/Big Question/ Share and enjoy
17/12/2007 | Filed under Discover > Big Question
What consequences should illegal file-sharers face?
Internet playboy
Drew Curtis
Fark
I think they should be forced to come up with a way for the music and video industry to make money on the internet, since they don’t seem to be able to figure it out themselves. If only someone were able to set up a music/video downloading service, perhaps to a small portable device of some kind ...
Drew is the owner of Fark.com, which started life as a collection of links to interesting news stories, and has evolved into a hugely popular site
Accessibility expert
Julie Howell
Fortune Cookie
Clearly, when files are copied and distributed for profit, that’s bad, and those doing so should face a financial penalty. And when the author of the content - be it music, text or spoken word - suffers financial hardship as a result of unauthorised copying and distribution, legal action against those committing the offence is appropriate.
But not all unauthorised file-sharing is a means to rip someone off or save money on the authorised version. What about electronic user manuals for products that are no longer manufactured, for example? Although the content is arguably protected by copyright, isn’t that a victimless crime? And what should happen to those altruistic file-sharers who take it upon themselves to make and distribute accessible versions of e-text where the originator has failed to meet the needs of disabled people by providing the information in an accessible format? Should these digital-age Robin Hoods be punished for putting right a social wrong? Should they suffer the same punishment as other illegal filesharers?
Julie Howell is director of accessibility at Fortune Cookie, a UK-based web design agency
Activist
Oxblood Ruffin
Hacktivismo
It all depends on how one defines “illegal”. If we’re talking about files containing state secrets, kiddie porn, or bomb-throwing, etc., then I’m down with The Man. Lock up the bastards ... hell, even get out the water boards. But if we’re talking about MP3 files and the like, then file-sharers should face NO consequences. I download music files every other day. I also delete them regularly if they suck. When I use file-sharing networks I’m not trying to screw anyone over. I just want to hear what everyone is talking about. It’s like car radio. This is how it works for me.
I read - or someone tells me - that “so and so” is worth listening to. At a certain point I become interested enough to go looking and I hit up a network. How else will I discover, “The most important new artist of our time”? Almost always the jam sucks a fat one and into the delete bin it
goes. On the other hand, if the track rocks then I want to find out more about the performer. For this category of artist I will spend money. I’ll go to see them in concert. I might even buy their schwag.
At the end of the day I think that record companies should view music files as a marketing expense. It costs way less to record than it used to, and distribution costs next to nothing on the Internet. All of this drama about DRM and pirates is just yesterday’s players coming to terms with the death throes of their revenue model. Thanks for the memories but off to the scrap heap with ye.
Oxblood Ruffin is the founder of Hacktivismo, and is an active campaigner against web censorship
Applications guru
Roger Greene
Ipswitch
For casual filesharers, I think the penalty should be comparable to shoplifting. Something painful enough to discourage future sharing, but not draconian, like the size of the recent fine assessed to a filesharer (some thousands of dollars per song). If the filesharing is systematic and widespread, the penalties should increase to match those for trafficking in stolen goods.
Sharing copyrighted music is a crime, just like photocopying copyrighted books. I don’t buy the argument that it should be tolerated because it gives the music a wider audience. It should be up to the artist or label to adopt a free sharing policy, and not be a right of the consumer.
Roger Greene is founder and CEO of Ipswitch, developers of innovative IT software
Web standards expert
Christian Heilmann
Yahoo
That is a tricky one, as it’s hard to define what a filesharer is. Is it the person who seeds the movie/app/CD for the first time and uploads it to a sharing system, or is it someone who downloads it and “shares” while downloading? Both are illegal, but I consider it a difference if I want to see a movie (and probably buy the DVD later as I want the subtitles and extras) or if I create the first pirated copy and start sharing it. It’s a matter of jurisdiction to see the nuances. If I make money from pirated things, the punishment should be much more severe than when I want to get the kick out of being the first to have it. And on that note: when I buy an official DVD, I don’t want to watch a short movie (that I can’t skip) about not buying pirated DVDs, thanks! As for consequences: Cease and Desists work to scare most of the curious, fines for the others.
Christian works for Yahoo as a web developer, and he’s a self-proclaimed "web standards nut"
Ecommerce specialist
Chris Barling
Actinic
As the father of three teens, my answer can’t be too draconian. After all, I love my kids. However, as the CEO of a software company, who feeds his family by selling intellectual property, I’m not that sympathetic. In fact, I’m reminded of a PG Wodehouse story where a transgressor asks for clemency on the grounds of being “highly strung”. “He couldn’t be strung high enough for me,” came the stern response.
All the same, this is a phenomenon that can’t be ignored. Although the impact of filesharing has so far been confined to the music and film arena, the response of copyright owners has been a study of ineptitude. Record companies in particular have been slow to realise that by effectively eliminating distribution costs, the internet has broken their business model. The consequences will be far-reaching. For example, having cancelled their recording contract with EMI, Radiohead last month released their latest album, In Rainbows, as a download. Although payment was discretionary, some 40 per cent of fans chose to cough up an average of $6 (about £3) for the album. In the month since release, it’s estimated that Radiohead have generated over £1million in receipts.
So this is bringing huge change, and the companies that respond quickly will be in the driving seat. As a business software vendor, I guess that I feel insulated from the issues right now. But as the saying goes, only the paranoid survive!
Chris founded the well-known ecommerce software development company Actinic in 1996
Hosting provider
Neil Hodson
1&1 Internet
Put simply, the punishment should fit the crime. Industry bodies have moved mountains lately to make examples out of individuals in order to scare off home users from file sharing. Whilst large lucrative file sharing outfits are clearly worthy of attention, the majority of publicized cases have appeared overly aggressive and counter-productive. By focusing on the bigger players, there is far more chance that the average user will respect copyright holders and agree to refrain from obtaining material illegally.
Neil Hodson is the UK general manager at 1&1 Internet, a global web hosting company and domain registrar with more than five million customers
B3ta guy
Rob Manuel
B3ta
Community service on the internet. They should spend a week cleaning up Wikipedia.
Rob is co-founder of B3ta, a website that "celebrates the best stuff on the internet"
Hosting specialist
Neil Barton
Hostway UK
One of the thorniest problems with the internet is that it’s a global entity. Laws and moral standards vary from country to country, so while one country may prohibit an online activity, another may permit it. Filesharing and copyright issues have been one of the most hotly debated online activities over the last eight years since Shawn Fanning developed Napster.
The most logical answer to the question is also the most difficult. The establishment of global laws for the internet would not only standardise the punishment for online lawbreakers, but also establish what represents an illegal activity online in the first place. Once these standards were in place, judging the legal status of filesharing and copyright issues would be much easier. Practically, this would be impossible to establish and enforce. At the moment, local investigation and enforcement seems to be the most practical strategy. The RIAA has been relatively high-profile in tracking down filesharers across the globe and issuing strict fines. There have been a few cases in the UK, and it makes sense for countries to enforce their own laws regarding copyright.
However, there’s also the question of practicality. Apparently, out of all counter-filesharing measures ever carried out, the introduction of iTunes had the greatest effect because people could more easily and reliably download quality music than by using a torrent site. Many people use filesharing sites as tasters before buying a proper CD, and as long as there are blank videos, DVDs and cassettes, people will record media - but most will also go out and buy a proper copy if they really like it. There are no hard and fast answers in this debate, and I do believe that it will remain a difficult issue for some years to come.
Neil is the director of Hostway UK, which provides hosting services in the UK and abroad
Comments
Sebastien / 18/12/2007 / 09:50
Those who SELL illegal copies should face the law.
I've been downloading music, films for years too, but I still buy as many dvds and cds than I used to before downloading. Most of the stuff I download is to give it a try. If I like the artist, I'll support, most of the file sharers I know are the same.
But let's stop hypocrisy about the music industry. Those who lose money because of file sharing are the small artists only. It's time that the big corporate realize they have ripped off the customers for years with their ridiculously expensive cds ...
Those days are over now and wether they like it or not file sharing will not disappear.
Maybe they should start using their brains on how to make money differently,
I suggest making music freely available and make more on merchandising and gigs.
Dave / 19/12/2007 / 14:05
The only reason there is widespread panic in the music industry because of downloading, is because the fat cats at the record companies are seeing their revenue stream dry up before their very eyes.
They were too slow and too out of touch to realise what was happening around them.
The way Radiohead release the In Rainbows album probably saw them earn more money directly than they have done for any other album they have released.
They didn't have to pay the middleman (record company) and the relationship was directly between the band and the consumer.
Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails was possibly the first artist to cotton on to what was happening and he couldn't wait to get rid of his record company who were blatantly ripping off his fans over CD pricing.
Reznor announced live on stage in Australia that fans should just help themselves to his music as he would rather give it away than have the record company get the money.
The record companies are dying what will turn out to be a slow and painful death, and the artist will be better off than ever, providing they can come up with the goods!
You want stop filesharing, how can you? but to put it in perspective - turn back to 1980 and the Home Taping is Killing Music campaign - That didn't work either!
Stuart / 30/12/2007 / 17:18
I think most people who have an internet connection have at least downloaded either a piece of music or a game or even a document illegally at least once. But I bet most who use these file sharing sites, once they have downloaded what they wanted they will stop sharing the file.
