As technology advances and the world becomes more globalized, more information can be found online. These forms of information also comprise of property – Intellectual property. Nowadays, people no longer have to visit the cinemas or purchase music CDs to enjoy their favorite films or music. These forms of entertainment can now be readily found on the net for free. This may be good news to movie buffs and music lovers but bad news to the people and organizations that own the copyright to these forms of intellectual property. In this paper, I will attempt to address the problem of legislation rules on copyright and piracy, as well as suggest a plan to accommodate both interests of the content creators and the public good.
The problem with the readily available online music and movie files is that most of them are pirated; they are mere copies of copyrighted works and no royalties are being paid to the people who own the rights to the files. For example, we download music files for free on the Internet and share them with people all over the world. The organizations and artistes who own the rights to the files do not get a single cent from the sharing of these music files. This gave rise to the music industry putting the blame on file sharing for their recent decline in sales (Sherman, 2003).
According to Koleman Strumpf and Felix Oberholzer-Gee, “In 2004, there were more than nine million simultaneous users on the major peer-to-peer (P2P) networks” (Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf, 2005). From that statistic, we can easily gauge the alarming rate in which pirated songs are being shared via the Internet all over the world. That is just how relevant piracy is in the world we live in. Content creators are greatly enraged by this phenomenon and have started suing members of the public caught in the act of illegal file sharing over the Internet. Congress has also planned strategies to stop illegal file sharing.
Because the public can download music files for free via the Internet, and not face a high risk of getting caught due to the vast number of participants, it would be hard to eradicate piracy and file sharing all together. Congress may have set up rules against illegal file sharing but millions of people around the world are still engaging in file sharing and will continue to do so. Likewise, chances of getting caught are also not high when people illegally duplicate copyrighted intellectual property for their personal use, as seen in the example of a teacher’s use of resources she finds on the Internet, in part three of Litman’s paper (Litman, 2003). From the perspective of the “pirate”, piracy saves us money, time and much hassle; chances of getting caught are also slim. So, piracy seems to be the most practical and low-risk thing to practice when needed. As such, the solution is really not to add to the number of already existing anti-piracy rules. Perhaps, content creators and the public coming to a compromise would be more feasible than merely slapping more copyright rules and regulations onto the public.
First, we need to address the main idea behind copyright. According to Litman (2003), copyright serves the purpose of “[encouraging] the creation and mass dissemination of a wide variety of works”. However, some researchers have come to realize that copyright laws may instead stifle creativity because “creativity depends…on some measure of anarchy – a lack of control” (Vaidhyanathan, 2004). According to Vaidhyanathan, professor of communications studies at New York University, “culture works best when there is minimal authority and guidance…[anarchy] has its limits as a governing tool” (Manjoo, 2004). With that, I would like to suggest a possible method to strike a balance between the interests of content creators and the public good with regards to file sharing over the Internet.
Since file sharing appears to be impossible to eradicate, copyright owners could turn the tables around by using file sharing to their advantage. Copyright owners could attach a certain tracking system to their copyright files so they can keep track of their “property” when the public indulges in file sharing. With that, copyright owners can then collect their due royalties. At the same time, the musicians can also get free exposure and advertising among the public, which comes along with the file sharing process. This system would allow both content creators and the public to do what they do best and still benefit from it. With file sharing made available and legal, budding artists can continue drawing inspiration from the files they download and come up with their own works of innovation.
With this scheme, copyright laws would then be able to protect copyright owners and still serve its purpose of encouraging innovation in a creative culture, accommodating both interests of content creators and the public good.
References
Litman, J. (2003). Sharing and Stealing [Electronic Version], 1-5, 37-74. Retrieved 23 November 2003 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=472141.
Manjoo, F. (2004). The Mouse Who Would Be King [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 31 January 2007 from http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/04/08/copyright_culture/index.html.
Robertson, G. (2006). The RIAA vs. John Doe, a layperson's guide to filesharing lawsuits. Nova Scotia.
Strumpf.K and Felix Oberholzer-Gee. (2005). The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis [Electronic Version], 2-5, 35-37. Retrieved June 2005 from http://www.unc.edu/%7Ecigar/papers/FileSharing_June2005_final.pdf.
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2004). The Anarchist in the Library: How the Clash Between Freedom and Control Is Hacking the Real World and Crashing the System. New York: Basic Books.
