Several sources are today reporting that the Pirate Bay is to make the transition to a commercially based model as a result of ownership change.
See here and here.
Whilst we are acutely aware of the "Web sheriff" debacle (funny as it was) we are accepting at face value the merit of these announcements as we have been in contact with the Pirate Bay as advocates of this proposal over the past few weeks - see previous blog posts.
The Bats welcome this brave and historic move on the part of the Pirate Bay and are hopeful that those involved in and charged with protecting the copyrights of individuals who are active in the creative industries will grasp this opportunity to develop what is, quite obviously, a viable business model for the distribution of digital works.
Those now disillusioned and disaffected vociferous users and supporters of the Pirate Bay who might wish to vent their anger at having been "sold out" may be interested in our "Fuck the Pirate Bay" t-shirts which are still available from our online store.
The Bats
Tuesday, 30 June 2009
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Opt in / opt out?
Of the many varied emails we’ve received over the past week or so, thanks to everyone including those who are vociferously pro piracy, one constant has been the reference to the argument regarding the “increased sales” generated as a direct result of sharing files across p2p networks with a lot of file sharers reiterating their preference to “Try before they buy”.
Whist nobody appears able to validate the claims of increased sales with any degree of accuracy or hard factual evidence it does present both sides of the argument with an opportunity to further develop the notion as a potential business model. We mentioned earlier that many file sharers considered the “battle” between p2p users and the industry was one which was business model based and not necessarily targeted at artists themselves. The unfortunate reality is that the artists, distributors, publishers and retailers have become the collateral damage resulting from this battle.
Given The Pirate Bay is widely acknowledged as the market leader in p2p together with the fact that the Pirate Party Declaration of Principles openly states “Copyright was created to benefit society in order to encourage acts of creation, development and spreading of cultural expressions. In order to achieve these goals, we need a balance between common demands of availability and distribution on the one hand, and the demands of the creator to be recognized and remunerated on the other”, the Pirate Bay medium and its users would be an excellent means by which to both test the veracity of the improved sales claims and move forward the Pirate Party political manifesto as published.
How can we as consumers, industries and advocates of change, collectively best harness and use this technology and endeavour to examine the phenomenon of increased sales by additional free marketing and the “try before you buy” consumer approach?
Essentially we believe that an opt in / opt out approach would be the best vehicle to achieve this. If the Pirate Bay were to act in the positive in relation to the party objective of achieving “a balance between common demands of availability and distribution on the one hand, and the demands of the creator to be recognized and remunerated on the other” one obvious way of achieving this would be to actually acknowledge the artist wishes as to whether their works may or may not be distributed for free via p2p.
If, for example, an artist is willing to have their material distributed via that medium in order to potentially generate additional sales then that is a commercial decision taken in good faith which they ultimately believe will benefit / sustain them. On the other hand if an artist decides the opposite and wishes to refrain from the opportunity then that, by all accounts according to the logic of the core argument of many Pirate Bay and other free p2p users, is the rock upon which they will perish as artists.
The notion that by distributing someone’s works for free, without their permission, in the hope that someone is exposed to it and decides to remunerate the artist is fundamentally flawed. True democracy, another tenet of the Pirate Party, is not built upon individuals making decisions – political, commercial or otherwise - on the part of third parties without the participation of that third party in any decision making process. This is not Nazi Germany, nor should we be advocating or seeking a return to that mindset. These are decisions ultimately for the artist, as the creator, to make.
We believe that the music industry, whilst flawed in many regards, has the resources and a moral obligation to its employees to facilitate an opt in / opt out policy as far as free torrent distribution is concerned where torrent sites are minded towards a truly democratic participation on the part of artists.
Whether it has “the will” is another matter which will need to be explored.
Both camps (p2p and the music industry) have entrenched positions and the people suffering the brunt of the inaction are the artists, publishers, distributors and retailers. Certain consumers, in this scenario specifically those who use the p2p networks with no intention of ever paying for materials downloaded, may feel that they are in a golden age – a Groundhog Day birthday present scenario. This is unsustainable. Already there are creative people questioning the rationale behind their being expected to invest heavily for nominal, if any, return.
The argument “if they are any good they will sell” is a straw man defence. Not everyone has the skills, wherewithal, technical knowhow and resources to self finance and promote themselves. What are the incentives for those with those particular skill sets to help any such individual where there is the very real possibility, despite even their best efforts, that they make no money from doing so?
As a society we cannot simply expect everything for free otherwise the supply dries up as there are no true monetary or business incentives for people to continue to be creative, nor for those in the ancillary service industries to support them.
Everyone knows that The Pirate Bay is not the only show in town when it comes to p2p / torrents. They are, however, the largest, most popular and the only medium with affiliations to a political party and clear manifesto objectives. We would therefore welcome and encourage an open and frank dialogue between both parties – without the tit for tat retaliatory posturing of the past – in an attempt to arrive at a mutually respectful position whereby the Pirate Bay / Party might achieve at least one of their stated objectives with broad consent and the music industry, per se, might embrace and engage a technology and proposed business model - the proponents of which firmly believe to be the future.
