Piracy: It's Not Killing the Entertainment Industry

Mike Masnick at TechDirt discusses a new study of his, The Sky is Rising, that looks at the positive signs of growth in the entertainment industry, for both consumers and producers, in an age when we are told we need to empower the government to shut down the Internet because of digital piracy of (largely) entertainment goods.

Some details:

the overall entertainment ecosystem is in a real renaissance period. The sky truly is rising, not falling: the industry is growing both in terms of revenue and content. We split the report up into video & film, books, music and video games -- and all four segments are showing significant growth (not shrinking) over the last decade. All of them are showing tremendous opportunity. The amount of content that they're all producing is growing at an astounding rate (which again, is the most important thing). But revenue, too, is growing. Equally important is that rather than consumers just wanting to get stuff for free, they have continually spent a greater portion of their income on entertainment -- with the percentage increasing by 15% from 2000 to 2008. 

This all points to the fact that what is happening within the industry is not a challenge of a business getting smaller -- quite the opposite. It's about the challenge of an industry getting larger, but doing so in ways that route around the existing structures....

Some of the key points:

  • Entertainment spending as a function of income went up by 15% from 2000 to 2008
  • Employment in the entertainment sector grew by 20% -- with indie artists seeing 43% growth.
  • The overall entertainment industry grew 66% from 1998 to 2010.
  • The amount of content being produced in music, movies, books and video games is growing at an incredible pace

Read the whole study, which is contained within the story itself.

As Nick Gillespie noted in Reason back in the last century with history-making scope and precision, the age of cultural abundance is still here, still clear, still great, and not destroying people's ability to sell as well as get for free cultural product.

Mike Riggs on "Who Needs SOPA?," noting the continuing dangers of government attempts to crack down on the piracy supposedly but not really killing the culture industries.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Sparky||

    I've always wondered why movies have been coming out with bigger budgets and actors making more than ever when they're losing so much money to piracy.

  • Sparky||

    I've always wondered why movies have been coming out with bigger budgets and actors making more than ever when they're the industry claims to be losing so much money to piracy.

    FTFM for clarity on my position.

  • cathrine||

    looking for the bilover?---datebi*cO'm--- is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundred of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.

  • cathrine||

    Bi-sexual information?Seeking for the people have the same sexual orientation. please consult the site ---datebi*cO'm---, you will find the like-minded people!

  • Apatheist||

    I have always been an unapologetic user of file sharing and torrenting and yet over the years as content has become easily available and cheap I have slowly stopped using it.

    I almost never torrent music because of the convenience of buying it these days and the increased competition has kept prices down.

    The same can be said about games with services like Steam.

    Movies and TV shows have lagged behind but it has come to the point that I only torrent old tv shows, many of which I have bought if I liked them, and tv shows I forgot to record on my DVR which I feel I have already paid for. My fiancee and I have a new Vizio Tv with built in WiFi and internet apps and the combination of Vudu, Amazon Prime, Netflix and Hulu Plus (testing which are the best) has made an amazing amount of content available cheaply and easily.

    Make things cheap and accessible and many of us will pay for it. Continue to restrict and withdraw content (and have advertisements in a paid service, I'm looking at you Hulu Plus) and I'll go back to torrenting.

  • ||

    The only thing I ever torrent is live music. And I only do that because I can't buy it.

  • Sparky||

    Also, the ability to pick and choose content instead of having to buy packaged material. I can't remember the last time I bought a CD now that I can buy individual MP3s.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    There is a benefit to having the official form of the file over one that has been copied over and over, possibly converted between formats, or is a rerecording that picks up defects as the original plays.

  • Ska||

    Piracy doesn't even kill as many people as errant cruise ships! How can it kill the entertainment industry?

  • Old Mexican||

    racy: It's Not Killing the Entertainment Industry


    But... lost sales! Lost sales!!

  • Gojira||

    To be fair, movie and recording studios are entitled to those potential customers.

  • ||

    http://bostonherald.com/news/c.....ition=also

    Elizabeth Warren was paid 44K to help Travelers Insurance use bankruptcy to screw asbestos claimants. So much for looking out for the little guy.

    What amazes me is how greedy these fuckers always turn out to be. She makes over 700K a year. Why sell your soul to screw a bunch of sick people for a measly 44,000?

