Christian Engström, Pirat

10 september 2011

”Excellent! Half the job done.”

Filed under: English,informationspolitik — Christian Engström @ 17:03

Read the interview at Debating Europe

The website Debating Europe has published an interview with me. Among other things, I say:

It is true that the record companies have lost half their revenues. I say: “Excellent! Half the job done”. What record companies do is distribution – it used to be an important function but now any teenage in his or her bedroom can do that work for free. In a market economy, your company will dissappear unless it’s competitive. The losses by the record companies just reflect a healthy market economy.

If you look at the statistics, people are spending as much, or even more, on music. But the big shift is that the record companies, who used to take lots of that, no longer have such a large cut – so more money is coming into the cultural sector, but more is also going to artists directly.

Read more at Debating Europe.

…………

Tags: , , ,

39 kommentarer

  1. ”What record companies do is distribution – it used to be an important function but now any teenage in his or her bedroom can do that work for free.”

    This reasoning is truly awful. Record companies do distribution as a means of getting paid for access to the contents, the music. The record companies also do a lot of other things that the artists are not interested in doing by themselves. And if they are interested in doing all other work except of composing and performing, they are completely free to do that. And in the latter case, also those artist will be robbed from their income by pirates. The artists sign contracts on completely voluntary basis, just like contracts are signed or agreements are made in any other business. The pirates work like a mafia, showing disrespect for the artists as well as for the law and for the honest people that pays for the music.

    Pirates show no respect at all for the work of the artists, they want their products for free. The word parasitizing the only proper word for this. The record companies in collaboration with great artists have produced great products, in many cases these products would never have been made without the support from record companies. Pirates want the products for free, products produced by persons working hard for their living while pirates don’t do any work at all besides making copies. As a Swede, I’m ashamed over living in a country that have so many pirates that are allowed to continue with their parasitizing year after year. And there´s even a political party – small and weak – but anyway. A political party in collaboration with The Pirate Bay.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 10 september 2011 @ 18:48

  2. [...] är också en intressant motpol till vad ”Pirate MEP” Christian Engström säger: It is true that the record companies have lost half their revenues. I say: “Excellent! Half the [...]

    Pingback av Aschberg talar klarspråk om att illegal fildelning är stöld « Nej till pirater och Piratpartiet — 10 september 2011 @ 18:53

  3. @nejtillpirater

    You got one thing right in your rambles, and that is that you are a swede (in the litterate sense) lol

    Kommentar av YesToPP — 10 september 2011 @ 19:20

  4. nejtillpirater: Clearly you’re not an artist, the distribution companies are actively working against any alternate solutions that artists could use to finance their work. Take the pirate bay as one example, many artist have released their work there voluntarily and depend on efficient filesharing to reach their audience and make a profit. Now the distribution industry is trying to prevent that by shutting down the pirate bay… Several studies show that pirates spend more money on culture than non-filesharers. It’s not the will to pay that’s lacking, it’s the will to pay for ancient technology that no one needs any more. It’s like making trains and cars illegal because the horse salesmen might loose their income!

    Kommentar av Mårten — 10 september 2011 @ 19:21

  5. @nejtillpirater

    Don’t you ever have anything new and/or interesting to say? The drivel you’re spewing here is the same old tired tirade you’ve used countless times by now. Nobody’s buying it, you know. Really. Try to come up with something tangible for once. Finally, but not least, your constant lying about what pirates (real people, you know) want and do is probably adding up to borderline slander, which is quite illegal, not to mention actionable. If I were Christian, I’d be seriously considering reporting you to the police for it. Grow up, please.

    Kommentar av Peter — 10 september 2011 @ 19:26

  6. @Peter

    Speaking of old tired tirades, the pirate argumentation is the same as always, this posting from Christian is one of those tirades.

