Forum
#Topics
+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
-Register
Youtube vids increased Monty Python DVD sales by 23,000% on Amazon !!!
Log In to post a reply
Pages: 3 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 | Next ]

View: flat \ threaded
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Labhead
Labhead
1868 posts

Re: Youtube vids increased Monty Python DVD sales by 23,000% on Amazon !!!

Hobobachang wrote:
Hobobachang wrote:
I'm convinced one of them was so f*cked up and caked in filth it jiggered my CD player


Does anyone know if that's even possible?!

8 O


Not with me, because I always look at the bottoms to clean off the fingerprints. haha, but seriously, I guess dirt could fly off and cause problems.

Feb 13, 2009, 05:02


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Youtube vids increased Monty Python DVD sales by 23,000% on Amazon !!!

revox wrote:

...The point is, the item has been bought in a legitimate transaction and, just as you may loan your own genuine original of a cd, lp, tape to someone else, the library has the same privilege.

However, a library is not accountable for unlawful copying of items that are 'loaned out', any copying and sale or distribution of books, cds, tapes etc by a member of the public carries certain penalties - this is especially the case for individuals that use the library (public) stock for large scale personal profit by bulk copying (if they are 'caught' of course).
...

Radio stations pay a license fee - I'm not going into detail - a play list is generally created before it is broadcast and a 'royalty' fee is paid via an administrative process.

If a Radio station pays no license fee (pirate) then "'they'" do go after them.

~8^)>


The point is that both radio and libraries allow people to enjoy other people's art for nothing and no-one complains. Whether it has been sanctioned by the powers that be or not is irrelevant.

This thread is about how allowing people to access things for free is not a problem and potentially beneficial. It was not about the legal structures in place that legitimise one form of free consumption over another.

Just because libraries pay for the CD or book that someone borrows does not make its subsequent free consumption any more ethical than an individual who buys and rips a CD then puts it "on" soulseek for all to access. Surely JK Rowling should hate libraries as much as Metallica hated napster.

The point that was being made was that people with a simplistic understanding of marketing have taken it upon themselves to rip stuff off youtube that has been added by nobodies who simply like it. The earlier posts pointed out that this was foolish and futile. Flying Circus showed that youtube was actually beneficial to sales as opposed to the myth of the "pirate" stealing from the poor studios.

The point about libraries and radio is that the free distribution of art has been going on for years but now "they" hate it because they took too long to catch up with the changes in technology and they see every illegal download as a lost sale. On the other hand "they" see radio as good PR and hustle programmers to get their product on the air. To me - and many others - there is a base contradiction here that needs to be exposed.

Feb 13, 2009, 13:23


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

revox
revox
800 posts

Re: Youtube vids increased Monty Python DVD sales by 23,000% on Amazon !!!

hito wrote:
revox wrote:

...The point is, the item has been bought in a legitimate transaction and, just as you may loan your own genuine original of a cd, lp, tape to someone else, the library has the same privilege.

However, a library is not accountable for unlawful copying of items that are 'loaned out', any copying and sale or distribution of books, cds, tapes etc by a member of the public carries certain penalties - this is especially the case for individuals that use the library (public) stock for large scale personal profit by bulk copying (if they are 'caught' of course).
...

Radio stations pay a license fee - I'm not going into detail - a play list is generally created before it is broadcast and a 'royalty' fee is paid via an administrative process.

If a Radio station pays no license fee (pirate) then "'they'" do go after them.

~8^)>


The point is that both radio and libraries allow people to enjoy other people's art for nothing and no-one complains. Whether it has been sanctioned by the powers that be or not is irrelevant.

This thread is about how allowing people to access things for free is not a problem and potentially beneficial. It was not about the legal structures in place that legitimise one form of free consumption over another.

Just because libraries pay for the CD or book that someone borrows does not make its subsequent free consumption any more ethical than an individual who buys and rips a CD then puts it "on" soulseek for all to access. Surely JK Rowling should hate libraries as much as Metallica hated napster.

The point that was being made was that people with a simplistic understanding of marketing have taken it upon themselves to rip stuff off youtube that has been added by nobodies who simply like it. The earlier posts pointed out that this was foolish and futile. Flying Circus showed that youtube was actually beneficial to sales as opposed to the myth of the "pirate" stealing from the poor studios.

The point about libraries and radio is that the free distribution of art has been going on for years but now "they" hate it because they took too long to catch up with the changes in technology and they see every illegal download as a lost sale. On the other hand "they" see radio as good PR and hustle programmers to get their product on the air. To me - and many others - there is a base contradiction here that needs to be exposed.