  • cynical||

    All the Republicans are having gay sex and doing drugs, all the Democrats are avaricious, tax-avoiding, corporate whores. There's a rule, or something.

  • ||

    It is called compensation.

  • Walmart ||

    Definitely.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Just coming into contact with the debacle that is asbestos liability is reason enough to get rid of someone. Much of the asbestos litigation in our area is associated with shipbuilding. The hazards of working with asbestos were well known enough until WW2 when the government buried the issue in order to keep the machine going. Years of government denial afterwards led to more unnecessary institutional exposure, yet for some reason, the private entities who supplied the government are the only ones held responsible.

    Even the space shuttle program is guilty. Multiple engineers in our area who worked on the program were exposed in the 70's and have developed mesothelioma. They recall walking through the dust on the floor daily.

    Always remember that is was the government that hid the health effects of institutional exposure, because it suited their desires to do so.

  • ||

    Interesting.

    You would think that the actual software co.s would be big supporters of SOPA-type stuff. But they're not (or at least keeping a low profile). Why is that?

  • anon||

    I think the irritation of successfully installing pirated software or getting around various security checks makes the vast majority of people actually buy the software for its full use. Pirating it is basically just a free demo.

    For example, what good is downloading BF3 if you can't play online?

  • ||

    Also when you download pirated software you are risking viruses. Getting known, workable software that has little chance of containing a virus is worth something.

  • Matrix||

    Hell, remember when people would buy software, but the DRM would block its installation or running the game because you had a CD burner or Nero on your computer? People paid money for the game, only to have to go onto the internet to buy cracks that got around the DRM just to be able to play a game they bought.

  • ||

    Because they use code that infringes on other people's rights? If they're worried about that--and they should be--then turning up the dial on IP protection is dangerous for them, too.

  • cynical||

    Because very few people anywhere can manage the combination of greed and hubris that the music and movie industries can pull off? Maybe the bigger game publishers (EA, Activision, Ubishit).

    Flush it away, indeed.

  • robc||

    They were amongst the first to be obnoxious about it.

    I think they got over that about 20 years ago.

  • Zeb||

    "Don't copy that floppy" was just so successful that they haven't had to do anything else since.

  • o3||

    so there's no intellectual property theft...as well as no financial crime? >remember boyz n girlz, there is no crime. only incentivized (il)behavior...or dont leave ur keys in the ignition, even in ur own driveway. u might incentivize the neighbor kidd to use ur car w/o permission

  • ||

    No. It just means that what crime there is doesn't do enough damage to the industry to justify extreme means to stop it. We don't shoot people over car theft or suspend the first amendment because of check fraud.

  • smartass||

    Yet....

    Just wait 'til The Grinch sits in the White House.

  • ||

    "or dont leave ur keys in the ignition, even in ur own driveway. "

    Weak sockpuppet attempt throws out old trope, John bites.

  • Matrix||

    Suppose I have a ray gun that I can shoot at non-living objects and the gun creates and exact duplicate of the objects I shoot without damaging the target. Now, I put those duplicates in my home for personal use. Am I a thief?

    what if I give away my duplicates? What if a sell them?

    Online "piracy" is much the same thing. A duplicate is made of the original source. It is then shared with other people.

  • Copyright||

    what am i chopped liver?

  • Matrix||

    If I sell it, copyright might come into play. But would it if I distribute without compensation or I just keep it for my own personal use? What if I use it and decide to later sell it as a used product?

  • Zeb||

    That magic ray gun might be infringing on some patents. Though I am not sure if that matters if you don't sell it.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: O3,

    so there's no intellectual property theft


    You can't steal what doesn't exist.

    or dont leave ur keys in the ignition, even in ur own driveway.


    Leave it to the guy who probably received typing lessons from the current and famous resident of the rubber room to equivocate.

  • o3||

    i luvs me sum old mex cause he wears teh stoopid like a grandma sweater w kittens n glitter.

  • ||

    Clearly, piracy is responsible for Michael Bay. So yes, it is killing the entertainment industry.

  • anon||

    I think you have that backwards; Michael Bay is responsible for piracy. You confused the cause and effect.

  • ||

    Perhaps you are right. I certainly wouldn't actually pay to see a Michael Bay movie.

  • ||

    No, Satan is responsible for Michael Bay. Let's put the blame on the father of lies where it belongs.

