AfterDawn: Tech news

Stephen Fry defends non-commercial piracy

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 13 Jul 2009 23:19 User comments (19)

Stephen Fry defends non-commercial piracy Stephen Fry, the popular actor, author and current gadget blogger has spoken out about piracy this week, defending non-commercial piracy and berating the media watchdog groups, who he claims are going about it all wrong.
The lashing, made at the iTunes festival, started with Fry giving a history of music copyright.

Fry started by saying, according to the BBC, "that my business - the film business, the television business, the music business - is doing the wrong thing," in regards to arresting and criminalizing file sharers.

He then mocked the "preposterous" MPAA ads that claim "You wouldn't steal a car" by saying he can't believe the industry would be "so blind... as to think that someone who bit-torrents an episode of 24 is the same as someone who steals somebody's handbag (or car)".

Fry himself admitted to downloading an episode of the popular series House, which stars his old friend Hugh Laurie and admitted as well to downloading a few episodes of 24.

The actor also acknowledged that commercial use of pirated material should lead to prosecution, as profiting off the thievery of others work is unjustifiable.

Finally, he added that he truly believed that if prices of digital downloads fell to "fair levels," most people would pay for their music, and piracy would no longer be the "problem" it currently is.

More news

Previous Next

Related news

 

19 user comments

113.7.2009 23:32

A-Men!!

FRY FOR PRESIDENT 2012

213.7.2009 23:39
pspcaes
Inactive

spam edited by ddp

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 13 Jul 2009 @ 23:57

314.7.2009 0:18

Do hear the trumpets blaring and see the flags waving?

Someone in that field made a statement that actually made sense. I guess he doesn't have the dreaded alphabet soup disease also known as cranial rectum inversion.

Hats off to you Mr. Fry now if only the rest of the industry would just figure what you already know!

414.7.2009 0:18
varnull
Inactive

Jarvis Cocker said much the same on tv a couple of weeks ago .. we are wasting our countries resources criminalizing people who aren't criminals while murderers and rapists walk the streets... It's easier to get locked up for feeding the pigeons than having 30 previous convictions for mugging or assault with intent.. world gone mad.. and some of us know why.. Instill an atmosphere of fear in the population and they will allow the state to take away their rights without question.. some of us have seen through the lie.. but the majority haven't. YET!! .. next elections expect a big shakeup.

514.7.2009 0:40
llongtheD
Inactive

@varnull,
You probably know this already but in America, most of the large prisons are run by large corporations that contract through the government. Its in these corporations best intrest to have people locked up, whether violent or not. There stock prices actually rise and fall according to how many people they are "housing." Its a big reason why America has more people per capita in prison than anywhere else in the world. Its also why we have so many dopey laws, and so many non-violent "criminals" are jailed.
Maybe its more profitable to house non violent criminals, than the muderers and rapists? Who knows? Something has to change, the majority does need to wake up.

614.7.2009 0:53

I'll quote a favorite movie line "a person is smart but people are dumb panicky and stupid". Too many drank the koolaid and now it may be too late so grin and bear it. AFA the prisons, we sure do have to keep the canabus smokers locked up those peole are WAY too violent. The killers and rapists they release everyday are far safer to have out walking the streets don't you think?!

714.7.2009 1:50

acouple posts I amde else where

Quote:
one only needs to restrict everything under vague terms because enough is never enough, popularity alone on the stage of the modern world is enough to gain profit from, if you can not do it by bullying the populace then you need to vanish and let others more able to live off well earned fame replace you. Between conglomeration of money and power and how relatively open the world market is toy don't need to go to extremes to make a profit, you only need extremes to attempt to eclipse a profit beyond normal acquisition.

If they want to go to the nth degree to make a profit to feed the monolithic beast of industry that will devour them the instant they can't fake popularity anymore, I'll go to the nth degree to save money.
Quote:
Reputation/quality<Popularity

Popularity and how you promote something is generally how media sells, even consumer electronics can more popular than quality built. And that is what corporate thrives on, spamming spam as real baked ham and not a mince meat ham byproduct..... point is we need to deflate the protections in place for media least it gets worse because they are furthering their bottom line on the consumer instead of cutting fat and and lowering their own overhead..