    @Mårten

    If artists want to share their music for free there are so many other ways than using an illegal site like Pirate Bay. Using Pirate Bay for this purpose is actually really stupid. When you buy music, you should only consider if the price is right for the product, just like when you buy any other product. If the market finds that the cost is too high, the seller must reduce the price or make better offers for the same price. The problem with pirates is that they work on an illegal market just like the mafia and this sabotages the traditional market and interaction between seller and buyer.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 10 september 2011 @ 19:45

  7. nejtillpirater: The Swedish music consortium STIM prohibits distribution of music using a Creative Commons (say) license that allows commercial use (they allow CC licenses that allow only non-commercial use, or at least said they would for two years a bit over two years ago). According to STIM, if you wish to remain a member of theirs, you must charge for the use of your music in a commercial setting in a way that will pipe this money through your arrangement with them. This sounds like a mafia arrangement where you have to tip them if you have at all become entangled in their business, and since STIM is a discrete organization in Swedish legislation with special terms and conditions, that may be hard to avoid. That’s not a particularly open market, and you could just as well make the case that this sabotages a secondary market operating under slightly different rules as the artists may so choose. What’s your take on this?

    Kommentar av Jesper — 10 september 2011 @ 20:07

  8. @Jesper

    May take on this is that no one is forced to be a member of STIM just like no one is forced to sign a contract with a record company. The only force applied here is from the pirate mafia, that forces the artists to let the pirates have copies of their works for free instead of legally paying. The market is sabotaged by the pirate mafia.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 10 september 2011 @ 20:20

  9. @Pelle/Urban/nejtillpirater — 10 september 2011 @ 18:48

    >> ””What record companies do is distribution – it used to be an important function but now any teenage in his or her bedroom can do that work for free.”

    > ”This reasoning is truly awful.”

    Yet his statement is 100% correct exactly as it is written, and it’s not subjective reasoning, it’s a fact. If you feel that the facts are awful, when explained in correct terms, well..

    > ”Record companies do distribution as a means of getting paid for access to the contents, the music.”

    No, they do not. They manufacture, distribute and sell copies, which ownership change hands of, in return for money. This is one means, since they want money to pay for the copyright monopolies, which they chose to buy from the creator.

    But since manufacturing and distribution of copies is something that people now can perform themselves, completely free, society no longer has any need for that particular single business model. It no longer offers any additional value to consumers, that’s worth any money.

    Therefore the record companies, if they wish to continue to make money, are going to have to use the intellectual works, which they own the copyright monopoly to, in other business models, that consumers has a desire for, that adds an additional value, that people feel is worth money.

    As entrepreneurs seeking profit, this is their responsibility alone. If they fail, they deserve no monetary reward. Free market rules.

    > ”The record companies also do a lot of other things that the artists are not interested in doing by themselves.”

    If the artists wish to pay the record companies to perform works for them, this is something between those two parties. That is not an issue related with copyright or people filesharing.

    > ”And in the latter case, also those artist will be robbed from their income by pirates.”

    No artists are robbed from their income by pirates.

    > ”The pirates work like a mafia, showing disrespect for the artists as well as for the law and for the honest people that pays for the music.”

    Not accepting an illegitimate monopoly’s intrusion into ones own physical property, is obviously not equal of disrespecting another party, or others peoples free choice of spendings.

    > ”Pirates show no respect at all for the work of the artists..”

    The act of making copyrighted works available, and accessing them, on a commercial scale, in a non-profit manner, without asking for permission of the copyright owner, and without compensating them from such acts, which people actually has been doing for over a 150 years, is obviously not equal of disrespecting an artists intellectual work, or the work he has put into it.

    > ”..they want their products for free.”

    What you actually talk about is the physical copy, and what you actually mean is that pirates themselves manufacture the products they want, for free, with their own physical property. When you manufacture something yourself with a computer, no other price than free is possible.

    > ”The word parasitizing the only proper word for this.”

    No, the proper word is capitalism. The desire to find the cheapest way to acquire a product, even when that means manufacturing it yourself.

    > ”The record companies in collaboration with great artists have produced great products, in many cases these products would never have been made without the support from record companies.”

    With product, you actually mean the intellectual work, which does not constitute property or a goods that can be sold, and which therefore doesn’t constitute a product. You should use proper terms, since you use the term product about two different things, in a very confusing manner.

    > ”Pirates want the products for free..”

    Now you switch, and all of a sudden talk about the physical copy. Which any sane capitalist seek to acquire as cheap as possible.

    > ”..products produced by persons working hard..”

    Now you switch back and again speak of the intellectual work. Since you jump back and forward and use the word product about two different things, this entire paragraph becomes meaningless, and an illogical failed attempt of an argument.

    > ”As a Swede, I’m ashamed over living in a country that have so many pirates that are allowed to continue with their parasitizing year after year.”

