[blackcatgreg]

So. The guys that run the Pirate Bay have been sentenced to a year in prison and ordered to pay millions to several movie studios.

Gets me thinking.

Where does this stop. And why do certain examples apply without making others pay?

Way back when, I, and millions of others, used to record stuff from the radio on cassette tapes and listen to it later. This was before these fancy schmansy computer machines I'm using now. Did that constitute piracy? No. And while we're at it, why isn't the radio considered piracy? Nobody that listens to songs on the radio is paying for it. Hell, looking at it in a literal sense, the radio is the biggest pirating operation in existence. If you look at it like the movie studios and record companies do, why pay for a CD when you can hear the best songs on the radio?

And what about home video? Only one person has paid for those DVDs. Blockbuster sure isn't sharing their rental fees with Universal for every Shaun of the Dead rental. And why stop there? Why not haul in every person that allows more than one viewer at their home to watch said film? If I rent a video and my 4 year old daughter watches it without paying an additional rental fee, is she now guilty of piracy?

Now, before everyone starts accusing me of advocating ripping off artists, let me say this: every actor and crew member, right down to the caterer, has already been paid for the movie before it even hits the theaters. The only thing that hasn't been paid to them is the back end percentages, which are based on how the movie does in the theaters. And that's just the directors, actors, and producers. Granted, the producers don't get paid until the movie performs, but I can't think of a single movie off the top of my head that hasn't recouped everything put into it, whether it be from global profits, marketing, or DVD. I'm sorry, but when a movie grosses $50 million dollars in profit, I can't feel too bad for the studios. $50 million, by the way, is now considered a failure in Hollywood.

The recording industry is a little different. The artists get ripped off by the labels anyway. Not that that condones piracy, but in reality, the bands see very little of the sales money. Their take is usually in advances and concert/merchandising revenue. I could make the same argument about libraries lending CDs that I did with the video stores.

Having been in many bands myself, I have always thought that letting my music get to people was the most satisfying part of making it. The most in any of the projects I've been involved in have charged for music is $5. And in the last one, we offered both albums for download for free on our website. The way I've always made money in bands is playing shows and selling merchandise there.

Let me close by saying that piracy is not the best thing to do. It really isn't. But I think everyone reading this is guilty in some way at some point of it, even if it's borrowing someone's CD and copying it onto your iPod. Technically that's piracy. If the studios and labels would embrace the technology available to them a little more instead of attacking it, the entertainment industry would be better off all around. Why not offer downloads for 1 cent per song, or 50 cents per film. I don't know anyone that wouldn't go for that. Then, after each month's take is counted, really divide the profits up to the artists. There's no overhead that way, so there can't be that excuse.

Maybe the suits just want it all for themselves and aren't worried about the artists after all. Hmmm.....