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
Do you pay farmers and grocers for that food you are eating?
I’d like to pay the farmers, and JUST the farmers, not some association inbetween.
The business model for the big old time music executives has collapsed. The average Wall Mart employee makes $10.00 an hour. He or she is lucky to take home $7. CDs cost $15 to $20 for something that costs a few cents per unit to produce. They are just not worth the money. iTunes has the model closer to right in that they are trying to charge for the convenience of their service. Pay the artists and eliminate the record labels.
I totally agree
By the time they realize what it will take to stop piracy, they will also realize how costly it will be to prevent it.
If they pursue every person that has downloaded anything illeagaly, they will have taken a larger loss to the company than to not persue it. They probably already know that but won’t say anything hoping conversations like this will turn the tide. Which it totally will not do.
Besides, in the case of record companies, if they would change thier models to support legal downloads by offerring new artists three song deals instead of 12 for a cd then they would be able to cut costs immensly and turn a profit easily from online sales and burning kiosks.
But no one ever wants to change thier buisness model until it is too late. I haven’t seen one movie trailer that made me want to go to the theater and deal with other people’s bad habits. for the most part the last two or three years have been hum drum and most people just rather download it than to pay 10-20 bucks and deal with people at a movie they may not like.
In essence, it’s the company’s fault that they are bleeding money not pirates. Let’s call a spade a spade here and turn that pointing finger right back at you!
I agree, but sometimes the creator does not have the distribution network to get it to the consumer. This is the classic division of labor idea, and why the labels exist in the first place. They had the capital and knowledge to distribute an artist widely.
Please don’t get me wrong. The current business model is not working. With creators being able get their own recording studio time, and create their own music without much assistance from a label, the model will change. When the subset of the 500 students who are future musicians enter the music business, their distribution methods will be different. We can look at the recent release of the radiohead album where they released it online, and allowed the consumer to determine the price they wanted to pay (including free). The difference is that Radiohead was a band that was made popular through the old business model.
I do not think downloading movies or music is immortal. You see the people like the MPAA make things up. They insist that the movie industry losses so much money from the illegal downloading of movies. I don’t understand why. Lets say i downloaded Pirates of the Caribbean III. I would not go see that movie in the cinema or i would not buy it when it came out on DVD therefore they have not lost a dime. Thats why i do not see downloading illegal movies bad.
[quote comment="246457"]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.[/quote]
There’d be no incentive to the record companies to support new artists. The consumer would lose under this model, receiving lower quality music. Would we have to sign up for certain “clubs”? subscribe to one label or another?
It’s definitely a really cool idea, I’m just skeptical about the incentive this would apply to a record company to produce quality music.
the corporate media influences the politicians who make the laws that tell folks that downloading is illegal.
the people making the money is the politicans and the media corporations.
where are the artists in the mix above.
I purchase a few DVD’s a year, but in most cases, I wouln’t bother spending the money. If it’s free, it’s free, but for $20, you can keep it. Ahh, gee… You only made $400 million on this film at the box office?
What does it cost a family of 4 to go to the movies (including popcorn and drinks?) $30? More?
Here’s a thought: why not charge the product placement advertizers a fee based on downloads - Kinda like commercials in the movies. The mechanism is already in place - No sense in giving away free advertizing.
Why not charge the DNC a fee for spreading propaganda on their behalf?
CD’s are another matter altogether. The music industry found itself with one insurmountable issue with online music - Why spend $15 on 12 peices of crap to get two decent songs? Stop recording crap and people will buy more.
What would be really cool is a Last.fm-like site where you can buy a subscription (with several tiers — $5 a month if you’re a student, $200 if you’re rich, or something in between). Half the money is given to artists, split among your most listened-to artists during that month.
I’d sign up.
Okay, one thing.
This article, as most of the “anti-anti-piracy” articles, demands that artists/labels put their records online for “reasonable price”. Question: would that eliminate piracy? would all these college students suddenly pay for something they could still get for free? Yeah, the “moral” value would be lower since price would be “reasonable”, they could also get it easily… But suspecting that all/most of “pirates” would suddenly turn into paying customers is the same naivity that keeps big labels grasping for old methods.
Be honest, what’s the percentage of someone downloading, listening to it, and then buying it? It’s a nice, naive dream, but hey, society doesn’t work like this. Even if that 5% who buys it after all, is more than nothing, this system won’t work like that. Digital information can be transferred for free, and nobody can do nothing about that. It’s like forcing someone to pay for air. It can be done with some rude method, but it wont be quite succesful, especially not on masses.
I could only suggest something more shocking: with the advent of digital data transfer, every art that could be distributed this way (still/moving picture, music) can not be furter charged for distribution itself (since that costs nothing) - to get to the point, on the long run, artists have to accept that their revenues will come from concerts, events, etc. instead of record sales. There will always be a fan base that will buy records (whether off or online - with small online prices, this base is bigger, but not that big) Small bands already feel this. As time goes on, the whole industry will be consumed.
Nothing will change here people. If torrenting becomes impossible, another way to share stuff will appear. Likewise, if the big companies actually change their business model, it will be to take money from suckers in another way. ancient roman and greek markets had vendors who knew how to get sell shit at outrages prices, and other people knew how to seek out quality, and pay the source a fair wage in order to survive and continue. The only thing that has changed, is that now we use the inernet and fiberoptic cables as our markets. But humans are still humans.
