If You Think The Cost Of 'Piracy' Is High, What About The Cost Of Enforcement?

[stonetools]

Not all incentives are financial.

If your point is that artists should just create because they are special and should just not bother about making money, I reject that, along with most artists. The myth that the proper position of an artist is that they should be starving in a garret somewhere is just that-a myth.
In the end, the best way to get creative people to to produce new creations is to ensure to that they get paid. That will eventually mean bringing the EFFECTIVE rule of law to the Internet, including law enforcement against piracy . If that means bringing to justice owners of the TPB and similar sites, then the sooner the better.

You didn't answer the question: any evidence of less illegal downloading? (Mediafire, Rapdshare, YouSendIt, Glumbouploads, Filefactory, Filereactor, Crocko, Bitshare, and Netload seem to be fairly unaffected.) Will media companies announce higher revenues next quarter because MegaUpload is now gone--or was this a publicity stunt more than an actual blow against piracy?

The evidence from France and Sweden shows that LE does reduce piracy and illegal downloading. A year from now, we'll have studies to show whether the Megaupload case had a significant effect. What's needed is legislation that would enable Law enforcement agencies to strike at piracy sites located in foreign safe harbors. Such legislation will most likely be enacted soon.

[stonetools]

I suspect that what's happening is more of a shift from labels, rather than a shift away from music.

And I suspect that there is a shift to unscrupulous operators ripping off artists by aggregating unlicensed music on file-sharing websites and charging advertisers for access to the people who show to those websites. THAT"S the " new business model" that we keep hearing about.
The solution is to close down this "new business model" through law enforcement or watch creators -whether "indie" or "label" -just drift away as they find themselves unable to support themselves through the making of original creations.

There's a cost to no enforcement for sure, but there's also a cost to too much enforcement or the wrong kind of enforcement. Copyright is a fine balance, so it makes sense that the enforcement of copyright should also be a fine balance.

Right now, we are pretty much at the stage of virtually no effective law enforcement. We are a long way from any kind of fine balance. I can if I want download an unlicensed copy of almost any popular musical or written work with impunity, as I have been repeatedly told.
I can't do that with, say, any car I want, because there is effective law enforcement against the theft of automobiles. People still steal cars; but lots of people get caught and the police can get at the stolen car fencers and chop shop owners.
Just as the the rule of law has been extended to the automobile industry, so too will be extended to the digital media industry.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by stonetools

That's the big mistake you make. More recorded music is being CONSUMED than ever before: but the makers of recorded music are making LESS REVENUE than ever, because of illegal filesharing.
The musician whose song is illegally uploaded and played on youtube isn't making a dime from that and thus doesn't have the incentive or the resources to make more music.

So why is so much more new music being recorded and placed on the sites I mentioned? I doubt anyone who had 500 copies of a single pressed in the late 70s made much money from it either.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by stonetools

ing:

Within days of the Megaupload arrrests, various file locker sites changed policy so as to make it harder to store pirated files

So entertainment industry profits will rise even more? I suppose we will need to wait for next year's figures to find out, but what happens if they don't, or if they actually make less profit? What will they blame then?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Then its unrefuted. Pointing to some websites is not the same is citing recording studio data showing that musicians are recording less. I'd ask that you click through and read the link I posted.

You didn't post a link. But if nobody is recording music any more, why are there so many recording studios? Surely they would have gone out of business by now?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

In the end, the best way to get creative people to to produce new creations is to ensure to that they get paid.

I'm not saying that authors should be starving, or should be willing to be starving. I am saying that "provide incentives to create" is a much, much broader field than "pay the authors."

Creators who want to make lots of money go into commercial writing or art--designing logos and branding materials for megacorporations pays a lot better than portrait-drawing, and writing tech manuals as work-for-hire pays more than writing biographies. (While copyright does allow for an author's copyrighted works to continue making income for decades, how many manage to do that? "You can get paid whatever the market will bear for the next 60 years, and your heirs after that... or you can get paid $22/hour right now, for as long as you can stand to write instruction manuals." More, for the more complex work.)

The idea that better enforcement or stricter laws to improve pay-the-author systems will "fix" the publishing industries is missing something... authors don't just want money; they want credit, too. They want readers. There's plenty of evidence that reducing readership to only those people who paid for a copy of a book would effectively kill any new author's career.