  • ||

    I thought Bay was just the form Satan took when he walked the earth?

  • ||

    It's unclear whether Bay is Satan in human form, or Satan's son, or John Frankenheimer's son.

  • Gojira||

    Bay is the Anti-God's conduit into our world, as seen in Prince of Darkness. That documentary film chronicals Michael Bay's initial escape from the jar in the church basement where he had been kept for the last several thousand years.

  • Jozef||

    To play the devil's advocate: 66% growth in 12 years is an annualized growth of 4.3%. That's pretty dismal; not anything I'd invest my money in.

  • anon||

    Doesn't account for new venues of receiving entertainment like Youtube.

  • ||

    Beats the stock markets, which are only up a few percent over the last 12 years.

  • ||

    And the global recession had nothing to do with that...

    IT WAS PIRACY!!!

  • Pudgeboy||

    Whoa, if it's the fault of the global recession, and the global recession is Bush's fault... then this all Bush's fault... solved.

  • ||

    Russ Roberts had someone from the fashion industry on EconTalk a while back.

    Clothes can't be copyrighted so there's zero IP in fashion, yet it still seems to manage to thrive.

    I'm not sure I'm convinced IP should be dialed down to zero but it definitely needs to be dialed way back.

  • Zeb||

    I'd be pretty happy if copyright were no longer than the author's life and software patents were eliminated.

  • kinnath||

    "Software patents" are like "assault rifles". They don't exist except in the minds of certain critics.

    Patents have always allowed for "methods" to be protected. The courts changed things in the 90's when they ruled that "business methods" could be protected. These business methods almost always turn into software applications in real life (but they don't have to). I would not be unhappy to see the courts reverse themselves regarding business methods.

  • Maxxx||

    I'm not sure I'm convinced IP should be dialed down to zero but it definitely needs to be dialed way back.

    The problem begins with the description intellectual property.

    If it was called government granted monopoly, which is in fact an accurate description, then it would be sefl evident that the only justification for the monopoly is whether or not it serves a larger societal interest.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Ya. I find a purely utilitarian justification at least comprehensible: "Hey, Joe though of a good idea, so as a reward, we are granting him a monopoly. If you don't obey, we will shoot you." That's really the crux of it. Dressing it up in the language of morality while also claiming that real property rights are also a moral deal just doesn't make any sense.

  • ||

    The only thing that I could get behind IP wise is someone taking your product and trying to sell it as their own original work. But that's already covered under fraud laws if I'm not mistaken.

  • ||

    So, if someone takes your product and doesn't bother to rebrand it, that's cool?

    I'm not even sure rebranding it would be fraud. Where's the harm to the consumer?

  • robc||

    I dont see the problem with rebranding. Once you buy it, it is yours.

    Making a low quality knock-off and putting their logo on it, does damage their reputation, so that would do harm.

  • ||

    I guess I was thinking more along the lines of building an identical product using your designs and IP, and then

    (a) putting your brand on it, which would not be trying to pass it off as their own work, and thus would be OK?

    or

    (b) putting their own brand on it, which would not harm the consumer, but would not be OK?

  • Not so fast||

    "(b) putting their own brand on it, which would not harm the consumer"

    I don't agree.

    The vey act of branding something as something else intentionally misleads the consumer to its origins.

    That, I believe, is harming the consumer.

  • ||

    Yes. One of the selling points of brands is to establish consumer confidence in quality. Otherwise it's just a race to the bottom. Again, a look at the fashion industry is useful, brands are protected but designs aren't, yet the industry flourishes.

  • ||

    That, I believe, is harming the consumer.

    How is the consumer harmed if the product is identical?

  • ||

    That, I believe, is harming the consumer.

    How is the consumer harmed if the product is identical?

  • ||

    That, I believe, is harming the consumer.

    How is the consumer harmed if the product is identical?

  • ||

    That, I believe, is harming the consumer.

    How is the consumer harmed if the product is identical?

  • ||

    That, I believe, is harming the consumer.

    How is the consumer harmed if the product is identical?

  • Maxxx||

    You can say that again.

  • ||

    Answer the question!

  • juris imprudent||

    Damn squirrels and their temporal distortions.

  • ||

    Once one of my buildings is built any Joe Schmuck can drive by it, think it's a cool looking building and attempt to replicate it. And why shouldn't they? We are influenced by everything we see and experience and I can't prove that it was my building alone that influenced Joe.

