37 Response to "First Sighting of Pulse"

• heatherfeather Says: 11:46 AM

  Congrats on the pilot. Medical horror drama,eh? Hmm, sounds interesting. Best of luck.

  


• Adele Says: 1:18 PM

  Congratulations, hope it goes down well. Medical horror certainly sounds intriguing.

  


• RachelC Says: 1:57 PM

  Does that mean you've written the script and it's going to be filmed, or that they have bought an idea and you need to write it.
  
  Just curious as to where in the process they commission a pilot.

  


• Mark Clapham Says: 2:01 PM

  Good stuff, looking forward to it.

  


• Ian Cullen Says: 3:40 PM

  Sounds like fun.
  
  Only thing I watch on BBC THREE is Being Human and the Odd television movie that catches my attention. So will look out for that.

  


• SK Says: 3:48 PM

  I can't wait to see your dark place.

  


• Matt Says: 4:54 PM

  Good luck! I was bummed not to see your name on the list of Doctor Who writers for the upcoming season, but this is obviously well worth the absence if it comes to fruition.
  
  I hope it gets picked up.

  


• Anonymous Says: 6:08 PM

  Seeing this was about TV shows, appreciating what that probably meant but not realising at first it was about more than one show, I thought for a few seconds you were involved with a drama about Scottish lesbians. Not that there's anything wrong with that....
  
  - Rob Hansen

  


• Teresa Says: 8:59 PM

  Medical horror drama?! Sounds really cool! :) Can't wait to start illegally downloading it! Er, um, I mean, obtaining it through totally legal means through which you receive hefty amounts of legal tender.
  
  But seriously, do you know if this will ever be available on BBC America or something?
  
  And CONGRATS! :) 2010 is already looking great on you!

  


• Dyl Says: 10:43 PM

  Can't wait. Good stuff! :-)

  


• Paul Cornell Says: 5:59 PM

  Thanks, all. It's going to be very messy, Claire Foy is our star. The pilot was filmed just before Christmas up in Leeds, Rachel! I've made a few sidelong references to 'going up north'. SK: oh yes, we're very aware of that! Rob: I really should write Rude Lesbian Nurses one of these days (I heard yesterday that this site comes third for those words on a search engine: one day we'll make number one.) And it's too early to say anything about broadcast. But don't even joke about the illegal downloads, T!

  


• Ian Cullen Says: 6:26 PM

  Paul,
  
  Nearer the time of broadcast. You can count on some support from scifipulse.net and if you'd like to do something with us for the radio show. I.E pre record something then that be cool. Of course I'd also write up a seperate article to double up on getting word out.
  
  Fact is have already done a small article based on the link you posted, and figured I'd break the MI13 news as well.
  
  Now I have e-mail from Living to deal with about a supernatural competition they'd like some support with. So I better get to that before the weekend hits proper.
  
  As to the naught Lesbian nurses. It be far more titillating if they are Rude, Naughty Lipstick Lesbian Nurses with Hockey Sticks heheh.
  
  Oh my. I better get out of here before I type anything naughtier than that.

  


• Teresa Says: 10:44 PM

  Paul, trust me, for artists whose work I love, I'm always willing to pay full price and/or watch their work the completely legal way, and I encourage others to do the same.
  
  But for something like "Bring it On 3 1/2: Cheerleader's Revenge?" Eff that, I'm buying a $5 bootleg copy and using it as a coaster afterwards.

  


• Paul Cornell Says: 8:28 AM

  All support graciously welcomed. And the first Bring It On is one of my favourite movies!

  


• SK Says: 3:51 PM

  Teresa: or you could just not watch the things you're not willing to pay for?
  
  Sorry, mad thought, I know.

  


• Teresa Says: 8:23 PM

  First, I stick my tongue out at you. Like so... :P
  
  Secondly, there IS such a category as "I'm Just Curious Enough To Watch It But Not Curious Enough To Pay For It" If I see a cheap/free way of satisfying my curiosity, I will probably take it. Like, last night I saw "Bye, Bye Birdie" on Broadway. I was curious, because I love that musical, but had heard bad things - when free tickets presented themselves, I went. And I'm SO glad I didn't pay for it, because it was a horrible, HORRIBLE production. Had I enjoyed it though, I probably would've paid to see it again, and brought a friend. I think this is often how "giving it away for free" works. Drug dealers have been doing it for years. Give people just enough of a hit to get them addicted, and they'll want to pay for it later. And buy all the merchandise, and pay to attend appearances by the creators, and...no wait, that's TV now, not drugs. I get them confused sometimes.
  
