Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
The thing is, though, that the overwhelming majority of people who break copyright law aren't doing so to make a political statement - they're just cheapskates who want to get something for nothing.
|
I'll agree that most people who break copyright law are not trying to make a political statement. I tend to think that's because most of them don't know the legalities and history of copyright law, which, until fairly recently, was a matter of corporate business regulation that the common guy didn't have to think about.
All of a sudden, everything's copyrighted, and everything's being copied--but only professional media corporations are getting the benefits from copyright law. (Certainly, I'm not able to enforce a decision like "AOL may not copy any of my writings onto its servers.")
The laws make no sense in their current scope. The penalties are draconian enough to make people ignore them entirely; they're so obviously unreasonable that they're ignored. (Just like "treason" can carry a death penalty, and hypothetically, anyone who says the current head-of-government sucks, could be guilty of "treason" in the sense of "working to destroy the state by sowing discontent." But nobody thinks they're going to be executed for bitching about "that jerk who got elected," and nobody thinks they're going to be hit with $150,000 fines for handing a few music files to their friends. And with that as the potential penalty for sharing with friends, why *not* share with the whole internet?)
Most people don't obey copyright law because it
makes no sense. They are, for the most part, in favor of authors & other creators being compensated for their work. They're not seeing how handing around a few files damages that--or not seeing how it damages author incomes more than other, entirely legal, practices, like publishers holding on to book rights but not republishing, or the 83% of the cover price that someone other than the author gets.
They want something for nothing, sure. They grow up getting free entertainment from dozens of sources--TV (I know TV is taxed in the UK, but it's not taxed more if you watch it a lot), radio, borrowed books, songs played in stores & at friends' houses, free newspapers (my area has several), blogs galore--and they're supposed to believe that *some* free content is inherently immoral, and other kinds aren't, based on applications of law that aren't written down anywhere* but exist in the minds lawyers interpreting a hundred years of case-law history, tangled up with legislative changes whose impact isn't explained.
(Aren't written down: "public performance" is restricted by copyright law, but it's not defined. Is playing a song on your car radio loud enough to be heard outside a "public performance?" Is six friends at a ballgame spontaneously breaking into song a "public performance?" Is children's recitations of poetry a public performance? Does it become one if the school sells tickets, or is that a private performance if only parents & other family members are allowed?)
I can tape a TV show give the tape to give to a friend later; why can't I download a free promotional ebook to a flash drive and do the same?
Copyright law is not clear and concise. There's a lot of blurry areas--and a lot of not-blurry areas where the people who are complying with the law, have worked hard to hide any evidence of that compliance. (Whoever pays royalties for a jukebox in a bar, the customers never hear about that. Odds are, the manager on duty doesn't know either.) One person pays for the song--but everyone gets to enjoy it. We're used to "content is free when you can get it that way, and otherwise you pay for it."