It is only by working together that both parties might come to understand and appreciate each other as truly viable entities.
If there were to be a meeting of the minds we, The Bats, would be happy to act as facilitators in that regard.
The Bats
Whist nobody appears able to validate the claims of increased sales with any degree of accuracy or hard factual evidence it does present both sides of the argument with an opportunity to further develop the notion as a potential business model. We mentioned earlier that many file sharers considered the “battle” between p2p users and the industry was one which was business model based and not necessarily targeted at artists themselves. The unfortunate reality is that the artists, distributors, publishers and retailers have become the collateral damage resulting from this battle.
Given The Pirate Bay is widely acknowledged as the market leader in p2p together with the fact that the Pirate Party Declaration of Principles openly states “Copyright was created to benefit society in order to encourage acts of creation, development and spreading of cultural expressions. In order to achieve these goals, we need a balance between common demands of availability and distribution on the one hand, and the demands of the creator to be recognized and remunerated on the other”, the Pirate Bay medium and its users would be an excellent means by which to both test the veracity of the improved sales claims and move forward the Pirate Party political manifesto as published.
How can we as consumers, industries and advocates of change, collectively best harness and use this technology and endeavour to examine the phenomenon of increased sales by additional free marketing and the “try before you buy” consumer approach?
Essentially we believe that an opt in / opt out approach would be the best vehicle to achieve this. If the Pirate Bay were to act in the positive in relation to the party objective of achieving “a balance between common demands of availability and distribution on the one hand, and the demands of the creator to be recognized and remunerated on the other” one obvious way of achieving this would be to actually acknowledge the artist wishes as to whether their works may or may not be distributed for free via p2p.
If, for example, an artist is willing to have their material distributed via that medium in order to potentially generate additional sales then that is a commercial decision taken in good faith which they ultimately believe will benefit / sustain them. On the other hand if an artist decides the opposite and wishes to refrain from the opportunity then that, by all accounts according to the logic of the core argument of many Pirate Bay and other free p2p users, is the rock upon which they will perish as artists.
The notion that by distributing someone’s works for free, without their permission, in the hope that someone is exposed to it and decides to remunerate the artist is fundamentally flawed. True democracy, another tenet of the Pirate Party, is not built upon individuals making decisions – political, commercial or otherwise - on the part of third parties without the participation of that third party in any decision making process. This is not Nazi Germany, nor should we be advocating or seeking a return to that mindset. These are decisions ultimately for the artist, as the creator, to make.
We believe that the music industry, whilst flawed in many regards, has the resources and a moral obligation to its employees to facilitate an opt in / opt out policy as far as free torrent distribution is concerned where torrent sites are minded towards a truly democratic participation on the part of artists.
Whether it has “the will” is another matter which will need to be explored.
Both camps (p2p and the music industry) have entrenched positions and the people suffering the brunt of the inaction are the artists, publishers, distributors and retailers. Certain consumers, in this scenario specifically those who use the p2p networks with no intention of ever paying for materials downloaded, may feel that they are in a golden age – a Groundhog Day birthday present scenario. This is unsustainable. Already there are creative people questioning the rationale behind their being expected to invest heavily for nominal, if any, return.
The argument “if they are any good they will sell” is a straw man defence. Not everyone has the skills, wherewithal, technical knowhow and resources to self finance and promote themselves. What are the incentives for those with those particular skill sets to help any such individual where there is the very real possibility, despite even their best efforts, that they make no money from doing so?
As a society we cannot simply expect everything for free otherwise the supply dries up as there are no true monetary or business incentives for people to continue to be creative, nor for those in the ancillary service industries to support them.
Everyone knows that The Pirate Bay is not the only show in town when it comes to p2p / torrents. They are, however, the largest, most popular and the only medium with affiliations to a political party and clear manifesto objectives. We would therefore welcome and encourage an open and frank dialogue between both parties – without the tit for tat retaliatory posturing of the past – in an attempt to arrive at a mutually respectful position whereby the Pirate Bay / Party might achieve at least one of their stated objectives with broad consent and the music industry, per se, might embrace and engage a technology and proposed business model - the proponents of which firmly believe to be the future.
It is only by working together that both parties might come to understand and appreciate each other as truly viable entities.
If there were to be a meeting of the minds we, The Bats, would be happy to act as facilitators in that regard.
The Bats
Saturday, 13 June 2009
A few thoughts on illegal file sharing...
You don't have to be a genius to figure it out - but being a bit "thick" when it suits you certainly helps if you like to think that illegal downloading of music and films is a "victimless crime".
Setting aside the almost total destruction of the niche record store industry worldwide let's take, by way of a small example, the collapse of the distributor Pinnacle and the three UK retailers Woolworths, Fopp and Zavvi.
All of these companies were heavily dependant on the sales of recorded music and DVDs - for years it formed the core of their businesses. Thousands of their employees have been laid off as a result of the closure of their respective stores and offices across the UK. These people are victims, victims of mass theft in a virtual world where the perpetrators involved ease their consciences by assuming that what they are doing is harming no one and that they have some sort of devine right to make a commercial decision on the part of a third party.
The supposed "victimless" nature of illegal downloading of music and films has been exposed as a lie, flawed in every sense of the word.
