Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
I don't think that the pirate "benefits" the author with his theoretical 6 friends, no. Do you think that the guy who steals the bank's money, which is used to buy the van, that brings new depositors to the bank, is the bank's benefactor?
Hitch
|
Personally I do think that the illicit downloader whose action results in 6 of their friends buying the book is benefiting the author. Also, what I would further say is that if the illicit downloader had not obtained the book for free then it may have been that none of the extra sales would have eventuated. But there again I come from a commercial world which is not protected - so in that world a seller who finds that the stock leakage of 1 item of a product typically generates 6 sales would regard the stock leakage as being a productive thing.
I think you may see that your stealing the van money comparison is nothing to do with the case, as I take from the tone of your question you are not proposing that the guy stealing the van brings new depositors as a result of his act. My case is actually where the person undertaking the illicit act brings further customers. Furthermore, stealing the money is a criminal act, in most places illicit copying of copyrighted books for non commercial purposes only exposes the copier to the possibility of civil action.
But, if the situation was to be (and we know it isn't in your example) that the "stealing" of the money, lets say $10,000, and the handling of any action was to be totally in the hands of the bank (so not criminal, just a civil action possible) then if that "stealing" resulted through some mechanism to deliver to the bank six times the amount (so $60,000), then Yes I would contend that the "stealing" of the money benefited the bank and the "stealer" can be regarded as a benefactor of the bank.
There are plenty of examples where businesses voluntarily accept increased leakage of stock through illicit taking if the business's own actions increases the visibility of their products and so increased sales. For example, a retail store may design a store layout which increases sales by more attractive presentation to customers but which increases stock leakage through theft (lets say for each extra stock unit lost through theft six extra of that product are sold due to better in store presentation). Or the case of the old honesty boxes for newspapers (we didn't have coin operated ones here), the intention was that one dropped the money in the box and took a newspaper - a lot of stock leakage but the presentation, one assumes, resulted in compensating sales.
Those examples are similar to, but not exactly the same as my original question's case in that the choice is with the business but if it were to be that non commercial illicit downloading did increase the visibility of books and increased sales then publishers too, for example, would have the opportunity of taking constrained, or no action against them or the source sites in order to preserve that visibility.
Now I am not claiming, as I think you reacted as if I were, that illicit downloading can increase sales through increased visibility, I was just posing a "what if" question - but I know that some analysts with no irons in the fire believe it is possibly so, however I know of no formal research that has been done. What we do know is that, in general, protected industries perform poorly (and book publishing, just like newspaper publishing is having marketing and customer delivery difficulties fitting into the modern age) and that those in protected industries generally react badly to any suggestion of change. It is also known that copyright presents a cost to the overall economy so private and public investment suffers, as does public expenditure (e.g. on health, to use an emotive example
) - this is the case in my own country, it has been analyzed by Government and its choice has been to remain at the cheapest convention choice of Life+50.
Anyway, all that (and much more) adds up to me that it is justifiable that copyright protection of the industry should be questioned and the place of illicit downloading be considered with that. I think some others here have made valid suggestions - one which would seem to have much economic sense to me is imposing an initial cost and a frequent periodic renewal cost upon the rights holder. Protection of the industry is not then a complete gift to it with no responsibilities attached and thus encouraging of a sense of self entitlement among rights holders as now, but rather a protection which the rights holders have some responsibility to contribute to and maintain.
{EDIT: meant to say, that is enuff from me, I have other less controversial things to get involved with rather than solving the world's problems
as it is summer and the annual main holiday period here.}