  Lastly, I saw Bring it On IN THE THEATER! :) I love that movie. The straight-to-video sequels I have not seen. Also, they can bite me.

  


• SK Says: 9:20 PM

  Ah, I see, and just like you wouldn't have sneaked in to see the Broadway show illegally for free, but waited until they gave away free tickets, you would never actually watch an illegal copy of a movie just because you thought it would be so bad you wouldn't pay for it -- you'd wait until, say, the DVD was given away free with a newspaper or something?
  
  That being the difference between something being given away for free, and taking something without paying for it.
  
  That makes sense to me, now you've explained it.
  
  (Sorry for banging on about this, but people who try to justify their illegal copying activities, and I'm not saying you're one, but there are such people, honestly, I've met them, really really, get my goat).

  


• Teresa Says: 12:33 AM

  @SK - The thing is, I think that piracy is not the evil it's made out to be as far as creators are concerned - and I'm saying that as someone who hopes to be a successful creator one day. But I'm also a fan, and I know how fans operate. Very often you'll score a bootleg of something, but if it's something you enjoy and and want to continue to experience, you'll buy the next story/film/etc. If you don't like it, you won't support the next thing from that creator, and they should consider themselves lucky that you watched their product at all. I think that creators are wising up to this and giving away more for free so that people don't have to resort to piracy, and I think that's smart. Free copies of things shouldn't be obtained illegally, but I think that creators shouldn't make people pay for everything, because giving away a little for free means that people will support you in the long run. At least that what I think. I have bought/benefitted from bootleg copies of DVDs in the past, and honestly, if the content is good, that creator will get all of our money eventually.
  
  There's an oft-quoted Neil Gaiman quote where he said something like "Raise your hand if you have a favorite author. Raise your hand if you bought the first thing of theirs that you read." Free things at first often make lifetime purchasers, is all I'm saying.

  


• Paul Cornell Says: 8:50 AM

  The first thing I'd say is: hey, don't fight. The second thing is that I'm pretty much anti-copyright theft. ('Piracy' makes it sound so romantic, but it's more like shoplifting.) I know of very few creators who accept it (one of the lies such thieves tell themselves), but it's hard to speak out about it, because the audience very much want to keep doing it, and tend to pillory those (like Lily Allen) who speak up. It also makes one look uncool. But Captain Britain and MI-13 might still be with us without the continual drain of such parasitism. My wife used to download anime that was never going to come out in the UK, but she's stopped doing it, because she realised she was part of what stopped it doing so. And because she just felt uncomfortable. Just *how* bad doing this is varies from situation to situation, with comics and Big Finish piracy being some of the worst cases. Which is not to have a go at you *at all*, Teresa. I'll blog about this soon, and become much more unpopular as a result, but I did say this year I'd be honest.

  


• SK Says: 10:23 AM

  See, Paul, there is the occasional thing we agree on!
  
  Teresa, I see what you're saying, and of course free stuff can be useful as a loss-leader. The fundamental question is, whose decision is it to offer that loss-leader? And I'd say that the answer is, must always be, the person who made it. If they want to go down the economic route of offering free tasters (which I don't think is a good idea, for reasons I will get into later on) it is up to them. It is not up to the individual would-be purchaser to decide, on a case-by-case basis, 'I want to watch this but I don't know whether I'll pay for it, so I'll just not and then see if I want to later', or even 'I want to watch this now but it's not going to be on TV in this country for another six months so I'll watch an illegal copy and salve my conscience by buying the DVD when I can, because my instant gratification is more important than the law'.
  
  More importantly, perhaps, than the issue of the individual copyright theft, is the general cultural idea which is coming along (may already have come around, maybe too late to stop, in which case we're all doomed) that 'free' is an acceptable price for content, that paying someone for their content is something you only do if you like it, rather than something the maker of that content deserves as a mater of course. What we gain too cheaply we esteem too lightly, after all, and what we get for free we have a tendency to assume is just out there lying around instead of being the product of blood, sweat, tears and talent.
  
  So actually I am not liking this culture which seems to be developing where it is expected that artists will give things away for free, and only get back what people are willing to pay out of the goodness of their hearts. It stops artists from being properly esteemed partners in the transaction, for one thing, and makes them buskers or beggars, throwing out their wares and dependant on goodwill for their living. It's only recently that we've emerged form the patronage system and artists have been able to have independent status; let's not go back!

