Piracy, Morals and The Need for Change
Written by Ernesto on December 23, 2007Morals are often defined by what the general public sees as right or wrong. Most people don’t feel that they’re doing wrong when they download an MP3 or share a movie, but in most countries they are actually breaking laws, laws which do not reflect what the general public considers to be legal, fair use, or even moral.
Law and morals are clearly out of sync when it concerns sharing copyrighted works on the Internet. To give an example, David Pogue, technology writer for the New York Times often questions his public during talks to find out where the line between wrong and right lies in this case. He starts of with a simple statement such as:
“I own a certain CD, but it got scratched. So I borrow the same CD from the library and rip it to my computer.”
He then asks the public whether they think it’s wrong or not. Normally the more extreme the examples are, the more hands are raised, but when he spoke to an audience of 500 college students, something different happened.
Finally, with mock exasperation, I said, “O.K., let’s try one that’s a little less complicated: You want a movie or an album. You don’t want to pay for it. So you download it.” There it was: the bald-faced, worst-case example, without any nuance or mitigating factors whatsoever. “Who thinks that might be wrong?” Two hands out of 500.
Pogue was blown away by this response, and he realized that there is a clear generation gap when it comes to copyright morals. Indeed there is, but what else do you expect from a generation grew up with iPods, CD-burners and the biggest copying machine ever invented (the Internet) at their fingertips. There’s a whole industry built around filesharing, take the 160GB iPod for example, any idea how much it costs to fill that with legally purchased songs?
Computers and the Internet made it easier than ever to reproduce and share files, and it is virtually impossible to stop people from sharing and copying music and videos online. I’m not talking about copying movies for profit here, just for personal use. Besides, sharing files is not as bad as most anti-piracy lobbies want people to believe.
A recent study has shown that people don’t buy less CDs when they download songs, instead, they discover music they otherwise wouldn’t have listened to, and buy more CDs than people who don’t download. On top of this, research continues to show less popular artists actually profit from piracy simply because it allows people to try new music.
From people who missed an episode of their favorite TV-show I often get the question whether it is legal for them to download these off BitTorrent. For them, the only way to see that show is to download it, again, they don’t make any money off it, they just want to see an episode they missed. Is that immoral?
Personally I think it is all about alternatives. Movie, TV and music companies should put their content online and make it available in high quality for a reasonable price without restrictions such as DRM. At the moment there are often no products online that can compete with their pirated counterparts in quality. Sure, there are ways to download (some) music and movies online, but apart from the ridiculous prices, these products are often offered in a low quality format and restricted through DRM.
The thing is, the entertainment industry should learn how to embrace technology and compete with piracy, instead of fighting its customers. The rise of illegal downloading is a signal that customers want something that is not available through other channels, it’s more about availability than the fact that it’s free, as illustrated by the missed TV-show example.
Honestly, the real problem isn’t so much about protecting the rights of the artist, but about protecting the revenue stream for the big media companies. The people who actually create the movies and music want their content to be shared, only the large corporations behind it are too afraid to move on. Lobby groups such as the MPAA and the RIAA represent the distributors of movies and music, NOT the creators. They even pay politicians to support their cause by voting for or against laws so that legislation is made with their interests in mind. Is that moral?
The main reason why these corporations are hesitant to go online is because they are trying to make most of their money of something that can easily done by the public - distribution. They are striving to preserve outdated business models because that’s how they make their money. I’m not proposing that everyone should just pirate everything, but I suggest that the movie and movie industry make their content available online for a reasonable price.
The Internet and filesharing technologies make it possible to make production (of the copies) and distribution costs disappear, yet the prices still don’t change. Why? Because they cling onto their old business models.
So should sharing copyrighted material be legalized? Not per se, but the entertainment industry should focus on monetizing filesharing networks instead of bringing them down. Sharing is a good thing and there are tons of possibilities to profit from it.
What do you think?
Previously: MediaDefender Stock Plunges Due to Leaked Emails
Next: Most Popular DVDrips on BitTorrent, Christmas Edition
201 Responses (Add yours or TrackBack)
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 » Show All
All it is is getting the newest material first without too much effort on the users part. Nothing wrong with that although that part about only 2 people of 500 saying it’s wrong is troubling.
http://paidandpopular.blogspot.com
Morality?
What has P2P filesharing have to do with that? Just the music industry trying to brainwash people with stupid commercials designed to somehow make you feel bad.
Very much like your favorite sports team. the ownership advertises it as “your team”, our game etc. (play to your feelings and loyalties about the team at every opportunity). But the only thing their management really cares about is profit.
Big companies get away with murder little people are made to feel somehow guilty about copying a song or movie. Give me a break, pay no attention to a stupid question like that. It’s a subtle reverse advertisement.
the only way to win, is to stop desiring stuff put out by big media companies.
as long as you desire their products, they OWN YOU.
great comments. great people. fine minds thinking outside the box and discovering a world liberated from dogma. i can feel the general understanding shift and finding a language to express itself (journalism by nature looks backwards, it is tied to the printed page and belongs those who would educate us to respect them. a good blog looks forward and establishes islands we may yet reach. and we are reaching … )
old style economists looked at their statistics and they said “look after the average Jo” play to the mean (the average)
today, we say “look after the fanatics and the terrorists … the rest will follow” it remains strictly a statistical science only it is better driven). in conclusion, if filesharers are the terrorists then who are the fanatics?
this is an invitation to the FANATICS to defend the actions of specifically the MPAA. we want to hear from you and we want answers to the following questions:
1. explain how free market capital efficiency theory, the basis of our moral society, is wrong by stating “that which can be copied without cost is valueless”
2. justify the practice of extortion in the USA where downloaders of mp3’s are offered a deal of “pay $15,000 or face irrecoverable legal costs of $250,000″
3. tell us why intellectual copyright exclusivity is morally correct in excluding 90% of the world’s population because they live outside of the affluent euro/dollar economies
you make me so fukin mad do not doubt that you are on the h8list
you can find us. we can find you. there are more of us than you
test us
Spread the sharing love!
