Some thoughts on Piracy, Intellectual Property, and monies lost…
I read the reports about how awful piracy is for the the artists who create the intellectual properties that are downloaded or copied. Then there’s the “Don’t steal our property” commercials and the lawsuits by RIAA and MPAA and similar or related international agencies. However, I’ve long suspected the numbers that these groups float around regarding the loss of monies due to downloading. This article in the Guardian by Ben Goldacre (Friday 5 June 2009), actually tracked down the genesis of one of those sets of numbers. He found that the numbers referred to were actually from a one page press release and not from a scientific study as was implied in their presentation.
I’m not surprised. I’m sure piracy goes on and that movies and music are being ripped off, but this is usually by big businesses who stamp out thousands of copies and sell them very cheaply. In fact, we don’t go after them or actually prosecute — or at least not to the degree that the various governments go after college students and individuals. I suspect the reason is because money changes hands and monies are paid into coffers somewhere that make it worth while to look the other way.
Okay, I’ll admit to being a cynic with regards to this topic. I’ve read enough of the online copies of testimony and trials to believe that lawyers and judges seldom know what they’re talking about. Expert witness (usually on the side of the victim in the suit — the college student or individual being sued by the corporation) are indeed experts and put forth their finding clearly, succinctly and with examples and statistical analysis backing them up. On the other hand the expert witness put forth by the corporation bringing the suit are almost exclusively NOT experts. By their own testimony they don’t do the research themselves, can’t explain the results, and bluster when pressed for details. What this country (USA) needs is expert witnesses who work for the judges to explain to them the merits of the testimony of expert1 vs expert2 vs known research in the field. Sometimes the cases, from reading transcripts, are truly cut and dried and the judgment is — surprise — totally opposite of what one would expect.
The point is that people have an inherent concept of intellectual property and actual most respect it, and have no intention of stealing an electronic version of a work. The problems arise when common sense and law doesn’t agree. People (and I’m using this generic term because it’s a collective term) believe that when they buy a music CD, video tape, or DVD, that they own it. Thus they feel that they can watch it on any machine they want to. They also feel that since they own, say a music CD, that they should be able to rip the songs off it and play them on their MP3 player while they’re away from their CD player since they own it and they can’t listen to both at the same time — so that it’s okay to do this.
MPAA and RIAA, for example, believe that you don’t own the CD, DVD, or whatever. They claim that you just bought a license to use it in the manner that they deem appropriate. As you can see this is the basis of the problem. If what a person buys doesn’t belong to them and they can’t use it as they see fit why bother to buy it; or sell it for that matter.
If I rent a movie, I expect to return it without making any copy because I didn’t buy it and I don’t own it. I believe from conversations with many people that most, if not all, people feel the same. It’s not ours, we just borrowed it — like a library copy so we return it to the owner– the person we rented it from. It makes sense. But if you go to the store and buy a DVD or CD, you would expect that, the media being in many cases breakable, making a copy of the CD or DVD to put aside in case the purchased copy is destroyed or broken is okay. Unfortunately, the courts seem to say “No”, at least under the new (now old) Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Since you don’t own what you bought, even though you have a sales receipt — you can’t make copies or move it to another medium for ease of use. That’s counter-intuitive for many people and thus more and more people acting on common sense are actually committing crimes against intellectual property.
[Hyperion: If RIAA/MPAA didn’t act in such a counter-intuitive and heavy handed fashion, they might actually have people on their side. Instead their flagrant violations of common sense and real world custom cause the people who understand the technology and culture to turn against them. As someone (I forget who) said: What kind of sane business model consists of suing your best customers?]
Somehow it seems that when things go from hard copies to digital, the courts and the law don’t see them as being equivalent. Somehow being digital makes them all nervous and scared. Then they start talking about things like digital crowbars, forgetting completely that crowbars are not illegal to own in the real world. Just because a criminal sometimes uses a crowbar to commit a crime doesn’t make everyone who owns one a criminal but the digital crowbar argument says if you own a digital crowbar you are in fact a criminal — even if you never use it to commit a crime. I have yet to hear of a lawyer bringing that point up against the digital crowbar scare tactic — though maybe I missed it somewhere.
My belief is that people are basically law abiding and that they use internalized morals to determine their behavior. I think the courts have been bamboozled into believing that piracy, intellectual property theft, and loss of revenues is far larger than it really is, because they have been lied to or mislead by agencies who cheated by not doing the research they purport to have done or who have knowingly supplied incorrect numbers and statistics to bolster their arguments.
In most documented cases, a person downloading a copy of a movie from a site, wasn’t going to buy it anyway. If you look at who is being taken to court, they’re usually low income persons who can’t fight back. I’ve yet to see them go after the big pirates — no they have money, lawyers and can fight back. (Cynicism again, yeah big time.)
In most of the cases (found and investigated by real researchers), it’s found that people who downloaded something illegally either then bought the movie or CD or got rid of it because they didn’t like it. Net result is that it wouldn’t have been a sale anyway (or there was actually a sale). I would imagine that most of the people who have a NetFlix subscription or belong to one of the movie rental places do so for the same reason. Why buy something you haven’t seen and don’t know if you’d want to see it over and over again.
In fact most reports show that RIAA’s bottom line has gone up since file sharing sites started having musical downloads. Why? Because more people bought the music that they heard. There is a reason why music stores have those earphones and places where you can hear snippets of the music you are thinking of buying.
Instead of changing their business model to take into account the way people actually purchase and use media, these corporations are trying to use the legal route to force everyone to do things as they were done before the advent of digital media. (Of course it doesn’t help that many artists who couldn’t get the time of day from these big corporations, are now, because of the internet, able to develop a following and sell their material directly to their listeners/fans.
[Hyperion: When RIAA isn’t demanding that the music be taken down, despite having no authority to represent these artist’s interests and, in fact, acting completely in opposition to said interests. But then it isn’t about the artists … it’s about the control. Yeah, Gayle isn’t the only cynical one in the family. But that doesn’t mean we’re wrong.]
I still think if I buy something I own it — too bad the big corps don’t feel the same way.