It isn't 'for nothing', it only appears to be. There are indirect payments made via local taxation of adults or through license fees. The 'powers that be' have made it their business, over a long period of time, to make issues like this irretrievably relevant, irrespective of individual principle or public opinion.

re: what the thread is about - the actual content of the op's link to Monty Python's vids suggests that there is definitely a problem. The streamed vids were made available for reasons stated most obviously, and those reasons do not include the words 'not a problem'. In fact the text from the site, "None of your driveling, mindless comments. Instead, we want you to click on the links, buy our movies & TV shows and soften our pain and disgust at being ripped off all these years.", does not say 'not a problem', to me (and I am familiar with Python's take on humour).

re: libraries paying for books/cds - ethics do not enter into it. Taking most torts into account, ethics takes a very low place when compared to financial harm. Contracts and IP law are complex. JK Rowling, for example, has a contract with a publisher, it is the publisher that determines how much her cut is from outlets such as libraries.

re: the point being made - I am not really clear as to the point being made by the op if, other than to stimulate debate, there was one. The sole point being made seems to be that one in the third response, by yourself. The reply I posted was to outline that there are devices in place to cover radio broadcast and public library stock. I see no posts with regard to content on YouTube added by 'nobodies' that has proven to be 'foolish' or 'futile' - what evidence is there to quantify this?

re: the final point & base contradiction - there are many areas of employment reliable upon each other, distribution, packaging, graphic design etc etc. The promotion of arts on the medium of radio feeds the whole machine: illegal downloads do not. I believe that there is likely to be more of an issue of avoiding torts as a result of graphic designers, printers (the very fonts on our computers have licenses attached to them) and packaging manufacturers using their contracts with corporations to seek recompense for what they may perceive as a lapse in contractual duty to protect the interests of all concerned. It is unlikely to be purely a case of being a 'lost sale'.

Retail outlets are in decline, as more people use the internet to meet their requirements, either knowingly acquiring legal content or not, the future of IP Law is assured and, as with most laws, ignorance of it will be no defence. I think that it is becoming the growth industry of the next 5 years.

~8^)>

Feb 13, 2009, 23:49


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Labhead
Labhead
1868 posts

Re: Youtube vids increased Monty Python DVD sales by 23,000% on Amazon !!!

Thanks hito, I completely agree with what you're saying.

To answer revox, my original point was that I think this proves that more exposure (through Youtube or otherwise) can only help sales (if it's worth buying... if you hear or see crap, you won't want to buy it, and your money will go towards something else that you like more).

People argue that this would mean lost sales, but with a 23,000% increase, it shows that there's no such thing as bad publicity. People have free access to good quality copies without needing to purchase but choose to buy it anyway, and I don't think it was just because of what they wrote in the More Info sidepane.

Will some people choose to not buy? Of course, but it looks like more often than not, people do buy quality products regardless and even moreso when there's more access to it.

Feb 14, 2009, 00:06


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

cyberpainter
cyberpainter
5926 posts

Re: Youtube vids increased Monty Python DVD sales by 23,000% on Amazon !!!

Labhead wrote:
Thanks hito, I completely agree with what you're saying.

To answer revox, my original point was that I think this proves that more exposure (through Youtube or otherwise) can only help sales (if it's worth buying... if you hear or see crap, you won't want to buy it, and your money will go towards something else that you like more).

People argue that this would mean lost sales, but with a 23,000% increase, it shows that there's no such thing as bad publicity. People have free access to good quality copies without needing to purchase but choose to buy it anyway, and I don't think it was just because of what they wrote in the More Info sidepane.

Will some people choose to not buy? Of course, but it looks like more often than not, people do buy quality products regardless and even moreso when there's more access to it.


When it comes to youtube, yes I can see the low quality video clips leading to sales if people like it. That's great. However there are a lot of different issues with different kinds of art and music. I agree with some things written here and not others, and other things I'm just unsure about. Being a visual artist, I do not think it's anyone's right to copy my artwork and use is as they wish. I want them to buy my artwork. If they want to view it, whether at an exhibit or online, that's great, it's what it's for. But it is copyrighted as all artwork is, and if they try to resell it or redistribute it, I have a right to tell them to stop.

We all have a distaste for the big record corporations, from way back, for how they have treated musicians. So we are less inclined to be sympathetic if they use their power to try and stop downloading or youtube exposure. We may have a distaste for mainstream musicians for their obvious playing the corporate game to make money. Also, artists have struggled with the art industry and their treatment of artists.

But artists and musicians have a right to make money off their creations, and to try to stop others from stealing it.

I'm guilty of downloading things so I'm not above it all. But I don't think artists have to be self-less to be considered real artists. You have to be a good business person to be a full time artist.

Feb 14, 2009, 20:45


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

cyberpainter
cyberpainter
5926 posts

Re: Youtube vids increased Monty Python DVD sales by 23,000% on Amazon !!!