*gief US chicks* x)
Is it moral to go against the peoples interest and make new laws to keep their profits without having to change their old dinosaur ways?
great article man, thx
I find it funny that these people that make millions of dollars, complain about the lose of what, maybe a few cents that make it back to them from the sale of a single song, and even worse when they can sue for thousands of dollars per song. And I have to agree with the article, many artists I listen to now I would have never started listening to if I couldn’t have downloaded a song or two to sample them first. I think a great idea would be for record labels to do something like “look at these ads then you can download a song” and use the ads to make their money, and make it free to the consumer. They could make the same money, and eliminate the need for “piracy” altogether.
I’m actually sick of hearing these old people saying it’s stealing.
It’s NOT stealing.
[quote comment="246102"]stealing is stealing. you ppl steal music, you don’t buy it.[/quote]
Thats right, and if i ever have the chance i’ll steal yours too.
Merry christmas @sshole :)
money is for girls
“Personally I think it is all about alternatives. Movie, TV and music companies should put their content onlin and make it available in high quality for a reasonable price without restrictions such as DRM”
Online, not onlin…
sry.
[edit Ernesto: fixed]
[quote comment="246317"]It’s true that legally filling an iPod at current prices would break most people. But even big media finally woke up and started selling songs at 5c each and albums at 1$ each, which I feel would be reasonable, I still wouldn’t buy anything because I hate them so much. These companies have spent so many years doing things that piss me off more and more now I wont ever give them money out of spite. In this world of capitalism, I am going to let my money talk. And it’s not going to talk to them.[/quote]
I would have to agree with you 100% on this. I feel the same way.
I hate them so much, the arrogance, their outright greed and disrespect for the public.
I will never give them anything.
I’ll always support artists that I like.
And at the same time, I’ll _NEVER_ support the music/movie industries and their business models.
I download and now just stream from sites, but the majority of consumers do not do this… YET.
The majority gets it content via paying the insane cable TV bill, because they are not savvy, in the know or our generation. As the cable TV distribution becomes a drag on profits then we will have a legal content utopia via the Internet(Hulu.com rocks, so does Joox.net … JOost not so much i have to load it up - blah).
Funny, though when this happens the cost of broadband will surely increase - bill by the byte!
So everyone enjoy what we are doing now while it is cheap. What we are doing is forcing a change of content distribution and in turn the economies of this, where we will only have ourselves to blame for increasing the cost of our ISP bills.
I think that, until an alternative is provided, people’s only option is to download stuff illegally. Richard Stallman, founder of GNU, came up with a brilliant idea: everyone pays a flat rate to the music companies, and then they can legally download music from bittorrent, etc. This is a really great idea, kind of like an all-you-can-eat buffet of music and videos, and the record and movie companies would make a fortune. I don’t know why such a model is not put into use.
I am not a supporter of the current music industry business model, but to say that file sharing should be allowed because you are not taking something physical from the producer (i.e. a CD) is an invalid argument for the modern times. It would be like saying anything and everything that exists in a software format should be free once it is created. It is logic based on the old paradigm of a product, just the same as the file sharing proponents think that the music industry is using an outdated business model.
What really needs to happen is that file transfer can become a strong business model when tied to advertising. Free broadcast television and Google are strong examples of this. I would not mind if when I download a movie, television show, music etc., I had to also prepend an advertisement to the beginning of the file, and maybe for the next 5-10 viewings/listenings I had to see the advertisement (otherwise it would get stale and annoying). The centralized distribution model could be eliminated, but I don’t think every artist/producer/director etc. would want to have to manage their own file sharing site, so we would still have some sort of distribution system.
People say if I want music I should pay for it or do without. I say to record companies if they want to be paid for everything they produce and aren’t then get out of the business. Close your doors cause I promise you you won’t be missed. There’s a revolution going on in music and independents are developing a whole new system because the old one is bullshit. I couldn’t care less if old money bags Paul McCartney never produces another album.
67, see http://blog.brokep.com/2007/12/06/the-problems-with-a-flatrate-system/
Agree with the channels. I watch shows that I love on the CBS and NBC site and I’ll be happy to pay for them.
Be nice if there was a way to pay the artists directly. I download an album and theres a pay the artist button or something. I’d like to see something like this although I don’t think you could make this safe.
[quote comment="246110"]*hands booga1134 a box of tissue.[/quote]
You “steal” from the earth when you eat anything, so “stealing” doesn’t apply to everything. You’re a piece of sh!t, so stealing from you doesn’t really count as stealing.
I still don’t understand why people cannot see the morality in this, and think it should be free. It is fairly simple:
1. Something exists which I did not create, and it cost money to create (regardless of who paid for it)
2. I want it.
I either take it or pay for it. It doesn’t matter what product we are talking about here.
I do think that the music industry does need to adjust their business model for the new technology, but users need to understand the implications of the new technology on current business practices.
(By the way I enjoy a number of jam band music which make most of their money from touring, and allow listeners to freely tape their shows and post them on the internet for free distribution)
I still want to be able to donate/pay the Artists directly.
I have listened to afew artists i’ve not heard about before BT, and wanted to pay something to them but can’t find any way to do it, only goes to the damn record label sites with a buy the cd button.
Why can’t we pay the Artists and not the labels?
RE: ju
You “steal” from the earth when you eat anything, so “stealing” doesn’t apply to everything. You’re a piece of sh!t, so stealing from you doesn’t really count as stealing.
Do you pay farmers and grocers for that food you are eating?
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 » Show All
Add your response