    IRT stuff like movies and music: If we are going to make a case against reselling something because the studio or record company doesn't see a portion of those sales, doesn't that mean that every garage sale on the face of the earth violates their copyrights and IP?

  • Gray Ghost||

    See First sale doctrine and its cousin Exhaustion doctrine. Attempts by the rights holder to get around these are what led to things like software licensing, where the purchaser isn't buying a tangible good, but rather a permission to use the good for a limited time.

    I tend more towards what I think is ProL's opinion on IP: the various branches of IP (patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret) are useful, and deserve some protection, but their terms, scope, and enforcement have gotten way out of hand.

  • ||

    Thanks for those.

  • robc||

    Its why Trademark is the one part of IP I support.

    Using someone else's trademark is fraud.

  • ¢ goes long||

    I've always wondered why movies have been coming out with bigger budgets and actors making more than ever when they're losing so much money to piracy.

    If there's any connection, I'd think it's that a generalized reduction in the cost/value of people's entertainment-consumption decisions specifically benefits the part of the entertainment industry that makes the most ad- and hype-dependent, impulse-buy kind of stuff.

    I hate that sentence.

    "Hollywood" is a short-con business. For the length of an ad or trailer or Ebert review or Oscar-nomination announcement, they need you to think that paying to see the thing being advertised might be a good idea. Once you've decided to pay, it doesn't matter if you get ripped off, or how much you hate whoever you identify as responsible for ripping you off, because you won't boycott Universal or Miramax (or whoever); you'll wait for more ads from them. There's no danger of lasting reputational injury to the actual seller. You might decide to hate and avoid M. Night Shyamalan or Ben Stiller or Spider-Man™ or Ebert or the Oscars or whatever, but that's not who you're deciding whether to give your money to, so who cares what you think of them.

    Right? So, set that form of consumer-producer exchange in an environment where the ease of consumption of entertainment products in general has reduced consumer discernment (in general), because people's pre-purchase-discernment muscle is less frequently exercised, and...the system works. Really well.

    An analogous thing happens within each entertainment-biz submarket. Industry-produced music has a clearer path to recuperation/profitability/etc. The handful of most Oprah- and NPR-beloved authors face less competition for the book-buyer dollar, even as they accumulate competitors. Etc.

    The business becomes, more so than ever, and more effectively than ever, an advertising business. Because "piracy" has made the consumer more of a sucker.

    In aggregate, I mean. I'm sure everyone reading this is a highly discriminating connoisseur of only the finest game-show and stoner-cartoon torrents.

  • robc||

    or how much you hate whoever you identify as responsible for ripping you off, because you won't boycott Universal or Miramax (or whoever)

    While this might be true for studios, I have successfully boycotted John Woo since Face/Off.

  • robc||

    And after commenting, I read your very next sentence. You really should order those more carefully.

  • ||

    cent sign gets post of the day.

    Very interesting.

  • Sparky||

    There's no danger of lasting reputational injury to the actual seller. You might decide to hate and avoid M. Night Shyamalan or Ben Stiller or Spider-Man™ or Ebert or the Oscars or whatever, but that's not who you're deciding whether to give your money to, so who cares what you think of them.

    It was my, possibly mistaken, understanding that movie producers/directors signed contracts to distribute their films through a specific studio. If this is the case, then it could do some, albeit minimal, damage to the studio that said producer/director is contracted with.

  • Sparky||

    Oops, that should have been a direct reply.

  • ||

    Cent sign makes a very valid point that the studios basically never get blamed for a movie being shitty. That gets dropped on the actors or the director, and rightfully so.

    Now, if the movie loses a ton of money, the studio gets fucked, but that's another story. Suck does not equal money loss. Michael Bay is proof of that.

  • Sparky||

    I see where you and ¢ are coming from. It seems to me that if the studios should be more against independent film studios instead of piracy.

  • ||

    I'll add to cent's comments the fact that increasingly American movies are being made with the notion that most of the profits will be coming in the foreign markets. Wondering why most big budgets movies are loud, fast and retarded? Blame Indonesia.

  • ||

    I'm still going to blame Michael Bay.

  • ||

    The Hollywood-Bollywood merger is only ten years off.

  • Lisa||

    "'Hollywood' is a short-con business."

