dead).

On the harddrive of said Macbook I have ~$300 worth of purchased iTunes movies
that I cannot access anymore. I had never bothered to back them up because I
was under the naive assumption I could just re-download them when needed. A
service that I took for granted not only because I do it with their apps and
music all the time, but also because most of their movies were more expensive
than the equivalent DVD.

Well, needless to say, apple does not allow to re-download purchased movies.

I may still be able to recover that harddrive. But I'm most certainly not
buying movies from apple anymore.

~~~
Sukotto
This is news to me. When looking at an iPad recently the guy in the Apple
store told me that anything I bought on iTunes could be moved to a new device
should I ever upgrade. So long as I have the same AppleId (email?)

What else is non-transferable? Books? Music? Apps? (Can iDevices do other
things?)

~~~
cstejerean
It's transferable, but not necessarily by downloading again from Apple. You
just back up your downloads and then you can transfer them from device to
device.

Not that it makes any sense not to allow people to download stuff multiple
times, especially when said stuff is DRM'd, but try reasoning with the movie
studios.

It might get better in the future though. Music is now mostly DRM free and you
can re-download directly from iTunes. That changed not that long ago. If the
music industry can change there's hope for the movie industry as well.

------
twelvechairs
> making money from art is not a human right.

This is an excellent point (and paragraph) - I wish more people understood
this (although it is probably scary to many in the startup community).

~~~
omonra
Is ability to charge money for _any_ labor a human right?

~~~
burgerbrain
It is a human right to only work voluntarily. The alternative is slavery.

So yes, it is.

~~~
tikhonj
Well no, the alternative is to not work at all. And I know plenty of people
(heh, Berkeley) who get along fine without working. Some of them are probably
happier than plenty of employed people.

I know this isn't strictly relevant, but I really believe that thanks to
technology improvements, we need to work on dispelling the idea that everybody
has to work. Unemployment should gradually stop being a horrible fate worthy
of pity or derision, but rather a viable career path. One of these days...

~~~
zanny
I love this topic, because you always have to take the side of those that ARE
working and end up having to distribute the fruits of their labors to the non
working.

Until we get self sufficient factory farms and power plants (so let us think
futuristic here, say 50 years) where robots generate carbon through some
means, pattern it into amino acids, and use 3d printing technology to generate
plant and muscle matter that is most tasty and nutritious for us to eat,
whenever we want. And simultaneously, your power is generated by robots
controlling massive solar arrays surrounding the planet siphoning off the suns
energy output to power the entire planet, and no human is involved there.

All that is there is an upfront cost. And after singularity, we don't even
need to worry about developing the new technologies or knowing how to repair
what is already there.

But who do you pay to get there? Who gets the right to say "everything you eat
and everything you do is powered by my creation". That is another great
question to ponder.

But we will never have a capitalist system where people can consume without
producing and expect to be a viable economy. It is actually the reason America
is failing so badly right now - as a nation, percentage wise, very few of us
actually "produce" anything. Too many are middle men trying to leech off the
system through a mirth of means (including myself, as a college student at
this time I eat food and make nothing useful yet).

~~~
tikhonj
I do not think everything needs to be automated. Rather, we just need to reach
a certain level of efficiency: as soon as one person can produce enough of
something for, say, several thousand--something completely reasonable with
today's technology--you start reaching the point where you do _not_ need
everybody working.

Just because your power plant employs some people--and it probably really is
just a handful--does not mean everybody has to work. The same is true for
agriculture; one farmer is already extremely effective, and with the advent of
cheap robotics[1] they are poised to become more efficient yet.

[1]: Something like: <http://www.harvestai.com/>

"Whom to pay" is a loaded question--we have already reached, or are rapidly
reaching, a point where society can exist happily _without_ everybody pitching
in. Why should anybody's saying their creation powers things actually matter?

Of course, my argument isn't really about getting rid of payment or even the
capitalistic system. Rather, it is about extending a recent trend: the
increasing minimum standard of living. In a perfect world, you would be able
to subsist comfortably without working. Of course, there are plenty of other
ways to motivate people: status, luxury items...etc.

So, given increases in efficiency and different sources of motivation, I do
not see why a capitalist society with plenty of people not working is
impossible. Now, I doubt transitioning there would be easy: too many people
are emotionally set against freeloaders. If we actually needed everybody to
work, this would be great; however, as technology progresses and this is
needed less and less, it stops being great.

Of course, there is one glaring whole in my argument (or, at least, one I'm
pointing out): we may not be at the requisite level of efficiency yet.
However, if recent trends continue, I thin we will reach it some time soon
even if we are not there yet. And when we do--and well after--the cultural
aversion to "freeloading" will persist even though it is less and less needed.
Which is unfortunate.

------
krig
Brilliant, I agree with just about everything said in this post. There is no
credible evidence that piracy actually damages artists, and plenty of
empirical case studies where it greatly benefited them. It is horrendously
disappointing to see the american government, supposedly the elected
representation of the people, ignore all the scientific evidence produced and
wholly adopt the viewpoint they are fed by a miniscule but rich group of media
companies. If only there was some way of stopping the flow of money from
corporations into politics...

I just posted a similar rant on my own website on the characterization of
pirates that also refers to the Swiss study that Coulton brings up, plus
another study commissioned by the Dutch government that reached very similar
conclusions.

<http://tusk.se/2012/01/20/piracy-3-character/>

