Slashdot Mirror
File Swapping and the Analog Hole
forehead writes "Lawmeme is running an interesting piece on piracy in the digital age. It covers a number of the logical fallacies often cited by the major media companies and certain lawmakers."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
The article says:
One of the most prominent and recurrent arguments of the copyright interests is that "digital piracy" is far worse than "analog piracy" and thus justifies the imposition of draconian paracopyright laws, such as the DMCA and CBDTPA. I refer to this argument as the "analog fallacy." The fallacy is that analog piracy is not nearly as threatening as digital piracy because analog copies degrade with every generation while digital copies remain pristine no matter how many copies are made. While true in a strict sense, the fallacy is that most of the assumptions necessary for this argument to be true are not realistic.
But surely the real 'threat' of digital media is actually the close-to-zero marginal cost of copying the original.
With a VCR each copy is a real, physical, medium. With digital everything is, well, virtual.
There are different responses to this - in software, free software is a response. Free software advocates accept that digital 'objects' can and will be copied, so build that in.
I'm not convinced that model works for music and movies though.
Free software is built on a pre-existing cultural norm - ie hacking - that doesn't exist for these other media.
Furthermore, no government contracts (the States), or direct support (elsewhere) is available to create the movie-making equivalent of MIT's AI lab.
Yes, but the point of this article is to detour people from this way of thinking. The fact is, while digital copies may make things easier, it's no more or less illegal than analog copies, which is what the writer calls the "analog myth." I can remember getting most of my home music by borrowing other people's cassette tapes (audio, not VHS) and copying them. A friend of mine had two VCR's, and every night he would rent a few movies and make copies, and sell them for a few bucks to friends (just enough to get more blank tapes, no profit involved).
The fact is, digital pirating is likely just as difficult, just as widespread, and just as damaging as analog pirating. Actually, many cam rips (when someone sits in a theater with a camera and records the whole movie) are analog to begin with, then later converted to a digital format, and additionally put through some lossy compression schemes to bring it down below 700Mb to be put up on servers.
"It's much more of a danger to the Music Industry, and they have a right to protect themselves."
Actually, this article is about the Movie Industry, not music, I see you didn't take time to read it. And yes, they have the right to protect themselves, but suing KaZaA, Morpheus, iMesh, Napster, and so on for allowing this to take place is like suing UPS for allowing people to send drugs illegally through the mail. The fact is, they SHOULDN'T know what's inside the files that are being swapped, just as much as UPS shouldn't know what's inside a package they deliver.
And, forcing companies to create hardware that won't allow you to make illegal copies is stupid, too. That's like making Xerox put something in their copiers that won't allow people to make photocopies of of pages out of copyrighted books without permission (which is illegal, too). How does a DVD player know that the DVD you're playing in it is being copied to another DVD, and how does the DVD burner (in the case of copying DVD's) tell that the incoming signal is copyrighted material, not the owner's home movie of his son building a sandcastle?
The fact is, if something is being done illegally, the MPAA needs to go for the people who are committing a crime using these devices, not the people who make the devices.
The speed of time is one second per second.
The whole $$$ lost due to piracy is just a fabrication... Here is my crazy theory:
The record companies don't care about me, you and john down the street downloading songs off of Napster/AudioGalaxy/Kazza/Whatever. The songs we download and don't pay for only make up the smallest percentage of the companies revenues. Even then, most of us (well I know I do) still go out and buy the damn CD. I believe what the record companies are really scared of is losing THE ARTISTS.
Here in Australia, if an artist is signed to a record company, and they produce a top album, for all their hard work they receive less than $2 per copy sold. Each CD retails for $30+ each. Of this $30, the record company, the distributor, the retailer and even worse, the government take their share. This leaves the artists with very little. In this brave new world, the artists will not need any of these people. They will be able to go into a studio, hand over their $$, record an album and distribute it online, all without the need of some giant company threatening them with contracts, intelectual property etc. Even if they sold online copies for $5 each, and every second person gave it to a mate for free, they still make more money than they did under the record company reign of terror.
The record companies have realised this, but they can't go to the press and tell the public 'Stop Napster, cause it will send us broke, and you will be able to buy albums for $5 each'. The public wouldn't care less for their plight. So, they make up these figures on how much it is costing them, and how piracy is the reason you pay so much for music.
This, I see the same with the large movie distributors like Fox. They aren't concerned with us pirating Star Wars or Spiderman.. We will all still want to go see it in the cinema with the sound, the screen and the atmosphere. They just use this excuse to cover the fact that soon, people will be able to make and distribute movies without them.
What can I say? I love a good theory.
A/./