"Every Pirated Copy Represents a Lost Sale"

I want to talk about the financial impact of piracy today. First, I'll give you this quote from Slate:

Much of the debate about SOPA and PIPA has thus far centered around the entertainment industry’s absurdly inflated claims about the economic harm of copyright infringement. When making these calculations, intellectual property owners tend to assume that every unauthorized download represents a lost sale. This is clearly false. Often people copy a file illegally precisely because they’re unwilling to pay the market price. Were unauthorized copying not an option, they would simply not watch the movie or listen to the album.

So, let's talk about lost sales. That's what this whole SOPA/PIPA fuss is all about, right? Studios claim that they are losing money and if piracy continues unchecked, studios will lose a lot of money. Piracy apologists counter that studios are making record profits, and the effects of piracy are minimal, and might even be beneficial.

In their estimates of actual monetary losses, the MPAA paid for a study that was conducted by L.E.K. Consulting. The study examined and tried to calculate the toll piracy took from the industry. I have not read the entire report...but let's be honest, you haven't either.

However, a few people who actually did read the report (including the venerated libertarian think take the Cato Institute) seemed to think these numbers were complete bullshit. Even me, the lonesome anti-piracy crusader, had expressed some doubt.

Then I thought about it for a bit.

A couple months, actually.

Turns out, maybe the one-to-one sales loss isn't so crazy after all.

To demonstrate, let's do a thought experiment. If people are right, and they use the "well, I pirated it because I wouldn't have paid to see the movie anyway" excuse, if we remove piracy from the equation the "no net loss" argument should still hold up.

Because that's what they're claiming, right? That generally there is little-to-no net loss due to piracy?

Let's say Mike wants to watch a movie. He kinda' wants to watch A Few Good Men, because he heard it was pretty good, but he's not like, really super-interested in watching it. It just sounds interesting.

In a world with piracy, Mike could either torrent the movie or find a streaming site -- super easy. He wouldn't even have to get up off of the couch and the movie would be up and running in a couple of minutes.

But what if there were no piracy?

He could still see the movie if he wanted to. He could buy it on Amazon and watch it instantly ($9.99). He could buy it from iTunes and watch it instantly ($9.99). He could sign up for Netflix  and have the DVD delivered to his house ($7.99 a month after free trial). He could stream it through Gamefly ($7.98 a month). He could rent it from a Redbox kiosk ($1.20, if you can find it). He could buy a used DVD on Amazon or eBay (under $5.00). Or he could rent it from one of those antiquated buildings called a video store (under $4.00).

But maybe he doesn't want to wait, or it's just too damn expensive (because $5.00 is a lot of goddamn money).

So instead of watching that Academy Award-nominated "masterpiece," he decides to do something else with 138 minutes of his life.

Here's where the thought experiment really kicks in -- can you find Mike an activity that does not represent a "lost sale"? Remember...there is no piracy allowed.

Maybe he'll play a video game (which he purchased). Or watch some TV (which pays broadcast rights and also generates advertising revenue). Maybe he'll just listen to some music (which he purchased legally) or watch a movie he already owns (and purchased legally). Maybe he'll watch some YouTube videos (that generates advertising revenue for Google, and they have partnerships with content creators) or catch up on a show like The Daily Show or South Park (both online, both generating ad revenue) or watch something saved on his DVR (which is subscription-based, and has commercials that many people still watch even though they don't have to).

In every scenario above, the content creator is making money that they wouldn't be making if Mike chose to watch a pirated movie. At some point, somewhere down the line, a sale is being lost due to piracy.

You can quibble about the amount, but maybe those claims by the MPAA and RIAA don't sound so ridiculous after all.

"But hang on a second," you bleat. "What if, instead of being cooped up in a house all day like a pale friendless neckbeard, Mike decides to go work in the yard? Or go for a walk? Or play with his son? Or go to the park? Or build a bookshelf in his garage?"

If you thought that, congratulations! You've fucking failed!!! If Mike had wanted to do those things he would have done them. Remember -- Mike wants to watch a movie, not fucking re-create a scene from Leave it to Beaver.

A person who wants to consume media actually wants to consume media. Sounds counter-intuitive...I know.

So if Mike wants to watch Jack Nicholson yell his way out of a cross examination he can do so legally...but admittedly those avenues are a little hit and miss right now. There are all kinds of weird varying costs, blocked countries, arcane release windows, and a poor selection of titles available.

See, online content distribution is a relatively new medium -- it's going to take time to find the right balance between profit and sustainability. This includes problems with worldwide distribution rights, release windows, exclusivity, broadcast deals, et cetera. When entering a market like this, it's hard for any business to wrap it's heads around an appropriate business model.

