Remember how, last week, DMN reported on TBWA Chiat Day’s “rebellious” campaign Artists vs. Artists? The campaign used the slogan Piracy is Progress, and attempted to pin artists against artists on the issue of piracy with the financial backing of American Eagle Outfitters. Well, yesterday, the cryptically named Horse and Cow Society launched its own campaign: Artists vs. American Eagle.
While it’s clear where Chiat Day stands on piracy (according to its website, “It’s better to be the pirates than the navy”), there seemed to have been some initial confusion about American Eagle’s involvement. The company’s marketing coordinator, Brad Spang, told MusicTechnologyPolicy that neither he nor the company are affiliated with Chiat Day’s pro-piracy campaign. “Someone” had simply purchased the ad space above the American Eagle store in Times Square, but that he didn’t know who it was.
When speaking to the New York Times, however, the company said they had offered Brooklyn band Ghost Beach, who were part of the campaign, access to its Times Square billboard in return for using one of the band’s songs in an online ad. A company spokeswoman told the newspaper the group’s use of the billboard was worth $50,000 (I assume the band will include this information when they file their taxes?).
Yet, after speaking to MTP and NYT, American Eagle had their credit removed from Chiat Day’s press release for the campaign.
Whatever way they choose to skin this cat, what’s clear is that American Eagle is financially supporting a pro-piracy campaign — and Artists vs. American Eagle is calling them on it.
The group has copied the American vs Artists site, even the colour palette, down to a T, except that the sides you’re asked to choose between are #AGAINSTSHOPLIFTAEO and #FORSHOPLIFTAEO.
It also substitutes the banner “Piracy is” for “Shoplifting from American Eagle Outfitters is”, while the rotating words underneath it are the same. This leads to some amusing results, such as “Shoplifting from American Eagle Outfitters is our generation” and “Shoplifting from American Eagle is sharing”.
I also particularly like the tweets featured on the site:
@FakeTWBA
“What does the future look like? Can we adapt to not having the Grammys as an account? #AgainstShopliftAEO”
@FakeEricSchmidtCEOofGoogle
“Well as I said in India stopping theft hinders our profit er i mean innovation so I guess I’m #forShopliftAEO”
@fakeBobLefsetz
“American Eagle should not worry about shoplifting. They should concentrate on being excellent. Besides I need a new vest. #forShopliftAEO”
So, who is the Horse and Cow Society? If you click on the name a window pops up that says:
“This is a parody of the highly cynical Artists vs Artists campaign running on the American Eagle Outfitters electronic billboard in Times Square, The Time Square campaign was designed by Madison Avenue Firm TBWA Chiat Day. Our campaign is intended to illustrate there are not two “reasonable” sides when it comes to the issues of exploiting artists without compensation. Just as there are not two sides to the idea of shoplifting, child labor and human trafficking. As parody and as political speech this site is protected by the first amendment. So chill the f-ck out y’all.”
Even if it wasn’t a parody and political speech I’m sure Chiat Day and American Eagle wouldn’t mind, as ignoring intellectual property rights is just “progress”.
Update: Ghost Beach has now confirmed that their official stance is with #artistsagainstpiracy…
🙂
Wow, I love this decade!!!
So nice to see a new generation of artists who won’t take any more pirate crap…
No, they just use the rhetoric to create higher profile publicity stunts….
That band has a lot more to worry about than record sales.
Not sure what you’re talking about.
What I enjoy is Horse and Cow Society’s awesome initiative!
It’s great to see artists take a stand and finally say no to pirates!
Boy we need to retire that shoplifting example, forever.
The new question:
Free ( no one makes any money ) vs Free ( highly profitable criminal enterprise )
PIRACY IS BIG BUSINESS, NOBODY IS GETTING ANYTHING FOR FREE. THEY’RE JUST RIPPING OFF MUSICIANS.
There, I’ve said it.
Innovation is not exploitation.
Agreed.
No more shoplifting comparisons, metaphors, allusions.
Theoretical discussions/arguments about the existence and nature of intellectual property wastes too much time and tends to redirect the conversation away from solutions to real problems.
Actually, I think we need to retire the piracy analogy, because people’s romantic views of Johnny Depp et al just cloud the issue.
Let’s call it what it is: fraud. Just as it would be fraud to sell American Eagle Outfitters knockoffs (let’s face it: a T-Shirt is a T-Shirt; you’re paying for the IP that is the AEO logo).
I prefer to call it what is actually is, terrorism. Copyright theives terrorize helpless artists, so the label is apt.
“we need to retire the piracy analogy, because people’s romantic views of Johnny Depp et al just cloud the issue”
Agree.
These guys are just common thieves, and that’s that…
The difference is knowledge and culture can be shared infinitely, and a just society allows knowledge and culture to be made available as widely as possible.
So copyright which is entirely a system of artificial scarcity around the dissemination of knowledge and culture is inherently immoral.
LOL!
Oh, wait – you weren’t _serious_, were you?
For a moment, I thought you might actually be proposing that content creators should have no more rights to their work than anyone else. Since that’s prima facie absurd – and would greatly reduce the incentive to produce creative content, thus creating real rather than “artificial scarcity” – I can only assume you’re kidding. But you were a day late for April Fool’s!
As Gillian Welch says,
“Everything is free now, that’s what they say
Everything I ever done, gotta give it away
Someone hit the big score, they figured it out
That I’m gonna do it anyway
Even if it doesn’t pay”
$1Million to make the 1st one.
$0.01 to make the next million copies.
Big bucks if you’re in starting on copy #2.
I think the incentive to create, by an artist with talent and passion, will not go away. If you are one of those, how many times have you tried to walk away from it all for one reason or another, and before you know it, you are creating again. The thing one doesn’t have to do, is PUBLISH. No sharing, no release parties, just do it for your own sake,…but don’t let the pirates get to it. Don’t publish. If not that, lets figure out a way to take them down forever.
Yes, that’s my point, thanks. If you do away with copyright, some content creators will have less incentive to create anything new, and others will have less incentive to share the things they do create. That’s a double whammy, leading to less, not more, culture being spread.
Except that’s not happening in practice. More music is being published then ever in history.
And yet fewer artists are working…
shoplifting and file sharing are two inherently different things, shoplifting involves you taking something from somebody that is made up of a finite resource. file sharing is a process of duplication of an unlimited resource. I’m not going to delve into the moral ramifications of either, however the article fails to mention these two forms of “stealing” are NOT the same thing.
“shoplifting and [illegal] file sharing are”
…the exact same thing.
Shop lifting involves stealing a physical product. File sharing involves duplicating a logical product. Two very different things.
Please tell me you don’t think it’s the plastic you pay for when you buy a CD in a store…
What’s a CD?
OK
So maybe they should have changed the wording to:
“Is selling t-shirts and jeans with the AEO trademark on them without their permission piracy? or sharing?”
When a counterfitter is doing this they are not stealing product right? So AEO won’t mind yes?
The message/idea is losing money because of illegal activity. The bottom line is the same whether you lose money because of theft of physical product or copying intellectual product.
Getting into a discussion about the legal differences between intellectual property and physical property does not translate well into a marketing campaign.
No one is “losing money” as a result of copying. No property or money is exchanged. The balance of some bank account, somewhere, doesn’t suddenly start dropping if someone, somewhere rearranges their own property and follows a certain pattern.