75% of readers traditionally never paid into the author's revenue stream. How will better enforcement allow for the continuation of this fanbase? Will it require print books, which are getting more expensive as ebooks push MMPBs out of the market? Will authors be able to rely on reviews only from pro reviewers & those who've paid for the books?

That will eventually mean bringing the EFFECTIVE rule of law to the Internet, including law enforcement against piracy.

It can't happen without destroying the internet as we know it. It's more difficult than controlling air quality... while smoking no longer happens in restaurants in my state, overall smog levels haven't dropped.

Computers are devices that make copies. That's what they do--copy data from one place to another. Sometimes they process that data; sometimes they just hand it over directly. But that's *all* computers do... move data around, which means copying it.

The media industries, in trying to insist on "copyright enforcement," have forgotten that they built their own doom into the extension laws... since EVERYTHING is copyrighted the moment it hits the screen, we have lawsuits against LexisNexis and firms submitting patents claiming that there's no "this is a gov't matter" exemption for copyright law (which there isn't). The newer laws would not only allow big corporations to go after file-sharers, but allow ex-employees to file suit against their employers for copying their emails (ones sent after the employment ended) or bloggers to go after aggregate sites... or the manufacturers of RSS code... or Google for directing people to "pirate" sites that "stole" their content w/o permission.

(The right to copy blog posts in RSS feeds hasn't been established in courts. The Google case that established the right to show thumbnails is certainly relevant, but that's not copying the entire original in a new place. There's no difference, legally, between AP's news content and random-blogger's blog content.)

And that's before we get into the utter wankitude of random-blogger-A suing random-blogger-B for quoting an excerpt to mock it. Yes, copying for parody is allowed... if the copy isn't too much and so on. What counts as too much? That depends on the court. It's not that any one of these cases would be hard to prove; it's that, with better quick-enforcement rules, the number of them would skyrocket.

The fact that copyright law doesn't distinguish between outright full copies, excerpts, translations, sequels, and utterly transformative uses like "I drew a picture based on this story" means that "better copyright enforcement" is "invitation to random accusations of IP theft from anyone who's ever had a grudge on the internet."

What's needed is legislation that would enable Law enforcement agencies to strike at piracy sites located in foreign safe harbors. Such legislation will most likely be enacted soon.

No, what we need is law enforcement to understand the technology so they don't try to enact stupid rules like "block access to a particular IP address," and to stop listening to the media corps' propaganda. LE needs to figure out (1) what kinds of damage are being done, (2) how much damage that is, and (3) who is liable for those damages.

I'm not saying "piracy is not a problem." I'm saying that the solution to that problem is not going to be "increase corporate ability to squash those they accuse of infringement, without reconsidering all of copyright law." The laws need to be rewritten from scratch to deal with the realities of computers and the internet--THEN we can start sorting out which types of copyrighted works need what kinds of legal protection.

[stonetools]

No, what we need is law enforcement to understand the technology so they don't try to enact stupid rules like "block access to a particular IP address," and to stop listening to the media corps' propaganda. LE needs to figure out (1) what kinds of damage are being done, (2) how much damage that is, and (3) who is liable for those damages.

I'm not saying "piracy is not a problem." I'm saying that the solution to that problem is not going to be "increase corporate ability to squash those they accuse of infringement, without reconsidering all of copyright law." The laws need to be rewritten from scratch to deal with the realities of computers and the Internet--THEN we can start sorting out which types of copyrighted works need what kinds of legal protection.
__________________

I think both LE and the publishers are quite aware of the technology . ( Its only the technologists conceit that publishers are Neanderthals who don't know nothing bout computers). DNS filtering has its place but its not a particularly effective tool .
I see no need to re-write from scratch. Whats needed is to give courts and LE jurisdiction to enforce laws, regardless of where the servers or operators are located. Its one thing to thumb your nose at authorities if you know they can't send their agents across borders to arrest you. Its different if you have to contemplate federal agents showing up with warrants in the middle of nights seizing your computers and freezing your accounts.
As to copyright law, adjustments can be made so long as to core is preserved.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I think both LE and the publishers are quite aware of the technology . (Its only the technologists conceit that publishers are Neanderthals who don't know nothing bout computers). DNS filtering has its place but its not a particularly effective tool .