Oh, that wasn't directed at labhead, just the whole thread...

Feb 14, 2009, 20:47


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Youtube vids increased Monty Python DVD sales by 23,000% on Amazon !!!

cyberpainter wrote:

...Being a visual artist, I do not think it's anyone's right to copy my artwork and use is as they wish. I want them to buy my artwork....

But artists and musicians have a right to make money off their creations, and to try to stop others from stealing it.
...


I understand what you are saying but what gives you the right to make money off your art? Before revox steps in with the legal explanation, I am talking philosophically here.

I am not having a go, I am just asking you and others to think about this.

Where does the right to make money off art come from? If you say you made it, you don't exist in a vacuum and other people have contributed in all sorts of ways. It is very capitalistic or libertarian to demand money for your creation. Moreover, art (of all kinds) borrows heavily from society and influences (Look at Stereolab. Where would they be without Neu, the US army etc?) and artists are the first to complain if Macdonalds sues for breach of copyright. For years, art was not a money making vehicle. Look at cave paintings and the entire history of music prior to printing and recording. The idea that someone owns a chord progression would still be considered a joke in much of the world.

If you have the right, how much are you entitled to? A rice farmer in Thailand is entitled to money for his rice but I will only pay about 2 dollars per kg so he has to accept bugger all. A souvenir maker in Kenya handmakes a statue but she cannot expect more than a couple of bucks for her work. Perhaps there are thousands of starving artists for a good reason.

Of course this raises questions about regulations and royalties. If govts and companies had not sat on their hands so long, ignoring the technology then systems of the type revox talks about could have been in place. Of course, like a band now on the radio or the farmer growing wheat, you cannot expect too much from a product that is easily accessable and so your dreams of getting rich through licencing are likely to go unfulfilled. As labhead rightly pointed out in his last post (thanks), this thread suggests that maybe (if your product is good) the best thing that could happen to you is that it be freely and widely distributed on the internet.

And you say it is stealing. Is there a difference between stealing a facsimile and the original. If kicked down your door and stole your painting then you have lost an object. If I steal a print from a store then one copy is gone and you and the retailer may be worse off. If there are 1 million prints, probably little harm is done. If I steal a facsimile jpeg off the internet are you any worse off? Would you even know?

The myth around pirating tries to equate stealing facsimiles with break and enter and shoplifting and I am not cetain that they are same. Of course if I sell the stolen jpegs then you could say something is awry but what if I just look at it? I could potentially visit your site every day and look at the picture so what does it matter if I save myself the bandwidth and save it on my hard drive?

I know I am being provocative but I am asking people to think about the concepts here rather than simply buying what the law or regulators or companies or artists tell us.

I welcome replies.

Feb 15, 2009, 11:53


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

cyberpainter
cyberpainter
5926 posts

Re: Youtube vids increased Monty Python DVD sales by 23,000% on Amazon !!!

If you create something, it is automatically copyrighted. You have rights according to the law in the US. I don't believe I'm necessarily doing something for the good of humanity by creating a work of art, I don't have that utopian an outlook, or socialistic. I live in a capitalist democracy. This is what we believe here, that you do have individual rights.

Why should I give my artwork away for free, what right do you have to take something I've toiled over?

Something that is printed is still copyrighted. The control an artist has over their work is a continual tug of war with a variety of factors in play. And artists have a tendency to get the short end of the stick.

Yes we are an echo of what came before us. But unless it is a direct copy, it is something new. Whether it's good or bad is another story.

Artists have lived off of their creativity since antiquity, it is not a modern concept. Since long before Michelangelo who could not have spent months and years on sculptures without benefactors and clients, usually the church.

Not sure how lucid I am, I just drunkenly woke up too early!

Feb 15, 2009, 12:58


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Left Boob Oscillator
Left Boob Oscillator
1371 posts

Re: Youtube vids increased Monty Python DVD sales by 23,000% on Amazon !!!

I agree with hito.

Just one point, though--libertarianism was not always equated with capitalism and individualism. That happened when Ayn Rand hijacked it.

Libertarian socialists still carry on the true spirit of the concept.

Feb 17, 2009, 15:47


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Youtube vids increased Monty Python DVD sales by 23,000% on Amazon !!!

Left Boob Oscillator wrote:
I agree with hito.

Just one point, though--libertarianism was not always equated with capitalism and individualism. That happened when Ayn Rand hijacked it.

Libertarian socialists still carry on the true spirit of the concept.


Is that not liberal socialists? I thought libertarians like Robert Nozick were pretty capitalistic. When did Rand hijack?

Feb 19, 2009, 07:31

Pages: 3 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 | Next ]

add a reply to this topic
________________________________________________________________\______________________________________
stereolab table Index