~~~
baddox
The only thing I don't understand completely is his actual stance on
copyright. He says he's okay with the notion, since he and many other artists
benefit from it. But he quite clearly doesn't think piracy hurts artists, and
doesn't seem to think that downloading poses a threat (or at least not enough
of a threat to warrant taking down websites).

I agree with the latter, but I'm not sure how Coulton finds the latter
consistent with the former. Perhaps he believes copyright should only apply to
commercial violations, or should only require attribution, which would make
since considering that his works are released under
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/>. But does he believe other
artists should be allowed to place their works under stricter licenses (i.e.
ones that would allow them to sue a kid for downloading an MP3)?

~~~
Wilya
Copyright does quite a lot more things than just enabling restrictions on
distribution. There's the right to be credited, some limits on derivative
works, and limitations to commercial violations. I suppose not every musician
would be pleased to find their music used as the soundtrack of a porn movie
without their knowledge, for example.

~~~
learc83
There are remedies other than copyright law.

For example is someone took something I wrote and published it under his own
name, that would be fraud.

Or if someone used my song for the soundtrack of a porn without making it
clear that I wasn't involved, I would argue defamation because they led the
public to believe that I was involved in pornography.

------
netcan
A great point:

 _"We are constantly demonstrating through our actions what we believe to be
the norms for acquiring and consuming content. Right now a lot of us think
that it’s OK to download stuff through illegal sites under certain
circumstances, and a lot of us think it’s totally fine to use those things to
make videos and put them on YouTube even though YouTube profits from it.
That’s not ME saying that, that’s US saying that"_

Piracy discussions often go towards the ethical. It makes sense to look at
what the actual ethical norms are.

------
eli
I just heard his piece on NPR's Marketplace. I thought he came across well,
and the reporter put the tweet in the proper context.

~~~
firefoxman1
Wow, just listened to it. He really nailed the subject in those 5 minutes. He
said a lot of the things it seemed like Alexis Ohanian wanted to say in his
debates.

------
re_format
The point that he raises by stating the fact that for most of the history of
human art, people have not been paid to create art is not one to be
overlooked. Mick Jagger has also said this of the music business specifically.

Looking back on art over the centuries I would not say that today's art is
necessarily "better" because people are paid to create it.

Yet I've read statements by entertainment industry people that if we don't
spend heaps of money on motion pictures, their quality will plummet to the
likes of "reality TV".

Not only do I think this is complete rubbish -- it's not the budget that makes
the quality of the film -- but all I can think rgarding the reality TV comment
is, "Then why the heck are we bombarded with crappy reality TV?" The
reasonable conslusion is because the stuff gets watched. So even if there was
a drop in quality, it isn't going to affect their profits. People will still
consume this stuff.

~~~
omonra
"The point that he raises by stating the fact that for most of the history of
human art, people have not been paid to create art is not one to be
overlooked."

