Hi, Frank - Some thoughts on the trialogue between you, Ray, and Steven...
The question has IMO two dimensions. Ray makes the point that creators deserve to be compensated, and rightly so. But he also touches on the fact that we can't stop the march of technology. In a previous post I alluded to the fact that each technological increment in recording technology brings cries of potential abuse from the distributors and creators - while simultaneously increasing the ability of people to access that "information", and increasing the revenues of the creators and distributors.
The resulting paradox: product sales experience a steady increase, despite the fact that piracy, in one form or another, also continues to increase steadily. Increased audience, increased abuse, increased revenues.
Barnacles on the hull.
I can remember, as photocopiers emerged at libraries, stern warnings on copyright protection. They're not there now. Nor has the requirement for textbooks diminished one bit.
There is some fundamental truism of human nature at work here. I suggest that few people are prepared to pirate on a large scale - a scale that would change the course of steadily increasing sales. Those that do are, in the proper sense of the word, "pirates". Such people have never been deterred by any copy protection scheme, never mind ethical considerations.
However, whether usage of entertainment can be transmuted into a legal doctrine of "fair usage" is another question. "Fair usage" has its origins in evidentiary contributions to explanatory matter: citations, quotations, and the like that give weight to an argument. That is why newspaper articles and texts were among the first to fall into the "fair usage" category: their existence in the public domain, and their widespread dissemination, made the application of copyright protection impractical, at best. In the end, even among writers, "fair usage with attribution" became a norm.
In digital media, making a "backup copy" is allowed, and I suggest that is a first step in the emergence of a "fair usage" concept in entertainment media. Good thing, too. It's always a good idea to 'allow' the unstoppable.>g<
My point: there's only so much you can do, at both the technological and legal level. By all means, make it difficult to copy; sue (or prosecute) where you must. But piracy, like code-breaking and car theft, is inevitable.
To take a cue from Steven's mediaeval references, copying a manuscript, with a quill pen, will deter all but the most determined pirate. But there will be somone, somewhere, who wants it badly enough, and it will be copied.
More to the point, availability, and revenues have steadily increased, through records, tapes, magazines, books, the 'net, 8 tracks, videocassettes, cassettes, CDs and DVDs. Have orchestras gone out of existence? Have bands passed from our lives? The question of cinemas is iffy: what does their decline really mean? What is the true cost of a night at the cinema, aside from the ticket? What is being measured, here?
When E-books are universal, will there be piracy? Count on it. Will the idea die because of piracy? Not a chance; they'll be shovelling money. The public will gain easy access to a breathtaking array of material.
The reason why "pretty good" copy protection will work, and why content creators and distributors will continue to make money? Human nature. If you get the distribution and the price points right, most people won't even think of piracy. Like water, people will take the easy course.
Yes, piracy is wrong. But perfect copy protection is a dream. The whole argument, IMO, is a straw man. The answer lies not in law, nor technology, nor distribution and pricing, but the correct mix and application of these instruments to human nature: don't fight it.
JM2C,
Jim |