  


• SK Says: 10:23 AM

  And for another, I think it's a short, shot step from thinking that 'the first one' should be free to thinking that every one should be free. Your idea that people will, once they've had the first free one, start to pay from then on, is romantic but, I think, naïve. It's well known in advertising that we remember how we first came to something when it comes to renewing our purchases. If you first come to a particular show because they are offering a sale, then chances are you won't go in there again until they have another, similar sale. If you buy a particular product because it's on three-for-two or BOGOF in the supermarket, then you're probably going to wait until it's on a similar offer before buying it again. So by saying that creators should give things away for free, what you're doing is creating a culture of expectation that creative endeavours are free. You're raising a generation that thinks that free stuff is not a nice bonus or a trial, but their inalienable right.
  
  (I have heard one person claim that copyright is equivalent to the Salt Laws in India -- quite explicitly saying that music and movies are just lying around for people to find!)
  
  So that's one philosophical/moral reason why the idea that creative stuff should be offered free of charge as a matter of course is bad -- because it devalues the status of the creator in the transition, and makes them a busker dependant on charity rather than an independent actor -- and one economic one -- that in the long term creating an expectation of freeness will not, in fact, lift sales but will drive them farther into the ground.
  
  Lastly, Gaiman's question is quite disingenuous as when it comes to the kind of authors he means people's first experience of them is usually not an illegally copied book but a loans one -- and that's a totally different situation.

  


• Teresa Says: 6:08 PM

  Hello again! Don't worry, this isn't a fight! This is a couple of really awesome people expressing differing opinions on a topic. When I start saying things about "yo momma", then it's a fight. :) And Paul, don't ever worry about seeming to "have a go" at me. I'm a big girl. I can handle people disagreeing with me. :)
  
  This is a complex and controversial issue, and I don't have all the answers. Paul, I'm looking forward to a blog from you on the subject, and SK, I completely understand your arguments. But it's not as simple as "Copying bad!" "Stealing bad!"
  
  I think more creators accept it and are finding ways to use it than either of you think. Of course, there are also creators who don't, and that's their right. And I, too, was disturbed by the flack that Lily Allen was getting over her activism and miss her on Twitter! She's extremely smart and talented, and it's a shame she felt like she had to withdraw a little from public life because people were being horrible to her. However, I think ignoring WHY people might think someone "less cool" for being hard on free downloading is not only a bit of a mistake, but also a missed opportunity.
  
  SK, I very much disagree with your assessment that giving things away for free would create an expectation for MORE free stuff and that people wouldn't then pay for anything. More and more the opposite is true, particularly in the music industry, though it's true in other industries as well. A couple of examples:
  
  1) When the TV show, Heroes, first premiered, they gave away free downloads of the first three episodes on iTunes. I got a card from a local movie theater where I could enter a code and get the free downloads. The show is now over 3 years old and still going strong, despite, apparently, starting to suck in its second season. (I stopped watching in the first, but plenty of my friends stuck with it) And people buy the DVDs, pay to download eps on iTunes, buy merchandise, etc.
  
  2) Musician, Amanda Palmer, has made a career of giving it away for free. She has a horrible relationship with her music label, who don't promote her album the way they should, so she encourages people to buy her album from HER website, as opposed to Amazon, where she sees less profit, and she encourages people to copy her CD and give it to friends (http://blog.amandapalmer.net/post/296942622/all-i-want-for-christmas-is-burning-love). She encourages people to video her shows and post them on YouTube. However, she is also very honest about her life as an artist (http://blog.amandapalmer.net/post/200582690/why-i-am-not-afraid-to-take-your-money-by-amanda), creating an atmosphere among her fans where people give her money because they WANT her to eat and be able to live so that she can make more art, not because they HAVE to because a music publisher says so. The result? She not only sells a ridiculous amount of CDs that way, but she sells merchandise, concert tickets, personalized holiday cards, and she was able to raise $10,000 in a night via Twitter auction just auctioning off random memorabilia. She's learned how to work people's desire for free stuff, and it's ended up translating into money for her as well as a rabid fan base.

  


• Teresa Says: 6:15 PM

  In a world of "on demand" entertainment and "user-generated content", we're actually seeing that people are more, not less, inclined to spend money on art they like, especially if they know it goes directly to the artists and not through a middle-man. It's surprising, but it's true. I didn't just make that up.
  
