Author Anne B. Ragde Says One Thing, Does Another

December 16, 2010 -

Norwegian author Anne B. Ragde is a staunch advocate of intellectual property rights. As an author, that stance is not very surprising, considering that she makes her living off people paying for the things she writes. She has made her share of strong statements about the subject of piracy too, as highlighted in this excellent story from The Escapist:

"Piracy scares the hell out of me. I do not know what to say. I lose sleep at night over it," she said in an interview with the Norwegian newspaper Dagens Næringsliv. "I have figured out that I've lost half a million kroner ($72,500) on piracy of my books, maybe more."

"I can not stand the thought of someone stealing something," she continued. "I look at Norwegian musicians who have to do live concerts. We have nothing to live on other than the physical product."

But Ragde apparently doesn't practice what she preaches - especially when it comes to stuff she has had no hand in creating. First, there is the public acknowledgement that she enjoys purchasing knock-off handbags:

"I feel that the genuine Prada bags have such an inflated price," she said.

Prada would say the price is just right. Then there is the matter of her iPod. According to her son, she also enjoys downloading MP3's without paying for them. More from The Escapist story:

As she made a list of the many legitimate purchases she's made, presumably to defend her overall pattern of behavior, her son Jo decided to help out by reminding her about the iPod she apparently neglected to mention. "You have a pirated MP3 collection," he said. "We copied the first 1500 songs from one place and 300 from another."

"Yes," she admitted. "There were a lot of things on the iPod."

Professor Olav Torvund of the Center for Law at the University of Oslo said that Ragde had made a fool of herself and should repent by buying all the music she downloaded, burning the knock-off bags she purchased, and issuing an apology. She did none of those things, but did promise to delete all the tracks off her iPod. She also blamed her son for most of the downloads. .

Source: TorrentFreak by way of The Escapist


Comments

Re: Author Anne B. Ragde Says One Thing, Does Another

I love how she tops it off by throwing her son under the bus.

Re: Author Anne B. Ragde Says One Thing, Does Another

Its just more hypocrasiy for right's holder. Although to be fair what does anyone expect them to do, say "Pirate my works, please"?

Still, the hypocrisy is one thing but the fact that she doesn't even realize it is what really gets me.

Re: Author Anne B. Ragde Says One Thing, Does Another

"Paying for stuff scares the hell out of me."

"I have figured out that I've stolen half a million kroner ($72,500) by piracy, maybe more."

"I can not stand the thought of someone stealing something that I made,"

There I just made her honest :P

Re: Author Anne B. Ragde Says One Thing, Does Another

I do not know what to say. I lose sleep at night over it.

Nope.

Re: Author Anne B. Ragde Says One Thing, Does Another

"Nothing personal, Jack; just business."

"We're devils and black sheep....really bad eggs...Drink up me hearties YO HO!"

 

Re: Author Anne B. Ragde Says One Thing, Does Another

Yeah this lady picked a wrong thing to fight for.

 

If you are going to be anti piracy advocate you should make sure your crap is legit before going into battle.

 

On the other hand, part of me sympthazies with her as a general feeling to most people. 

 

The simple fact is, entertainment is damn expensive, and studys show people spend the vasty marjoity of their extra income on entertainment.  And why?  Because everyone has problems, and entertainment is a great way to escape (no different than books for all your ellist book worms), so yeah, while it is awesome to have an ipod with 1600 different songs on it by 1000 different artists, thats a mega crap ton of money to just shell out to be legit.

 

 

 

Am I saying that excuses breaking the law?  No it doesn't but it also doesn't make it less aware of why people do what they do.  Crap in life is expensive, its why people have stolen since man first walked upright.

Re: Author Anne B. Ragde Says One Thing, Does Another

"On the other hand, part of me sympthazies with her as a general feeling to most people.

The simple fact is, entertainment is damn expensive..."

The vast majority of the hundreds of songs she downloaded were very likely 99 cents a piece.  She gets no sympathy from me.  Of course, she wouldn't get any sympathy from me even if they were expensive.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Author Anne B. Ragde Says One Thing, Does Another

It saddens me that people still have the misconception that art is property of those whom make it and if they make something, they are entitled to payment for it. It's not property, it's not a product. It's information and that can only be monopolized so long as you never release it to the public. If you don't want your work "stolen", then don't distribute it. It's not anyone's fault that copies exist that weren't paid for. If you're so concerned about getting paid for your work, then get paid for doing the job rather than trying to get paid for it after you've already done the work. I don't see landscapers crying foul because people that didn't pay them get to view the work they've done. They don't because they got paid to do a job, they don't try to sell intangible copies of the work they did. It would be absolutely absurd if a landscaper came to the government demanding protection because people who didn't hire them to do their lawns are enjoying the fruits of their labor. "Someone who didn't pay me to do a landscape is enjoying the work I did! They are stealing my potential income!" It's outright laughable, yet such behavior is acceptable when it comes to art? Artists can get paid to do what they do, they did it for centuries before copyright ever existed and they don't need copyright now.