We could also say a given party is “losing money” from “legal activity” such as competition.
This is all figurative language.
When a counterfitter is doing this they are not stealing product right? So AEO won’t mind yes?
The counterfitter is not stealing a product. And no, AEO shouldn’t mind. No exchange has happened between the counterfitter and AEO. This does not mean the counterfitter is not, in some cases, committing fraud or not meeting the conditions of an exchange. But this has nothing to do with AEO.
You have an interesting business perspective and concept of how intellectual property works. If copyright owners aren’t losing money from copying maybe you can explain to me why there are any copyright lawsuits at all. Are copyright holders bringing lawsuits just to pass the time?
I recommend reading the U.S constitution Article 1, Sec 8, Clause 8 or your own country’s similar copyright laws to get a start on understanding how exclusive rights to a work is related to making money and not losing money.
Also, read the Lanham act to brush up on trademark law. Because I think there are quite a few trademark attorneys who would disagree with your casual attitude towards counterfeit goods
“Losing money” and attempting to gain monopoly privileges are not the same thing.
That copyright laws exist for whatever reason is not the question. The question is, are these laws just?
I am not sure I understand what you are saying.
The US constitution grants limited monopolies to artists and inventors as a financial incentive to create more and better work.
The idea is that society will benefit from more and better works if the people who create those works can make money from exploiting the exclusive rights and limited monopolies.
Maybe you think that society is worse because authors, artists and inventors are granted this limited monopoly.
If so, then you have the right to a petition for an amendment to the costitution.
I’m well aware of the intentions of limited monopolies.
I believe you’re now just distracting away from the original argument.
Your use of “losing money” is figurative language, no different than other comparisons, metaphors, allusions ..and discussing it is a waste of my time.
Also… Good intent, innovation, etc. (though I believe this is to be broken window fallacy) do not justify the invasion of another’s physical body or property or the limitation of their actions. Good intent, innovation, etc. do not justify the removal of an individual’s right to peacefully arrange his own physical, scarce property.
you have been totally brainwashed by the copyleft. congratulations. you have spit out their talking points exactly. you are a drone.
Stalin,
you have been totally brainwashed by the copyleft. congratulations. you have spit out their talking points exactly. you are a drone.
I am not apart of the copyleft. I actually disagree with many positions held by the copyleft. Either you have a misunderstanding of me or a misunderstanding of copyleft.
The monopoly argument always amuses me, because apparently for tech heads not all monopolys are created equal.
Google’s monopoly on its search engine code is just fine – trade secrets, capitalism good, etc – but an artist’s very limited monopoly on their own work is evil.
It’s amusing to look back to when the justice department was going after Microsoft, apparently monopolies were the greatest thing for tech people. Wired even glowingly quoted Rockefeller about the mean old government trying to break up Standard Oil.
So just to be clear: Google, Facebook and Amazon essentially carving up the Internet among themselves: Good
Artists trying to control what they produce, and only what they produce: Evil
It is unfortunate that so many are inconsistent with their views.
I hold an agnostic view towards those that may benefit from these privileges and oppose any monopoly privileges brought about and maintained by coercion.
Define “coercion.”
In other words, monopolies are only bad when you say they are.
Define “coercion.”
Contextually, the threat or use of aggressive force against an individuals physical body or property.
I follow the non-aggression principle.
I believe the majority of might and money makes right is lead by a government. Again, I am not suggesting an artist’s monopoly privileges are any worse than a tech company’s. It is all the same.
Nice in theory, but in practise without a government to oversee things it means that might (or money) makes right.
To suggest that the artists’ limited monopoly is worse than tech companies’ monopoly is ridiculous.
The monopoly argument always amuses me, because apparently for tech heads not all monopolys are created equal.
Google’s monopoly on its search engine code is just fine – trade secrets, capitalism good, etc – but an artist’s very limited monopoly on their own work is evil.
It’s amusing to look back to when the justice department was going after Microsoft, apparently monopolies were the greatest thing for tech people. Wired even glowingly quoted Rockefeller about the mean old government trying to break up Standard Oil.
So just to be clear: Google, Facebook and Amazon essentially carving up the Internet among themselves: Good
Artists trying to control what they produce, and only what they produce: Evil
shoplifting and file sharing are two inherently different things, shoplifting involves you taking something from somebody that is made up of a finite resource. file sharing is a process of duplication of an unlimited resource. I’m not going to delve into the moral ramifications of either, however the article fails to mention these two forms of “stealing” are NOT the same thing.
“shoplifting and [illegal] file sharing are”
…the exact same thing.
Shop lifting involves stealing a physical product. File sharing involves duplicating a logical product. Two very different things.
Please tell me you don’t think it’s the plastic you pay for when you buy a CD in a store…
OK
So maybe they should have changed the wording to:
“Is selling t-shirts and jeans with the AEO trademark on them without their permission piracy? or sharing?”
When a counterfitter is doing this they are not stealing product right? So AEO won’t mind yes?
The message/idea is losing money because of illegal activity. The bottom line is the same whether you lose money because of theft of physical product or copying intellectual product.
Getting into a discussion about the legal differences between intellectual property and physical property does not translate well into a marketing campaign.
No one is “losing money” as a result of copying. No property or money is exchanged. The balance of some bank account, somewhere, doesn’t suddenly start dropping if someone, somewhere rearranges their own property and follows a certain pattern.
We could also say a given party is “losing money” from “legal activity” such as competition.
This is all figurative language.
When a counterfitter is doing this they are not stealing product right? So AEO won’t mind yes?
The counterfitter is not stealing a product. And no, AEO shouldn’t mind. No exchange has happened between the counterfitter and AEO. This does not mean the counterfitter is not, in some cases, committing fraud or not meeting the conditions of an exchange. But this has nothing to do with AEO.
You have an interesting business perspective and concept of how intellectual property works. If copyright owners aren’t losing money from copying maybe you can explain to me why there are any copyright lawsuits at all. Are copyright holders bringing lawsuits just to pass the time?
I recommend reading the U.S constitution Article 1, Sec 8, Clause 8 or your own country’s similar copyright laws to get a start on understanding how exclusive rights to a work is related to making money and not losing money.
Also, read the Lanham act to brush up on trademark law. Because I think there are quite a few trademark attorneys who would disagree with your casual attitude towards counterfeit goods
“Losing money” and attempting to gain monopoly privileges are not the same thing.
That copyright laws exist for whatever reason is not the question. The question is, are these laws just?
I am not sure I understand what you are saying.
The US constitution grants limited monopolies to artists and inventors as a financial incentive to create more and better work.
The idea is that society will benefit from more and better works if the people who create those works can make money from exploiting the exclusive rights and limited monopolies.
Maybe you think that society is worse because authors, artists and inventors are granted this limited monopoly.
If so, then you have the right to a petition for an amendment to the costitution.
I’m well aware of the intentions of limited monopolies.
I believe you’re now just distracting away from the original argument.
Your use of “losing money” is figurative language, no different than other comparisons, metaphors, allusions ..and discussing it is a waste of my time.
Also… Good intent, innovation, etc. (though I believe this is to be broken window fallacy) do not justify the invasion of another’s physical body or property or the limitation of their actions. Good intent, innovation, etc. do not justify the removal of an individual’s right to peacefully arrange his own physical, scarce property.
you have been totally brainwashed by the copyleft. congratulations. you have spit out their talking points exactly. you are a drone.