    Well, if we for an instance disregard your fabricated premises in that statement, it still makes no sense. There are close to a billion people filesharing in the entire world, in many countries filesharing is completely legal, filesharing sites indexing copyrighted works, with intent to profit, have been declared fully legal in many countries, and in no country has filesharing been even slightly stopped by any legislative interference.

    But seemingly a bit narrow minded and self-centred, you feel ashamed of being a Swede, since of around 5 million people here fileshare, as if that would be a bigger issue compared to all other countries? Well, ok..

    Maybe the problem doesn’t lie with what takes place in the world, but with your somewhat arbitrary and confused perception of it?

    > ”And there´s even a political party..”

    Now wait here just a minute, have people actually started a political party, to change legislation? Is that legal? But there’s only one of those parties, right? Please tell me it isn’t fifty? Oh the horror.

    > ”A political party in collaboration with The Pirate Bay.”

    Well that could actually be considered pretty smart, since the Piratebay is one of the most popular sites in the world, visited daily by hundreds of millions of people, and it is considered a fully legal site according to all relevant judicial systems.

    In conclusion, non of your objections change the fact that Christians statements are in fact entirely correct exactly as they are spoken.

    @nejtillpirater — 10 september 2011 @ 19:45

    > ”If artists want to share their music for free there are so many other ways than using an illegal site like Pirate Bay.”

    As you’ve been informed of many times, Piratebay is actually considered a fully legal site, according to all relevant judicial systems, and it will continue to be so regardless of the outcome in the current trial. Claiming otherwise is completely incorrect and actual slander.

    > ”Using Pirate Bay for this purpose is actually really stupid.”

    Using one of the most popular sites in the world to share what you want to share, is stupid? Hmm..

    > ”When you buy music, you should only consider if the price is right for the product, just like when you buy any other product.”

    What you actually mean is, when you buy a copy.

    > ”The problem with pirates is that they work on an illegal market..”

    People filesharing are not working on a market. A market is a place where products are traded for money, with intent to profit.

    > ”..and this sabotages the traditional market and interaction between seller and buyer.”

    Sabotages is not the correct word. However, it hopefully does impact the single business model of manufacturing, distributing and selling copies, but the fact that that single business model, as a result of that, no longer is needed by society, doesn’t constitute a problem.

    Kommentar av Fredrika — 10 september 2011 @ 20:28

  10. @Fredrika/Amelia/Anonym

    Always repeating all those strange arguments and selfish thinking that drives the pirate mafia. There’s one type of pirate that I still respect somewhat – the pirate that admits that piracy is morally wrong and should be illegal, but the fact that it’s more or less impossible to get caught for it in Sweden is the reason why the pirate continues to do something that is really against conscience.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 10 september 2011 @ 21:16

  11. I admire Christian’s decision to allow nejtillpirater to continue posting here. A good example of the spirit of the pirate movement and its values like freedom of speech. Personally I find it amusing to see the total lack of actual arguments on behalf of nejtillpirater, a truly bad example of an anti-pirate, giving other anti-pirates a bad name while ensuring no constructive dialogue can take place with nejtillpirater as a participant.

    Kommentar av Peter — 10 september 2011 @ 21:49

  12. @nejtillpirater — 10 september 2011 @ 21:16

    > ”@Fredrika/Amelia/Anonym”

    Again with the ad-hominem and personal attacks, trying to connect my signature with someone’s real life identity.

    > ”Always repeating all those strange arguments and selfish thinking that drives the pirate mafia.”

    You mean those arguments that you’re apparently completely unable to refute.

    > ”There’s one type of pirate that I still respect somewhat – the pirate that admits that piracy is morally wrong and should be illegal, but the fact that it’s more or less impossible to get caught for it in Sweden is the reason why the pirate continues to do something that is really against conscience.”

    First, it’s nice to see you admit that you only respect people who share your personal subjective moral. But as we have discovered over the last two years your personal subjective moral is somewhat conspicuous.

    You see yourself as completely above the law and the judicial process, claiming that fully legal sites are illegal, when they aren’t considered illegal according to the relevant judicial system.

    You advocate legislative monopolies that perform intrusions into people property, out of principle.

    You advocate illegitimate legislation, and claim need for such based on your personal conviction alone.

    You advocate judicial processes that reverses the burden of proof.