-Greevar

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

Re: Author Anne B. Ragde Says One Thing, Does Another

 Where. do i. begin...

By what you are saying artists can almost NEVER remain independent and make a living off of their own work. When an artist wants to be independent they have to fund everything themselves, the creation of the work costs money aswell as covering all of their living expenses. How do they afford all this? The money made from one work of art goes on to fund the next piece of artwork. If pirating is allowed to go on then that artist may not have enough money to keep supporting himself and have the funding to work on the next piece of art. 

As for "getting paid to make the art", do you have any idea WHERE the money comes from for those payments? For the majority of artists, they work as part of the industry and the money comes from publishers and producers who expect to gain a profit when they invest in another's artwork. They pay artists to make a pieces of art on the soul promise that they will make their money back and then some. And how do they make this money? by selling the artwork to people. If people pirate and cut into their profits then the publishers/producers may not find the artists to be a worthwhile investment and thus FIRE the artists. by saying artists should not distribute work, that means that their can be almost no entertainment industry since they rely on distrubution to pay their artists and fund each and every new creation. 

One of the few cases where an artist can create work on not feel any negative effect from pirating is when they they are getting paid by commission. But making a living off of this can be much more difficult as only the really great artists will be able to create high enough quality pieces that they can get a steady stream of customers asking them for art. And even this situation is not ideal since the artist are only getting paid to make what OTHER people want and are not getting paid to make what the artist himself wants. Many artist like to dream of the day when they can make a living just making their OWN artwork, which as I pointed out above can get seriously hindered by pirating.

The only way an artist can actually making a living off of their OWN work without fearing the effects of piracy is when all their funding comes from rich patrons; people who will pay the artist to make anything the artist wants to make. But this is a very exclusive club, that only the best and most famous artists can get into. There are thousands and millions of people who want to make a living off their artwork but are not good enough to get a patron... Hell one additional hinderance is the fact that a patron will usually only fund you if you already make the kind of artwork they like; so it's not that ideal as you end up limiting yourself to the kind of work the patron likes... so if you say gained a patron through your work in realistic pieces, you may not be able to make work of a fantasy style as that's not what you're patron is paying you for...

If artists want to be independent and make a living off of their OWN work, they pretty much NEED to be able to distribute and sell their work AND get paid for it. Pirating can really hurt artists. And yes while NOT EVERY pirated copy is a lot sale, SOME of them are; there are plenty of people who WOULD have bought a piece of artwork if they did not have the option to steal it.

Essentially by defending piracy and saying that artist should not distribute their work, you are asking thousands of artists to give up on their dreams of either being able to make money of their OWN work, or their dreams of working within the entertainment industry.

Re: Author Anne B. Ragde Says One Thing, Does Another

Wow, you completely missed my meaning. I didn't mean to say that artists can't distribute their works. I only said that you can't distribute them and expect them not to be copied. It's an inevitability. My point was that you can't reliably make a profit selling copies in the internet age. It's impossible. That doesn't mean that artists can't make a living from their work. In my previous statement I posited that artists can be paid for the act of creating works rather than selling copies, much like a landscaper gets paid to do landscaping rather than selling copies of a landscape. This model is already in practice.

"The only way an artist can actually making a living off of their OWN work without fearing the effects of piracy is when all their funding comes from rich patrons"

That's patently false. Only those that wish to sell copies need to fear file sharing. You don't have to sell copies to make money from art and artists can make any art they want. Whether or not they get paid for it depends on someone having the same tastes in art as the artist. That's no different than any other product or service. You don't sell what pleases you to your customers, they buy what pleases them.

"By what you are saying artists can almost NEVER remain independent and make a living off of their own work. When an artist wants to be independent they have to fund everything themselves, the creation of the work costs money aswell as covering all of their living expenses."