  Cory Doctorow actually gave a great speech on the subject of copying at the National Reading Summit in December. Incidentally, I didn't pay to go to the summit to hear his talk, but someone transcribed it and put it up online for free so that it can be shared. You can read here:
  http://thevarsity.ca/articles/23855
  
  Part 2 is really where his argument gets going:
  "Copying creates new opportunities for writers and other creative people that have not existed before.
  
  When I had my daughter, I realized that mammalian reproduction is something that we take very seriously. We care about where every copy we’ve made of ourselves goes. We care a lot about this division. But mammals have to invest a lot of energy into their copies. There’s a lot of organisms that don’t. Think about the dandelion. The dandelion doesn’t care where its seeds go, it just cares that every single opportunity for germination is taken, that every crack in every sidewalk has a dandelion seed growing out of it.
  
  And that’s what the creators who embrace copying—who say “It’s the 21st century, copying happens, pretending it doesn’t is lovely and historical, like being a blacksmith at Pioneer Village, but it’s not contemporary”—writers that have embraced copying have found that being like a dandelion pays off. It gives you a fecundity to your work that allows it to find its way into places that you never thought it would be found before.
  
  The most heartbreaking stories I’ve heard about where my books have gone—my books are copyable from the day that they’re published, they’re published jointly in the U.K., Canada, and on audio by Holtzbrink-Macmillan-Tor, Random House, and HarperCollins, so, you know, three of the four or five big publishing entities. These are available as free downloads, but I get the most amazing letters from people who found these free downloads. Now, they also go out buy the book afterward—that’s lovely, too—but in terms of a reading strategy, what we’re here to talk about today, one of the most moving things I ever heard is from a sailor on a ship in the Persian Gulf, saying “I’ve never really read, but here I am confronted by incredibly long hours of boredom, and we were able to download and pass around copies of your book on the ship. We’ve all read it. We all talk about it. It’s become part of how we think about the world.”"

  


• Teresa Says: 6:16 PM

  THIS IS THE END, I PROMISE! :)
  
  Lastly, I just want to say that you can't just criminalize something without also examining why those crimes are committed in the first place. You can't make stealing illegal without also doing things about what makes people steal in the first place - like poverty, education, etc.
  
  I want creators to be paid for their art. I want them to be paid fairly, and I want them to be paid enough that they can make a living at it without having to do other work. And I think that free copies of things can fit into that, and need to be taken into account in the larger discussion of this issue. That's all.
  
  Sorry, Paul, if I've hijacked this thread and made it extremely off topic! If I shouldn't do this in future, please tell me. I'm new around here, so I don't know how discussions generally go. And to get this back to the ORIGINAL topic of your post, congratulations again on Pulse. I'm looking forward to it, but I will wait until it's officially broadcast here in the US (IF it's broadcast) to watch it. I thought it was really smart when BBC America aired "The End of Time" the DAY after it aired in the UK, as opposed to the usual MONTHS. I'm sure that severely cut down on illegal downloads and made everyone happy. I hope that same opportunity will be available for more shows coming out of the UK, and other countries as well. The internet has made holding off international broadcast rights seem downright silly.

  


• Paul Cornell Says: 6:22 PM

  I think people don't like to be told they're doing something wrong. The examples you give are all of people giving things away, rather than having them stolen. Big Finish can't produce marginal ranges like Sapphire and Steel because illegal copies cut into their market so much. Marginally profitable comics titles like my own Captain Britain could have kept going longer without the burden of free downloads cutting into those profits. I had to stop doing something I loved because of this, so a sunny intellectual debate about how giving away a few free things gets people to... well, hopefully buy more things, but probably just steal them... it's a long way from my own experience of it.

  


• Paul Cornell Says: 6:27 PM

  And 'criminalize' isn't the word, because these things are actually criminal. My comics aren't top of the list of needs for people in poverty. And what this all comes down to, as always, is commentators saying that *of course* creators have to be paid, without explaining who's going to do that. The answer is: honest people. And they'll have to pay more.