Stalin,
you have been totally brainwashed by the copyleft. congratulations. you have spit out their talking points exactly. you are a drone.
I am not apart of the copyleft. I actually disagree with many positions held by the copyleft. Either you have a misunderstanding of me or a misunderstanding of copyleft.
The monopoly argument always amuses me, because apparently for tech heads not all monopolys are created equal.
Google’s monopoly on its search engine code is just fine – trade secrets, capitalism good, etc – but an artist’s very limited monopoly on their own work is evil.
It’s amusing to look back to when the justice department was going after Microsoft, apparently monopolies were the greatest thing for tech people. Wired even glowingly quoted Rockefeller about the mean old government trying to break up Standard Oil.
So just to be clear: Google, Facebook and Amazon essentially carving up the Internet among themselves: Good
Artists trying to control what they produce, and only what they produce: Evil
It is unfortunate that so many are inconsistent with their views.
I hold an agnostic view towards those that may benefit from these privileges and oppose any monopoly privileges brought about and maintained by coercion.
Define “coercion.”
In other words, monopolies are only bad when you say they are.
Define “coercion.”
Contextually, the threat or use of aggressive force against an individuals physical body or property.
I follow the non-aggression principle.
I believe the majority of might and money makes right is lead by a government. Again, I am not suggesting an artist’s monopoly privileges are any worse than a tech company’s. It is all the same.
Nice in theory, but in practise without a government to oversee things it means that might (or money) makes right.
To suggest that the artists’ limited monopoly is worse than tech companies’ monopoly is ridiculous.
When AEO reports losses due to shoplifting, they base it on the unit cost of the merchandise, not the cost of the raw materials. In other words, a shirt with their logo has more value than just the woven cotton. The difference is the IP of the AEO logo.
I wonder if this will be followed up by an actual shoplifting campaign?
American Eagle products do want to be free (have wings — will fly).
…and wouldn’t it be cool to see a shoplif- er, sharing campaign targeted at the brands that are feeding the Piracy Industry?
Chevrolet’s wanna be free, too. That’s why they have wheels.
Pretty absurd to compare the concept of music piracy with that of shoplifting.
Some artists choose to give their music away for free and some of those artists reap benefits of doing so. It’s perfectly realistic to assume that at some point there will be an artist that never charges a dime for recordings but still becomes a commercial success. I don’t think a business such as American Eagle could do the same and survive…Do you? What progress would American Eagle gain if they encouraged shoplifting?
This reminds me of that douchebag guitarist for Suffocation that filmed himself walking into a mall to buy his own CD. As he passed clothing racks he said, “Oh this is nice..Should I steal it? No that would be wrong…” Nevermind the fact that the song playing in the FYE was a Lumineers track that he most definitely did not get rights for.
There’s more than one way to skin this cat.
“Pretty absurd to compare the concept of music piracy with that of shoplifting.”
Haha, this really hurts, huh? 🙂
I think we’re going to see a lot of similar initiatives!
Actually, no it doesn’t hurt. I don’t pirate music.
Again, discussion of the legal differences between physical propertty and intellectual property do not translate well into a marketing campaign that consists of a couple of biilboard/web pages.
The argument being made ratherly clumsily by Ghost Beach and it’s supporter AEO is that artist’s can eventually make money by monetizing/marketing of “piracy.” Note that this is completely different than intentionally giving away your intellectual property. Which I believe is the message that Ghost Beach intended but that message doesn’t translate as well into a marketing campaign.
Likewise Horse and Cow Societry may be suggesting that AEO can make money when all of those stolen t-shirts and jeans are worn around brooklyn by hip shoplifters. The stolen t-shirts will be seen by other customers who will then come in and purchase more t-shirts and jeans.
Is that enough explanation for you?
Try the argument that copyright infringement is not like stealing physical product over at copyhype, trichordist or musictechpolicy and then report what they say back here. Thanks
“AEO can make money when all of those stolen t-shirts and jeans are worn around brooklyn by hip shoplifters. The stolen t-shirts will be seen by other customers who will then come in and purchase more t-shirts and jeans”
This is actually an interesting point.
Maybe shoplifting really is the future business model for many of the top brands that are financing piracy today?
BTW I am drawing up a graphic and applying for a patent on the business model so don’t think about stealing the idea.
@copyrightlawyer you are the man/woman!!! I appreciate your educated response. Most people have a difficult time understanding I.P. and music publishing specifically.
Now I understand why those college philosphy classes were so important. Logic is the morality of thought.
I made a career licensing music to media companies and after a few years when I heard the phrase “this will be great exposure” I ended the negotiation. I’ll be sure to tell everyone I know to steal clothes from American Eagle because it’s great exposure. Oh..my face hurts from laughing.
If I.P. means anything anymore I have a solution to the current music biz trouble: Artists with sonic integrity like Dr. Dre, NIN, Radiohead, Prince, even Lady Gaga need to release a virtual instrument sample library. Then sign their fanbase to pub contracts on a per song basis.
The amount of revenue generated from fans using their assets instead of stealing them would dwarf the revenue made from their own catalogue.
Or how this very website stole the work of countless photographers for years, and continues to cheap out and use “free” Creative Commons and PD artwork instead of actually paying the artists for their work.
$50,000 for a billboard- no matter where it is, is a waste of money.
Sounds like the right price, for Billboard Magazine
“$50,000 for a billboard- no matter where it is, is a waste of money”
Not to the Piracy Industry.
They’re losing sympathy by the hour and they know they have to act.
But I agree that it’s a desperate move.
And — as we can see — a dangerous one…
Both articles that you’ve wrote on this subject have been very deceiving. When I first read your article “The Advertising Agency for the Grammy Awards Also Promotes Piracy in Times Square” I was shocked that a so called “pro-piracy” campaign could be featured in such a commercial way, until I looked into it a bit further. What your article fails to mention is that the other side of the billboard pictured in your first article, says “Piracy is Stifling Creativity”. Upon visiting the Artists vs Artists site, I watched as the different descriptions about piracy changed. Sure, at one point it says “Piracy is Progress”, but it also says Piracy is Evil, Piracy is Robbery, and Piracy is Stealing.
Where is there any proof that this is a pro piracy campaign? Yes, the website gives you the choice to either buy the album or download it for free, but as other commenters have pointed out, it’s not piracy when an artist agrees to put content out for free. The campaign simply poses a question. It’s a marketing campaign, not a political campaign. You claim that this is financially backed by American Eagle but your sleuthing skills have still not revealed the source of this financial backing. Hell, giving how much attention Ghost Beach has received off of this, I wouldn’t be surprised if they paid for it themselves!
Do you really think Chiat is a “campaigner for piracy”? You reference Chiat’s site: “It’s better to be the pirates than the Navy.” That quote is from 1968, do you really think they forsaw the internet and the piracy issues that would come with technology? Maybe you took it the wrong way? Afterall, Chiat has worked with Apple, Addell, Nicki Minaj, and Ice Cube to name a few, all of which are associated with very outspoken pro-IP companies. They chose to work with Chiat regardless of the “Pro Piracy” quotes on Chiat’s site.