Publishers may be aware of the technology; legislatures aren't. How many congressmen said "I am not a geek" while trying to discuss SOPA and PIPA? As if it were perfectly reasonable to pass laws about technology-based communications and commerce without any idea how that technology works.

The recent demand for "cut off internet to the IP address" based on accusations, not proofs in court, is another example of not understanding the technology, how it works and who's affected by it. (Will they cut off a school's internet if a few students are downloading? Can a student *make* a school's internet go away by figuring out how to torrent with the school's servers? ...Seems like a great way for a disgruntled ex-employee IT specialist to take down a company's internet.)

I see no need to re-write from scratch.

I do; the current orphan works problem is a notable part of that. Another part is the lack of definition of "publication;" fifty years ago, the difference between published-and-not was mostly easy to figure out with some rare exceptions that the courts sorted out. Today... is an email private or published? If it goes to a list, is it published? If that list has only 5 people on it, is it published? Is a friendslocked blog post published? Are PMs published? Do they become published if they're sent to a swarm of phones at once?

Whats needed is to give courts and LE jurisdiction to enforce laws, regardless of where the servers or operators are located.

All they need for that, is an international agreement about where computer activity takes place.

It should be a simple issue--a few tech experts & politicians sit down and sort out some details, and decide whether the activity takes place at the user's physical location, the server's physical location, or the legal-jurisdiction location of the site(s) involved. They can even decide on variables, like whether the jurisdiction of intermediary servers are relevant. No problem.

Of course, that has problems. If it's "your computer activity takes place where your body and keyboard are," then the US can't punish piracy by people in other countries. If it's, "your computer activity takes place where the URL's servers are located," georestrictions on ebooks go out the window. Right now, they want it both ways: your location is "here" when we want to punish you, and "there" when we want to play tax and commerce games.

Its one thing to thumb your nose at authorities if you know they can't send their agents across borders to arrest you. Its different if you have to contemplate federal agents showing up with warrants in the middle of nights seizing your computers and freezing your accounts.

Indeed. As I said, this has a simple solution: the UN can get together and declare a location for computer activities, which would establish which legal jurisdictions have the right and obligation to take action against crimes.

As to copyright law, adjustments can be made so long as to core is preserved.

What core? Several of us are fond of the "preserve for a limited time" aspect that seems to get shoved aside a lot. What do you consider the "core" of copyright is? (That's a *big* question, possibly worth a new post.)

[stonetools]

All they need for that, is an international agreement about where computer activity takes place.

It should be a simple issue--a few tech experts & politicians sit down and sort out some details, and decide whether the activity takes place at the user's physical location, the server's physical location, or the legal-jurisdiction location of the site(s) involved. They can even decide on variables, like whether the jurisdiction of intermediary servers are relevant. No problem.

That's of course, not a simple issue. I can see a couple more different angles on it, including a rule that US courts have jurisdiction if the end user resides in the US . There will be a fight , but I expect there will be resolution on this issue before too long . AS to the general copyright questionwait your post on that issue.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

As I said, this has a simple solution: the UN can get together and declare a location for computer activities, which would establish which legal jurisdictions have the right and obligation to take action against crimes.

Not so simple. I can't imagine this failing to have freedom to read implications for people in countries with censorship or currency controls. The last thing we need is to give (substitute here any country whose legal system you question) cover to take more action against crimes.

None of this will ever be solved, any more than shoplifting paper books will ever be solved. The best you can do is to reduce it some without ruining the lives of caught persons, as in France. I'm not saying that the French law, which my link shows may be changed, is perfect, but the French experience does show you can reduce piracy without destroying the internet.

Re the thread title:

-- The cost of piracy is just as unknowable as the cost of book shoplifting. Sometimes, book shoplifting saves the industry money by reducing how many unsold books need to be pulped. Nobody gets angry when this isn't considered in estimates of shoplifting costs. Saying you lost the retail value is normal innocent human puffing when you have been ripped off.