    I hear this a lot, the idea that you don't know what you're getting when you see a movie (therefore stealing it is ok, yada yada) But I'm not convinced that other products can't also be propped up by skilled marketing. That's why reviews exist.

  • Old Mexican||

    As Nick Gillespie noted in Reason back in the last century with history-making scope and precision, the age of cultural abundance is still here, still clear, still great, and not destroying people's ability to sell as well as get for free cultural product.


    So Kinsella was right after all, huh Brian???

  • Hugh Akston||

    Employment in the entertainment sector grew by 20% -- with indie artists seeing 43% growth.

    This is the real problem that Big Content has with distribution vectors on the internet. It's those damn kids today with their viral whatnots and social networking whoozits. It's like they don't even want the juicy contracts we offer them to cut a lowest-common-denominator album that we can mass out at Circuit City Borders Best Buy.

  • juris impersonates a MediaBoss||

    doing so in ways that route around the existing structures

    Don't you all see the fucking problem - I am being cut out. You think I'm going to just take that shit lying down? I have needs and you peasants are going to pay to meet those needs.

  • Lisa||

    I'm not clear what the libertarian consensus is on piracy. What does "it's not so bad..." mean, really? How does that translate to policy or even a moral stance? Do we get rid of property rights? Should intellectual property not be a recognized right?How do we decide to distinguish it from other recognized types of property? Although I'm not really clear what the consensus is on many things among libertarians, so maybe I'm asking silly questions.

  • A Serious Man||

    It's a difficult issue, but overall I think while you are entitled to property from the product of your labor, the fact is that government laws have lent the system to egregious abuse. It's absurd that a person or corporation can own the usage of words or phrases.

    Consider George Lucas, who sued the author of a fan-fiction Star Wars novel that depicted Han Solo cheating Lando to win the Millenium Falcon. In what sense can Lucas claim to have sole ownership of characters that are figments of our imagination?

  • Sparky||

    I believe it's the fact that there is already a way to handle IP theft in civil courts and thus more laws are unnecessary. Since IP doesn't have physical reality there is no way charge for criminal theft.

  • T||

    I'm not really clear what the consensus is on many things among libertarians

    Don't worry, neither are we. "There are slightly more versions of libertarianism than there are libertarians." You get used to it.

    On a more serious note, IP is all over the place. Some people think it's crap, some think it's justifiable on pragmatic grounds, and some think IP is property with all the rights that entails. Most agree the current legal structure supporting IP in this country is heavily weighted to special interests and needs to be rewritten from the ground up.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    How do we decide to distinguish it from other recognized types of property?

    scarcity. If I steal your property, you no longer have ability to use it. If I copy your idea, or your expression of a particular idea, then you do still have use of it. Therefore, I didn't steal it.

  • ||

    Scarcity doesn't convince me as a necessary determinant of property.

    Anything that exists in digital form is non-scarce under this definition. That includes securities and cash, but we don't let people go out and digitally duplicate those.

    Why? Because doing so dilutes the value of the digital goods held by others. The same justification applies to digital copying of books, music, movies, etc.

    If I can digitally copy your song, why can't I digitally copy your Apple shares? You still have the use of your shares, so I didn't steal them, did I?

  • Maxxx||

    You can produce copies of Apple shares. You are committing fraud if you try to sell those copies.

  • T||

    If I can digitally copy your song, why can't I digitally copy your Apple shares? You still have the use of your shares, so I didn't steal them, did I?

    No, I don't have full use of the Apple shares. Only one of us can show up and vote those shares at the stockholder's meeting, and only one of us will receive the dividends.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    You still have the use of your shares, so I didn't steal them, did I?

    Hey, if you don't buy the scarcity argument, you don't buy it. I don't expect to convince anybody of anything on this chatrum.

    But your little "conundrums" are silly.

    That includes securities and cash, but we don't let people go out and digitally duplicate those.

    cash? Federal Reserve. Yep, I'm against that.

    securities? faking a document that says you own something is fraud. Don't need IP for that. If you want a fake Stock Certificate on your wall just for art's sake, and don't try to collect dividends(fraud), or convince somebody else that by purchasing said fake, they are now part owner of some corporation (again fraud), then you aren't really doing anything wrong, I don't think. But none of that has anything to with IP at all.

    Because doing so dilutes the value of the digital goods held by others.