So what’s the point here? What’s the message? It’s clear that you’re angry, but these articles do nothing but mislead. Now you’re writing about a site that has, as you put it, “copied the artists vs artists site, even the colour palette, down to the T”. Wouldn’t that be considered copyright infringement as well? Where’s your anger there?
Thank you. Someone calls out Paul on the garbage he writes.
I’d prefer if you’d call it ‘recyclable refuse’ going forward.
🙂
Who would have thought people would get so upset about advertising.
Oh, I should mention that I didn’t even write this piece, so try not to be so sloppy in your attacks. Do your research! Fact-check why don’t you! So obviously biased…
haha…Paul calling someone biased.
Okay, so first the Chiat is a campaigner for piracy statement: If you clicked the link and looked at their website you’d see that there’s a piracy section stating: “It’s better to be the pirates than the navy. Pirates don’t live by rules and conventions, they break them. They seize upon every opportunity, creating their own when none can be found. That’s why we proudly fly the Pirate flag. Always have. Always will.” Heck, Chiat’s Twitter picture is the pirate skull-and-crossbones sign. I’d suggest the companies you mention, who they worked with, may not be aware of it. But you’re right, maybe they just have a fascination with Blackbeard.
Yes, they probably thought it was clever to present the campaign as a “debate” on piracy, but all their press releases for it clearly show where the emphasis lies, including the sole Piracy is Progress picture they all featured (see here and the “To an older industry sector, it’s a dirty word that implies theft. From a younger, purely consumer standpoint it’s another term for distribution.” And there’s the Gerd Leonhard quote etc (well you can read it via the link), but nowhere is there anyone quoted explaining the other side of the argument.
And as far as American Eagle backing them financially – they’ve said so themselves to the New York Times. I’m sure American Eagle has read the article and would’ve contacted the paper for a retraction and correction if it had made stuff up about them.
Regarding your last comment – please, read the last sentence of the piece again.
“Heck, Chiat’s Twitter picture is the pirate skull-and-crossbones sign”
Plus, they have no less than 3 piracy references on their front page…
I suggest we ask Chiat’s top clients — Apple, Adidas and Nissan — why they use a company that openly supports Organized Crime?
Let’s not forget what this is all about:
The Price of Piracy
10 billion Euros and 185,000 European jobs in 2008.
Source:
58 billion dollars and 373,000 American jobs in 2007.
Source:
Siwek, Stephen E.,The True Cost of Piracy to the U.S. Economy, report for the Institute for Policy Innovation, Oct. 2007.
HEre is somethign slightly more real and up to date.
The Motion Picture Association of America estimates that piracy costs the U.S. movie industry some $20.5 billion per year. But Julian Sanchez scrutinizes these figures and finds they don’t hold up. After you remove all the double-counting and restrict the focus solely to American users — which is the only thing SOPA addresses, anyway — then, he notes, those industry-estimated losses come to just $446 million per year (“roughly the amount grossed globally by Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel”).
And even those numbers might not be right. The Government Accountability Office has raised further questions and concerns about the copyright industry’s claims of losses here. Part of the difficulty here is that it’s not always easy to tally up the true costs of piracy. For instance, if a person illegally downloads a movie or song that he never would’ve downloaded otherwise, then it’s not clear what the losses actually amount to (the benefits, by contrast, are fairly clear).
There is no “Piracy Section”. There is however, a section called “Pirate Culture”. This is a clear example of company culture…I believe Steve Jobs once said:
“Here’s to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes… the ones who see things differently — they’re not fond of rules… You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can’t do is ignore them because they change things… they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.”
This is instilled in Apple’s DNA… But do you think he was encouraging constumers to break rules? I gurantee you, if the statement on Chiat’s site was stating that they support intellectual property theft, they wouldn’t have the client base they boast.
To address your point about the other argument not being explained, I’ll reference the very article you linked. Looks like you left out a portion of the quote:
“We think that working towards a digital retail/stream model, something similar to Spotify or Rdio, is the future of music. We subscribe to media futurist Gerd Leonhards ‘music like water’ philosophy that, one day, individuals will just pay a music bill – similar to their water bill, cable bill, electric bill – for unabated access. In this (hopefully attainable) Utopian music society, music will be available to consumers at a fare rate and artists/labels will be compensated with a fair royalty rate. In no way do we want to encourage theft of intellectual property, but we definitely support the idea of eased and more affordable distribution.”
They pretty much negated everything you’ve said…Does the above quote sound like a pro-piracy campaign to you? Makes me wonder if you purposefully left that portion out to promote your own agenda.
And on to American Eagle backing them financially… Again, I’ll refer to your own article “The company’s marketing coordinator, Brad Spang, told MusicTechnologyPolicy that neither he nor the company are affiliated with Chiat Day’s pro-piracy campaign. “Someone” had simply purchased the ad space above the American Eagle store in Times Square, but that he didn’t know who it was.”
Alas, even after American Eagle denied being affiliated with the campaign, you continuously accuse American Eagle of having monetary involvement… Which is a bit lazy journalistically, wouldn’t you agree?
And about your last sentence…I missed that in the article, so I guess you win. But, I’m glad you slid in that Ghost Beach was #antipiracy underneath… Sort of sums up this entire argument doesn’t it?
Clearly you work for chiat day. There is no other explanation for your detailed defense and misuse of facts.
First:
“And on to American Eagle backing them financially… Again, I’ll refer to your own article “The company’s marketing coordinator, Brad Spang, told MusicTechnologyPolicy that neither he nor the company are affiliated with Chiat Day’s pro-piracy campaign. “Someone” had simply purchased the ad space above the American Eagle store in Times Square, but that he didn’t know who it was.”
And then this turned out to be a lie.
As spokespersons for american eagle outfitters and chiat day admitted this was compensation for the band from american eagle for the use of their music.
American Eagle approved the campaign.
American Eagle owns the billboard.
The billboard is on the front of the store.
American Eagle does not rent this billboard out to third parties.
However I suppose in an orwellian way American Eagle didn’t have anything to do with it, simply by insisting their truth is the real truth.
NEXT LIE:
The “Piracy is progress” slogan and picture came from Chiat Day’s own press release. They submitted it to Little Black Book online. verify with them if you like. They have since gone back and changed it. If they were really trying to present a two sided campaign why wasn’t this reflected in the original press release.
Also the original Chiat Day press release says the campaign was sponsored by American Eagle.
Stop the lies.
Oh hey Cow Horse,
Wish I worked for them, bet they make tons of money off of enraged/failed songwriters….
So, you are saying the band was compensated by American Eagle for the use of their song? Is the song in question promoting piracy? I haven’t heard it yet. It’s probably terrible anyways. And this is the same band claiming to be #antipiracy and clearly states that they believe the future of the industry is licensed services that compensate artists and labels fairly, correct? Where’s the issue?
Yes, American Eagle owns the billboard, you’ve made that very clear, but regardless of what picture or slogan was used in the press release, you can’t simply ignore the other slogans that Chiat came up with whether you agree with them or not. It’s actually pretty smart; in choosing to use the slogan “Piracy is Progress” in the press release the band has gained a ton of attention. That very slogan even made Horse and Cow Society so mad they went to the lengths of developing an entire parody website (which probably didn’t come cheap). It looks pretty though, bravo.
I never said I was pro piracy, actually I’m quite the polar opposite. I have simply pointed out that these articles are full holes. After reading the facts, it just seems like a cheap ploy to enrage songwriters to blow up the comment section, which now I am guilty of. Afterall, mad songwriters=comments=pageviews=advertising dollars for DMN. These guys can’t write articles and leave out such critical pieces of the issue… All in all, the Artists Vs Artists campaign is nothing more than a cheap marketing trick to get eyes on the artist. You guys were just dumb enough to fall for it and take it to the next level.
I would love to see the original press releases if anyone has them!
“So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You’re like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know…”
the website cost less than $100 to put up.
failed songwriters? that’s really funny. why would we be mad if we were failed songwriters?
Can’t deal with actual facts? hurl a few insults about.
Or you could address my points more accurately and make an intelligent argument…just sayin, I’m on your side in terms of piracy and not attacking you…just questioning the merits of the article. Please, prove me wrong
The idea came from the band but of course you can’t shit on them because you want to seem “pro-artist”.
The band claims to be anti piracy and they were compensated by American Eagle for the use of their song. What’s more pro artist than that?
So how the fuck is American Eagle responsible? Should they have censored the advertisement that the band choose?
I mean seriously, yall need to shut the fuck up every now and then and realize what you are advocating is insanity. Attacking a non-relevent party for not censoring an artist’s freedom of expression? Totally fucked up on multiple levels.
This is written by helienne, way worse.
I’m starting to think that Helienne was brought on by Paul to make his own stuff look rational, to increase his profile as the balanced counter force to her. If you read Paul’s comment about the relationship to Helienne it’s almost like he hinted this too.
when the piracy apologists (peace in our time!) don’t have facts on their side they resort to personal attacks. keep up the good work paul and helienne!
“when the piracy apologists (peace in our time!) don’t have facts on their side they resort to personal attacks”
Let’s hope they’ll keep it verbal.
A lot of torrentfreaks talk about militias and weapons at the moment…
Then you have a legal duty to report that to law enforcement.
Well we seem to have the haters out tonight. I particularly like the pirate culture reference, now there’s an oxymoron.
You pirate misfits really lose any argument when it is simply pointed out that piracy is a FOR PROFIT operation; I think the word business is somewhat extreme.
I mean you really don’t have a wooden leg to stand on when you’re representing people who are clearly using someone else’s stuff without their permission to make lots a MONEY.
I mean come on explain that to me so I or anyone can understand what you are doing besides making money. Kind of spoils the entire rebel, revolutionary, altruist kind of argument. Don’t you think? Or rather don’t, you, think?
Who cares? Should librarians not accept a salary? Piracy websites are modern day libraries, free repositories of knowledge and culture in digital form.
Er, are you sure you know what a library is? 🙂
A physical place where you anyone, regardless of how much money they have, can access a large variety of books/movies/music?
You know what the digital form of that is? A filesharing website.
The Pirate Bay is basically what the Library of Congress would be if they were built for the 21th century.
One of the many differences between libraries and pirate sites is that everybody benefit from libraries, while pirate sites cost billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands jobs every year.
And one of the many differences between you and me is that I know what I’m talking about.
You see, I happen to be a content creator and I make a very decent amount of money from libraries. 🙂
Please go to one of those libraries and read up on economics. You seem terribly illiterate in this area.
Libraries pay for books. Also, they don’t just throw shit in there and let the search engine work things out.
The Library of Congress does not pay for its content.
It is donated, however, not taken without permission.
It is taken without permission or choice. It’s actually the law that two copies of any work published or distributed commericially in the USA must be submitted to the LoC. Not doing so is illegal.
Not saying this is a bad thing, but you can’t exactly opt out and the LoC does in fact prosecute content creators (heavy fines) that don’t comply from time to time.
Still no comparison to TPB.
Oh, and according to wikipedia:
” Contrary to popular belief, however, the Library does not retain all of these works in its permanent collection, although it does add an average of 10,000 items per day. Rejected items are used in trades with other libraries around the world, distributed to federal agencies, or donated to schools, communities, and other organizations within the United States.”
But let’s cut the bullshit: TPB and Kim Dotcom don’t give a rat’s ass about curating knowledge.
“It’s actually the law that two copies of any work published or distributed commericially in the USA must be submitted to the LoC”
Which is such a beautiful thing!
I’m not American but most countries have similar laws, and I clearly remember how proud I was when I submitted my first work as a teenager.
It was a feeling of becoming part of history. It was truly awesome. You should try it.
And let’s just say it’s quite a different feeling I get when criminals steal my work over at the Parasite Bay…
Hahahahaha. Seriously I laughed half a margarita out of my nose.
Kim dotcom is a librarian? Mega upload was a library Only if l librarians charge people 10 bucks a month for premium accounts for faster downloads of their books.
Only if the library didn’t pay for the books but stole them.
Only if librarians made 175 million selling ads in the books.
0nly if you could read half the book and then you had to pay 10 bucks to the librarian to read the other half.
You guys are funny.
Keep going this is better than the onion.
Libraries cost money to run too, except it comes from taxes.
It’s nuts that libraries need all this physical space and legacy infrastructure when they can serve their patrons better distributing their collections digitally. I recall this is the case in some countries with more liberal interpreations of copyright law.
Sure, and it’s more efficient to buy stuff with a stolen credit card. Still don’t make it right.
“we seem to have the haters out tonight”
Yes, this is regarded as a real threat.
I’d probably be a bit careful in my personal life if I were a DMN writer. Pirates commit all sorts of crimes.
Hey Paul, where’s my check?
Shoplifting = Piracy = Theft/vandalism of livelihood
FarePlay says: “You pirate misfits really lose any argument when it is simply pointed out that piracy is a FOR PROFIT operation; I think the word business is somewhat extreme.”
Visitor says: “Who cares? Should librarians not accept a salary? Piracy websites are modern day libraries, free repositories of knowledge and culture in digital form.”
I don’t think I need to point out the flaws in this argument, do I?
Profits!? My inner-Marxist is seething!
Profits? Not under my watch.
“I don’t think I need to point out the flaws in this argument, do I?”
I wouldn’t want you to embarrass yourself like that.
Piracy — an old term with the connotations that tend to muddle the waters (no pun intended).
I think what is meant is this: the appropriation of property rights without the permission of the rights holder.
Are you for or against this?
I am against it. In this system of private property rights, one who appropriates without permission is in the wrong.
the appropriation of property rights without the permission of the rights holder
That doesn’t have the same impact as shouting “Piracy !!!”
Unfortunately, when trying to influence public opinion and public policy, subtle differences and nuanced language get tossed overboard (pun intended).
True – but calling it something it is not, like “shoplifting,” is a bit extreme. “Piracy” is a kind of theft, but most people don’t really understand why. Perhaps just as many wouldn’t even care if they understood. Too many want what they want for nothing in return. It is the that disrespect of others which I abhor, more than the appropriation itself.
You know what gets me more, when people scream about how evil copyright infringement is and get cought doing it themselves.
It shows how fucking broken the system is that even the strongest proponents of copyright can’t seem to get it right.
The US Copyright Office even agrees that copyright is a broken mess, this is an organization that only exists to promote copyright and they admit they don’t fucking understand it sometimes. That must tell you something.
And then we have some kind of delusional fuckers that think everything will go back to the days when people bought CDs for $16.99 and never copied them if we only keep ramming poorly thought out bills through Congress.
The world is a different place. Either you adapt, or you go work at McDonalds and serve me french fries. I don’t give a shit either way, as long as you are fast about it and they are crispy.
As long as you pay for the fries…
Can you explain how copyright enforcement, the placing of a negative easement on an individual who has not voluntarily entered into such a contract, is any different than: the appropriation of property rights without the permission of the rights holder?
http://www.copyhype.com/
That guy doesn’t let anyone comment on his blog that isn’t actively sucking his cock.
That does seem to be a problem over at those wordpress sites
I’m not interested in actual comments about my shitty blogposts unless it is to shower me in endless self-masterbation material.
the reason people like copyhype don’t post comments like yours is probably because you and your ilk can’t seem to post comments without resorting to homophobia, violent threats and all manner of hostility.
How is it that you haven’t figured that out?
But I personally like that paul lets you post your garbage here. It illustrates how fucking crazy you guys are.
Yep, you nailed it. It’s definately not because the pro-copyright blogger network isn’t an insular group of narcissists who like to smell their own farts for fun.
Lowery,
Are you actually interested in an honest to goodness rational, non confrontational debate about copyright? Or would you rather just hold your hands to your ears and just demonize everyone even mildly against copyright and declare victory?
jura in re propria
jura in re aliena
Enjoy!!
I think that’s one of the problems with the idea of copyright as property. When you can violate copyright in the comfort of your home (ie. private property), how the hell is copyright suppose to be enforced? Do we randomly audit private belongings? Do we put cameras in their homes (thus violating their physical property rights)? How do you know someone is violating copyright without violating them?
There is so many scary places you can take this you want to “properly” enforce copyright. Even the biggest pro-copyright people have a limit where they are like “this type of enforcement goes too far”.
The difference between copyright skepetics and copyright proponents is where they put the line. I’ll say that copyright proponents are never clear where the line is, only that they want “enchanced enforcement”, as if enforcement is some kind of magical dust you just sprinkle on the legal system and out comes increased sales.
“When you can violate copyright in the comfort of your home (ie. private property), how the hell is copyright suppose to be enforced?”
When you can rape people in your home, how is the law supposed to be enforced?
Gee whiz, beats me.
This doesn’t help.
The last few comments and quite a few before it are trying to convince people that comparing shoplifting and piracy is not productive.
So now you are comparing copyright infringement with rape.
Can we all please stay away from the hyperbole. All it does is invite someone with a different point of view to scream louder and more incoherently
Rape is still a problem. Anti-rape enforcement doesn’t go far enough!
If we monitor everything people do or say in their homes so we will reduce rape significantly.
If you don’t agree with my idea, you are most likely a rapist and probably also a terrorist.
It’s productive if you want to derail a coherent and balanced debate about good and evils in copyright, which is seem to be the goal for some people.
You see, I told you this would happen.
How so involuntary?
If you mean that copyright is involuntary, then what right, either found in common law or created by statute, is “voluntary?”
If I understand you correctly, and please explain to me how I may be wrong if I am, your approach to property rights, in general, is that they should not inure to others because, either they don’t really “exist,” or they are illegitimate or you have a superior claim upon them. But where is your authority for this, other than yourself? An elected body of political representatives crafted copyright law after much debate, based it upon centuries of western legal tradition, and it’s been revised and amended by regulation and case law.
So you mean, you ought to be able to take whatever you please from whomever you wish. So you ought not mind when someone takes your car for a spin without your authorization, camps out on your property, liberates your wallet only to pay you back later, etc.?
Please tell me how I am misunderstanding. Or if I am not….
I would appreciate clarification also.
Still trying to figure out how copyright law is unjust.
I believe you completely misunderstood.
I distinguish between rights in scarce resources and monopoly privilege. I believe a correct theory of property and property rights was not born out of legislation but came about to resolve conflict as a result of scarcity. Ideas, patterns, recipes, music, etc. are not scarce. The same economic laws cannot be applied to non-scarce things nor does it make any economic sense for rights to be applied to them.
when someone takes your car for a spin without your authorization, camps out on your property, liberates your wallet only to pay you back later
These are examples of theft and trespass because they concern scarce goods.
If rights can only be applied to scarce goods, then the only example of an appropriation of property rights without the permission of the rights holder is when a negative easement is imposed on an individual or party, without contract, to satisfy a monopoly privilege.
The next question is, is this just?
Why are Ideas, patterns, recipes, music, etc…..not scarce ?
You seem to characterize ideas and expression of ideas, (patent and copyright respectively), as commodities that are equal no matter what the source or quality. Like trading in water or crude oil.
Also, you do realize that anyone that comes up with a new idea or expression of an idea is free to give it away. It’s the creators choice whether or not to enforce copyright or apply for patent.
Are you saying authors and inventors who opt to enforce intellectual property rights are a detriment to society?
Ideas, etc. are non-finite things. They can be replicated to satisfy any level of demand. More importantly, instances of ideas, etc. can be owned, simultaneously, and without the possibility of bringing about conflict. They are non-rivalrous.
Without the possibility of conflict, there is no need for a system of rules and standards to coordinate use and ownership.
Here, and forgive me if this is a straw man, you might be saying, “ideas create conflict all the time.” In my experience, these arguments either contain no conflict in an economic sense, the language is figurative, or the true conflict is the result of an actual scarce resource. (For example, freedom of speech is regularly viewed as independent of property rights, but conflicts that arise concerning free speech are actually associated with the property on which the speech is being made. Conflicts concerning free speech are exacerbated and take longer to resolve when the ownership of a given property is vague or unknown. — monopoly intervention can attribute to this vague, unknown state)
Also, you do realize that anyone that comes up with a new idea…
Yes, I do realize this. But this condition does not justify a system of monopoly privileges.
Are you saying authors and inventors who opt to enforce intellectual property rights are a detriment to society?
I do not believe authors and inventors are a detriment to society, nor do I believe their desire to profit from their ideas has to bring about any kind of detriment to society. I believe that authors, inventors, etc. can make a living from their ideas without a system of monopoly privileges.
What I believe to be a detriment to society is a centralized system of involuntary exchange and aggression imposed on parties peacefully using and exchanging their legitimately owned, scarce resources.
I am really sorry to be so blunt, but your argument is simply not intellectually sound or even well-informed, Tod.
or to put it more brutally:- Tod is a total dickhead…
Do you have an intellectually sound and well formed explanation of the theory property and property rights that justifies IP? I’d love to hear it.
Do I have a theory? This is grad school pie-in-the-sky talk — I remember it well and not fondly. The intellectual underpinnings of the copyright, and more generally, property rights in the West, and specifically, these United States, are well known. You ought to be reading it and learning it — and more importantly seeing those rights in action — before you imaginatively claim the existence of such things as “centralized system,” “monopoly,” etc. They do not exist in the US.
I believe that I am likely much older than you and I’m going to say this at this risk of offending you because you need to hear it. Please take this in the corrective spirit it is intended.
I don’t believe you are a law student, because even a first year wouldn’t have mistaken a “privilege” for a “right.” My guess is that you are a very bright college student, top or near the top in your class, from a well-off family and innocently thinking that you ought to be guilty of your privilege — and heavily influenced by the Marxist clap-trap you have heard from exciting professors. They are very much mistaken — but they have a soapbox which can’t be removed from under their feet. A few years out of the ivory tower and they see how impractical and inaccurate their ruminating has been.
Even if I am wrong about you, from your argument alone, you need to learn the subject matter thoroughly, get some practical experience in the world and rigorously question the bases of the teachings, before you make assertions that are unsupportable and very wide of the mark.
Since ideas are non-finite and can be created without physical raw materials why wouldn’t you just come up with your own idea, text or song to satisfy your need.
If someone wants to use someone else’s intellectual property doesn’t that suggest that the intellectual property has value. Copyright and patent law,limited monopolies, were created in part to allow authors and inventors a way to monetize this value.
Maybe you are correct that the current system is flawed however I think we disagree on what to do.
I would say change the IP system to correct it’s flaws and it seems you would say having any sytem at all that monetizes ideas is unjust so remove trhis system and replace with nothing?
Saumon Sauvage,
Don’t let my response be any indicator that your assumptions have offended me. I am not offended.
A few notes. You must have failed to read my comment as the first thing I did was establish a difference between privileges and rights implying that your statement did not. One does not need to be a law student to make this distinction. Your claims about centralized systems, monopolies and the U.S. are bizarre and unsupported. If it was not apparent, the United States government is the monopoly in question and source of these privileges. You failed to make any intellectually sound or well formed argument.
The rest of your response is terribly off base.
I am no longer a student and my practical experience after the fact has lead me to and reinforced my conclusions. I consider myself an Austro-Anarcho-Capitalist. A Rothbardian for the sake of brevity.
It’s funny you bring up Marxism. It seems that it is you, not I, that believes in a labor theory of property. A theory that allowed for the introduction of a labor theory of value, a theory emboldened by Marx and used to seemingly (incorrectly) justify countless theories of exploitation, etc. (there is a similarity here with your comments)
It was the Austrian school of economic thought that first rejected the labor theory of value, and introduced a correct, human approach to this theory. And they again are leading a movement away from the labor theory of property and towards a theory based upon scarcity.
I am only a second hand dealer in ideas in that I follow the philosophies of other Austrian economists. My thoughts are not an attack on private property, they are very pro-property, correctly defined and understood.
I hope this clears a few things up and I hope the saying, “can’t teach an old dog new tricks,” does not apply to you.
What is the point of debating the value of a system that combines intellectual property with limited monopolies in an economic theory that does not recognize limited monopolies+intellectual property?
I could create an economic theory that would only place value on intellectual property. All other property would be communal.
Or I could create an economic theory based on the value of unicorn poop.
Neither would apply to the reality of the economic system in place now.
And it would be pointless to argue that in unicorn poop world copyright does not exist.
Finally, I hope that your economic revolution doesn’t start by villifying authors, inventors and artists. I don’t think that will gain much support. On average they don’t own a lot of property. Most of the succesful economic/social revolutions started by attcking royalty, bourgeois etc.
Good luck!
No amount of law can change economic truths. Scarcity is an undeniable fact. It cannot be legislated away, and the consequences of human action in relation to scarce goods, cannot be legislated away.
I am a proponent of artists. But I am also a proponent of the consumer. I am a proponent of the individuals with little property that do not wish to be forced to fund the enforcement and privileges of others, etc., etc. I am a proponent of peaceful, voluntary interpersonal exchange, and I believe systems founded on defective theories and involuntary exchange are unjust and unnecessary.
Good luck with your ventures as well.
Sure. But I can’t promise you I won’t make them at home and deny you business.
Thank you for supplying a perfect example of how subtlety is rarely a part of any discussion about copyright.
Sorry pal, but people tend to be less subtle when criminals break into their homes and steal their property.
Why do you want force artists into slavery?
I wouldn’t force anyone into slavery.
Through clever marketing, I make slavery look so appealing that any artist would be a fool to not willingly give up their freedom.
Thank you to all that participated. We are declaring Mission accomplished:
Copyleft/freehadists have sullied themselves publicly.
American Eagle Outfitters and Chiat Day dig their hole deeper.
1. copyleft loonies trotted out the “it’s not theft because the original copy is still there” argument. This resonates extremely poorly outside of the 600 people in the piracy enabling tech blogosphere. In the real world people don’t care how you justify ripping off artists.
2. copyleft/freehadist loonies made cryptic references to militias and weapons. does not play well anywhere!
3. copyleft/freehadist loonies publicly show true colours; are as crazy and hostile as we know them to be (see above). Now everyone else knows this.
4. copyleft/freehadist loonies defend “the man;” the rights of fortune 500 companies to engage in unethical behaviour at the expense of artists.
5.copyleft/freehadist loonies defend “the man” pt 2; throw their support behind madison ave and the cynical corporate sponsored manipulation of public.
6. American Eagle showed themselves willing to disemble and obfuscate.
7. Chiat Day showed themselves willing to disemble, mislead and obfuscate. Also they demonstrated that they don’t understand the art of public relations. A sad achievement for an advertising agency.
We are humbled.
Great job everyone.
We need a new version of Godwin’s law:
As an online discussion grows longer, some jerk will inevitably make a comparison to W.
“1. copyleft loonies trotted out the “it’s not theft because the original copy is still there” argument. This resonates extremely poorly outside of the 600 people in the piracy enabling tech blogosphere. In the real world people don’t care how you justify ripping off artists.”
True — people just don’t like pirates anymore.
A clear majority of the population even want to punish illegal downloaders now:
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/20130118blocking
“2. copyleft/freehadist loonies made cryptic references to militias and weapons.”
This has been going on for a while. Latest examples:
“One-Eyed Willie Violated0 • 20 hours ago
If the people cannot change the laws as you imply then it is time for war to take back our country. I will gladly bare arms as stated in the second amendment to our Constitution.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
We are not a free state anymore and must take it back with arms. Our founders knew this might happen and that is why they put it in the Constitution so clearly. Shall I form the first Militia or will all of you? It is not just one we need but many. It all starts with you. With us all.
4 •Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Violated0 One-Eyed Willie • 20 hours ago
Most people are not aware that the US Constitution also says that if the Government fails to uphold the will of the people that the Government is invalid and people can take matters into their own hands.”
Source:
https://torrentfreak.com/verizon-asked-to-share-six-strikes-alerts-for-bittorrent-lawsuit-130402/
Thank you for your efforts, Horse & Cow Society!!!
Well done Mr. Bush! I mean.. Mr. Lowery..Well done Mr. Bush! I mean.. Mr. Lowery..
I think it was
“You’re doing a heckuva job!”
The point is Lowery won. You guys lost.
Ha! I wish I could claim this as my idea. Was not. Still enjoying the heck out of this.
Good to see you here! 🙂
Why not start similar campaigns against the brands that support the Piracy Industry?
It would get a lot of attention — just look at the size of this thread!
And it would not be the kind of attention brands expect to get when they advertise on organized crime sites…
I was going to suggest that Horse And Cow Society is an amorphous group free of leaders and therefore responsibility.
Horse And Cow Society do something you don’t like?
You don’t get it, man! That wasn’t the real Horse And Cow Society!
Agreed. Only a sociopath would be against copyright & art. Seeing common freehadists in the wild proves to any Rational person that the freehadist/copyloons belong safely confined looney bin with rest of their ilk. Jail works too (perhaps even better), so they can feel how it is to be raped every day by the Pirate Industry.