    You continously claim to come to more accurate conclusions, than those of well educated judicial control panels, as the UN, The European Court, the judicial bar, and the data inspectorate, to mention a few, regarding whether new suggested legislative intrusions are just and proportionate or not. They’re wrong, you’re right..

    You deny the conceptual copyright that the rest of society uses.

    And you deny the norm in society regarding non-profit use of copyrighted works, which the rest of society has embraced for over 150 years.

    Yeah.. You only respect those who share your personal subjective moral, which obviously speaks for itself.

    And second, as you would learn on the first lesson in psychology, and as has been explained to you before here, people do not perform actions on a regular bases, that they feel are against their own conscience, people simply doesn’t work that way.

    People function in the complete opposite direction, people only perform tasks on a regular basis that their conscience tells them is just, regardless of what the law says.

    And all available independent studies that exist support this logical conclusion, people do not feel that the copyright monopoly’s control over non-profit use is just, on the contrary it’s considered clearly unjust, and it’s therefore something that no ones cares about.

    Kommentar av Fredrika — 10 september 2011 @ 21:51

  13. @nejtillpirater, I see you carefully use the term ”the traditional market” instead of ”free market” as one would expect from your line of reasoning. That’s because it’s not a free market, it’s a highly regulated market. Regulation that is specially ordered by the distribution companies to ensure we have to pay them for ”services” we don’t want (region coded plastic discs for example). This regulation benefits neither society, culture nor artist so why keep it?

    Kommentar av Mårten — 10 september 2011 @ 22:27

  14. @nejtillpirater: ”There’s one type of pirate that I still respect somewhat – the pirate that admits that piracy is morally wrong and should be illegal, but the fact that it’s more or less impossible to get caught for it in Sweden is the reason why the pirate continues to do something that is really against conscience.”

    Could you please explain how copying is ”morally wrong and should be illegal”, because I don’t understand it, please enlighten me.

    Kommentar av Mårten — 10 september 2011 @ 22:35

  15. @Mårten

    An artist/author/filmmaker etc. may spend a lot of time and money on the creation and refinement of the creation into a product that can be sold. Note that it’s not the creation or invention that the public is interested in, it’s the final product like a professionally produced record of a song with studio musicians, professional arrangement, mixing etc.

    When the music is out on the market for sale, the artist has a legal right do decide how this is done, and a legal right to control the copying process so that the copies can be sold to the public. Copying in millions can in theory be done when only a single copy has been sold, or even before that if someone gets hold of a copy before there´s a product available to the market. The artist may have spent several years of work, one or zero copies being sold.

    And there’s also an aspect regarding justice. Honest people pay for the products while the parasites get copies for free, in practice this means that honest people also pays for the dishonest parasites/pirates.

    I’m sure that you understand this, it’s extremely simple!

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 11 september 2011 @ 8:52

  16. @nejtillpirater: Anyone’s view can be considered ”selfish”. I might as well argue that the copyright-dependent labour are nothing but middle men ”parasitizing” on the artists work by taking the vast majority of the ”income” generated by copyright.

    The pirate view, however, is compatible with technological advances and increased efficiency in labour. That is historically a very important value. Have you heard of the industrial revolution maybe? We are undoubtedly in the start of a kind of ”information revolution” right now – that if silly conservatives do not get the chance to spoil – will make our labour more valuable – ultimately letting us buy more products and services for our wages. Doing anything to try and stop or slow this process of increased technological efficiency in labour is morally very wrong from a societal point of view.

    Seriously.. what would our world look like today if the industrial revolution hadn’t happened because of some conservative legislation!? Probably a lot of people once argued ”we got to stop these factories, they are destroying the value of our works!” and other arguments that are extremely similar to the arguments of the copyright lobby today.

    Kommentar av ForskarGurra — 11 september 2011 @ 15:08

  17. @nejtillpirater:

    ”And there’s also an aspect regarding justice. Honest people pay for the products while the parasites get copies for free, in practice this means that honest people also pays for the dishonest parasites/pirates.”

    Well, the ”honest” consumers pay for a private police force that is desperately hunting pirates, unnecessary CEOs getting bonuses, lots of other guys which the consumer have no reason to pay. The artist further have no control over the money their works generate, and the consumers have no way of choosing the distribution of money how they see fit. Thus the real parasites are the guys in the middle who get money for the artists work.