No, that's what you're saying. You seem to be under the impression that if an artist can't make money by selling copies of his work, then he can't make any money at all. There are plenty of ways to make money doing art that has nothing to do with selling copies or using copyright. The model I appreciate the most is the threshold system or "fund and release". Through this model the fans/customers fund the production of art. People can pledge money to fund a project that is held in escrow. When the threshold is met, the funds are released and so is the art. This can also be supplemented by selling related physical goods (e.g. collectibles) to which the profits would go to funding the art. After the artist(s) are paid and the art is complete, the art is released to the public for free to everyone. It can be shared and modified without restriction. The fans even serve as the distributor by sharing it over peer to peer networks, which would save lots of overhead for the artist. By sharing the art freely, the artist receives free advertising that can drive more customers to his/her/their company. The artist(s) builds a loyal fan base that is happy to fund more of the art they have come to love. The point of this system is to reward fans for being fans. The more you contribute, the more perks you get. Like these guys: http://www.interstellarmarines.com/indie/

People are very emotionally attached to their favorite art. You can exploit this by rewarding them for being fans and encouraging them to share your art with others so that they too can come to love your work. Then you can use that sell them things that they can't get from anyone but you.

-Greevar

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

Re: Author Anne B. Ragde Says One Thing, Does Another

It really is funny how many people I know that claim to be against piracy of music/movies/games, claiming it's hurting the industry, yet then go and download a whole shitload of illegal songs and movies anyways.

They'll always say they can't find the CDs in the stores with the songs they're looking for, or can't afford to pay for the dvds of the movies they want right now, but will later on when they have the money, and of course later never comes.

 "No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

Re: Author Anne B. Ragde Says One Thing, Does Another

Actually, this is how people that defend copyright laws like they are now act, no, I am not saying they are pirating, but that they are scared, not much rational, they are so scared that they don't react in decent ways to piracy or attempts to change the copyright laws.

 

 

--- Maurício Gomes twitter.com/agfgames

--- MaurĂ­cio Gomes twitter.com/agfgames
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Did you get a new video game for Christmas?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
CMinerI blame North Korea.12/25/2014 - 11:49pm
MechaTama31For the last few weeks, the GP site fails to load about 2/3 of the times I try.12/25/2014 - 11:13pm
MaskedPixelanteOK, is GP having trouble loading for anyone but me?12/25/2014 - 9:21pm
Matthew Wilsonits a bunch of script kiddies. ddosing is one of the easiest thing to do,and most companies can not stop it sadly.12/25/2014 - 5:05pm
MaskedPixelanteI like Nintendo as much as the next person, they're pretty much the only company putting out the games I want to play, but that was pretty embarassing to have NNID go down due to overuse.12/25/2014 - 4:35pm
MaskedPixelanteSee? It's NOT a repeat of last year's fiasco.12/25/2014 - 4:22pm
PHX CorpLizard squad is responsible for The XBL/PSN shutdown https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSpZvsoWvig12/25/2014 - 4:17pm
IanCOh shut up bitching about Nintendo. At least they advised people to downloading updates before the big day. Sony/MS? Not a peep.12/25/2014 - 3:50pm
MaskedPixelanteBoth PSN and Xbox Live are down. Since I'm sure Sony and Microsoft have better online support than Nintendo did last year, this isn't from "everyone logging onto their new devices all at once".12/25/2014 - 3:48pm
prh99John Romero's Christmas present, a custom Icon of Sin sculpture. http://www.pcgamer.com/john-romero-gets-the-icon-of-sin-for-christmas/12/25/2014 - 3:37am
Matthew Wilsonthe interview will be on youtube/xb1/ andriod today.12/24/2014 - 1:05pm
james_fudge1900's?12/24/2014 - 12:56pm
james_fudgeYeah we could go way way back :)12/24/2014 - 12:56pm
E. Zachary KnightCopyright law in general has been broken since at least 1976. Could be even earlier than that.12/24/2014 - 12:24pm
james_fudgeWhat he said :) They want to make it worse than it already is.12/24/2014 - 12:14pm
Papa MidnightDMCA has been broken since 1998. Good luck getitng Congress to do something about it.12/24/2014 - 11:39am
Craig R.At least they owned up to the mistake. But doesn't change the fact that DMCA is thoroughly broken.12/23/2014 - 5:23pm
MaskedPixelanteSpeaking of Dark Souls OMG I'M MAKING ACTUAL PROGRESS WTH IS THIS WHAAAAAAA12/23/2014 - 10:49am
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=144500932&postcount=740 Yup, DSFix was part of an unrelated take down, and is being resolved.12/23/2014 - 8:04am
prh99Of course had they not done such a rush on the port we wouldn't dsfix to make the game not look and play like ass. 720 internal renders aren't so hot scaled to 1080.12/23/2014 - 7:38am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician