UK actor blasts failed prosecution of illegal file-sharers and said that most people are more than willing to pay a “fair” price to download content legally.
Stephen Fry, the multi-talented UK actor, writer, comedian, author, television presenter and film director, delivered a rousing speech to a crowd at the iTunes Festival in London this past Sunday in which he criticized the entertainment industry for its overly aggressive prosecution of illegal file-sharers.
“Making examples of ordinary people is the stupidest thing the record industry can do,” he told the audience, and he doesn’t believe that bands “are in favor” of the strategy, many of which have said they certainly are not. “My business – the film business, the television business, the music business – is doing the wrong thing.”
Fry also reminded people that rigid copyright laws stifle creativity and innovation, a point made last week by Christian Engström, newly elected member of the Swedish Pirate Party to the European Parliament.
“We are not nouns, we are verbs,” he added. “Weak copyright encourages creativity.”
Talk about a making a poignant observation.
Fry said it was ridiculous to call file-sharers criminals, singling out “those preposterous” anti-P2P “you wouldn’t steal a handbag” commercials in particular. Fry couldn’t believe they could be “so blind… as to think that someone who BitTorrents an episode of 24 is the same as someone who steals somebody’s handbag.”
He later admitted to using BitTorrent himself to download the season finale of House to see his old “partner in crime” Hugh Laurie,
Fry also said he feels last month’s Digital Britain Report, one of the goals of which is to create a “robust legal and regulatory framework to combat digital piracy,” was dominated by debate by “industry insiders,” that ordinary people were largely ignored.
He then took questions from the audience, the first of which he was asked what he thinks about people pirating his work.
“I’m against cynical bootlegging but I work in a very molly coddled, overpaid business,” he said.
Fry’s choicest words were for the record industry which he referred to as “Big Tobacco.” He argued that those who download for commercial profit, i.e. to burn to DVD or CD for retail sale, ought to be prosecuted, and that most people are willing to pay a “fair” price for legal content.
He pointed out that Michael Jackson’s reemergence on the Billboard charts following his death proved people are still willing to pay for content.
Afterwards Fry seemed to have amazed even himself for taking such a stab at the entertainment industry, and hoped he wouldn’t be misconstrued to be entirely pro-P2P.
“Well, finished my bit,” he Twittered. “Hope I’m not misunderstood. Such a pity if I get misrepresented as a ‘help yourself and be a pirate’ advocate.”
I don’t think that will be the case at all. I don’t think anybody’s in favor of a world where everything’s free. File-sharers want to see compensation, but only if it’s reasonable and a majority, or at least half for heaven’s sake, goes directly to the artists responsible.
Related Posts
- Stephen Fry Steals Copies of “House” in “Quantum of Torrents”
- RIAA Sues 80 More Swappers
- 1st RIAA trial: victim to defend herself !!!???
- The RIAA is Wrong Says Former RIAA Head
- RIAA fails in fileshare suit
Loading ...
“Weak copyright encourages creativity.”
what would we do with all those unemployed lawyers then…?
They may be forced to be more likely to find real cases to fight.
HOW? How does weakening copyright encourage creativity? Right now, there are tons of books and songs that are virtually identical, strong copyright and all. Sometimes people are creative and make a new sounding thing, or write a story with a new element, and then everyone copies them. Copyright doesn’t stop artists from making anything. All it does is makes it so people can’t just publish it without paying the rights holder. In an ideal situation, that;s the person who did the actual work.
I mean, just go learn how to play an instrument, sample your own sounds, make up your won story. Sounds creative to me.
I wonder how much the RIAA and MPAA payed this guy to nudge the downloading community in Britain – on the verge of crinializing p2p – to nudge them over to legal downloading. But none of you guys were exactly jumping for joy when Universal announced what you said you wanted for years. That’s becuase it wont be free any more.
You’d be a fool to pretend that new works don’t borrow from the past. If we had the copyright laws we had today back in the 16th century, we wouldn’t have the works of Shakespeare. Afterall, he borrowed his plots from other plays.
Today’s artists like to borrow from earlier works too. Lots of new music is being made by sampling old music. Though sampling does not cut in on the profits of the artist being samples, current copyright law does not see sampling as fair use. It makes it very hard for someone to sample a song legally. Not everyone can afford to pay the expensive royalties, or waste money in the legal system getting sued. The law creates a chilling effect that could discourage sampling altogether.
In this case, weaker copyright laws with a broader concept of fair use could undoubtedly fuel creativity.
You can legally borrow from the past and the present all you want, you just can’t plagiarize. Look at all the books and songs, most of them are pretty much the same, so obviously you can be as unoriginal and boring as you want. You just can’t lift stuff, passages, your thing has to be different to a degree or it’s a direct rip off. You can’t sample because it’s like plagiarism.
Used to be sampling was interesting but as an electronic musician I think it’s for chumps now, the real challenge is making sounds of your own and playing instruments, not starting out with someone elses beat or melody. Sampling is an excuse for labels and artists to not do anything new. It was exciting once but now it’s boring.