I don't think you can really punish the home user, who may on occasion use these sites for something he has heard or needs off these sites. But for the big organisations which use these sites for profit should be stopped because these are the ones that are really taking money out of the industry's pockets.
Kimota / 31/12/2007 / 01:03 / http://www.jonathancrossfield.com/blog
The trouble with file-sharing is that no amount of punishment or legal wrangling will diminish it. It is the modern equivalent of taping your neighbour's vinyl collection, and in the 1970's there wasn't a single one of us who didn't compliment their purchased music collection with home taped copies of friend's music.
Of course, digital media means that these practices result in no quality loss and far wider distribution, but the principle is the same - people are using downloads to access music that they otehrwise may not purchase, and this can lead to purchases in the future.
As a teenager I discovered so much music by swapping compilation tapes with my friends. I listened to bands that were not getting radio airplay and went out and bought their records on the strength of it. I download in much the same way today.
Primarily though, I find that I download television. Not films - I buy dvds by the cart load and there isn't much yoyu can't find in the local store these days. Television. Usually because it's not available where I am, or it is something that has not been commercially released.
Most commonly,. I download a series I am following - such as Deadwood, - but delete the files as soon as the dvd comes along as I invariably buy that. The only files I end up keeping and storing for future use would be those unlikely to receive a commercial release and therefore exist in much the same way as all our off-air VHS recordings in the 1980s.
The music industry began to wise up and realise that people wanted to access music online. Television and film has been lagging behind this realisation. File sharing will remain with us, whether the corporations like it or not. But the wisest will adjust their business models to play into this quite large consumer demand, in the same way iTunes did.
Yes, this will mean dramatic changes for the way we view intellectual property and traditional copyright issues and I expect these things to change over the next few decades too, to cater for the new and interactive ways consumers want to access their programs and music. But the internet has done nothing if it hasn't forced changes in other social, legal and economical areas worldwide.
Joe Black / 08/01/2008 / 01:54
I recently bought a few CD's and came home to find some wouldn't play on my home computer/entertainment system. I'm not sure if the problem was due to the DRM on the discs, or if there was a problem with the extras on the disc being created for windows only, but needless to say these discs were useless to me.
I took them back with receipts to the point of purchase and after a half hour argument with the sales staff, who didn't want to believe the problem, my money was reluctantly refunded.
I came home and downloaded all the tracks off the internet instead.
As far as I'm concerned, the changes to the music industry are long overdue...I know that the music will survive and that's a good thing.....and if it means that all the money grubbing, empty suits of the industry shrivel up and blow away like just like the blacksmiths and outhouse collectors of the past...well thats a good thing too.
To answer the question, target the producers of software that is specifically designed for misappropriation and the Guido gold tooths that make a huge profit on pirates.... offer some real customer service to the little guy instead of threatening them with lawsuits for throwing a few free songs on their ipods...
Kate / 25/03/2008 / 07:52 / http://kissingchix.com/how-to-kiss-passionately/
I have a different angle of this issue. maybe it's because i'm a sociology major. I believe file sharing, in general, is just! what it means is that i prefer to see 1,000,000 people spend 40$ less on a game or a britney DVD instead of a multi-millionaire owning the record comapny add another mil. to his bank account.
I don't do any filesharing cause i'm afraid of the law but in general i think it's just. if there is a law - it means there is an interest. usually an interest of the power. law is not always just.
Kate.
Steve / 25/03/2008 / 22:49 / http://www.gadgets4nowt.co.uk
Ask 100 people the same question and each will give a different answer.
I prefer to have a CD case in my collection and don't own an MP3 player, so downloading music is not something that I partake in. Not that I profess to be squeaky clean. Yes, I have copied tapes in the good old days of twin cassette steroes and have the odd copied disc too.
What I do download is TV series. Is that legal? Does it matter whether the series has already been broadcast or not? What about Sky plus and DVD recorders?
I am not sure if the personal use argument holds any weight either.
Overall, I don't think I am doing anything wrong, but am not totally convinced that I am doing everything right.
Confuses indeed!
RJ Adams / 30/03/2008 / 09:45 / http://linkbuildingbible.com
There are the very few people out of the millions, maybe tens of millions who are illegally downloading music and videos, that actually get caught. it seems like the RIAA was trying to throw everything at these individuals. But, it is stealing nonetheless, so whatever the punishment is for stealing in that person's locality should be the punishment.
I am not advocating that since everyone does it that it is okay. I think that it just shouldn't be that the people who are caught are are being "burned at the stake" by the record companies and their lawyers. Treat it just like a normal law. Many people speed when driving, but that doesn't mean that when someone gets caught for speeding, all of the cops and judges come down hard on that person.
There needs to be a balance in the current going-on's in the music industry. Like a commenter said above, the main weeping is from the exec's who are seeing their pocketbooks swell up.