  


• Teresa Says: 6:59 PM

  I wasn't equating the examples I cited with people who download illegally or sell bootleg copies of things. I was citing these examples as ways creators can USE the way people want free things to their advantage. Yes, copyright infringement is a criminal activity. We know this. But I don't think that we should ignore the fact that when people get things from a creator for free, they are more likely to want to support that creator, and that it DOES translate into financial support. I'm saying that if you want to stop illegal copying and downloading, the best way to do it is to 1) eliminate the desire to do it by CHOOSING to provide select content for free and 2) stop pretending we have borders anymore and that content can only be limited to one country or another. Information travels fast now, and if creators don't want things obtained illegally, they should be keeping up with the speed of information, and provide their content legally a lot faster to more countries.

  


• Ian Cullen Says: 9:26 PM

  I could go on quite a bit about this matter of illegal downloads and copyright infringement.
  
  But am not. Because its something I'd really need to think through in order to convey my full feelings and thoughts on the matter.
  
  For most part though. I agree with Paul and SK, but can see a few valid points in what Teresa has offered up as well.
  
  Bottom line is. When your a fan of something. You want it, and you want it NOW. And we are no living in a culture of instant gratification.
  
  As such I think distributors and distribution models within the arts need to change in order to keep up.
  
  I think to a certain extent. You could probably cull much of the downloading and stuff by trying to make stuff available across the board at once. As apposed to staggering the release dates of things.
  
  I could give examples. But I think have said enough to give you all the general gist of what am trying to relate.
  
  Thanks, and sorry for waffleing on a bit much.

  


• SK Says: 11:53 PM

  I don't think I've ever been 'awesome' in my life. Maybe a few seconds in my late twenties, when I blinked? Anyway, I think it is as simple as 'stealing bad'. That's kind of a given, isn't it? I mean, there may be disagreements about where exactly the lines are to be drawn about what is stealing and what isn't, but stealing, bad. It's a commandment and everything.
  
  (Maybe there are edge cases, as I believe some in the Anglican hierarchy have been preaching recently, with regards to stealing bread when you're starving, but those aren't really relevant when it comes the movies and comic books).
  
  Teresa, as Paul says, both the things you mention are the creators choosing to give things away for free, and therefore don't at all support the idea of consumers deciding for themselves what to pay for. And:
  
  1) As regards Heroes, I think you've left out any argument or evidence that the continued survival of Heroes is because of, rather than in spite of, the free offering of the first three episodes (three episodes which, if I understand the TV system in the States, would already have been available on the free-at-the-point-of-access (because advertising-funded) network broadcast). So in this case nothing has been made free which wasn't freely available on its first appearance anyway, and influence on sales three years down the line must be minimal (surely?) so I think we can discount this as evidence?
  
  2) While this may work for one artist, and especially when it has novelty value, I think it is an unsustainable model for the music industry as a whole. I don't know anything about Ms Palmer's music, so I don't know whether it is, say, just her and a few bandmates or whether it relies on session players or a whole orchestra, but for the more expensive ends of the musical spectrum (the ones that do need orchestras) I don't think the 'pay what you like' model would work. And I certainly don't think it would work in a more labour-intensive medium such as film or TV, where every hour produced costs many tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds of skilled labour. Do you really think it could?
  
  Indeed, having just checked out that second link, Ms Palmer does make it clear that artists need to eat and that she needs to ask for money. Is not the fairest way to ask for this money to ask for it in exchange for her work? If you get a copy of your work, you give her your money? If you don't feel like giving her your money, you don't simply take a copy of her work? This is a fairly simple, transparent arrangement. For X, you give Y. For Y, she gives X. If you don't think X is worth Y, you keep X and you don't get Y.
  
  It's how economics has worked for thousands of years. Why change it now?
  
  I know little about Mr Cornell's other current focus of the comic book world -- my closest experience is writing a web comic, which was cancelled after six months (hey, it lasted longer than the US version of Coupling!) -- but drawing comic book pages seems a vary labour-intensive task to me, so again I'm very doubtful that a 'give away free' model could, economically, pay for even the living costs of the professionals required to produce a comic book.
  
  If you disagree with these economic analyses, please say.

  


• SK Says: 11:56 PM

  The most important part, though, is that providing select content for free does not eliminate the desire to have the rest for free. If anything it feeds it. You mentioned drugs; I recently read a book called The Corner which examines the drug economy and points out that addicts won't willingly pay for drugs; they will line up to get free samples, every morning, if they can. They only pay when they have to. If you think the rest of us are any different, you're kidding yourself. We will pay for stuff if we have to. We might pay for stuff if we think we should, if we have spare money, if we're feeling generous. But creators of creative stuff shouldn't have to rely on us feeling generous. They are not just there to receive our money if we think they deserve it, they are entitled to it if we take copies of the results of their work. Entitled. Entitled. That's the key word here, they are entitled to it. Even the creators of Bring it On 3 1/2: Cheerleader's Revenge are entitled to your money, if you take a copy of their work, whether you like it or not. You don't like that? You don't want to give them money? Simple: don't take a copy. But if you take a copy, they are entitled to your money. End, as Nessa would say, of.
  
