My Proposed Copyright and Piracy Law

I've thought of copyright and piracy issues once or twice, but I dismissed it at those moments. I think I did because I would have felt slightly guilty if I actually thought deeply about the whole system of who owns what, whose money gets lost, whose music am I supposedly 'stealing' and what's going to happen to such artist. Well, the days following the Intellectual Property lecture only gave me the obligation to actually think about the issue. Concerning the differing opinions and arguments whether piracy is wrong or right, the lecture and the reading propelled me to either take a side, sit on the fence, or just remain far away from the fence as I've been. What did I choose? I chose to sit on the fence. Let me just point out that I'm not entirely sitting on the fence, I mean, I'm not planning to tip over or something, so let's just imagine the fence has a wide platform and I'm only sitting at one side of it. But anyway, there are two reasons why I'm sitting on the fence - 1) To support the notion of the mass-produced product as publicly-owned,  2) and the notion of the mass-produced product as an emblem of profit for the "original" makers of it.

For me, there's something not quite right about piracy being 'ethically' wrong - actually, that word just blows everything out of proportion - 'ethical' (RHETORIC FAIL..!). No. 1: Ethics is a pre-given societal rules that preach on about honesty and sincerity, and doing the 'right thing'. Well, when it comes to downloading a song off the net, who says it is wrong? Who says it is right? Who decides? I guess this is where the ownership issue comes in where I'd just like to start by saying something resembling the thesis statement for this post: I don't believe the owner of the song - be it the artist or the big fat recording company that produced it - completely owns the song. Why? Because it's out there in the public. So, if it is out there, it belongs to the people out there, it is out of the corporations' hands. I remember thinking this way about 'privacy' in one of my other blog posts and how I reckon if your private information gets out, it is no longer under your control, but the public's.

I have just established the first reason why I'm sitting on the fence and this is the fact that anything mass-produced and then disseminated into the public sphere - whether bound by profit or not - partially belongs to the public. Thus, it is the public's right to make use of whatever they want to do with it for their own pleasures. In fact, I'd like to support my argument with Walter Benjamin's idea that something may be "original" but when it becomes mass-produced, it loses its value and is no longer an original but a simulacrum (a Baudrillard notion meaning 'copy'). (His study made specific reference to photography e.g. the Mona Lisa becoming reproduced around the world that the real painting loses its aura). To apply this to mass-produced products that has found its ground in the public sphere, downloading and re-creating/ re-producing them does nothing to the authenticity or value of the original. In fact, where is the original? Does anyone know, more importantly, does anyone care? 'Original' is contestable if we're looking at it from the Barthes' "nothing is new under the sun" line of thought. Looking at it from that angle, downloading stuff does nothing to the value of the "original" simply because there is no original. HOWEVER............ my other side of the fence argument asks the question: "If there is no kind of authenticity lost, isn't there any other kind of loss great enough to stand for the 'piracy is ethically wrong' rhetorical argument?" Well, yes there is, and the answer is somewhat obvious: MONEY MONEY MONEY. But note: I still wouldn't use the word 'ethically' here, that word is just so unfit.

But anyway, I say money is the big loss. Sure, companies might over-exaggerate on losses due to piracy by adding extra zeros at the end of the factual losses. But still, money is a major loss that can make me feel sorry for upcoming artists that had a hit song I didn't buy but download. (Put the likes of Gaga aside, download or not, she'll still have money growing in her backyard). I'm talking about artists who are pushed to the back of the line, non-mainstream artists, World artists, and so on. Some of these artists are either signed with Indie labels or regional small sub-labels under the big 4 who themselves are trying to make ends meet. Here, I'm trying to establish one point that it doesn't matter whether an artist is "keeping it real" by investing real art and personal creativity guided by personal values or "selling out" by privileging the bland, predictable, pop-type, commercialization in their work. The bottom line is this fact: Mass-produced cultural products are primarily meant for public consumption in return for profit. In another light, the only way to make up for the loss of authenticity at the moment of distribution is profit (and yes, in cash). This is why I think even though a product has been distributed and is thereby the public's possession, I believe the public has an obligation to give something back. I've gotta admit, one of the Copyright kids argument is pretty convincing but it lacks a certain something. It goes along the lines of: "If you made something out of your time and sweat (regardless whether there are inter-textual influences), wouldn't you be mad if someone just took it from you". Sure, I'd be mad, heck, I'd be mad! I'd stick my head out the window and scream, 'I can't take it anymore!'. However, this fails to take into consideration that we're talking about mass-produced product and not one thing one makes and someone steals. Moreover, I think the sentence is incomplete as it does not make any mention of money. Therefore, I think the sentence best suitable for my argument would be: "If you made copies of something out of your time and sweat (regardless of inter-textual influences) for the purpose of selling it indirectly to the public for profit, wouldn't you be mad if someone just took it without paying, knowing that you've just lost a few cents or dollar?". This question is honest as opposed to the first. It tells it like it is: Artists make mass-produced music to get money in return even though there may be other reasons like "to impact lives" or what not. Seeing it this way then, I think piracy is wrong as the public has an obligation to give back to the artist who shared the product in the first place.