    Well, that ”justice” argument is another argument that might as well have been tried by the dangerous conservatives in the 1800s. ”You people who buy factory products just want stuff as cheap as you can get them!”. Of course that is true. And probably it is unjust – from a 5 years old point of view who just can’t grasp that some work is apparently more valuable than other – the work which is more price effective – from the consumers point of view!

    Kommentar av ForskarGurra — 11 september 2011 @ 15:24

  18. @nejtillpirater: ”no one is forced to be a member of STIM just like no one is forced to sign a contract with a record company”.

    SFS 1998:1387, Förordning om fonogramersättning, the law that designates STIM as one of only two organizations that may at all collect and redistribute compensation to artists from e.g. lending from public libraries, in effect forces everyone who wishes to receive this money to join STIM. When they join STIM, they are subject to their limitations as to other commercial distribution.

    If your viewpoint remains both that ”artists should be able to get paid” and that the market should be unencumbered in its pursuit of this, it seems that you should at least agree that for an artist intent both on using a ”forbidden” license (or even on just keeping her options open) and on collecting library compensation, this choice is unfortunate.

    Kommentar av Jesper — 11 september 2011 @ 16:07

  19. @ForskarGurra

    The price for vinyl record, a CD or a DVD have never been in strict relation to the cost of producing a copy. This cost is only a small part of the price. It really doesn’t matter if the copying cost is zero, the creator/company that owns the copyright has the legal right to get paid and the legal right not to be copied (apart from legal ”privatkopiering” to a small number of friends and relatives). The pirates will only see to the cost for making a copy, since this is a way to justify their immoral behavior. For all products, immaterial or material, the only thing a potential buyer shall consider is if the price is right, don’t buy if it’s too high. When you buy a MacBook or any other product (e.g. Microsoft Word), you don’t have to know the costs for inventing, product development, marketing etc and also not even the profit margin. Buy it if you want it and the price is OK, otherwise not. This is very simple and is how a legal market works. The pirates are participating in an illegal market, like a mafia.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 11 september 2011 @ 16:15

  20. Well whatever the price for a vinyl, a CD or a DVD have been is due to the bad necessity of industrial scale production in the 1900s, before the internet and file sharing. The copyright laws were a necessity from a time where there was no better way of doing the business than industrial scale production and the following expensive logistics. No matter how you try and bend the facts, digital copying is much cheaper than factory produced products and file sharing is much cheaper than traditional industrial logistics.

    Further; the laws suck. We could have tried to outlaw factories as businesses in the 1800s as well as some of us now try to outlaw file sharing. Look at my previous post to why that would have much more immoral than any petty copyright crimes.

    The comparisons you do with physical industrial products such as macbooks show that you are hopelessly stuck with the old obsolete business-models where commercial factories and commercial methods of distribution were necessary.

    Probably (and hopefully) ”the new deal” of internet business will really not dawn on you and the rest of the industry before the second half of the job is done as well. =)

    Kommentar av ForskarGurra — 11 september 2011 @ 17:18

  21. @ForskarGurra

    ”The comparisons you do with physical industrial products such as macbooks show that you are hopelessly stuck with the old obsolete business-models where commercial factories and commercial methods of distribution were necessary.”

    That applies to the mafia to, they think that their on illegal business models are superior. The pirates are truly a mafia, even organized in political parties.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 11 september 2011 @ 17:23

  22. @nejtillpirater:

    Well new models based on file sharing are totally superior. The old business obviously feels the need of protectionist (copyright) and even outright fascist (IPRED, FRA) laws to stand any chance in market competition.
    Further, listen to yourself man.. You call a peaceful progressive democratic political party for a ”mafia”…

    Well, I think your worst enemy in this debate is yourself.

    Kommentar av ForskarGurra — 11 september 2011 @ 18:26

  23. @ForskarGurra

    ”Further, listen to yourself man.. You call a peaceful progressive democratic political party for a ”mafia”…”

    The Swedish Pirate Party collaborates with The Pirate Bay, I don’t think that supporting a service that commits millions of copyright related crimes each day is peaceful. It’s actually even worse than a mafia.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 11 september 2011 @ 19:26

  24. ”It’s actually even worse than a mafia.”