Hm, you still try too hard. 🙂
If you really wish to portray the pro-copyright nazies of your nightmares, you may be interested in what we’re actually saying:
We don’t want to execute illegal downloaders.
We don’t want to torture them.
We don’t want to jail them.
We don’t want to prevent them for sharing their opinions.
We just want them to stop stealing our property!
Get it?
Piracy/freehadism is never acceptable. It’s sociopathic criminal behavior.
We will stop them for stealing our property by jailing them. It’s called punishing criminals. It’s called THE LAW, something which COPYRIGHT is part of. Have you heard of it?
Sorry, I have to repeat myself — do you know the expression ‘too on the nose’? 🙂
“3. copyleft/freehadist loonies publicly show true colours; are as crazy and hostile as we know them to be (see above). Now everyone else knows this.”
Indeed.
The public still needs information on the Pirate/Child Porn connection, though.
The right to watch videos of children being raped is an important cornerstone for leading pirates such as Mr. Falkvinge who founded the International Pirate ‘Parties’:
So you guys won? Because “Copyleft/freehadists have sullied themselves publicly” ?
Last I checked the Artists vs Artists website is still strong, with “436 For Artists”, and 3,169 “For Piracy”.
The band has received sooo much attention from this silly campaign, which was their goal in the first place… Yet you still haven’t really made any valid points or mission statements other than PIRACY IS BAD! Yawn…
If anyone won, I’d say it was Ghost Beach and I applaud them for successfully trolling everyone.
Well, it’s not hard to get this crowds undies in a bunch. I think they mean “winning in the Charlie Sheen sense of the word.
The trichordist just posted an interesting breakdown using publicly available social media data to show that “ghost beach” got almost nothing out of this billboard campaign. Pretty interesting.
http://thetrichordist.com/2013/04/03/artists-give-madison-ave-and-american-eagle-outfitters-a-lesson-in-messaging-meanwhile-ghost-beach-gets-buried/
Also not that those voting are mostly not artists. Proves nothing.
Horse and cow 1
freehadists 0
It’s actually impressive they got the numbers they did around a holiday.
You must be a member of this ghost band.
Except, as many pointed out, what the “artists” (some of whom appear to be Chiat Day employees) are supporting is not piracy; it can’t be piracy if the artist allows it.
My favorite comment:
“A company spokeswoman told the newspaper the group’s use of the billboard was worth $50,000 (I assume the band will include this information when they file their taxes?).”
THEFT IS THEFT.
ANYTHING ELSE IS JUST SEMANTICS.
THE PIRATE THIEVES, SOCIOPATHS AND PAEDOPHILES SHOULD GET OVER THEMSELVES!
The Motion Picture Association of America estimates that piracy costs the U.S. movie industry some $20.5 billion per year. But Julian Sanchez scrutinizes these figures and finds they don’t hold up. After you remove all the double-counting and restrict the focus solely to American users — which is the only thing SOPA addresses, anyway — then, he notes, those industry-estimated losses come to just $446 million per year (“roughly the amount grossed globally by Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel”).
And even those numbers might not be right. The Government Accountability Office has raised further questions and concerns about the copyright industry’s claims of losses here. Part of the difficulty here is that it’s not always easy to tally up the true costs of piracy. For instance, if a person illegally downloads a movie or song that he never would’ve downloaded otherwise, then it’s not clear what the losses actually amount to (the benefits, by contrast, are fairly clear).
Your are rationalizing. If you don’t have permission to acquire music but do so against the wishes of it’s owners, it is called theft.
A famous independent study has shown that 20% of illegal music downloads are lost sales to the music industry. At that time, 5% of music downloads were considered legal. The true market potential of legal downloads was 25% of total downloads (legal and illegal), at that time.
All sides will exaggerate their numbers. Consider 25% of the high end estimate and it is $5 billion in lost revenue to the movie industry. Not $446 million.
PAEDOPHILES use torrent sites to trade their child porn. They have a vested interest in keeping piracy and torrent sites mainstream. It is very likely some have already commented in this thread.
The fact that you seem intelligent though presenting false arguments for piracy/theft but playing dumb with the title makes me naturally suspect you could be a PAEDOPHILE, a PIRATE THIEF and/or SOCIOPATH.
Time to start moderating here now Paul.
This guy is a serious troll. Do you really want this kind of namecalling in a business blog?
Unfortunately, Yves Villeneuve tells the truth.
Pirates & pedophiles have the same goals; they use the same illegal sites to fulfill their needs, they hide their crimes behind the same vpn’s, they use the same excuses, they hide their financial transactions the same way, and they openly defend child molestors (read torrentfreak.com’s comment section).
Worst of all:
Pedophiles and leading pirates do what they can to legalize child porn!
Please read what founder of the International Pirate Parties, Mr. Falkvinge, has to say on the subject:
Mr. Falkvinge is also a very popular and often used guest writer at torrentfreak.
Lost sales due to piracy can easily be quantified.
Survey question:
How many times did you listen this particular illegal download?
If the answer falls within the industry range, then it is a lost sale.
The EU Commission study recently released fails to address this most important question. You will note they refused to give an official recommendation based on that study. They only demonstrated where heavy legal music consumption users are heavy pirates as well. Likely, these consumers also pirate/steal thereby resulting in lost sales if the music is from an indie/unsigned artist or the retail price and/or shipping costs are deemed too high.
You should get over yourself and stop gulping the koolaid. most “pirates” are just kids and completely normal people. Calling them child abusers is way off base. Also I advise you to read up on the subject so some progress can be made in these discussions regarding the actual numbers not the fantasies that you are claiming:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/10/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy/
You get your information from arstechnica? 🙂
Really?
Facts are a bitch are they not 🙂 if you could point to a mistake in that article please do.
here is another one:
http://www.cato.org/blog/how-copyright-industries-con-congress
“so some progress can be made in these discussions”
This is not a discussion, Guest. This is education!
We’re here to help you understand how pirates & pedophiles are damaging society.
I don’t trust links from unknown sites and sources. Maybe you can discuss your side if you are up to it. Remember, theft is theft. Avoid rationalizing and using rhetorical statements is my recommendation.
Btw, I am not accusing the average teenager or teenage pirate thieves of paedophilia unless they are truly engaged in those activities.
I am pretty sure I know where you are coming from in terms of underworld activities.
Just be civil and point to errors in the articles referred to. I suspect that you may be lacking in knowledge of sivilized discourse Yves. The point being that you need to use facts to your advantage. Namecalling we leave to the less fortunate among us who lack intellectual faculties and are not capable of reasoning in any conventional way.
I am pretty sure Visitor accurately pointed out that the Piracy movement is mostly led by the PAEDOPHILE movement. No name-calling, just pointing out the facts which you seem to purposely neglect.
I am serious, I don’t trust links from unknown sites and sources. Post the article in this thread and I’ll gladly pick it apart. Your choice.
That hacker group called Anonymous and its offshoots are also full of PAEDOPHILES with a demented sense of what is right and wrong in society. Their demented hacking actions and ignorant expressions of anarchist freedom principles are meant as a public relations ploy to give credence and sympathy, from the public and in their own minds, to their criminal sexual behaviours.
Anyways, I won’t be checking this thread forever to see if you post the articles you mention. I’ll give you until Monday 11:59pm Los Angeles time to post them.