Skip to main content

View Diary: Confessions Of A Hollywood Professional: Why I Can't Support the Stop Online Piracy Act (UPDATED) (272 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, let's not (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassandra Waites, NMRed, kurt, geph

    Next time you go into a book store, take a good look around you. 3% of the books on the shelves in there written by current authors (as opposed to dead ones) are written by authors who make a living as a writer.

    The other 97% are written by authors who work at other jobs as well, trying to make enough with their writing to support themselves, or at least make enough to buy themselves enough time off their bills so they can write another book.

    And it's NOT a hypothetical. At all. It happens to me all the time. One time a kid on Facebook complained to me that the $60 audio book he had purchased was crap. "You could hear the cars driving by in the background!"

    That book hadn't even been licensed to audio at that time.

    And even if the pirates aren't making money on another creator's IP, they're stealing.  Book publishing is a very slim margin industry (comics are even worse) and widespread piracy pounds the smaller houses and writers.

    But no, I don't support SOPA and am scared to death of these dinosaurs in Congress trying to legislate anything on the "intertubes."

    •  What you describe has nothing to do with (0+ / 0-)

      file sharing. The problems with the publishing industry are numerous, inevitable, and mostly self-inflicted. Blaming technology for the shortcomings of the people that control your industry will accomplish nothing but to extend the time it takes to die.

      Business needs artists, artists do not need them unless they control access. The web makes that control impossible. Like all artists, writers will write regardless of circumstance. Instead of trying to stop the tide, figure out a way to use it.

      "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

      by Greyhound on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:01:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

        While I'm concerned about my ownership and fair use rights in a book that I purchase, the distinction is the difference. (And I find it particularly amusing while watching High Fidelity)

        There is a benefit for an artist in partnering with a buisness that has relationships with sellers, advertisers and can speculate on an artist's work that allows them to make something. This relationship needs to be worked on, sure. And a successful artist can break out of a system that they find burdensome.  Ideally this allows everyone to win.

        We get content, investors get a reasonable rate of return, and artists have a system that helps them not starve.

        The exponential nature of modern file sharing is what frightens content makers and that IS a function of the technology. A mix tape in 1985 was hard to make, hard to share and degraded when copied. A mix "tape" in 2005 was easy to make, easy to share and didn't degrade.

        The same for movies. Copy a movie from Blockbuster in 1985? You get a bulky and poor copy of the movie. Download a rip from a DVD? You and everyone else on a torrent site get a DVD quality .iso file.

        It is better to be making the news than taking it; to be an actor rather than a critic. - WSC

        by Solarian on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:45:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Djinn is out of the bottle. (0+ / 0-)

          Being paid is what this is about, and the old model you describe, while still useful as you say, is and will become less useful as time goes by. The technology removes the control they had that makes it possible for them to charge for picking and choosing who gets read/seen/heard.

          The world's second moveable type printing press was probably used to make knock-offs of the Gutenberg Bible. It has always been possible to copy everything and it seems to me the technology also takes a big chunk out of the profit of the counterfeiters as well.

          From the other side of the equation, I find nearly everything published today to be the literary equivalent of deep-fried HFCS. Why on earth would I lay out $20 to buy a book that is almost certainly crap? I wouldn't. But when someone tells me they have found an author worth reading, and I can check out their work for nothing other than a potential waste of my time, I will and do.

          I think the cause of the debate is mostly the fact that all of these industries are, in their current form, doomed by technology and their insistence that business-as-usual continue. They will adapt or be replaced.

          The changes are still coming, let's just be careful about the unintended consequences of "doing something about it" along the way.

          "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

          by Greyhound on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:17:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'd say the concern is with this: (0+ / 0-)
            But when someone tells me they have found an author worth reading, and I can check out their work for nothing other than a potential waste of my time, I will and do.

            How is the author of the book you're talking about being paid?

            It is better to be making the news than taking it; to be an actor rather than a critic. - WSC

            by Solarian on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:34:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site