    Here we have the unambiguous and illuminating statement from nejtillpirater – in person – that nejtillpirater believes information sharing (where it happens to infringe on someone’s commercial copyright) to be worse than kidnapping, drug-trafficking, extortion and murdering thousands of people in the most horrible manner one could ever imagine.

    Kommentar av Observer — 11 september 2011 @ 19:47

  25. Well on most people’s moral compass, I also think blackmail, character assassination, robbery, kidnapping, drug-trade, sex-trafficking, murder and so on is considered quite a bit more severe than information sharing…

    If the law does not correspond to the moral of the people, then it is the law that is broken. Clearly by doing such comparisons as above, nejtillpirater places himself in quite a radical position when he considers non-commercial file sharing to be worse than the crimes committed by organized crime syndicates…

    Kommentar av ForskarGurra — 11 september 2011 @ 20:11

  26. @nejtillpirater, you said that copying is ”morally wrong and should be illegal”, then you can’t justify how it’s immoral by referring to it being illegal, that’s a circular argument.

    ”An artist/author/filmmaker etc. may spend a lot of time and money on the creation and refinement of the creation into a product that can be sold.”
    True, and no one is arguing they should be forced to work for free. If you can’t get a return on your investment you should be doing something else, that’s how the economy works.

    ”When the music is out on the market for sale, the artist has a legal right do decide how this is done”
    Only because the law says so. It’s a legal right they have been given but laws can be changed. It doesn’t explain why you think copying is ”morally wrong”.

    ”honest people also pays for the dishonest parasites/pirates.”
    No they don’t, the pirates doesn’t cause any extra costs for those who pay (or for anyone else for that matter). The reason ”honest people” pay is because the law says they should… again your argument is based on the law, not morals.

    Your only real argument is that piracy is illegal and that breaking the law is immoral. I don’t think that’s universally true, but regardless, it’s not an argument for keeping the law itself. You need to explain how copying is ”morally wrong” without referring to the law you are trying to justify.

    Pirates are saying the law is outdated and should be changed because it’s bad for our society, culture and artists in general.

    Kommentar av Mårten — 11 september 2011 @ 22:49

  27. ”The Swedish Pirate Party collaborates with The Pirate Bay, I don’t think that supporting a service that commits millions of copyright related crimes each day is peaceful. It’s actually even worse than a mafia.”

    This argument coming from you is not too surprising. Bearing in mind how you, apparently in full recognition of what you were saying, decided to defend a comparison between copyright infringement as it affected an artist as comparable to actual physical rape.

    I’m sure there are a lot of men and women subjected to an experience that horrible who would be more than happy to point out to you the fallacy in that argument.

    The brilliant gem of cognition you introduced here takes it one step further – saying that noncommercial copying of media files is worse than the actions of an organization which deals in prostitution/trafficking, organized extortion, and murder.

    Every time I read one of your posts i marvel anew about how broken a moral compass can be in a thinking being. And then i start wondering how much sapiens is in that homo as thinking certainly doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.

    Kommentar av Scary Devil Monastery — 12 september 2011 @ 12:34

  28. Post #27, needless to say, adressed to ”nejtillpirater”.

    Kommentar av Scary Devil Monastery — 12 september 2011 @ 12:34

  29. nejtillpirater:
    It’s true that no one is forced to be a member of STIM and register their works with them, but by Swedish law STIM are the only ones who are allowed to collect royalties for played music. So if you don’t join them (and accept their rules), you can’t collect any royalties. This position obviously gives them a lot of power, and they are abusing that power to prevent people from choosing other licences for their work than the most draconian ones possible, since that’s what gives STIM the most money.

    Kommentar av ANNM — 12 september 2011 @ 15:00

  30. …and even if you don’t want royalties and thus don’t join STIM, they will still force anyone who plays your music to pay them. But then they just keep the money for themselves.

    Kommentar av ANNM — 12 september 2011 @ 15:02

  31. #30: That sounds like mafia to me.

    Kommentar av Olle — 12 september 2011 @ 19:28

  32. @Olle

    Yes and then again, No.

    Where Ifpi in many other countries and STIM in Sweden is concerned the main correlation to an organized crime syndicate would be that the revenue model shares a great many similarities with sheer extortion – or a protection racket, if you will. In the US and the UK in particular some judges have started to dismiss mass infringement cases on the very basis that the plaintiffs are abusing the letter of the law in attempts to perpetrate extortion.