Basically, make your own. That’s creative. We obviously haven’t run out of art yet.
You obviously didn’t hear about the obscure and unknown artist who did nothing more that portray a sparkly scull in a piece of work and then was duly hounded and forced to pay royalties to Damien Hurst. Of course the guy didn’t even get to defend himself as he is simply not rich enough to contest it! Think was this means – even artisicly valid critiques or statements about established artist’s work can be put down and killed in this way – human culture has thrived on these ideas for thousands of years. Copyright law puts the power to stifle creativity and human cultural progress firmly in the hands of those with money. Original works by poorer artists can be effectively freely copied and flaunted at will by richer ones or corporations whist the same freedoms do not apply to others. And what is the motivation for this situation? Is it enhancing creativity or is enhancing wealth?
Just to add – Hirst himself was victim of copyright law with his work ‘Hymn’. Humbrol the toy company threatened to sue him over it as they claimed it was a copy of their Young Scientist Anatomy Set! Well, fortunately (or unfortunately!) Hirst could afford to settle out of court and still produce the work. Had you heard about that before? I hadn’t.. who knows what work is stifled before it sees the light of day? There are reportedly traditional African folk songs now effectively wiped off the face of the earth as Disney owns copyright. Should anyone want to record and introduce them to me (and for me in turn to draw influence and compose a piece in response) first a large settlement would have to made to Disney. If you stop that chain reaction of influence through copyright law you stiffle human creativity and change its potential course over the next millenia.. Fortunately there are people who do spread art and creativity ‘illegally’ .
“You can legally borrow from the past and the present all you want, you just can’t plagiarize.”
Stating the obvious again?
“Look at all the books and songs, most of them are pretty much the same, …”
Did you actually read and listen to every single one of them? You are most likely basing your claim either nothing at all or a biased sample. And no you may not take another person’s word for it.
“… so obviously you can be as unoriginal and boring as you want.”
Nice reflecting of yourself. You are the same as always, (like) malgre.
“You just can’t lift stuff, passages, your thing has to be different to a degree or it’s a direct rip off.”
You assume non-creativity is plagiarism. That’s foolish of you. What if the the similarities were just coincidence? The easiest example of non-creativity not plagiarism is Newton and Leibniz’s simultaneous discoveries of calculus.
“You can’t sample because it’s like plagiarism.”
So all of those who have ’sampled’ music are plagiarizing? Even your ideas of plagiarism is an affront.
“Used to be sampling was interesting but as an electronic musician I think it’s for chumps now, the real challenge is making sounds of your own and playing instruments, not starting out with someone elses beat or melody.”
Declaring that you are an electronic musician at this point is utterly futile in these arguments. If you are arguing subjectively I would have nothing to say, but this is about facts, not fallacies, i.e. opinions.
“Sampling is an excuse for labels and artists to not do anything new. It was exciting once but now it’s boring.”
Subjective garbage.
“Basically, make your own. That’s creative. We obviously haven’t run out of art yet.”
You have quite deluded ideas of creativity and plagiarism. If you haven’t realized, you’ve strayed far from the main topic that weaker copyright encourages creativity, not less plagiarism.
weaker copyright =/= less plagiarsm
Understand?
plagiarism*
“HOW? How does weakening copyright encourage creativity?”
Haven’t you read the study posted a few months ago? If you’re not going to search for an explanation, nobody will bother doing that just for you, malgre.
“Right now, there are tons of books and songs that are virtually identical, strong copyright and all.”
Is that not the main point?
“Sometimes people are creative and make a new sounding thing, or write a story with a new element, and then everyone copies them.”
Making up stuff with the same random speculations again?
“Copyright doesn’t stop artists from making anything. All it does is makes it so people can’t just publish it without paying the rights holder. In an ideal situation, that;s the person who did the actual work.”
Whoever said anything about stopping “artists from making anything”? This is about creativity, a psychological characteristic of humans.
Are you an artist constantly subject to copyright? If not, then you are just speculating nonsense.
“I mean, just go learn how to play an instrument, sample your own sounds, make up your won story. Sounds creative to me.”
That is not how musicians are born, dumb ass. Your over-simplistic ideas are quite ridiculous.
“I wonder how much the RIAA and MPAA payed this guy to nudge the downloading community in Britain – on the verge of crinializing p2p – to nudge them over to legal downloading. But none of you guys were exactly jumping for joy when Universal announced what you said you wanted for years. That’s becuase it wont be free any more.”
Now that’s the dumbest and ignorant thing I’ve read today: non sequitur and outright lie in the first sentence, idiotic speculation and blatant lie in the second, and a moronic statement in the last.
You are still as imbecilic as ever.
Damn, he must be like my new favorite guy. I have his audiobooks on Harry Potter, and they are amazing.
I would love to feel that anything I download I am doing it legally.. It’s a minefield on the net working out what is or isn’t legal to download.