The problem with the readily available online music and movie files is that most of them are pirated; they are mere copies of copyrighted works and no royalties are being paid to the people who own the rights to the files. For example, we download music files for free on the Internet and share them with people all over the world. The organizations and artistes who own the rights to the files do not get a single cent from the sharing of these music files. This gave rise to the music industry putting the blame on file sharing for their recent decline in sales (Sherman, 2003).
According to Koleman Strumpf and Felix Oberholzer-Gee, “In 2004, there were more than nine million simultaneous users on the major peer-to-peer (P2P) networks” (Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf, 2005). From that statistic, we can easily gauge the alarming rate in which pirated songs are being shared via the Internet all over the world. That is just how relevant piracy is in the world we live in. Content creators are greatly enraged by this phenomenon and have started suing members of the public caught in the act of illegal file sharing over the Internet. Congress has also planned strategies to stop illegal file sharing.
“Legislation pending in Congress seeks to deter consumers from engaging in peer-to-peer file sharing. Meanwhile, representatives of the music, recording and film industries have sued the purveyors of peer-to-peer file sharing software, the Internet service providers who enable consumers to trade files, and more than 5000 individual consumers accused of making recorded music available to other consumers over the internet.”
(Litman, 2003)
Because the public can download music files for free via the Internet, and not face a high risk of getting caught due to the vast number of participants, it would be hard to eradicate piracy and file sharing all together. Congress may have set up rules against illegal file sharing but millions of people around the world are still engaging in file sharing and will continue to do so. Likewise, chances of getting caught are also not high when people illegally duplicate copyrighted intellectual property for their personal use, as seen in the example of a teacher’s use of resources she finds on the Internet, in part three of Litman’s paper (Litman, 2003). From the perspective of the “pirate”, piracy saves us money, time and much hassle; chances of getting caught are also slim. So, piracy seems to be the most practical and low-risk thing to practice when needed. As such, the solution is really not to add to the number of already existing anti-piracy rules. Perhaps, content creators and the public coming to a compromise would be more feasible than merely slapping more copyright rules and regulations onto the public.
First, we need to address the main idea behind copyright. According to Litman (2003), copyright serves the purpose of “[encouraging] the creation and mass dissemination of a wide variety of works”. However, some researchers have come to realize that copyright laws may instead stifle creativity because “creativity depends…on some measure of anarchy – a lack of control” (Vaidhyanathan, 2004). According to Vaidhyanathan, professor of communications studies at New York University, “culture works best when there is minimal authority and guidance…[anarchy] has its limits as a governing tool” (Manjoo, 2004). With that, I would like to suggest a possible method to strike a balance between the interests of content creators and the public good with regards to file sharing over the Internet.
Since file sharing appears to be impossible to eradicate, copyright owners could turn the tables around by using file sharing to their advantage. Copyright owners could attach a certain tracking system to their copyright files so they can keep track of their “property” when the public indulges in file sharing. With that, copyright owners can then collect their due royalties. At the same time, the musicians can also get free exposure and advertising among the public, which comes along with the file sharing process. This system would allow both content creators and the public to do what they do best and still benefit from it. With file sharing made available and legal, budding artists can continue drawing inspiration from the files they download and come up with their own works of innovation.
With this scheme, copyright laws would then be able to protect copyright owners and still serve its purpose of encouraging innovation in a creative culture, accommodating both interests of content creators and the public good.
References
Litman, J. (2003). Sharing and Stealing [Electronic Version], 1-5, 37-74. Retrieved 23 November 2003 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=472141.
Manjoo, F. (2004). The Mouse Who Would Be King [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 31 January 2007 from http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/04/08/copyright_culture/index.html.
Robertson, G. (2006). The RIAA vs. John Doe, a layperson's guide to filesharing lawsuits. Nova Scotia.
Strumpf.K and Felix Oberholzer-Gee. (2005). The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis [Electronic Version], 2-5, 35-37. Retrieved June 2005 from http://www.unc.edu/%7Ecigar/papers/FileSharing_June2005_final.pdf.
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2004). The Anarchist in the Library: How the Clash Between Freedom and Control Is Hacking the Real World and Crashing the System. New York: Basic Books.
3 comments:
Nice work and thoughts. :)
Excellent, full grade awarded. :)
Yipee!
Post a Comment