For example, in the field of home entertainment (leaving box office numbers out of the equation), movies and television shows cost about the same to produce as major release video games. When purchased new, the price point for each is about the same, with newly released video games costing $59.99 while new Blu-Ray DVDs cost $49.99. Yet, the highest grossing Blu-Ray of all time was Avatar, with 2.7 million discs sold. Compare that with a recently released video game, Modern Warfare 3...which sold almost three times that amount in the first 24 hours alone.

Obviously people don't want to pay too much for a movie. Movies engage the consumer for 2 or 3 hours max. Video games can engage the consumer for over 75 hours. The market for each home entertainment product is totally different -- typically people want to buy video games and rent movies.

So, what's the fair price for an online movie rental?

If you think that price is $0.00, then the "no net loss" argument holds water. You'd also be completely wrong, and shut up. Last night I paid $3.99 to rent the movie Wanderlust from Amazon.com (and you should too...because it's fucking hilarious). I think that's a fair price...and I felt good about myself after watching it, because finding it for free online would have been soooo goddamn easy.

What I'm saying is...I understand how hard it is to avoid piracy sometimes. I've struggled with it. The guy who writes The Oatmeal struggled with it (and lost). The guy who composed this image struggled (and lost). But I think we have a responsibility as consumers to give these companies (who create things that so many people enjoy) the benefit of the doubt, and try to pay for the content we consume...even when it's really hard to do so.

Shit...it happened. I'm moralizing. I hate moralizing. 

For the record, I'm not judging you if you've pirated stuff in the past. I really honestly don't care. Just...for the good of the industry I'd like you to consider the other options first, especially if you can afford it (and you all can).

The "Piracy = Theft" Debate

I saw this today:
 

This is a defense I see a lot, actually (along with the "we wouldn't have paid for it anyway" defense). When I call piracy "theft" (as I have), in the eyes of many, I am using unnecessarily inflammatory language.

Which I might be. The problem is, when people hear "copyright infringement" or "an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization," it sounds like there is no real victim (and even if there is a victim, it's a massive, wealthy corporation, so who gives a shit?).

Obviously, the car analogy is bad...bad for people making the analogy, and bad for people attacking it.The analogy completely misses the point. Intellectual property is still property, just not in a physical sense. So when you steal intellectual property, you're still stealing (hence, "theft"). But don't take it from me. Take it from this fucking Motivational Poster that I just made (because folks just fucking love those silly, ironic motivational posters):

(click on me if you want to read me -- my font is too small!)

Does that clear things up? The problem with audio-visual intellectual property is that it's so easy to copy and distribute, and (generally) after you watch a film (or TV episode) you don't watch it repeatedly (unlike music, which gets played repeatedly the more you like a song).

But if we must use the car analogy, let's use it correctly:

Imagine you downloaded an exact copy of a Maserati for free, from some website (http://www.freemaserationline.net). Imagine if you lived next to someone who paid full price for an identical (legit) Maserati. Don't you think that person would be a little pissed off? Don't you think that person would regret paying full price for something he could have had for free? Don't you think Maserati would be a little pissed off that the thing they spent millions of dollars creating was just re-appropriated by someone else? Isn't the phrase "re-appropriated by someone else" another way of saying "stolen"? Isn't "stealing" another word for "theft?"

Does that clear things up? Am I missing something? The problem with intellectual property theft is this idea that there is no victim ("Imagine your car gets stolen, but it's still there in the morning.") There is a victim -- the person (or persons) who created the thing. By copying their creation without consent, you're "depriving the creator of potential income." Depriving someone of something that is legally theirs is the dictionary definition of theft.

Again, am I missing something?

My Response to Common Piracy...aw, fuck it

I give up.

I feel like I'm pretty much alone in my point of view...and so many smart folks that I respect tremendously disagree with me. It's at that point when I start saying, "Jesus Christ! No one understands this but me!!!"

Of course, when I find myself saying that I immediately start thinking, "Wait...am I the one who's wrong about this?"

It's like that old poker saying: "If you can't spot the sucker...you are the sucker."
Being wrong happens...and it's usually pretty embarrassing when it does, but this is a forum I use primarily to broadcast embarrassing things about myself (see this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this). I mean, I enjoy it when I'm wrong (or proved wrong), and I typically read views I disagree with before I try to digest any consenting viewpoints just to see if I am wrong about something.

I'm wrong a lot. It's rare that I broadcast my wrong-headed views (or the eventual realization that they are wrong), but when it happens, I'm fine with it.

So, am I wrong about SOPA?

I don't know. It's possible. I can't say "Yes" definitively, but I've certainly modified my stance since I first read the thing a couple of months ago. I stand by my support in general, even if the strength of that support has weakened considerably.
I came into this discussion with a lot of knowledge about online piracy -- knowledge that only a handful of people possess (I'm not bragging, it's just that this is a small community comprising the pirates, and the anti-pirates).

So I read SOPA, and it looked fine to me. Pretty good, actually. It was that magic bill that could actually address some of the piracy frustrations I've been faced with at my job, and it looked very good for my employer. It was vague at points, sure, but not more so than any other regulatory bill or law (I mean it's not a technical manual, it's legislation -- there has to be room for interpretation).

Then I started reading what people were saying about it. The law was pretty much universally reviled. It seemed to me that people immediately went looking for "abuse potential," instead of considering the "practical application" (seems everyone assumes that any law passed will be immediately abused to its fullest extent...a view I consider to be quite cynical, and I do not share).
Basically, I thought that people were just getting riled up over nothing. The fear came from a lack of knowledge about online piracy. So I attempted to educate...sharing my unique perspective as "actor," "producer," and "anti-piracy enforcement professional."

I started to notice that powerful tech companies were driving the paranoia. I found myself on the opposite side of my favorite companies (Google, Wikipedia, and Amazon have long been favorites of mine). I found myself defending some asshole Texas Republican, and disagreeing with friends and colleagues that I respect tremendously.

"Fuck," I thought. "Am I missing something?"

I examined the claims of the anti-SOPA crowd:

• SOPA overreaches.
• No due process.
• Piracy is largely the entertainment industry's fault because they failed to innovate (I hate this one -- it's blaming the victim and shitting all over an industry whose product is easier to copy and distribute than any other intellectual property out there).
• SOPA could close down many legitimate websites.
• SOPA is unconstitutional.
• The entertainment industry is making record profits, so obviously they're not being affected by piracy.
• Piracy numbers are debunked, and over-inflated.
• SOPA is censorship.
• Movie stars make too much money anyway.
• The entertainment industry doesn't want to innovate, since there's more money in the status quo.
• SOPA wouldn't fix piracy anyway, since people could just enter the IP address of the infringing site.
• Tech companies would be forced to police their users, placing a unfair financial burden on them.
• Innovation depends on the open flow of information, and SOPA would destroy that open internet, thereby destroying innovation.
• Congress is out of touch, and wrote an out of touch potentially devestating bill.
• Input from the tech industry was ignored.
• Et cetera.

I'm sure I missed some...but those are the points I recall off the top of my head.

None of them swayed me...and I have an answer for each charge...but I'm frankly tired of defending it at this point.

Like I say, I give up.

I'm not looking for support or sympathy or anything, I don't need encouragement or whatever...I'm just telling you where my head's at.

So where does this put us, now that SOPA is fucked?

A compromise bill could pass, but if it doesn't contain many of the provisions outlined in SOPA, it'll be toothless.
It's also possible that no compromise bill passes...but the populace becomes much less tolerant of piracy than it has been up to this point...and (consequently) more tolerant of piracy enforcement efforts (putting the ugly RIAA lawsuits behind us). However, after the shit went down with Megaupload today, and the response from Anonymous, I think it's unlikely.
On the other hand, the issue could be totally forgotten next week, the news cycle will turn its turny-turn, and piracy will continue as before. If this happens, either the entertainment industry comes up with the magical "innovation that pleases everyone" that can never exist (and has already been attempted by Hulu, iTunes, Netflix), or the industry starts to feel the full impact of piracy and people (like myself) start to lose jobs.

That would suck, but what can you do, right? There's no competing with internet vigilantism, and I can't convince people on my own...I'm just not eloquent enough.

Plus...fuck it. I could be just be wrong about the whole thing. There's no point in fighting any more.

Explaining Piracy

So, okay...I think we can all agree that SOPA is DOA. The bill is poison, and any elected official who is caught supporting it would no doubt fall prey to the internet vigilantism that wrecked the thing in the first place.

The SOPA backers are now discovering, do not mess with the internet.

Where does that leave us? Well, obviously, I think everyone has now seen that a handful of tech companies can whip their members into a frenzy. If these supposedly neutral corporations decide to weigh in on political matters, they can have a tremendous influence.

Sour grapes? Not really...at least, I hope not. Like I said before, if SOPA were to pass, I would probably eventually find myself out of a job. I'm honestly agnostic on the bill. I thought it was a good idea, and I was annoyed by the misinformation and hysterics...but as for actually passing the damn thing...it would probably complicate my life more than it would help it.

But, lost in this whole thing is the piracy issue. Maybe not lost, necessarily, since people are now talking about piracy and hopefully a compromise bill can be passed in the near future. However, anything that does not include the provisions outlined in SOPA will be toothless, and nothing will change.

Consequently, I feel the need to explain how piracy works, because no one really seems to know. I'll also explain why anti-piracy efforts have been largely ineffective up to this point (I can't go into a lot of detail...but hopefully I can give you all the gist).

Online piracy is a moneymaking endeavor for everyone involved; that is why people do it. I can't tell you how, because this could be construed as a "how to make money off of piracy" article...but you'll just have to trust me. From the lowliest uploader to the multi-million dollar rogue hosting companies, everyone is making money off of piracy...and none of it is going back to the content creators. Not a damn cent. That's the shittiest thing about piracy.

But here's the main problem with enforcement: internet piracy is global. "U.S. exports of film and entertainment media often attain shares in international markets in excess of 90 percent due to high global interest in U.S. filmed entertainment" (source). This means that the vast majority of entertainment content consumed worldwide is produced in the United States. So, foreign websites can distribute illegal content free to US consumers with impunity. Anyone can see how that's a problem.

So how do we stop it? We use the DMCA. Seems fair, right? I mean, not very much has changed since the law was passed in 1998...especially not on the internet. 56k modems!? Lightning fast!!!



Yeah, there are many problems with the DMCA...which is not a terrible law; it's just out of date. Here's three biggies:

1) Jurisdiction. The DMCA only applies to websites hosted in the United States. Very few pirate websites are hosted in the United States, which pretty much breaks this law from the get-go.

2) ID Requirements. A lawful take-down notice must include "identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed." This means that copyright holders must personally verify each link they are examining. That's fine with the little 1998 internet, spearheaded by those tech giants AOL and Prodigy...but the 2012 internet scoffs at your feeble attempts to quantify its vastness. There is just too much out there now, and we poor enforcement folk are getting buried.

3) Safe Harbor. It's a great idea in theory...but in practice it just ends up making enforcement impossible. Here's how it works -- one "linking" site allows anonymous users to posts links (their defense: "we don't host any content, so we're not breaking laws"), a second, "hosting" site allows anonymous users to post videos (their defense: "safe harbor; we remove content only if we receive an official letter from the copyright owner"). One site points to the other site, and everyone makes money. If a video is removed, it can be immediately uploaded again with no repercussions (some sites even offer multiple URLs for a single video -- if one URL is removed, you don't even need to re-upload). Unless this safe harbor loophole is closed, piracy will continue ad infinitum. Simply put, websites must be held accountable for their content, whether it's user-generated or not.

So there it is. Any new anti-piracy law must close those loopholes. SOPA would have done that, but everyone freaked out and now SOPA is going away. The OPEN Act is limp-wristed and impotent, and will make enforcement even more of a bastard than it already is (Really? The tiny, underfunded International Trade Commission? Really?).

The truth, as I've said before, is that the anti-SOPA hysteria is being fed by major corporations. This is not some kind of "grass roots movement." Both industries stand to take a financial pounding; entertainment via piracy, and internet via loss of piracy (which accounts for 1/4 of all web traffic -- source). In this propaganda war, the massive billion-dollar entertainment corporations lost to the massive billion-dollar internet corporations.

Why Piracy?

This is a true story.

Over the weekend, I celebrated early Christmas with my wife.

Because she's awesome, and because she listens to the things I say, she got me a Kindle Touch.

"Yaaaaaay!" I said, flailing my arms happily.

The next day, started in on the nasty business of "setting up my Kindle." I configured my wireless connection, synched up my account, and prepared to make with the digital downloading.

I decided to buy a Kurt Vonnegut novel -- he's my favorite author, and I've read quite a few of his novels, but there's still a lot of quality "lesser works" that I've either never read, or started and stalled halfway through.

"Bluebeard!" my Kindle screamed at me.

"Okay!" I screamed back.

"Awesome!" shrieked my Kindle. "That'll be $11.00, please!!! LOL!!!!!"

"Oh," I balked.

I looked at the listing for the paperback version. I could get a used copy for $6.49 (after shipping). Heck, I could get a new copy for $10.20 (with free shipping). I thought this whole "digital distribution" thing was supposed to be cheaper. Wha...?

And I quickly realized, you know what? I could find this in PDF format for free. If I wanted, I could actually find the complete works of Vonnegut in every digital format available from one download link (I did so just now, using a simple Google search that took less than a minute).

I mean, how cool would that be -- I could just fire up a complete library of books on my Kindle the first day...and leisurely make my way through the works of one of the greatest authors of our generation, if I so desired.

So, not only would that save me $11.00...it could potentially save me over a hundred dollars, and it would cost me nothing. Besides, I've already purchased several of his books in paper copy -- what would be the harm in simply transferring them over to digital copies?

And Mr. Vonnegut is dead anyway (So it goes). The only people profiting from this would be the goddamn publisher.

I was tempted. Very, very tempted. I could load up my new sweet new gift with books that, to be honest, I probably would never have bought anyway (I'm never going to purchase Galapagos, Timequake, or Hocus Pocus, so it's not like the publisher would be losing any real money). And hell, I paid for the Kindle, and I already buy tons of stuff on Amazon...is me pirating one little book going to make an impact at all with that enormous company?

And what the hell? $11.00? Who charges that much? It doesn't cost $11.00 to make one little frigging e-book. I was being fleeced. Some asshole publisher with and OCR scanner is making a butt-load of money, and little-to-no expense.

Screw those guys. They doesn't deserve my money.

This is the mindset of our generation. And thus, the true danger of piracy.

I did buy the e-book...not just because if I didn't I'd come off as a huge stupid hypocrite if I pirated that stuff after my recent pro-SOPA ravings, but also because I'm really trying to break myself of that "piracy is okay in small doses" mindset...which, even after three years working in anti-piracy, I still find myself fighting. Even sitting here now, typing this, I'm thinking, "Aw, who's gonna' know about those books? Or even care?"

I don't know. Certainly not one of the commenter in my last post, who branded me an "industry shill," "dinosaur," and an out of touch liar who has "no idea of how things work."

I mean, I know the guy who wrote that...and he's a complete asshole, so I'm not really bothered by any of his accusations. But there are others out there who might think that, because I'm so close to this stuff, and because I get a paycheck from enforcing this stuff, that I'm not the most reliable, unbiased source.

I disagree.

First off, SOPA might just put me out of a job. I'm a very busy man at work, but that's only because the company I work for goes out of its way to abide by the DMCA and US copyright law (more than most companies do, in my opinion). If SOPA were to be passed, it's very possible that my job would either change dramatically, or go away altogether.

Secondly, I would argue that I'm much more in touch with the realities and dangers of piracy than the average person. I've seen the numbers (and generated my own). I've done the research. I've looked at the "confidential" numbers reports. I've seen the breadth, depths, and realities of the problem first-hand. Like I say, this is what I do for a living. I ought to be allowed to express an informed opinion without being accused of bias.

Finally, although I'm a fan of the company I work for, I'm fully capable of my own free thought, and in the past I have been critical of facets of not just my own company, but of the industry as a whole. And like I said, no one in my office has even expressed an opinion about this law one way or the other, and I believe some of them might actually even be opposed to it.

I am neither industry shill, nor uniformed liar.

So what I want to do (after that super-long preamble) is talk a bit about "why" otherwise law-abiding folks pirate intellectual property. Or, rather, my three theories as to why they do so.

1) Convenience. Seems like a no-brainer, but, for those of us born before 1990, think about what "watching a TV show" used to entail. You'd have to learn about the show (talking to friends or reading about it in the newspaper), find out what time the show starts (by checking the TV Guide), then you'd have to stay at home and watch the show in its entirety, commercials and all. Now, with DVR and Video-on-Demand, you can skip commercials, and you've achieved what was once only a dream: full control the when and the where you view content.

But with piracy, you can now add what to that list. Studios are interested in limiting availability, because it means the consumer will want to pay a fee to increase their content choices.

For the consumer, circumventing this inconvenience is the most obvious excuse for accessing pirated content.

For instance, you hear that Boardwalk Empire is a show worth watching. It sounds like a pretty cool show (and it is), but HBO is expensive. You could wait until it comes out on NetFlix, or until the DVDs come out, but that takes forever.

Well, what if I told you about a site that has every single episode of Boardwalk Empire available, right now, for free? Pretty sweet deal, yeah? It's not like you want to pay for all the other shows on HBO or anything, and you're bored tonight...so...why not? Maybe just a couple of episodes...to see what all the fuss is about.

Seems like a pretty obvious, yet seemingly harmless decision.

Or maybe you finally grew a goddamn brain, and started watching the best show on television: Community. You go to NBC.com, and holy crap! Full episodes! High def! Free!!! You realize that you want to watch the full series!

Wait, where the hell is season 2!?

Nope. Not on NBC.com. Only the 5 most recent episodes are on NBC. Hulu? Nope. Have to subscribe to Hulu Plus ($7.99 a month) to watch season 2, and you already subscribe to NetFlix and Time Warner Cable. NetFlix doesn't have it available for streaming, so you'd have to rent the DVDs...but you're not signed up for Qwikster (lol), and the second season DVDs cost over $20.

Once again...hold the phone. Turns out you can see every episode for free online! No subscriptions, advertisements, or anything. Sweet!

Besides, if you do download it, it's probably good for NBC in the long run, because they have a new fan (you already subscribe to cable, and you have NetFlix) and you'll definitely start watching the future episodes...once you're fully caught up with the adventure of those kooky kids from Greendale Community College.

Again, it's that convenience factor, coupled with this notion that people are somehow gifted with the "inexorable right" to consume any entertainment content they desire...and that to withhold (or make them work for) that entertainment is just "corporate bullshit."

It's a culture of entitlement...and it's empowering piracy.

2) Access. Imagine this nightmare scenario. You're a Browns fan (yes, that alone is a nightmare), but you moved to Minneapolis to pursue your dream of becoming the next Gregg Steinhaffel (as if there could be another Gregg Steinhaffel).

Sunday rolls around, and you're totally geeked about the prospects of watching the high-powered, Colt McCoy-led offense catapult the Browns to a Super Bowl. Problem. The Browns will never, ever, ever be shown on national TV, and for some reason, the people in Minneapolis would rather watch the Vikings.

So you go to a sports bar to watch the game. It's pretty cool...but you end up plunking down $30 a week in beer and cheeseburgers. After 16 games of mediocrity, that'd cost you $480 damn dollars.

You could sign up for NFL Ticket, but you don't have DirecTV, and that anyway, the additional service costs $100 a year (which would save money in the long run, but it's still too damn expensive). You used to be able to get these games for free back in Cleveland...but now it's just a huge pain in the ass.

Hold the phone (no, seriously, hold the goddamn phone), you mean there's a website that offers all of these games for free? And I can watch it on my couch, in my boxers, eating a $1 Hot Pocket!? Hot damn! What a bargain!

How on earth could you say "no" to that? Why on earth would you say "no" to that?

No matter what a company does, or how easy and cheap it offers its services, it will never be able to compete with free. This is great for the consumer, because piracy is driving down costs from legitimate streaming services.

But it's very bad for the content producers and distributors, who must now (in order to compete) find a way to distribute content for "next to nothing." This includes forcing viewers to watch advertisements intermittently (the "free" Hulu model), or charging a small subscription fee (the "Hulu Plus" model). It's not sustainable, since those fees will never ever cover production costs (which is why Hulu does not actually create content), so the studio will end up losing in the long run.

This is why studios need to limit content availability. There needs to be a reason for consumers to plunk down that extra $8.00 a month. If the content providers lose control of that, why would a consumer ever sign up for a $99 NFL ticket? Or go to a sports bar for $30 a week?

Once again, piracy wins, because it's not playing fair.

3) Because...fuck you! This is the most insidious. These are the people with a chip on their shoulder about the profits that the various studios, record labels, and distributors are pulling in. They are anti-corporation, and think that studios create easy-to-digest bullshit for the consumer to turn a quick buck.

To them, movie studios are gluttonous assholes ripping off the American consumer with terrible content. Film a Smurf's movie?! Great! It made $142 million in box office receipts! VICTORY! How about the Chipmunks movie? $217 million! Awesome! People love this shit, and it costs us next-to-nothing to produce! Transformers: Dark of the Moon? $352 million!!! Wait, what's this? The Descendants? Only $28 million?! Who is responsible for this bullshit?! You're fired!!! Goddamn, we hate our customers, but we'll keep shoveling out the shitty content and they'll keep lapping it us as our wallets get fatter and fatter!

So why should those assholes be getting any of my money? Screw them. I'll hop on a torrent and just grab every movie I ever wanted (including first-run theatrical releases) for free. I don't need a TV or cable box, I can just stream everything online. I'm not going to feed the corporate machine to churn out shittier and shittier content. Those guys can suck it (and by "it," I mean "my wiener").

Ah...that felt good.

Thing is, these people are not totally wrong. The MPAA posted record profits last year, mostly based off of terrible, terrible, terrible remakes and sequels. Good shows (like Community) get shitty ratings, while shitty shows (like Two-and-a-half Men) are just killing. Everywhere we look, corporations and are getting richer and richer, while content is getting dumber and dumber.

But...

If you really believe this, what are you watching? Obviously if you're a discerning viewer, you're staying away from dreck like Wipeout or X-Factor. But you're still downloading stuff, right? Who do you think makes that shit you're downloading for free?

Yep. Studios. Record companies. Artists. The assholes you're railing against. The ones with the talent and the money that you lack.

So how can you simultaneously be a fan of something, while hating the people who created it?

The hell is wrong with you?

Face it...you're just a greedy asshole, cloaking your theft in the guise of this "stick it to the man" bullshit.

I have no patience for people like you...who are just so cynical and hypocritical that they see nothing wrong with what they're doing, and feel no obligation to pay for any entertainment they digest.

I hope there are not many people out there like this...because if so, anyone hoping to make a buck off of a creative endeavor is screwed.

But I know they're out there...and I'm pretty sure that "industry shill" guy is one of them.


In Conclusion

Sorry, I couldn't figure out a way to transition out of that list format that I had set up, so I went all "10th grade history essay" on your ass.

Basically, I get it. There's a lot more going on with people turning to piracy other than the fact that "it's free." It's also a question of quantity. Content producers want to restrict access, while pirates want capitalize on that. Who could blame someone for watching pirated movies...something that they don't really consider to be harmful in small doses?

But it's our culture of entitlement that makes us think that way. It's hard to break free, but we must...because more and more people are going to realize just how much free content is available out there...and how easy it is to get. And it will start to have a financial impact.

Maybe it hasn't happened yet...but it will. Remember when no one had heard of Skype? Now, it's the only way to communicate long distance with someone. As piracy grows and overwhelms the companies trying to contain it, there will be a cost.

I believe that we need to address it, and that it should not be tolerated.

In Defense of SOPA

Look, I get it. I understand why people are scared.

They've got a good thing going now -- the internet is completely open, and it's this great place to exchange ideas, shop, connect with people, and find information about practically anything that has ever existed.

It's good. I agree...and I use it constantly. The last thing we want is to have the government come in, screw it up, fill it with shitty advertisements, block content, and make it into some tame, corporate, soulless hellscape.

So, I get it. No one wants to see the internet ruined.

Many people believe that SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act) will break the internet. Consequently, no one likes SOPA.

Like, no one.

I Googled the term "SOPA defense," and I got almost an entire page full of anti-SOPA articles, with one actual defense of the bill (written for the National Review by the guy who wrote SOPA, Republican Texas Congressman Lamar Smith) titled "Defending SOPA." This is the same guy who supported the totally retarded Abortion Pain Bill (where women seeking abortions were required to be "fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child"). He's basically a boring poster boy for every irritating Republican position out there.

Naturally, he does a shitty job defending SOPA, being out of touch with the realities of online piracy and completely missing the point of his own stupid bill (which he probably had quite of bit of help writing). techdirt.com jumped all over it, with an equally misinformed attack of the defense.

Lamar, if you're reading this, just shut up. You're not helping, and I don't like you.

The question is, who's going to stand up and defend this massively unpopular bill? Who has two thumbs, and the balls to say, "Hey, you know what? This isn't such a bad idea."

This guy:


Sweet Christ I'm handsome.

Full disclosure: I work in anti-piracy enforcement. My employer has never voiced an opinion, positive or negative, on this bill. No one in my office has spoken about it, and in fact, when I mentioned it to a coworker, he'd never heard of it before.

These words are my own.

Even fuller disclosure: I'm an actor, writer, and producer. I've also participated in illegal downloading -- my Napster and Kazaa download lists were quite impressive at one time.

So I get it. I understand why people download stuff online. And if you choose to watch movies on pirate websites, or download torrents...it's fine. I don't blame you, and I'm not silently judging you. I mean, I'd encourage you to pay for entertainment in some way (if you don't already), but I promise that your actions (illegal or otherwise) are of no interest to me.

But here's what I think: internet piracy is screwing us. It's hampering creativity, holding back innovation, and making it damn hard for a person to make a living as a creative professional.

Because, and here's the point I have not been seeing out there, internet piracy is an industry. It's not a 17 year old in his basement uploading videos out of the kindness of his own heart. It's professionals earning money by sharing files...and most have been getting away with it for years. Yep, these shitheads, risking next-to-nothing, are making a fairly comfortable living (you can easily make about $3,000 a month, more if you're an actual site operator) without investing a single creative brain cell in the process.

Having said that, we need to establish some ground rules here. Things that I think we need to agree on:

1. Internet piracy sucks, it's harmful, and it's wrong
2. Nearly everyone does it, but most people feel bad about it when they do
   
3. If we do nothing, it's only going to get worse
4. Current enforcement efforts are ineffective, and have been stymied by the out-of-date DMCA
5. The only people who should be making money off of a creative endeavor should be the people responsible for that creative endeavor
6. No one has "the right" to view any entertainment content. If you cannot afford cable TV or DVDs, then you are not somehow endowed with the inalienable right to consume that content without going through the process of obtaining a legal copy to watch
   

Can we agree on those things? I mean, I know people who are against SOPA aren't necessarily pro-piracy...they're just anti-censorship...and I think most of us can agree to the above.

Now, I can concede that the SOPA has some vague language that has the potential to be misconstrued. Not to the extent that the fearmongerers will have you believe, but yes...certain sections are problematic. The ACLU agrees, calling it a "Good Idea - Poor Follow-Through."

