Six copyright myths

[method77]

Source: FK2W. More great articles can be found there.

-- ----------------

Pirates are file-sharers that steal copyrighted materials of the internet and hurt the Industry. Sharing on the Internet is stealing intellectual property. File-shares see it as free so, why would they want to pay for it? Copyright law on the Internet is the new challenge we face and must prevail. It is there to protect the creators. As industry executives, lawmakers and government officials use these statements to sway public opinion, the question remains: are they true or just myths?

Myth 1: Pirates are file-sharers who steal copyrighted materials of the Net and hurt the Industry!

I've mixed feelings about the movie Industry suing downloader's. The real question is: How does someone hurt the Industry? It is done making money through exchanging Intellectual Property without benefiting the creator. But who is stealing and who is benefiting from file sharing?

The biggest threat the industry faces is from within. Thefts take place during development and distribution. Most intellectual property, like music, movies, games and software, is distributed in a tangible form through known and establish channels. But how often do we hear that games, movies or albums are on the internet - in some cases, even before their release date? Employees, retailers and other associates of the Industry do more damage then downloaders. Just one leak in the distribution or development chain is enough.

Moreover, when I visited some less developed countries outside the US and Europe, I was amazed at how fast people get their hands on the latest stuff. It was faster then things appeared on the internet. Hi-quality DVD, music and games with nice packaging are sold for next to nothing. Real pirates don't download products: they get it straight from the source. And ironically, even they see the Net as a threat to their businesses because they use the same physical products and business-models as the Industry.

Finally, who stands to make the most money out of file-sharing on the Net? Internet access providers. When I was shopping for a broadband connection, the first question providers asked was: are you into downloading music and movies? This was in a time when there were no legal download alternatives online. They still profit heavily from increased traffic and selling more fast connections and none of it flows back to creators

Suing downloaders is a childish and stupid way to retaliate. It's bad for business and doesn't accomplished much. If the Industry wants to use DRM, they should use it on themselves and not on us. The Industry should take responsibility for its part and hurry with alternatives for downloaders.

Myth 2: Sharing on the Internet is stealing or taking intellectual property!

This is a sample of the heated exchange at the file-sharing debate about the induce act: "Taking and sharing are two different things," Jaffe said. "Sharing is not piracy. No one has ever challenged the RIAA lawsuits." In reply, someone from the audience yelled, "Give me that jacket! We need to share it.".

In the real world I wouldn't have given my jacket to anybody. On the internet, I could make a virtual duplicate and share it with everybody. Why? Because I could keep my jacket and make another soul happy. That's what sharing is all about and it's why the internet works so well. It's the simple difference between physical and non-physical products.

According to Copyright law, it's illegal to share. However, Copyright law isn't capable of handling issues on the internet. It's only suited to handle conflicts related to the real world. I'll clear this part up with myth 5.

Myth 3: If it's free, why pay for it?

"There is no business-model in the world that can compete with free" said Peter Chernin, head of 20th Century Fox during a "60 minutes" CBS segment on Internet Piracy. First of all, iPod proved them wrong and more examples are coming. It's all about marketing - just ask the person who gave us bottled water

The fact is that p2p networks still aren't user-friendly. The widely used Bittorrent client only recently added a search plug-in. Before that, you had to surf numerous obscure sites to find files. And if you did find what you were looking for, you'd be lucky if it was available to download. Other p2p clients have better search capabilities but are slow, polluted or unsafe. Fear of cyber attacks, viruses, privacy violations and being sued, still prevail. In addition, the likes of eMule or Newsgroups downloads have a learning curve for configuration and use.

In short, people on the Net are willing to pay for downloads if they're fast, easy and safer to use. It would be the fashionable thing to do. Just ask any iPod owner or Evian drinker.

Myth 4: Copyright on the Internet is the new challenge we face!

In 18th century France, the Parisian theater was very influential, occupying a premier place in France society. Provincial theaters tried to get in on the action by sending stenographers to Paris to take notes and sketches. The provincial theaters were then able to produce appallingly bad versions of plays for free. Nowadays, we have camcorders in theaters to give us terrible quality movies for free

IP Challenges existed long any of us where around. Lawmakers then embarked on a quest to protect authenticity. Along the way, publishers became more powerful, creations were mutilated, creators were exploited and consumers, bullied. Now, we're back where we started. That's one of the reasons I propose a fresh look at Copyright law and how we deal with internet.

Myth 5: Copyright must prevail on the internet!

The industry is gearing up to sneak HR2391, the Intellectual Property Protection Act pass the US senate during the coming "lame duck" session. One question remains: Should Copyright law, in current or revised state, be enforced on the internet? And the answer? No, it should not, and this is why.

The Net is a place of free and open exchange of information, and it should remain so. One of the many amazing things the internet has given us is a glimpse of a copyright-free future. It's called the Open Source movement and it shows us what could happen if Intellectual creations aren't claimed as property. Numerous applications such as Apache, Sendmail, Linux and even the internet itself, are testaments of what can come along in a property free culture.

And let me dispense of one more myth while I'm at it

Myth 6: Copyright law protects the creators!

In reality, it protects the publishers. Since its conception in the 16th century, copyright law has been all about the publishers and producers, who sponsored creators. Since writers had no means of mass producing books, they had to turn to expensive printing presses. The printing press owners, in turn, wanted to protect their investments and thus copyright was born.

In the digital age, these investments are nullified and scarcity no longer exists. So the concept of property over intellectual creations should be re-examined

If the investors behind The Lord of the Rings trilogy knew all this, would it still be made? Yes, given some good advice on marketing and knowing that people will still pay money to be amazed.

Finally, Copyright law should still prevail in the offline world. It's been around for a long time and we can't get rid of it that easily. The Creative Commons initiative is an example of how persistent this way of thinking is. Nevertheless, it should take on a whole new meaning in the digital age and especially for open networks. Both sides to this debate should keep their heads and get the facts before pulling the trigger

[DudeAsInCool]

I'm a little late in reading this, but this was a good find, Method! :good job:

[slum_goddess]

just about seven months, Dude. :)

[Shawn]

But now we've read it. :D

[slum_goddess]

i read it back then but immediately forgot it (like most things). :(

[KiwiCoromandel]

good little article...... :)