    We’re not quite there in Sweden yet although the Ifpi is pushing for similar measures to be taken – and according to some people (around here mostly our persistent ntp), just about any means should be considered justifiable as long as you can nail filesharers through them.

    However…simply because STIM/Copyswede are using shady underhanded methods without either reason or proportion to perpetuate what could be interpreted as a protection racket supported by law doesn’t mean we can go as low as some other posters and start comparing them to the mafia in earnest.

    Kommentar av Scary Devil Monastery — 13 september 2011 @ 11:20

  33. [...] it may be.” (Engstrรถm has strong views on the issue. He recently said in an interview, “It is true that the record companies have lost half their revenues. I say: [...]

    Pingback av No Beatles for you! EU adds 20 years to music copyrights | MegaSoul — 13 september 2011 @ 17:17

  34. [...] to society it may be.” (Engström has strong views on the issue. He recently said in an interview, “It is true that the record companies have lost half their revenues. I say: [...]

    Pingback av NewsFerret Tech » Blog Archive » No Beatles for you! EU adds 20 years to music copyrights — 13 september 2011 @ 17:21

  35. [...] to society it may be.” (Engström has strong views on the issue. He recently said in an interview, “It is true that the record companies have lost half their revenues. I say: [...]

    Pingback av Tech Reviews » No Beatles for you! EU adds 20 years to music copyrights — 13 september 2011 @ 19:30

  36. @Scary #27

    ”This argument coming from you is not too surprising. Bearing in mind how you, apparently in full recognition of what you were saying, decided to defend a comparison between copyright infringement as it affected an artist as comparable to actual physical rape.”

    That’s a lie. I’ve said that artist are being raped by pirates when they download their music for free instead of paying. You now very well – and I’ve explained that to you several times already – that I’m using the word rape in a figurative way, not literally. But again, it probably doesn’t matter how many times I repeat that since you obviously don’t listen or don’t understand.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 15 september 2011 @ 18:22

  37. ”I’ve said that artist are being raped by pirates when they download their music for free instead of paying.”

    That’s being wrong and demonstrating poor judgement at the same time.

    ”I’m using the word rape in a figurative way, not literally.”

    That’s trying to score cheap points, and failing to do so.

    ”But again, it probably doesn’t matter how many times I repeat that since you obviously don’t listen or don’t understand.”

    That’s just ironic.

    Kommentar av Observer — 17 september 2011 @ 11:58

  38. @ nejtillpirater

    @Scary #27

    ”This argument coming from you is not too surprising. Bearing in mind how you, apparently in full recognition of what you were saying, decided to defend a comparison between copyright infringement as it affected an artist as comparable to actual physical rape.”

    That’s a lie.

    You wish, but no, it’s true. And here you are for the third time defending the very same thing.

    I’ve said that artist are being raped by pirates when they download their music for free instead of paying. You now very well – and I’ve explained that to you several times already – that I’m using the word rape in a figurative way, not literally.

    By using it in a figurative way, obviously one can’t use it in a literally way due to the completely different natures of the two phenomenon, you are in fact comparing copyright infringments with actual rape of people. There is no way of denying this simple fact. You can however it may please you try to downsize the importance of this, but you simply can’t deny the fact that it’s happening. Doing that would only embarrass yourself with such illogical constructions.

    But again, it probably doesn’t matter how many times I repeat that since you obviously don’t listen or don’t understand.

    One cannot understand and recognize something that is purely illogical, since that would in itself be a very illogical thing to do. Don’t you see the problem here? Furthermore, the only obvious thing here is that you are being very illogical in your reasoning, and that you haven’t yet to this date proved your illogical reasoning to be logical. Therefore the way that you are answering Scary Devil Monastery is no more than embarrassingly ironic.

    Kommentar av Professor — 17 september 2011 @ 23:56

  39. Pretty nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wished to say
    that I have truly enjoyed browsing your blog posts. In any case I will be subscribing to your rss feed and
    I hope you write again very soon!

    Kommentar av Vacation Rental Guide — 27 juni 2012 @ 19:21


RSS-flöde för kommentarer till det här inlägget.

Rubric-temat. Blogga med WordPress.com.

Följ

Få meddelanden om nya inlägg via e-post.

Gör sällskap med 1 938 andra följare

%d bloggers like this: