SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act)

AVARiCE

I'm a tad out of my depth business-wise but I believe YouTube is profitable for Google in that it a) retains traffic for them and b) drives in a lot of revenue indirectly. Chrome, for example, wouldn't have been as large a hit if Google hadn't used YouTube to market it as aggressively.

I don't know what the business word for it is but even if it were a loss-maker in direct terms, it generates revenue indirectly. Similar to the London Transport system, in that it runs at a loss (covered by the taxmaker) but without it London would lose millions daily. Last I heard (late 2010?) it was nearly profitable anyway. Since then there's been a lot of innovation there with the live streaming of events and the like.

Alas, I digress a bit. If I were Google, I'd favour a relocation of the service over closing it down. Part of Google's appeal right now is how well spread their products are and YouTube is a large part of that. Altenatively, like the Wave project, there's a lot of technology there that could be pulled from the wreckage and included elsewhere.

I thought of that but then I came to the conclusion that the BRIC countries were the most likely to want to "acquire" such a productive industry. Of them, India might take the chance to develop its own alternatives and Brazil doesn't appear to have an interest. Russia and China would be able to offer a solid deal and would take them in. It's all opinion anyway. If you think Google wouldn't want to move to China then there's the same that could be said about a move to Russia but it's a business -- it operates for money.

You never know, the UK might be interested for all we know. Speaking as someone who sadly doesn't own a nation, I'd jump at the opportunity to have an entire sector hop into my economy.

(As a completely random side-thought, these companies are so wealthy that they could feasibly buy a small country or island.)

Really mate. Really? That's not to say this is the only one that I'd gamble on being wrong but it's the one you're most likely to read tomorrow and think "Hell, what was I thinking?".

Lance Uppercut

I noticed that you edited your original post, which is rather annoying since I was in the process of replying to it. Still, further confirmation that you are indeed, full of shit.

Lance Uppercut

You invented 50 things that, in your opinion, young people in the US and UK would be more concerned with than this upcoming joke of a bill. Pure baseless invention. You are utterly bizarre.

Now, feel free to address some of the legitimate points (of which there are many) which have been raised in this thread.

Team Brian GB

It is a big issue for Conservative voters over the age of fifty, why I don't know, on top of which Daily Mail loyalists are big on that sort of thing.

Team Brian GB

Why do you keep bringing young people into the equation, how many times do I have to tell you fifty things people care about relates to all people irrespective of demographics.

AVARiCE

I don't doubt that for a second. What I highly doubt is that more people care about that than there are people caring about their freedom online.

MikeUpNorth

As someone who works in the music industry, you can probably imagine I have duelling thoughts on this legislative approach. Whilst copyright does need better protection online - and on a global basis - I am concerned about the stark lack of safeguards against malicious claims of copyright violation in the bill.

The way forward for the media industries has to be a twin approach of pursuing sites whose primary purpose is to facilitate copyright infringement, but more importantly offering consumers compelling alternatives to illegally acquiring content. I think the music industry in particular has been making good progress on this front, with services such as Spotify and Deezer starting to gain some momentum (though whether these 'all you can eat' services prove to be economically viable in the long term remains to be seen).

I'd be interested to see what people think the solution to the piracy problem is? Someone earlier cited the 'Louis CK model' of small, independent producers selling straight to consumers, though I don't think this will work for people without an established customer base, or the money to take on such a risky strategy (I think Louis said the upfront costs were in the hundreds of thousand of dollars... that is hardly a viable strategy for 'the little guy' as people are trying to claim). Would Louis CK's experiment have worked if he hadn't already built a career through mainstream media and television? Probably not in my opinion.

Ultimately, there has to be a bit of carrot and stick... though the SOPA stick is probably too unwieldy. There needs to be a culture change in how people see art (and other content which costs money to produce). I fear a whole generation of people view music and video as something which is 'free'. That needs to change.

Lance Uppercut

Probably because you brought them into it in the first place. That, and young people clearly make up the majority of internet users. But anyway, have it your way. All people.

Now, get to addressing those points.

Team Brian GB

To the majority of people aware of this issue, they will not be framing the matter as 'their freedom' online - very rarely does the rhetoric of the mainstream become so sentimental in British politics.

Team Brian GB

You accuse me of making things up, such things like our struggling economy being an issue more important than anti-piracy measures on the internet and then you drop that massive clanger.

Team Brian GB

This is exactly why I support such measures, if innovation and by extension research and development is not protected within society then we have serious problems in the future.

Lance Uppercut

No, I didn't. Stop making things up.

What are you talking about? You really, really suck at this, Brian. Your debating team will be ashamed of you.

MikeUpNorth

There were 17% fewer people employed as musicians in the US in 2009 as compared to 1999.

Only 16.5% of internet users in the US purchase music legally online.

Team Brian GB

You say that young people 'clearly' make up the majority of internet users.

I suggest you consult with the World Bank on that fact and argue with them about it.

Mockney

That's all well and good, but what about the decline of British agriculture in recent years? WHAT ABOUT THAT!!?

Team Brian GB

I am not concerned, people who write letters to The Times and The Telegraph on the otherhand.

Lance Uppercut

I will. Once you prove to me that people care more about the 50 things you listed than they do this issue. I will wait here. Once you do that, perhaps you will finally start to address the points that have been made in this thread.

We both know you won't, though.

Team Brian GB

You asked me to post a list, I did, if you want to challenge them then feel free.

Mockney

Correct me if Im wrong, but weren't you supposed to be listing things "young" people cared about more than this?

There are probably about 15 "young" people in the country that care more about this, and 6 of them are called Hamish and they all wear wellies to work.

Team Brian GB

No, Lance Upperhand cannot distinguish between paragraphs where I spoke about young people in one, and people in general in another.

Team Brian GB

Don't forget the people in the Yeo Valleys Advert.

Persian-Fred

I haven't been reading this debate, but reading over his list, is that the point that Brian's really so fiercely defending?

I can say now that young people (as a young person myself, obviously I don't speak for everyone, but I like to think I can relate to what others my age care about) care more about their freedom to use the internet as they see fit (legally, in the most part) than 96% of your list. The other 4% consists of #17 (Violent crime) and #42 (Climate change).

The others, while important issues (for the most part, some are simply unnecessary), will not be seen as important by the majority of young people, and I'd bet my degree on it.

Mockney

Fair enough.

I'd still disagree with most of your list. The consequences of an ageing population, for example, is something hardly anyone tangibly cares about, apart from the type of people who make a career out of talking about worrying about it.

Team Brian GB

Point to me where I talk about fifty things that concern young people more than internet piracy?

Lance Uppercut

Yes, you made up a list which proved nothing. Well argued.

And you are STILL ducking relevant posts about this issue because you are clueless. Stick to defending your list, though. Maybe everyone will ignore the actual issue at hand.

Persian-Fred

But it's not just clamping down on internet piracy, is it? It's going much further than that - it's completely controlling the content that people who use the internet (which is a significant proportion of any 1st world population) see. It's dominating and restricting more than just copyrighted material.

Team Brian GB

What exactly did I make up?

Lance Uppercut

A list of 50 things that people find more important than this issue. How many people did you poll, out of interest?

Mockney

I think there's a difference between " a law on copyright violation" and the potential ramifications of it, in regards to how people would "care" about it.

Ask anyone in the street if they cared about copyright law and they'd instantly tell you to fuck off and spit in your mouth. Just ask Mike. I happens to him almost daily. However if you asked them if they cared about a clampdown on internet freedom, or anything relating to the possibility of net censorship, I'd wager most of them would care more than they would about "The decline of town and city centres"...Apart from possibly Alan Partridge.

mariachi-19

Is that due to downloading, or the introduction of the fast food music industry? Don't forget that over that time period we saw the rise of the Idol and X factor generation of musos that are turned out like children's play things. They get a contract for a year and then fall on their arse.

Also the introduction of mass digital distribution has caused flooded market where its alot harder to make it then it use to be. It says alot when you can go onto itunes and find 40 different version of the same band playing the same music.

TDon69

You know, I find it kind of kind of disconcerting that you can easily access public image boards that contain huge amounts of child pornography, you can buy drugs online, you can hire assasins online and download blueprints of how to make bombs from household goods online, yet bleeding hearts are complaining about piracy.

Who really gives a fuck if downloading music/films is stoping people like Brittney Spears or Tom Cruise from becoming even more mega rich?

Then you have the whingers complaining about upcoming artists not being given a chance. A chance to do what, become rich? Excuse me if it doesn't cost me any sleep.

True artists do what they do out of a love for their art, and the money comes a distant second place. Anybody who wants to be a musician/actor, just so they can become rich and famous, well they are not really my concern.

You have people like Beyonce/Rihanna charging £80 for a standard ticket to their concert, yet they are shit live anyways. Then it can be up to £15 -£20 quid for a music album, how much did it cost to make said album?

Fuck censoring the internet, to protect the rich.

Sir Matt

There were 87% more boybands in 1999 than 2009.

jveezy

The upfront costs were hundreds of thousands of dollars because he was taping with six cameras at the Beacon theatre. I would imagine people without an established consumer base are probably not looking to put out something with production values at that level. It's a lot easier to fund projects nowadays with services like Kickstarter and sites like Bandcamp make it easier than ever to distribute. Maybe this stuff doesn't have the production of Louis CK's stuff, but I don't think listeners really expect that from new artists, do they?

Obviously this model works better for artists that already have a big fan base, but for struggling artists, is the record label model any better than the independent one? What about the ones the labels overlook?

AVARiCE

Again, not that I disagree with this point as I imagine the majority of people who are merely aware won't know, I can't envisage this going further in England without an uproar. I daresay this would bother more people than the rise in tuition fees. More passionately, too.

You need to stop doing that.

Mike, I have a lot of sympathy for creative people in general. Artists, musicians, film-makers etc. Firstly, I'd like to point out that the reason it's so tough for a musician to break through is because of these labels who pick the pretty girl, get a committee to write a song and then promote it with their power. In essence, they've been picking the top singers for much too long. The fact that X-Factor winners have going to the number one slot for Christmas proved this. On that note, I think music could well do with the downfall of the big labels.

Another thing I'd like to point out, although I appreciate it's not the most factual of points, is that artists have two ways of generating income. One is to pre-record and sell (CDs, digital downloads, etc) while the other is to perform, live. I don't know what it's like for the average musician but I know that CD sales don't even make that much money some of the top bands I listen to. Corey Taylor, from Slipknot, said that he didn't care about piracy because CDs don't make him much money anyway -- there were 9 of them in the band and royalties didn't stretch that far. It's a bit of a harsh and unfair sentiment from me but I don't see why someone should assume two revenue streams are open to them when one is legitimately valid. You can't "pirate" a live performance and the onus is on the musician to be good.

I know a musician and he has three jobs, he teaches at a school, he plays at a restaurant and he plays in a band which has been touring recently. On top of that he teaches on the side but I don't think he does it that often. He does this because he loves playing music. The only times he's ever recorded CDs, he's given them away for free to the people he knows.

I know I've sort of dodged the question thus far so I'll just answer it straight. As with everything, the market has changed. People don't want to buy an entire album when 90% of it is filler. Musicians need to up their game and start providing more decent stuff. Plan B's album was a complete album and I remember it selling well. The solution may lie in the streaming services (which the labels rejected and battled so hard against at last.fm, only to buy into when it was something they had a stake in), it may lie in lowering prices or it might be found in a brilliant idea that's yet to be thought up.

The point here is that CDs are definitely on the way out and it seems albums might be too. The industry should look at itself in relation to flogging dead horses before spending tons of money ruining it for everyone else.

I remember I was listening to a band when I was out one night and the singer plugged his album just before they went to a break. They weren't amazing but they were decent so I came home and went to download the album to see what it was like. If I liked it, I'd have bought it. When I was on their website, there was a respectful message that basically said "If you have to download our music we respect that but we're not rich and we'd appreciate it if you bought it instead". I bought it because I liked the message they were putting across. Funnily enough, I disliked the album and actually ended up deleting it a short time later but I didn't begrudge it because I considered it a tip from me to them for the music they played when they were out. However, if that had happened with a band I'd never heard of then I could imagine being a tad wound up.

Overall I think the problem here is that bands who have embraced downloads (paid and unpaid) have done well. Specifically, the bands that refuse to chastise the people who download/pirate have done well because they know not to rile their target audience.

Wibble

The bottom line is that unless big business sells books/music/films at a price that people consider reasonable then piracy will continue expanding.

MikeUpNorth

£4.99 a month for unlimited music isn't reasonable?

Pogue Mahone

The widespread piracy is pushing the price people consider "reasonable" further and further downwards. Once people realise they can steal content for free what price, if any, constitutes reasonable?

cinc

Whats not reasonable is to sell music/films on the net for the same price as you'd get in the shops for hard copies.

Pogue Mahone

I recently listened to a very interesting podcast about a much lower profile bloke who makes a very good living as a singer-songwriter using the same model.

The consensus on the podcast was that it's just about possible but you need an awful lot of luck.

Pogue Mahone

I haven't bought a CD/DVD in ages but, last I checked, they cost more than downloads?

Besides, you're paying for the money invested in creating the music/movie, not the format used to provide it.