Concluding, I maintain my split position on the fence by advocating for the public's right to own a cultural product (screw copyright). As an artist, if you put your stuff out there, it belongs out there and less under your control. But at the same time, the public also has an obligation to pay for the work at its exchange-use value. It's no contradiction, it's simply a two-way thing: "I'll make you this record, do whatever the heck you want with it, as long as you give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar". That, colleagues, I think should be the new copyright and piracy law.

Piracy of music considered as stealing?

"You wouldn’t steal a car" "You wouldn’t steal a handbag" sound familiar? Most people would have heard of it. This is the starting to any modern film which strongly emphasizes on the issue of piracy as a crime. Well I have a different point of view when it comes down to downloading of music. For me I think downloading of music is not stealing because it is an intangible property and by downloading you are just duplicating copies of music. By downloading, it does not stop other users from getting access to it and you are not taking the one and only copy of the original music and having it entirely to your own. Since it is a digital content it can be copied over and over again. I think it is fine to download music from the way I look at it because it is widely known that most recording artists earn their living from concerts and piracy helps to promote and widely circulate artist’s music all over the world. As mentioned in the lecture, those people who download free music are also the ones who are purchasing more music thus generating more profit for the artist. Tangible properties such as Cars and Handbags are limited by nature as to their use and can be used by one person at a time and be in one place at a time. If you steal my car, I’m denied of the usage and unlike music it cannot be copied and since the car is an original property it is a crime when you steal it. As for music downloading since it is an intangible property, I would not consider as same as stealing a person’s car or a handbag. I think of it as more of a sharing as the reading mentions that pirates are 10 times more likely to buy music, which shows people like me and others who download free music are more likely to buy music than the ones who don’t download it for free.

Don’t Copy That Floppy!

The above blast from the past is an anti-copyright infringement video from 1992 featuring MC Double Def DP, the “Disk Protector.” Other than the dancing, corny dialogue and dated aesthetics, what entertains me most about this video is the choice of games used to illustrate how piracy will supposedly instigate the “end of the computer age” :

No Carmen Sandiego, no Oregon Trail
Tetris and the others, they're all gonna fail
Not because we want it but because you're just takin' it
Disrespecting all the folks who are making it
The more you take, the less there will be
The disks become fewer, the games fall away
The screen starts to tweak, and then it will fade
Programs fall through a black hole in space
The computer world becomes bleak and stark
Loses its life and the screen goes dark

Welcome to the end of the computer age! Bwahahahaha!

Tetris hardly seems a convincing example when its history is marked by a number of legal disputes surrounding who has the rights to produce it. Indeed, how could copying one of the many released versions of the game be deemed to be ripping off the “creativity of someone’s mind” that is “frozen in time” on the disk, even if we accept the myth of individual authorship, when the companies producing it are not the originators of the idea.

The video further undermines its own prediction of doom should copyright infringement continue in the interview sound bite of Janet Hunter at 03:47, who claims to “get a thrill out of seeing something actually working that [she] put together.” Certainly, we should not be so blinded by capitalism that we forget that cultural production is not inherently nor holistically about profit. People get immense satisfaction from creatively producing, and part of that satisfaction comes from having one’s work actually seen and enjoyed by others. Ironically, by giving permission to copy their video for non-profit purposes, the Software Publishers Association (SPA) recognises that the most effective means for getting one’s work seen is precisely by allowing it to be shared.

In the unlikely scenario that the original video left you thirsting for more, do enjoy the 2009 sequel below!