Those who use the lamest of arguments - that they buy music / DVDs if they like them after downloading them - should now stop deluding themselves that they are not thieves. Their actions have directly resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs, they have stolen and destroyed the livelihoods of thousands of the aforementioned employees directly and, consequently, adversely affected their families.
Let's be honest about this. None of these employees or store owners were the fat cat millionaires or copyright barons that illegal downloaders are supposedly fighting against, were they? No, they were ordinary people trying to make an honest living. Try explaining to them the flawed rationale behind the often quoted assertion that "an illegal download isn't necessarily a lost sale".
If the pro illegal filesharing argument is to stack up in any shape or form it has to acknowledge that its "battle" with the creative industries is not with the creators but with the model itself. That said, now that there is a democratically elected representative in the European Parliament who is in a position to further advocate their campaign - if indeed that is all that their political objective was about - will that representative be calling for even a temporary suspension of the abuse of P2P technology in order that the matter might be discussed and potentially resolved in a democratic and entirely legal fashion? I don't think so.
The arguments, both for and against illegal downloading, are well rehearsed. Interestingly the "pro" illegal downloading argument is based on a mindset of "free" and their telling people in the creative industries how best they should market their works. It's no coincidence that those who espouse illegal downloading are not dependant on the sale of creative works for the food they put on their tables.
Enough of this nonsense by already globally established artists that illegal downloading is fine - would they put forward the same argument were it not for the fact that they are already rich, famous and globally established having screwed every cent possible from the industry and the fans on their way to getting there only to find that the industry, haemmoraging from the impact of illegal downloading, was neither prepared, nor in a position, to concede to their ever excessive advance demands and deal terms? Hardly. The phrase "Poacher turned gamekeeper" comes to mind. Think about it, why are there no unsigned acts singing the praises of someone stealing their songs and their making no money whatsoever from it? Bear in mind that there is a difference between artists deciding to give their works away for free and someone else making that decision for them.
The facts of the matter are that the actions of illegal downloaders have long since started to come home to roost and real people - just like you, your mother, father, brother, sister, cousin, husband or wife are losing their jobs, houses, cars and families.
The Bats
Setting aside the almost total destruction of the niche record store industry worldwide let's take, by way of a small example, the collapse of the distributor Pinnacle and the three UK retailers Woolworths, Fopp and Zavvi.
All of these companies were heavily dependant on the sales of recorded music and DVDs - for years it formed the core of their businesses. Thousands of their employees have been laid off as a result of the closure of their respective stores and offices across the UK. These people are victims, victims of mass theft in a virtual world where the perpetrators involved ease their consciences by assuming that what they are doing is harming no one and that they have some sort of devine right to make a commercial decision on the part of a third party.
The supposed "victimless" nature of illegal downloading of music and films has been exposed as a lie, flawed in every sense of the word.
Those who use the lamest of arguments - that they buy music / DVDs if they like them after downloading them - should now stop deluding themselves that they are not thieves. Their actions have directly resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs, they have stolen and destroyed the livelihoods of thousands of the aforementioned employees directly and, consequently, adversely affected their families.
Let's be honest about this. None of these employees or store owners were the fat cat millionaires or copyright barons that illegal downloaders are supposedly fighting against, were they? No, they were ordinary people trying to make an honest living. Try explaining to them the flawed rationale behind the often quoted assertion that "an illegal download isn't necessarily a lost sale".
If the pro illegal filesharing argument is to stack up in any shape or form it has to acknowledge that its "battle" with the creative industries is not with the creators but with the model itself. That said, now that there is a democratically elected representative in the European Parliament who is in a position to further advocate their campaign - if indeed that is all that their political objective was about - will that representative be calling for even a temporary suspension of the abuse of P2P technology in order that the matter might be discussed and potentially resolved in a democratic and entirely legal fashion? I don't think so.
The arguments, both for and against illegal downloading, are well rehearsed. Interestingly the "pro" illegal downloading argument is based on a mindset of "free" and their telling people in the creative industries how best they should market their works. It's no coincidence that those who espouse illegal downloading are not dependant on the sale of creative works for the food they put on their tables.
Enough of this nonsense by already globally established artists that illegal downloading is fine - would they put forward the same argument were it not for the fact that they are already rich, famous and globally established having screwed every cent possible from the industry and the fans on their way to getting there only to find that the industry, haemmoraging from the impact of illegal downloading, was neither prepared, nor in a position, to concede to their ever excessive advance demands and deal terms? Hardly. The phrase "Poacher turned gamekeeper" comes to mind. Think about it, why are there no unsigned acts singing the praises of someone stealing their songs and their making no money whatsoever from it? Bear in mind that there is a difference between artists deciding to give their works away for free and someone else making that decision for them.
The facts of the matter are that the actions of illegal downloaders have long since started to come home to roost and real people - just like you, your mother, father, brother, sister, cousin, husband or wife are losing their jobs, houses, cars and families.
The Bats
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
stuff...
- Unleash The Bats
- United Kingdom
- Blog / rss feed source for those interested in following / supporting our illegal file sharing awareness campaign.