  Cory Doctorow is an idiot and I am continually surprised something isn't being done about him. In this case (he's an idiot in other ways too, but I'll just talk about the relevant case) his 'argument' is basically defeatism. 'Copying happens, we can't stop it'. Well, other things happen that we can't stop. Theft. Murder. Rape. We don't say 'these things happen, the technology allows them, we just have to make a society that works around them'. We recognise that they are wrong and we try to stop them. We legislate against them, knowing they'll still happen, but willing to punish those who do things that are wrong and bring the weight of society to bear against them. 'Possible' does not mean 'right'. Even 'socially acceptable' does not mean 'right' (though I'm sure Paul and I would disagree on exactly which 'socially acceptable' things aren't 'right').
  
  Finally, Ian: Does that we are now living in a culture of instant gratification make instant gratification okay? Is it okay, as long as everybody else is doing it too? I can remember when 'instant gratification' was a term of, if not abuse, at least disapproval. When did it change? When did it become not just acceptable but accepted that wanting everything and wanting it now was the way a decent human being behaved?
  
  And was that a good change?

  


• mark coale Says: 1:12 AM

  I agree that a huge part of this is the "entitlement"/"egocentrism" of contemporary culture.
  
  People (especially younger people) seem to want what they want and immediately.
  
  Can't wait for a show to come out on dvd? download it.
  
  Can't get to a movie? Download it.
  
  Find a copy of this book? download it.
  
  I remember when the thrill of the hunt (for back issues or old tv shows or what not) was almost more fun than actually enjoying for what you'd been searching.
  
  Oh, and looking forward to eventually seeing Paul's show.

  


• Paul Cornell Says: 7:40 AM

  I'm going to sit back now and soak up all this excellent comment for a post on the subject. SK: don't insult Cory, please. We disagree on certain things, but he's a friendly acquaintance, and I wouldn't want him coming here and seeing that I hosted that. (My feelings about that sort of thing will also make a future blog post, I think. Insults to others on here are an endless source of inner conflict to me!)

  


• Teresa Says: 5:18 PM

  I'm not going to comment on the copyright infringement issue anymore, because I think I've said all I want to say on that, and I'm looking forward to Paul's post on the subject, and to commenting there where it will be more relevant!
  
  However, SK, I think equating the crime of copying with the crimes of murder and rape as "things that people do anyway but aren't OK" is a BIT excessive. I mean, I get your point...but really?
  
  I DO want to address the entitlement thing, particularly Mark Coale's comment, because I think that's a separate argument. "Entitlement" has nothing to do with people wanting to download things more immediately. Technology does. Do you, or does anyone else commenting here, have a DVR? Cable with "On Demand" channels? Do you use them? Might you have a service like Netflix that provides, in addition to the DVD mailing service, instant viewing of films on their website if you join? Might any of you have an XBox, where you can also watch things instantly? The internet, as well as multiple platforms w/content specifically designed for them, like mobile phones, iPods, etc, are what make people want things instantly. It has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with how tech-savvy you are. I know people much older than me who are like living, breathing issues of Wired Magazine, and I know people my age (30) and younger who hate technology, could care less about watching television, and wouldn't know which end of a laptop was up.
  
  You're idealizing "the thrill of the hunt" for entertainment and content, but are you really telling me that if you COULD have found things faster on line 20-30 years ago that you WOULDN'T HAVE? Because people of a certain age are inherently better and more patient and wouldn't stoop to such things? I don't think that's true. And I'd also say that just because something is new, and not the way things have always been done, doesn't mean that it's inherently wrong. Why NOT have things more immediately if you can? Patience IS a virtue when it comes to dealing with people...but what's so inherently virtuous about waiting for a TV show? I have trouble when people idealize the past, very often forgetting that people years ago were probably wishing for a more improved, faster, easier way of doing things.
  