I find this point meaningless. For most of human history a lot of things
happened - for example 1) Slavery was normal 2) People were ruled by
monarchies 3) Countries were constantly fighting each other

More to the point, we simply lacked the mechanism for 'normal people' (ie not
nobles) to pay a small percent of their disposable income for art. Instead
church & rich people picked up the slack and employed artists.

I think the point here is not so much about Intellectual Property as such, but
about modes of distribution. Writers have been selling books for a couple
hundred years - and nobody is complaining. We are comfortable buying books.
But for media content the model is just not there yet. But let's talk about
that - instead of attacking IP as such.

------
RyanMcGreal
"Make good stuff, then make it easy for people to buy it. There’s your anti-
piracy plan. The big content companies are TERRIBLE at doing both of these
things, so it’s no wonder they’re not doing so well in the current
environment."

Beautiful.

------
keturn
This was a good post, but I confess to being a little disappointed that it was
not in musical form.

------
eggspurt
Hmm, isn't Jonathan's blog post just an advertisement for a few e-commerce
links on his website - catering to anti-SOPA-crazed technologists that will
upvote this post and buy his songs while they're there?

Anyway, people don't change overnight. Once you train people they can find
pirated content for free, they'll continue doing this - and it's very hard to
compete with a torrent search site.

~~~
SquareWheel
For as long as I've been following his blog, he's used it to talk about things
he wants to talk about. If he's touring, he'll likely post about touring.
Lately he's been organizing a cruise, and he's been talking about that. He
also just released an album -- I don't think it's unfair that he post about
that on his blog.

I have seen examples of people attempting to "cash-in" on the SOPA outcry, but
I do not believe Jonathan Coulton is one of those people.

------
dedward
So let's see - your legal stuff stored on an online service... or even
broader, you contract some service you need out to a company. That company
gets it's doors slammed because they landed in legal trouble - who cares who's
fault that was, that's not your problem - your immediate problem is you no
longer have access to that service.

I've seen a bank go bankrupt and people lose quite a bit of money. (no, not in
the US, no FDIC, etc etc, private bank, other country). Imagine hitting the
ATM on the way to work and finding out that the bank is simply _gone_. Okay,
the US has good protections against that, as do most 1st world nations.....
but the lesson coming out of that was "Hmm, maybe we should look at only using
government sanctioned banks with, you know, insurance, and if it's going to be
a private bank, I want to know more about their financial situation before
committing to them. Lesson learned.

Security company for the condo complex got shut down because they broke
immigration laws. Left the condo with no security, even though most of the
staff were legal, it didn't matter. Those guys are out jobs, and the condo has
to have an emergency meeting to figure out how to get back good, trustworthy
guards again. Suppliers go bankrupt. Heck, people get sick, family
emergencies, they die unexpectedly and unfortunately, leaving you with a
problem.

So let's not blow it up into more than it is. If the lawmakers were way out of
line here, let's make sure it comes out and they are sanctioned
appropriately.... but regardless, it's a 3rd party service. If you're using
any critical service that is devastating to be without, you need to properly
assess and address that risk.... whether it's data or services, staff or
insurance, etc.

------
axiom
This whole post is a red herring.

Megaupload was also used for legal activities. Awesome. I bet the mafia also
did some stuff that was legal. Let's consider the "complexity" this introduces
into the act of putting mobsters in jail. Insightful.

Piracy is victimless. So is me breaking into your house while you're not home,
watching TV for a while, and then leaving. I mean, you're not even using your
TV while you're not home! I mean, if I break into your house and watch your
TV, it's not like I would have _paid_ to watch your TV if I hadn't broken into
your house. I mean, you're not losing anything! How dare you prevent me from
doing what I want with your shit.

What, just because you spend $100M making a movie, you think you "own" the
right to charge for that movie?

The end.

~~~
SquareWheel
"This whole post is a red herring."

I don't understand how you can say that. What is this "red herring" truly
hiding? Jonathan Coulton has always been outspoken about piracy in this
regard.

Your comparison of piracy to breaking and entering is really outlandish.