Music Companies Need to Shift Their Thinking

The world is constantly changing and music companies need to acknowledge that fact and look into other methods of monetization. Music is no longer the one or two good songs amongst 12 mediocre tracks on a $29.95 CD. It's now the mp3's, the iTunes, the iPods, the digital media track. People have more options now. They don't need to pay for an entire CD to get the one or two good songs. Record labels always cite how many "millions" they've lost in CD sales. Have they not figured out that the CD is a slowly dying medium and that those who do buy it are perhaps more dedicated fans or those unfamiliar with iTunes or other online music outlets. It's time for them to look into other ways to monetize on their stars.

Personally, I see singers now actually have more viral exposure, and isn't it exposure, getting the music out there that will sell tours, merchandise and create lifelong fans? Companies like Universal Music have already tapped into the power of YouTube. Once upon a time, this company fought against the likes of YouTube and have since turned around to embrace the technology. Free on demand music videos helps upcoming artists to gain exposure in markets where Universal Music may not have thought of marketing to. If you've ever uploaded a video onto YouTube, you'll find that there are demographics for the video. Universal could see where (geographically) people may be viewing the video and focus on targeting the particular artists' music in that region.

Music companies also argue that piracy destroys the artists' creativity and motivation to make music. I don't know about you, but most of the musicians I know don't exactly think, "millions of these kids are going to pirate my track and I'll make small sales, I'm not going into the music industry". It's more like "I'm going to produce this awesome song, become famous and everyone will hear my music." Welcome to the 21st century music companies.

As a side note, if illegal things like this become a long and downhill battle, eventually I think music companies will give in to the battle and accept the fact and find some other methods to make money. I believe this was a similar case for Prop 19, the legalization of cannabis.

Music downloads - Paying and not paying with social capital

Image source: Author's photo

For those who download music illegally, what is the value of a paid digital download? Recent studies seem to suggest a highly subjective moral value, but is that the same economic value we once attributed to CDs, cassettes and vinyl?

I've heard various people suggest that the experience of purchasing and listening to a physical album (discussions with record store employees, looking through the liner notes and artwork, listening with others) does not compare to a digital download. Yet there is a culture associated with downloads. People derive social capital from sharing music for download because others respond, discussion is generated, and people are exposed to new music.

The music industry isn't going to be able to turn the social capital of music into premium content, but could they monetise it? Ping, iTune's inbuilt social network, is Apple's attempt to derive sales from the social value of music. It doesn't introduce any new premium content, but it does provide a new arena for digital music culture to play out, one where social content is linked to legitimate downloads.

Because it doesn't eliminate illegal music sharing or introduce new premium digital content, Ping is not a premium paywall but a "paycorridor". The social capital generated by Ping users guides them away from illegal downloads and towards the iTunes store.

Importantly, artists (or at least their PR) are users of Ping. The point of connection betweens fans and artists is a potential site for future premium content.

Can the music industry dance to the Club Penguin boogie?

Image source

The music industry says that P2P hurts artists (and the industry), but P2P users have become accustomed to downloading music for free. Is freemium a potential compromise?

In this week's lecture we briefly discussed a hypothetical music business model that balances unpaid digital downloads with ticket sales for live concerts... Hmm... Sounds like freemium! You get unrestricted access to the main course – songs, in digital form – but you don't get dessert – live gigs, standard and limited physical releases – unless you pay.

Compare this pay-for-concerts model to the Club Penguin model and you see an immediate difference. Where's the premium digital content? Club Penguin's physical merchandise can be equated with the concerts and physical albums from our music model. However, Club Penguin's subscriber content constitutes an additional digital-only category of premium content. If you give away digital songs, what do you have to offer as paid-for digital content?

Perhaps the music industry needs to find something other than songs to offer as premium digital content. How about a live stream of a studio performance that can only be accessed with a unique code that you receive after purchasing songs? This example may not be the best (someone could record and distribute the stream!), but my intention is to suggest that this way of thinking merits further investigation.

Our hypothetical model seems to come close to the current reality of the music business, with one major difference: people are paying for digital downloads. The Norwegian research discussed in lecture and a 2006 Canadian RIAA study both seem to indicate a self-mediated freemium among P2P users, whereby each user determines what they personally deem to be content worth paying for from the pool of free content. Maybe this shows that services like Spotify and KKBOX, which separate song content into free and premium versions before reaching the consumer, have a valid place in the market.

Compromise seems increasingly necessary, but the music industry would prefer access to digital songs to be completely locked down. If Apple found a way to block all illegally procured content from your iWhatever-you-use, would you continue to use it or seek out an alternative?