    So what? If I make a new program that is better than yours, it dilutes the value of your program. That doesn't grant you any special rights over my actual, real, physical property. Or at least it shouldn't.

  • Matrix||

    If I write a novel and it takes me several months of research, writing, and editing and all the time it takes to get it published. My publisher sells the book at bookstores and digital stores for $10 per copy. Then, say, some schmuck buys a copy and copies it word-for-word. He then goes to Kinkos and makes hundreds of copies to sell at a few dollars above cost to make a little profit and a few dollars under my price, is that perfectly acceptable? It's against the law, but some people think it should be fine and not even a matter for the courts to decide. Besides, the guy took my idea (book) and distributed it cheaper than I did. He did not put in all the costs and upfront labor as I did to come up with the idea. He just took what I had, word-for-word, and sold it against my will.

  • Sparky||

    I brought up this point last week. IIRC, a number of people agreed that I could bring a civil suit for damages against the person who copied the book. Being able to do so means we don't need new laws because the current ones are sufficient to deal with the problem.

  • Jeremy||

    Right. What if he made those copies, and gave them out to a few friends freely? Sure, that would be technically illegal, but they probably wouldn't start shutting down Kinkos to protect authors.

    I don't know what percentage of piraters resell their pirated software/media/russian bondage porn, but I doubt it's very high, and I think we all agree that THEY are doing something illegal.

  • Hugh Akston||

    The operative question is whether piracy substantively harms content creators/providers, and whether and how that harm can be prevented.

    It's also worth considering that content piracy isn't the same zero-sum proposition that IRL theft is.

    And the rule of law is a noble goal, but only when those laws are designed to protect people from actual harm and promote general welfare. Sticking to laws that are written as transparent favors to monied interests is not the mark of a free society.

  • -||

    You should change your handle to Orren Boyle.

  • Maxxx||

    I'm not clear what the libertarian consensus is on piracy. What does "it's not so bad..." mean, really?

    It means that it is a victimless "crime"

    How does that translate to policy or even a moral stance?

  • Maxxx||

    How does that translate to policy or even a moral stance? Do we get rid of property rights? Should intellectual property not be a recognized right?How do we decide to distinguish it from other recognized types of property?

    Intellectual property is a misleading description for what is in fact a government granted monopoly. Violating that monopoly is no more immoral that violating a building code, licensing requirement or zoning ordinance. Illegal yes, immoral no.

  • Lisa||

    I guess the way I see it is that if something should be a law then it should be enforced, effectively (whether SOPA is effective is debatable). But to say, well maybe we can back off on this law because the affected people have lots of money and they won't notice begs the question of whether we are even taking the rule of law seriously.

  • ||

    What should be the law? Should Mozart's symphonies be copyrighted? Currently IP is dialed up to 11 and things like SOPA/PIPA would dial it up to 13 (as ProL put it). When I download TV shows that were broadcast publicly am I "stealing".

  • Maxxx||

    The NFL has is threatening to crack down on mis uses of the phrase Super Bowl to the extent that bars and restaurants cannot advertise Super Bowl promotions, discounts, parties etc. To the extent that those have to be referred to as The Big Game or some such thing.

  • Sparky||

    You know, I've heard any number of radio stations lately talking about giving away tickets to the Boston baseball team/hockey team/basketball team. I wonder if they're trying to skirt the same rules by not mentioning the team by name.

  • T||

    Sponsorship agreements may come into play. You may only use the logo, etc. of a professional sports team in your advertising if you have some sort of sponsorship agreement with the team. Otherwise, they get all nasty with you. If the station in question is not an 'official' sponsor, they may have gotten the nastygram from the team and reverted to the weird locutions to avoid further legal hassles.

    My wife used to work in the legal department of the local NBA franchise, and part of her job was sending out C&Ds; to local businesses that didn't play by the rules.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    Santa brought my kid[s] a Leapster Explorer, and every time you plug that thing into the lap-sized ENIAC you get hit up for a bunch of modules starting from $5 a pop, ranging up to $25 for a Spongebob spelling game. A big chunk of that's gotta directly to profit: They're paying for their end of the bandwidth, licensing, development costs, and what else? And that's just one little device for chidren. Apple's hordes of iDiots have proven that if you can deliver something as an app, the masses will skip the free version.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement