Black March

[frankie]

I was visiting VampireFreaks as usual, and I noticed that someone had invited me to an online event called Black March. Apparently, it's a month-long boycotting event in which you would not purchase/download any form of media (music, movies, games, books, etc.) legally or illegally. March is the end of the first quarter when it comes to worldwide economic reports, which could hit the "big guys" where it hurts them. It's in response to SOPA/PIPA and the likes. There's even a new "snooping" bill that is trying to be passed as Lamar Smith's Internet snooping bill, HR 1981.

Do you think this event will actually help or worsen things? Is it worth it or futile? Do you agree or disagree with it? I am curious about your response, since the fight for internet freedom is obviously far from over.

Here is the image for the event:

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/5442/blackmarch1.jpg

Source: http://vampirefreaks.com/event/Black%20March

[ElementMK]

IMPOSSIBLE.

Mass Effect 3 comes out in March. I can and will not resist it for a boycott that likely won't do a thing.

[Oaktree]

I'm definitely participating. I don't buy things very often anyway, but I will definitely avoid buying anything from the RIAA, MPAA, or any other SOPA/PIPA/ACTA supporter.

[Mistermook]

I think content producers are clueless/devious enough that any dip in figures based on a grass roots movement will probably be blamed on piracy.

[whiterider]

Well, boycotts have been around for a long time, and yes, if enough people get involved, they do make a difference. Of course, Mistermook is right - which I presume is why this Black March also boycotts piracy; if there's enough publicity about it, though, they wouldn't be able to use that age-old excuse.

It's a question of numbers, at the end of the day.

[opiumgirl]

I think content producers are clueless/devious enough that any dip in figures based on a grass roots movement will probably be blamed on piracy.

This is the truth. I think the idea is stupid. All it will accomplish is to hurt the artists that produce the media we all love. My brother is a musician and they have just launched a new album in digital format. I can assure you that such a black out will cost him significantly.

[Mistermook]

if there's enough publicity about it, though, they wouldn't be able to use that age-old excuse.
It's difficult to get publicity when you're boycotting the newspapers, so to speak. Worse, the sorts of press that's for mass consumption doesn't have much promise of knowing anymore about tech related matters than the MBAs and people networking gurus that make up management at the Big Content companies. Is Fox going to cover anything like this in a favorable light, when Murdoch micromanages his media fiefdom and is very publicly for things like SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA? Even if a reporter was empathetic with that sort of protest at Fox they'd be fairly dumb to risk losing their means of feeding their families by engaging in a public row with the people who ultimately sign their checks.

No, unfortunately I think this sort of thing is more or less futile unless it draws the larger public into a panic, and the more panicked a public is the less likely you're going to be to sway them far from their undereducated positions. Sometimes someone steps up that can speak effectively enough to rapidly educate and sway people - Martin Luther King Jr. and the like, but I think expecting something like that to come from a tech issue is wishful thinking. And even if the protest invokes IT Gandhi and he's the most eloquent speaker in the world, oftentimes it's only through a historical lens that everyone looks back and goes "of course things got better after that guy taught us how were all being assholes."

And they're not being enormous assholes for all of that, compared to some more pressing issues really, after all. Intellectual property rights reform is important, but it's hardly... nearly anything else we're always arguing about here in the Debate Room. It's not gay marriage rights, for instance. I think that's clearly something that's easily demonstrated as better or worse. It's hard enough trying to educate the average person what the difference is between intellectual property and real property in the first place, much less teach them nuanced positions based on firm understandings of the practical application of rights and content over a global internet.

[crocobaura]

It's difficult to get publicity when you're boycotting the newspapers, so to speak. Worse, the sorts of press that's for mass consumption doesn't have much promise of knowing anymore about tech related matters than the MBAs and people networking gurus that make up management at the Big Content companies. Is Fox going to cover anything like this in a favorable light, when Murdoch micromanages his media fiefdom and is very publicly for things like SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA?