  Also, the "thrill of the hunt" is a big part of why people download in the first place. Some films/shows/comics/etc are difficult to find. Especially if they're from another part of the world. Everyone wants to be the one who not only found it, but can provide it to others. It's rare that people make money off of putting something up on a site. Everyone's trying to be a hero and provide things to other people for free. I'm not saying this is right, I'm just explaining some of the motivation behind it. I think it's the same "thrill" you're talking about manifested in a different way.
  
  Now I'm gonna go yell at some kids and tell them to get haircuts and get off my lawn...

  


• Ian Cullen Says: 7:58 PM

  SK, I'm actually torn about the instant gratification thing.
  
  In terms of a TV show. Its not life or death if I don't see it right away. But if there's away for me to see it hours after its US Broadcast or UK or where ever and I can get it legally at little or no cost. Then am going to do it, save it and watch at my convenience.
  
  As to illegally downloading TV shows and movies. Never bother. But I understand the reasons that some people do, though I don't neccessarily agree with their reasons.
  
  Should they be given the electric chair, have their fingers sucked off with a Dyson Vacuum Cleaner. Nah! Wheres the fun in that.
  
  I say go the clockwork Orange route. Tie them to a chair. Hold their eyes open with Match sticks and force them to watch the most inane and pointless television programming you can muster up until they turn into a vegetable.

  


• SK Says: 11:36 PM

  Paul, I look forward to this article, which I trust will cite its sources!
  
  Ian, I don't think that gratification must be delayed for no good reason; but on the other hand I don't think it's bad when it is.The problem isn't that some desires are gratified instantly (that has always been the case), it's the expectation that all desires must be so that is spiritually corrosive.
  
  Teresa, things can be alike in quality without being alike in magnitude, and you'll note I included 'theft' on the list deliberately. An analogy, as I'm sure you know, compares particular aspects of things: it doesn't say that those things are alike in every single respect (though of course it can be used as part of a rhetorical elision to suggest such, that wasn't how I was using it here).
  
  What is inherently virtuous about waiting for a TV programme? Nothing. What is virtuous about waiting for a TV programme so you can experience it legally instead of illegally? Everything.
  
  That new technology makes it possible to have something make available to everyone, everywhere, all over the world, doesn't mean that it has to be used to do so. And if someone chooses not to make their creation available in such a way, is it our place -- is it your place -- to tell them that they are wrong? That they are expected, that they are demanded to make it available in the way which is most convenient to you?
  
  No, it is not. It is up to them to decide how to make it available, and you to accept that. So if they want to make use of modern technology to make it available to every part of the globe in the same instant, that is up to them. But if they want, for whatever reason, to stagger its release, then that is also up to them, and you, I'm afraid, do not get to tell them that because the technology is there they must use it.
  
  And that's the fundamental issue at stake here: who gets to decide? Does power rest with the creators over their creation, or is the insatiable desire of the masses for free stuff, and free stuff NOW, that is to take away their control?
  
  Nobody's suggested that creators shouldn't be allowed to make their work available free, or available globally at one instant. I've suggested that the first of those might be unwise, both for the creators' social standing and their long-term economic future. But I fully support and respect their right to do what I think is not in their best interests.
  
  In return, I just ask that people respect their right to not make their work available free, if they choose not to, or to stagger its release, if they choose to do that.
  
  After all, by your argument, any creator who doesn't make their work available free is only hurting themselves. Do you want to add to that hurt -- to kick them while they're down -- but not even respecting their (in your view) foolish decision?
  
  Surely not.

  


• Ian Cullen Says: 11:28 PM

  "Ian, I don't think that gratification must be delayed for no good reason; but on the other hand I don't think it's bad when it is.The problem isn't that some desires are gratified instantly (that has always been the case), it's the expectation that all desires must be so that is spiritually corrosive."
  
  SK, I don't know how to do the thing with quotes and things on this. So I figured I'd quote you and try to address it head on:)
  
  I kind of agree. But not sure what you mean by Spiritually Corrosive.
  
  I think, that sometimes a wait makes the pudding taste sweeter, where as other times the wait can leaver a more bitter taste in your mouth because the build up to such and such a show has been so hyped. Avatar is a prime example. Pretty pictures, and Zoe Saldana is pretty sexy looking as a giant blue smurf. But felt ripped off going to see a movie with such a regurgitated story, and I will not be buying the DVD when it comes out.

  


• SK Says: 11:25 AM

  Spiritually corrosive. Harmful to one's spiritual well-being and eudemonia. In this case, by training one not to have the virtue of patience, and instead cultivating the vice of entitlement.