Copy rights and patents need to be overhauled to weed out the trolls,flamers and ridiculously obese fat cats. They do not need so many protections to ensure they do not have to change with the times... IE IP should only be protected from illicit profit and not anything else, if an IP can not be kept popular and profitable on calm waters it should not be artificially kept afloat when a breeze comes...
to tried to re edited them into something more readable...but then the more I try and make it readable the more incoherent it becomes.... 0-o

814.7.2009 1:53

Originally posted by llongtheD:
@varnull,
You probably know this already but in America, most of the large prisons are run by large corporations that contract through the government. Its in these corporations best intrest to have people locked up, whether violent or not. There stock prices actually rise and fall according to how many people they are "housing." Its a big reason why America has more people per capita in prison than anywhere else in the world. Its also why we have so many dopey laws, and so many non-violent "criminals" are jailed.
Maybe its more profitable to house non violent criminals, than the muderers and rapists? Who knows? Something has to change, the majority does need to wake up.
I heard that argument before that's its big bisness to illeaglize things, though in pots case you'd knock off half the sleeping/depression/antixy meds off the market....

914.7.2009 6:46

Thou shall not question Stephen Fry!

1014.7.2009 8:19

Originally posted by llongtheD:
@varnull,
You probably know this already but in America, most of the large prisons are run by large corporations that contract through the government. Its in these corporations best intrest to have people locked up, whether violent or not. There stock prices actually rise and fall according to how many people they are "housing." Its a big reason why America has more people per capita in prison than anywhere else in the world. Its also why we have so many dopey laws, and so many non-violent "criminals" are jailed.
Maybe its more profitable to house non violent criminals, than the muderers and rapists? Who knows? Something has to change, the majority does need to wake up.
Hmm, could have swore that it was my tax dollars paying for prisons. Would you like to give me an example?

1114.7.2009 10:46
llongtheD
Inactive

@ hendrix04

Sure, there are many examples. Here is an older one from the Department of justice. The numbers are much greater now.
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/plus/a0116/final.pdf

Just google private prison contractors.

1214.7.2009 12:36

interesting read. thanks

1314.7.2009 12:49
varnull
Inactive

Well obviously it makes more sense to lock up non violent and less dangerous people.. that way you can have untrained illegal immigrants as guards on less than minimum wage instead of highly trained and skilled professionals.

It's a DUH moment actually.. as this depression deepens prison.. 3 meals a day free bed and board and healthcare locked up with a bunch of film and music downloaders sounds a far better option than slaving your guts out for 1 an hour trying to keep a roof over your head while running the gauntlet of the scum who we don't have the commitment (because of our ((not ours.. they NEVER ASKED US)) fear policy) to lock up trying to get to work and back in one piece.

yeah.. a grim future for all but the rich.. I see a day when the prison guards will be pointing their guns outwards to deprive the starving of the free everything inside.

1414.7.2009 19:53

Good to see a well-known public figure standing up and saying what is right on this topic, for a change.

It makes a lovely change from those self-interested traitorous wannabe rich celebrities who pretend to be true artists.

Freely sharing is not theft, never has been and never will be.

(in fact if you share your album or DVD with me and yours later gets stolen I can help you out and give you a 100% perfect digital copy - it's nothing like the same as stealing physical property)

1516.7.2009 2:05

Mr. Fry, you simply rocks!

1617.7.2009 9:52

Wow, i truly respect this dude. He's so right, if the price of digital downloads are cheap (like 99 cent Apple apps for the iPhone/Touch), to hell with problematic downloads.

1719.7.2009 8:31
ST2006
Inactive

Thank God for you Stephen Fry.

1822.7.2009 0:03

I think Fry is absolutely right.

Lets say someone is a subscriber to HBO channel. Once in a while he/she comes cross a movie which in their opinion has to be watched without interruptions or missing out on any part of it. That person is not willing to pay extra for the recording device as it would still contain ads.

Only recourse would be to get it from the web and watch it at one's own convenience. Why should this be made illegal?

That person has already paid for the WATCHING RIGHTS !!!!!

1922.7.2009 0:18

Originally posted by pmshah:
I think Fry is absolutely right.

Lets say someone is a subscriber to HBO channel. Once in a while he/she comes cross a movie which in their opinion has to be watched without interruptions or missing out on any part of it. That person is not willing to pay extra for the recording device as it would still contain ads.

Only recourse would be to get it from the web and watch it at one's own convenience. Why should this be made illegal?

That person has already paid for the WATCHING RIGHTS !!!!!
Well dose having a few dozen premium services means one can view it for free if you can find it, I say....it should. The way the industry is setup nothing is really free, in order to get something time and money has to be spent either people go through normal service outlets be it cable/sat or video(DVD/ect) or they spent money on computer stuff, blanks and internet connections.

So in the the end what harm is really done? even if they somehow magically enforce every penny into the right revenue streams it wont change the crappy top heavy media industry and certainly wont save studios from the chopping block when they no longer are a pet project of the higher ups... so free distribution sucks up enough of the vacuum just enough to give the people enough power to fight it.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

Latest user comments

News archive