I think the only way they are going to cover this boycott is in their balance sheets at the end of the month and that should be perfectly fine for those takign part in the boycott. For publicity there is the internet, with facebook, twitter, discussion forums, etc. Just imagine the number of people on pirate sites alone, that is a global audience, and those people, however hard it may be to believe it, also buy legit copies of various forms of intellectual property.

[Oaktree]

This is the truth. I think the idea is stupid. All it will accomplish is to hurt the artists that produce the media we all love. My brother is a musician and they have just launched a new album in digital format. I can assure you that such a black out will cost him significantly.

The artists don't generally get much off of album sales. At least, not the ones that work for labels that fall under the RIAA. If he's working for an independent label, it's possible that he won't be hit as hard. Some people feel that it's fine to not do a total blackout, as long as they blackout the companies that support the bills.

[opiumgirl]

The artists don't generally get much off of album sales. At least, not the ones that work for labels that fall under the RIAA. If he's working for an independent label, it's possible that he won't be hit as hard. Some people feel that it's fine to not do a total blackout, as long as they blackout the companies that support the bills.

Yeah I was about to delete my comment because in retrospect it is stupid and I didn't think before I posted. SOPA and PIPA applies to the USA. It really has nothing to do with me. My brother's band does have US distribution but I have no idea of the particulars. Here he would get personally from record sales about 70c/$ which is really not bad. He does make more money from gigs though.
So long story short, please ignore me I was being a dumbass.

[Mistermook]

SOPA and PIPA don't apply in the US either yet.

[Miko09]

That's funny. It's Black History Month in North America and a totally unrelated but oh-so-important and ironically named event has come into fruition and is being discussed instead.

Silliness aside, I'm planning on moving so won't be spending money on any frivolous items. Unless it's Twisted Metal. I will gladly cross the picket line for that.

[maxon]

IMPOSSIBLE.

Mass Effect 3 comes out in March. I can and will not resist it for a boycott that likely won't do a thing.
Exactly, they picked the worst possible month for it and I, personally, will be caving in almost as soon as the month starts and giving EA my money.

Fight like a krogan
Run like a leopard
No chance I'm giving up on Commander Shepard

[Spitfire Mouse]

While I admire the cause and support the goal, it ain't happening in my house.

With 3 birthdays, a new Kindle addiction, and Civil Twilight's new album coming out in March, there's gonna be a LOT of downloading and internet shopping going on for us.

I applaud those that can participate. :)

[5M0K3]

You people better continue to buy music, or else I'm out of a job.

Of course, that was a joke... But hey, I work at a record store, I can't just, not go to work for an entire month. I'm already poor. :lol:

[Robodl95]

SOPA and PIPA (in their current crazy form) are dead. I am waiting for the next proposed law before I start protesting...

[Mistermook]

If you're sitting on your hands looking for something to protest against, there's always ACTA... Though I guess that's sitting in the middle of the road waiting for Poland to back over it a couple of times before it's good and dead too.

[Oaktree]

There's also PCIP, which promises to be similarly disastrous for the internet.

[Mistermook]

Or, to put it another way, lobbying for legislative solutions to failures of a business model for an entrenched corporate interest is cheaper than actually addressing diminishing returns and innovating. Expect a constant, global stream of efforts to have government step in and "protect" businesses that find themselves in a crunch due to over-serving their shareholders, competition, and the failing economy. They won't stop, and they'll only give up once it becomes more expensive to lobby for laws rather than perform actual business.

All of this speaks volumes towards a legislative solution, but that legislation is further limiting access and lobbying activities. Not exactly what they're looking for.

[malfunction]

That's funny, in my language the Black March speaks about war prisoners during the late 1800s to 1900s being rescued from the White and Red Russians by the Black Army. It is interesting to see how this expression has evolved today.

On a more related note, I'll participate though deep in my mind I feel it will not bring down the titans of media.

[Weisskreuz]

EA was one of the companies in support of SOPA, but i'm still going to buy Mass Effect 3 AND Kingdoms of Amalur. And then i'm protesting.

[kattenijin]

Well, X,Y,Z comes out in March, so I can't do it 'cause I' gotta havz mah gamez/muzik,whatevs

Is it really going to make THAT much difference in your life to wait an extra 30 days for something you have already been waiting months for?

I love watching all the disgruntled people on TV talking about the 99% vs the 1%, but when the push comes to shove, its the "me first" additude that always wins out.

[Rawra]

IMPOSSIBLE.

Mass Effect 3 comes out in March. I can and will not resist it for a boycott that likely won't do a thing.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Or fingers, that is.

[Tempscire]

Mass Effect 3 comes out in March. I can and will not resist it for a boycott that likely won't do a thing.
I can't help but feel this comment illustrates a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. "I won't do this because it won't do any good." Well, yeah, and when everyone thinks that (in some twisted version of the tragedy of the commons problem-- let's all scratch our short-term materialistic itches and not bother with attempting to affect the long term for our greater good because that might mean delayed gratification) and everyone does nothing, then nothing will definitely be accomplished. Everyone will look up from their newly-purchased games and say, "yep, told you so," and probably look at the people who actually tried as the failures of the attempt.

ETA: ha, though I just reread the graphic in the first post and got a snicker over the inclusion of Megaupload's closure as being such a grave offense alongside SOPA & PIPA, as if hadn't been teeming with pirated media.

[Oaktree]

I'd say that even being "teeming with pirated media" shouldn't be an issue. Piracy really doesn't affect sales as negatively as people thing it does, and may, in fact, boost sales. It doesn't deprive anyone of any physical good. And our entire cultural history is teeming with what would be copyright violations under modern law, because there is no such thing as originality. Everything is derivative. If we stop pursuing pirates and those who create derivative work, we open the way for greater innovation and cultural spread.

I'm not saying that it's a nice thing to pirate something and never pay the author/artist/creator, but our government and certain corporations are in a panic about something that isn't hurting them. Rather than adjusting to a new business model, they're trying to force business to fit to a model that doesn't account for current technology. There are ways for them to provide value-added services and remain relevant, but instead they try to restrict the behaviors of their consumer base.

I do agree with what you've said, otherwise, though.

[Tempscire]

I'd say that even being "teeming with pirated media" shouldn't be an issue. Piracy really doesn't affect sales as negatively as people thing it does, and may, in fact, boost sales. It doesn't deprive anyone of any physical good. And our entire cultural history is teeming with what would be copyright violations under modern law, because there is no such thing as originality. Everything is derivative. If we stop pursuing pirates and those who create derivative work, we open the way for greater innovation and cultural spread. ...but our government and certain corporations are in a panic about something that isn't hurting them.
I do agree with the need for copyright reform and for lobbyists to stop trying to use the government/law to protect their status quo, and certainly the damages from piracy are overblown. I'd love to see copyright term limits whittled waaaay down. I also agree that nothing creative exists in a vacuum, free of derivation.

However, someone uploading the entirety of a movie or TV show or book is not derivative nor in any way a grey area of Stuff That's Illegal To Do. It's not an expression of the uploader's creativity. It is not fair use. It's not comparable to e.g. someone uploading a video that just happens to have a song playing in the background and getting RIAA-tackled for it. (Those people do not deserve to be conflated with pirates, nor do pirates deserve to be elevated to derivative content creators.) It doesn't matter if it's free and if the viewer would have never dropped a dime on it anyway. And no, it's not "theft," but it is doing something you're not allowed to do (and not just simply "not allowed" but legally forbidden), because that thing isn't yours, and you aren't allowed to show it off in that way.

IP owners (which are not limited to big corporations, even if they're the big clout in the debate) have every right to pursue (or not) infringements of their intellectual property, be it unauthorized duplication or distribution or DRM software-bypassing (all of which would apply to the pirated stuff on Megaupload). I don't believe that without copyright nobody would create anything, which some people like to suggest occasionally, but the whole reason it exists (and is enshrined in the Constitution of the U.S.) is to provide an incentive for creative people to keep being creative. Removing it, or at least refusing to enforce it, would probably not be a wholly positive thing, even if it would smooth the way for derivative works (which even then are problematic, since authors also retain so-called moral rights to protect the intent and message of their creation without others subverting it).

And you know? Even if the big media producers are being stupid and completely failing to adapt to modern technology and distribution models that would greatly reduce their power (and they are) and do "restrict the behaviors of their consumer base," it still doesn't justify pirating their IP. In fact, doing so probably just makes them worse (http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/02/19), because hey, there's all that piracy we keep talking about! We told you so! More laws pls. A boycott such as this thread is about? Doing it right. Except everyone is too entitled or short-sighted to participate in any meaningful way that might make it successful (and yes, boycotts actually can successfully influence corporate policy; it's not some e-petition).

[Mistermook]

It might be "doing it right," except there's an awful lot of heavily employed people in the media industry who have staked their professional reputations on it being "all about piracy." I'm not sure how you retreat from an expensive, consumer-unfriendly, protest-engendering position gracefully, and I'm not sure the shareholders are ever going to hear about a limited boycott unless their boards and corporate officers decide they're going to. Unfortunately I think this is all going to have to be done the hard way - this is a fight about education, informing people about the technologies in question and demonstrating in confident terms the differences between property and intellectual property. That's why the Occupy Wall Street folks are having a harder time than they probably should with their message, because all the simple arguments ignore the real meat of the narrative that involves some fairly complicated economic concepts. People use the internet and their computers, but they often don't understand the implications of the technology because they simply don't understand how and why it works the way it does. Lots of important political movements are having this difficulty. Mercantile capitalism is something people understand because it's fairly simple, throw in the global economy though and suddenly immigration reform gets complicated, so people want to reduce it to human rights issues that simply don't sway people all the time because humans are assholes more often than not.

How many times does it come down to trying to explain the difference between the actual theft of an actual product, and the duplication of a product stored elsewhere? I'm old enough to have watched entirely too many of the self-righteous members of my peers blissfully run around making mix tapes and now suddenly they're wanting to throw the book at other people for content streaming, because suddenly it's "theft" because they don't understand what's going on. People get up in arms about "protecting the artists" and they throw their support behind organizations like music publishers - the same people who are absolutely stealing from artists by trying to argue that their iTunes retail shops are sales rather than licenses. Back when I was in school? Massive copies from books on the Xerox machine were fairly commonplace when everyone was working on a paper. And let's not forget the recent copy of the Mona Lisa recently cleaned up and put in the news, intellectual property "rights" aren't easy to define, and right now the world's changed and left a lot of IP owners in the dust. But they're still controlling the narrative, trying to reduce it to simplifications that are easier for the public to digest and absolutely wrong.

All I can really suggest for non-limited long-term change? Educate yourself and then educate others. People are stupid assholes a lot of the time, but eventually I do think they come around with a lot of hard work and knocking them on the head. That doesn't mean the actual solution will even be as easy as that, and once we think we've fixed it we'll probably already be behind the times and wrong about the next technology and how we're trying to cling to an outdated way of thinking. But... baby steps I guess.

[Tempscire]

It might be "doing it right," except there's an awful lot of heavily employed people in the media industry who have staked their professional reputations on it being "all about piracy." I'm not sure how you retreat from an expensive, consumer-unfriendly, protest-engendering position gracefully, and I'm not sure the shareholders are ever going to hear about a limited boycott unless their boards and corporate officers decide they're going to.
Agree with everything. I don't expect the boycott to work (though, as I've mentioned before, I think some that has to do with the inability to garner dedication from the target audience), nor this particular one to really gather attention (especially not the way the SOPA/PIPA blackout did). I'm just saying that's an appropriate and actually potentially effective form of protest, as I have seen people (elsewhere, not this thread) justify downloading stuff as a supposed way of protesting unfair business practices of the big media folk, and, uh, [I]nope.