File Sharing

[andrewducker]

Wow. This sums up how I feel perfectly. I've said all of this before, but I love this so much I just have to post it anyway.

There are conversations to be had about the morality of file sharing, but until those stern words are able to project a "morality field" that causes those in their radius to behave honorably such dialogues fall into the "adorable but irrelevant" category. The muscular responses to the phenomenon have made it worse, and greater consumer throughput has put movies and television on the menu. The Internet represents a user definable broadcast spectrum that makes the notion of a "television network" almost incoherent. That is the actual issue obscured by this site going down or that service going under: the ice age has arrived for massive conglomerates. They can adapt to this shift, or they can become museum exhibits. Up to them.

Of course I probably feel this way largely due to an overdose of Abba and extreme tiredness...

Comments

[figg.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry. My linguistics degree is yet to arrive. Could you translate that into english?

[andrewducker]

First we note the title of the post - "file sharing", which gives us what we experts call 'context'.

There are conversations to be had about the morality of file sharing, but until those stern words are able to project a "morality field" that causes those in their radius to behave honorably such dialogues fall into the "adorable but irrelevant" category.

In which the author asserts that conversations regarding morality may be interesting in their own right, but don't actually change anything. And by association, telling people not to share files has even less affect than telling them not to take drugs, smoke or have sex before marriage.

The muscular responses to the phenomenon have made it worse, and greater consumer throughput has put movies and television on the menu.

The attempts by the 'authorities' to use 'strength' against file-sharers has just made people more determined to share files, and encouraged them to come up with unblockable methods. Increased bandwidth has made it possible to share video files as well as music.

The Internet represents a user definable broadcast spectrum that makes the notion of a "television network" almost incoherent.

When you can download the individual shows you want, why would you care about the idea of 'channels', or what time a show was supposed to be broadcast?

That is the actual issue obscured by this site going down or that service going under: the ice age has arrived for massive conglomerates. They can adapt to this shift, or they can become museum exhibits. Up to them.

The world has changed, an extinction even is happening as the niche for television broadcasters (which only lasted about 50 years) is being destroyed. They can attempt to hold onto this niche (and vanish), or they can find another one. Up to them.

====

It seemed to make perfect sense to me - what was so hard?

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

The world has changed, an extinction even is happening as the niche for television broadcasters (which only lasted about 50 years) is being destroyed.

Except I don't believe it. It's (slowly) losing its current dominance, that's all. TV didn't wipe out movies or radio, never mind books, newspapers and magazines, and I don't see why the internet should prove to be any more of a killer.

[andrewducker]

I'm not seeing an end to tv shows - I'm seeing an end to the broadcast medium - nobody I know who has PVR or who downloads videos has any idea about times of shows or of channels - TV just happens. I expect this trend to continue. The idea that your channel is something more than an aggregator of third-party content will vanish - in much the same way that people once cared if a film was made by Universal, but nowadays don't even know 99% of the time (with a couple of exceptions for _creative_ studios with a house style).

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

The idea that your channel is something more than an aggregator of third-party content will vanish

I doubt it. TV's response will be more live shows, as it has been with radio. People pay to watch sport as it happens, even though they can see it for free just a few hours later. And who wants to listen to yesterday's talkback when they could be listening to today's talkback about today's news?

Now ask yourself, how far off is TV talkback where the caller's live image can be part of the TV image? Not far I'm picking, if it's not already happening somewhere.

And never under-estimate humans' willingness to have others make their (viewing, in this case) decisions for them. Sit down, click on, browse till you find something to watch. Who needs the extra hassle of selecting what you want to watch from an archive?

[figg.livejournal.com]

I don't speak weblog. I had to read that a couple of times to make sure I had the context right. (Yes Really). I don't buy into the more syllables = more convincing argument.

"Morality Radius" "user definable broadcast spectrum". I don't see why these short buzzwords add anything but confusion to the statement.

So it says: (minus buzzwords)

1. The morality of filesharing is a moot point.
(Arguable)
2. The legislation against it has failed to work.
(This is arguable)
3. People prefer finding their own content, rather than subscribing to a channel.
(This is also arguable.)
4. The TV market is being destroyed.
(Arguable.)

Now for some nitpicking:

Suprnova, and other such trackers could be considered the equivalent of a tv channel. The moderators chose what to broadcast from a range of available files, to try to ensure quality.

(People like Channels. It gives them a simpler choice).

Now, with BitTorrent, the time of connection does make a huge difference. I hopped on to the end of a torrent, and it's crawling along. (poor seeds).

(Time does matter (not to the extent of a tv program) when using BitTorrent).

Television still has more viewers. Television still make the programs that people are downloading.

(The internet has yet to take over, people are yet to start producing their own original content. )

So, in summary:

I see it as a poorly presented argument. It hides it's points behind an almost pompous use of grammar and words. The points it makes are debatable, and so are the ideas behind it.

[figg.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry for being quite aggressive originally.

I find it hard to present my arguments coherently. I often struggle to get the words out. It annoys me, when it seems that people are making an effort to make them less understandable.

It feels like it came from 'Sir Humphrey' from Yes, Minister.

[themongkey.livejournal.com]

The problem is, without the income from advertisers (via the networks), the studios cannot afford to keep producing the content.

Paid downloads sound like a fine and dandy idea for existing shows with established audiences (24, Will & Grace, <insert reality dreck title here>) but how are new shows going to make enough money to carry on being produced long enough to catch on?

[andrewducker]

The same way that book, music and comic publishers do?

[armoire-man.livejournal.com]

All they had to do, all they had to do, all they had to do, was create their own P2P network, hook in PayPal and charge a nickel a song, even. I woulda paid it. Gladly.

But nah. Fuckers.

(This is a condensation of what could have been hours of barely-coherent rage. But I got a life to get back to, here.)

[themongkey.livejournal.com]

You're not seriously equating the business models, levels of cost and risks of TV production, music and publishing are you?

It's pretty widely held that in music the few million-sellers subsidise the endless search for the next million-sellers with many failed projects never recouping their costs.

Alas, it doesn't work like that in TV, otherwise perhaps some of the $$$ from The Simpsons could have kept Firefly going a bit longer.

And the cost of producing, publishing and distributing one issue of a comic book has got to be peanuts next to that of getting an hour drama pilot to air. It's a lot cheaper to draw Superman flying than it is to film same.

[andrewducker]

And they make vastly more.

TV Series are frequently piloted, produced and then thrown away. Many series make it as far as half-season (or less) before being dumped. The successful ones keep the unsuccessful ones going.

Firefly is getting a movie because the DVDs sold so well. If we'd been paying for it directly in the first place (and able to download previous episodes to catch up) maybe it would still be on the air.