Bottom line as long as there are suckers, they will buy shit and lose money. As ong as there are suckers, other people will take advantage and get rich. And as long as there are human beings around, there will always be suckers…..
So why are we still talking about ancient history like it is going to change? Next we’ll be talking about ways in which to stop war and hunger!!!!
I think this is old hat— More and more of my friends watch and delete— they wouldn’t dare soil their hard-drives with something that can easily just be downloaded again when they wanted to watch/listen to it again.
It’s all about streaming content— files that pass through your computer and and having a fast connection—
I gave up on downloading films and just let them stream on the screen— that way if I get bored in the first 10 minutes I just click to the next—
What will come about in the next few years will be these complete overlooked films that are gems and will start pushing aside many of the better marketed films.
i wonder?…are the peeps in here that say file sharing its stealing..are they from the MPAA..RIAA..or similar organization…cause why would they be here in the first place? right?…just wondering…
cause it seems like a waste of time for them to be posting you are stealing bla, bla, bla, bla…hmmmm???
There is a free legal site that does this with commercial songs: http://www.we7.com
[quote comment="246294"]You know, I’d gladly use a program that allowed you to listen to songs for free (medium quality)and with a small ad every 5-10 songs, as long as the ad wasn’t at full volume or the most annoying thing you’ve ever heard of.[/quote]
Woah, just because you download people think we don’t buy? Wow…ignorance.
I don’t buy without hearing it first. I download, take a listen, if I don’t like it, I don’t listen. If I do, I buy it, or support the artist in some way.
Try live in some of the more isolated cities in the world and see if you have any luck finding certain artists or songs.
A lot of the time I go online to get what I want because stores here just cant supply items.
I dont have a moral problem with downloading a song that I can no longer get in this country.
[quote comment="246155"]well am from a third world country,having to pay ridiculously high prices for software,music,media Etc,is out of the question.i know its wrong but i cant help it,coz otherwise i will be living in the stone age deprived of all the goodies offered by File Sharing[/quote]
Well,this is where you are wrong. Being from a third world country is not an excuse. I come from one as well. All these things, movies, music etc. “goodies” as you call it are not necessities in life. You can live without them and no, you will not” be in the stone age” if you are deprived of them. If you have internet to do P2P then you have other free or cheap alternative “goodies”. I live in a first world country now. I still can’t afford a Ferrari, should I just go out and steal one. This is one justification for P2P that is asinine.
[quote]I either take it or pay for it. It doesn’t matter what product we are talking about here.[/quote]
Right, but in the case of something like music or film, if it can be digitally transfered it can be had for free without stealing it - you only need to copy it.
[quote]This article, as most of the “anti-anti-piracy” articles, demands that artists/labels put their records online for “reasonable price”. Question: would that eliminate piracy? would all these college students suddenly pay for something they could still get for free? Yeah, the “moral” value would be lower since price would be “reasonable”, they could also get it easily… But suspecting that all/most of “pirates” would suddenly turn into paying customers is the same naivity that keeps big labels grasping for old methods.
[/quote]
Eliminate piracy? No, but it would lower it.
[quote]It’s all about streaming content— files that pass through your computer and and having a fast connection—
[/quote]
I much prefer downloading over streaming.
I still can’t afford a Ferrari, should I just go out and steal one.
??
What’s with the stealing again?
How much materials does it take to make a ferrari?
How much materials are used in a copy of a song ?
It’s not stealing, the song is still in your hands, you just made a copy, you take the Ferrari it’s missing.
Bi difference, if you can’t see that you’re too old
And for the Ferrari argument, what if i made my own replica of a ferrari? It’s a copy, should I get sued by Ferrari for stealing ?
[quote comment="246102"]stealing is stealing. you ppl steal music, you don’t buy it.[/quote]
omg you people are thieves omg omg.
Seriously. Thats all I hear. This article isnt about theft. Its about how to profit from a better system.
I buy a lot of CDs. I also download a lot of music. Certain torrent sites have opened up my eyes to artists I didn’t even know existed. If I like the music, I typically buy the CD, but not always.
When I do download music I know I’m not going to buy (which seems to be happening more often lately), I know I’m stealing. I know it’s illegal, and I know that it’s no different than walking into a clothing store and taking a shirt off the shelf and walking out with it.
I can’t justify it, because it is stealing, and it is illegal. No matter how much money one makes, it’s still wrong to steal from them. Even if they’re multi billion dollar corporations, it’s still stealing.
I’ve always thought it would be a good idea to have a download-all-you-want subscription service with several bit rates to choose from, sort of like Oink, or What or Waffles. I’d gladly pay $20 a month for a service like that. Imagine… Guaranteed quality, fast downloads, no DRM, and you can share it with whomever you want.
As I live in Australia it is all about availability for me. In the US they have a few Tv networks that offer full tv show to view online. Networks like CBS which has more content to view online for free then Australia has to offer online all together. We do have something called Catch-Up TV. But you have to pay $1.95AUS per episode. But the content available is very limited. We have nothing compared to CBS. So for me Torrents are the best way to get the programs that I enjoy. They leave us with no other option.
If a device existed that could copy any object, would it be right to take the design (digital format) of that object and create the copy. For example, if I could create a ferrari from a printer, do I have that right?
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 » Show All
Add your response