-- The cost of enforcement, by contrast, can be, with effort, fairly calculated. Add up how many people are in prison for piracy, and estimate an average salary for whatever number of law enforcement people work the intellectual property beat. Have I done that? No. It would take a week or so, for each chosen country, and I have a day job. But it's rich that the OP link authors criticize other people for their cost figures while having zip on their side of the ledger.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

That's of course, not a simple issue. I can see a couple more different angles on it, including a rule that US courts have jurisdiction if the end user resides in the US . There will be a fight , but I expect there will be resolution on this issue before too long . AS to the general copyright questionwait your post on that issue.

Define "end user." The person uploading? The person downloading? The person who owns copyright? (What if copyright is owned by a multinational company?)

The problem isn't with defining jurisdiction for actions online; it's with establishing *one, consistent* set of criteria for jurisdiction. Publishers want to punish the owners of websites hosted in Australia, but they don't want to sell ebooks to people who live in Australia.

Sorting out "what jurisdiction covers which computer transactions" is an issue that should've been dealt with decades ago, and it's telling that none of the media companies fighting for "piracy reform" are fighting to establish that. That should be at the top of their problem list. Instead, they're trying to push an international treaty--not law brought through normal legislative measures--to bypass the need to make that definition.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The problem isn't with defining jurisdiction for actions online; it's with establishing *one, consistent* set of criteria for jurisdiction. Publishers want to punish the owners of websites hosted in Australia, but they don't want to sell ebooks to people who live in Australia.

So very true.

Consistent distribution is critical as well. Rip off prices, slow release (home media, cinema AND TV) here in Australia means a lot of fans download to see their favourite series instead of waiting six to twelve months. That is only part of the equation though with other factors, purely local ones, included.

Aussies have long paid much higher prices for just about everything. Books included at the top of the list.

These companies need to change as well, evolve, rather than continuously attempt to force the consumer market to comply with what they expect that market to be. ACTA, SOPA et al are all part of what they want to inflict on the outside market to ensure that aim is achieved.

They tried it on here as well, against ISP iiNet and were defeated in the original court case and two subsequent appeals. The final judgement against AFACT by the high court was even harsher than the first one. What did they do next? Not talk to consumer groups or the ISP's peak body about new methods of distribution. No, they demanded the Federal Government make changes to the Copyright act to protect their business model.

If only they would channel those misguided funds into funding that change rather than defending a defenceless, obsolete business model.

Rearguard actions indeed.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The idea that better enforcement or stricter laws to improve pay-the-author systems will "fix" the publishing industries is missing something... authors don't just want money; they want credit, too. They want readers. There's plenty of evidence that reducing readership to only those people who paid for a copy of a book would effectively kill any new author's career.

Apart from anything else, corporation-owned writers don't get paid much per book anyway. 18% is the industry average, but some get a lot less than that. That's why you don't see many writers moaning about second hand books.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by stonetools

The evidence from France and Sweden shows that LE does reduce piracy and illegal downloading. A year from now, we'll have studies to show whether the Megaupload case had a significant effect. What's needed is legislation that would enable Law enforcement agencies to strike at piracy sites located in foreign safe harbors. Such legislation will most likely be enacted soon.

Could you give a pointer to the evidence for Sweden? From what I understand different new laws cause some temporarily reductions but after a while you get back to the same levels as before new law. So what research are you using for your statement here?

[haydnfan]

I think that we are close to the end of rampant piracy. When governments crack down and seize assets of big torrent aggregator sites like megaupload, they only have to repeat that a few times to make these sites afraid to operate.

For piracy to be rampant no matter the technology (p2p, torrents etc) you need easy to find websites. Eliminate the websites and you will still have piracy but it won't be nearly as widespread. And it is a good thing and worth the expense. It's not just greedy corporations hurt by this.

Musicians, authors, everyone involved in making movies and tv shows, everyone involved in creating games, software engineers are all hurt by piracy.

I, a teacher, am even hurt by piracy. No matter what textbook you choose, the solution manuals are one google search way. It's impossible to assign homework where half of my class doesn't just look up the solutions and not try. I know that there will always be copiers out there. But it's worse than that-- THEY DON'T PERCEIVE IT AS WRONG. But they've just short changed themselves from learning.

The same generation that doesn't perceive copying as wrong, has also no problem downloading music, movies, and games without paying. They don't feel the least bit guilty about what they do. Educating that generation is also important. They have no respect for intellectual property.

In summary, piracy hurts many people and two steps need to be taken: keep cracking down on big torrent sites and educate the young adults out there.