But this is why bills go through an amendment process. What you've read is not the finished product. If bills were automatically passed into law after being introduced, then we'd all have a public option for health care right now. In fact, the most egregious issues have already been fixed in the latest version of the bill.

The chatter around the interwebs is that this bill will give anyone the ability to contact an ISP, tell that ISP that a site has "infringing content," and that ISP will be forced (by law) to flick a switch and immediately block access to the site in question, with little to no oversight.

The ACLU article above describes this nightmare scenario: "Katy Perry could decide that the awesome video you just posted on YouTube rocking out and lip-synching to her latest hit was, in fact, copyright infringement. All Ms. Perry would have to do is notify YouTube’s ISP of the supposed copyright infringement, and YouTube’s entire site could effectively disappear from the Web, perhaps even before YouTube was notified and despite the fact all other content on the site was non-infringing."

Forgive my language, but that's fucking retarded. And wrong. And it ignores something which the SOPA can never change -- that silly thing called "due process." It's in that constitution somewhere...not sure exactly where, but I'm pretty sure it's in there.

Either way, there could be no switch. Anything like that would require a court order. How do you get one of those? You have to go to a federal judge for approval. What is required for approval of a court order? Oh. Right. "Evidence."

For the judiciary, the presumption of innocence still exists, and any action taken on this law would still have to hold up to judicial scrutiny. This bill is not a constitutional amendment...so all of those awesome "bill of rights" guarantees from the constitution would still apply.

If Katy Perry's copyright owner could prove the video in question was not fair use, and that YouTube was "primarily designed or operated for...violations of the Copyright Act", and that they've taken "deliberate actions to avoid" enforcement, then yeah...they could potentially be shut down. But that'd be nearly impossible to prove in court, and if it can't be proved in court, then law enforcement still has to abide by federal rules of evidence.

SOPA is not a constitutional amendment. It is a bill, with the potential to become a law. Let's be clear about that. The constitution still wins.

So don't be afraid. Legitimate internet usage will still be protected, and cannot be infringed upon. This includes fair use -- a code that everyone creating content should familiarize themselves with. In addition, most copyright holders need (and actively work with) sites like YouTube, Facebook, Tumblr, and Google. Those sites are not the problem.

The problem is jurisdiction. This is the reason that The Pirate Bay can respond to legitimate copyright infringement take-down requests with a hearty "Go fuck yourself" (as well as an entire page dedicated to being assholes about the whole thing). This is the reason that a Russian-based music sharing website can decide to set their own licensing costs without the copyright owners consent.

You can access any site in the world via the internet. It's great, but what happens when one of your country's most important exports is being distributed for free via the internet? That country has an obligation to plug that leak. Do you think Saudi Arabia would just sit idly by as people took their oil and gave it away for free online? Or would Columbia just allow people to come in, grab any many coffee beans as they could carry, then turn around and sell those beans for a fraction of what they cost to produce?

Of course not. America must look after its own financial interests. If that includes blocking access to illegal websites, and stoppering advertising dollars flowing into that site, then so be it.

And it's only going to get worse. More and more people are "cord cutting;" essentially canceling cable television, and digesting all of their entertainment content online. However, watching habits have not changed. The current roll of legitimate streaming sites (Hulu, Netflix, iTunes, Amazon) have restrictions on what's available and when. Consequently, when these cord cutters find out that practically every show and movie ever filmed is available for free somewhere, they'll either drift away from legitimate services altogether, or supplement their pay services with pirate services.

Either way, with free pirated content in the mix, any legitimate service is unsustainable until that problem can be dealt with. SOPA would do a good job in addressing that issue. It won't make it go away (and I don't think anyone involved with the bill thinks it will fix online piracy for good), but it will make accessing online content much more difficult...which is how it should be, dammit. People used to build shacks in the woods, with complicated distribution rings to bootleg whiskey during prohibition. All people need to distribute illegal online content is a computer, an internet connection, and a comfy chair.

So anyway, if you're truly frightened of this legislation, I would ask: "When was the last time a federal law ruined an entire industry?" Prohibition doesn't count; that was a constitutional amendment (a difference we've covered already). But has a law ever been passed that ruined an entire sector of business? I'd be curious to know...because I can't think of one.

These things have a way of evening out over time. If the law truly overreaches, it will be struck down by the courts. If it somehow breaks the internet, industry pressure will force concessions, and court cases will iron out the details. The sky is not falling, chicken little. It's a good bill, addressing a serious, growing problem. If it's passed, the only people who should be truly afraid are the guys making money from internet piracy, and the piracy customers. You good, law-abiding folk have absolutely nothing to fear.