Court Action Does Not Reduce File-Sharing

gollum123 wrote to mention a BBC report that despite numerous court cases, litigation does not appear to be reducing the amount of file-sharing. From the article: "The level of file-sharing has remained the same for two years despite 20,000 legal cases in 17 countries. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industries (IFPI) said it was 'containing" the problem and more people were connecting to broadband."

Comments

Other conclusions?

[RonnyJ]

Court Action Does Not Reduce File-Sharing

You can also interpret the data another way from this, if you so desire:

35% of illegal file-sharers have cut back*
14% of illegal file sharers have increased activity*

*Jupiter survey of 3,000 people in UK, Germany and Spain

Re:Once a thief

[merreborn]

good thing copyright violation and theft are different things entirely.

But...internet use grew during that time frame

[cshay]

You would expect file sharing to grow naturally as more and more people use the internet. The fact that it has merely stagnated suggests that the litigation is succeeding somewhat. My own mother, who doesn't even use a computer, warned me not to file share the other day. She had "heard that people are getting sued".

Re:Simple Market Explanation

[dada21]

Sorry, incorrect.

I've owned a studio and I'm opening a new one in spring.

A good recording session (8 songs average) costs the band US$12000. Producing 10,000 CDs 4color is US$8000. $2/CD cost. The physical CD has value.

Now copying the CD to another copy has little cost. You're selling the official CD, so you're asking for more money with the end user understanding that the additional price is going to help the band make more music.

The processor market is cheap, too. I can run SOCs for a few bucks a pop.

My studio experience and my IT experience lead me to believe that copyright is legal justification to rip people off. I think people have discovered that music in recorded form has little value, thanks to the web. Music in live form is still profitable, time for the musicians to make the same decisions the horse shoers had to make.

Re:the phonograph is the industry.

[cpt kangarooski]

Oh, picky, picky.

Eh, it's like people thoroughly mangling computer terms. There's one clause called the establishment clause, and that's in the First Amendment.

Perhaps I heard wrong and that section should be called a patent and copyright clause, though neither of those terms is employed.

And the elastic clause doesn't mention elasticity. So what? They're lawyer's jargon for various clauses in the Constitution, not parts of the actual document. The important thing is that people know what you mean when you use them, which isn't helped by misusing them.

You might note that the motivation is the promotion of useful arts

No, the purpose of copyrights is to promote science. The purpose of patents is to promote the useful arts. Remember, the Constitution was written in the late 18th century -- some of the words have rather different meanings than they do today, because English is a very dynamic language.

You can see that this is the case by looking at the structure of the clause, which always goes copyright, then patent: science/useful arts, authors/inventors, writings/discoveries. Or by considering that some uses of the word 'art' in its 'applied technology' sense still survive, such as 'state of the art' or 'prior art' or 'person having ordinary skill in the art.' Or by just consulting your convenient pocket-sized unabridged OED for the meanings of those words in the 1780's.

a monopoly on an expression is anything but a promotion

Well, that depends. Think of, say, cable tv monopolies. The idea is that a town will give a monopoly to a cable company so that the cable company will have an incentive to install all the wiring throughout the town. Eventually the monopoly runs out, but the wires are still in place, so the town can enjoy competitor providers to reduce prices. Basically it's a way of getting a cake and eating it too, but over an extended period of time.

Copyright is meant to work the same way: while the ideal world would be authors producing all they can, and with no copyrights at all, by deferring the point where works are in the public domain, you provide an incentive to authors to create works that they otherwise would not have created.

The trick is to remember that you're not doing this for the benefit of the monopolist, who must not be allowed to get too powerful, that the monopolist should be 'paid' the lowest amount where he still does what you want, and that sometimes the monopoly is more harmful than whatever benefits you can derive from it.

How copyright grew from 14 years to 75 is an inexcusable tale of greed.

First, term length went from 14+14 years to the current life+70 / 95 / 120 / not before AD 2048 / not before AD 2067 terms we have now (which one applies depends on various details that basically makes it impractical to even check). Of course, it didn't happen all in one go. Terms have lengthened over the years.

Second, don't get caught up on term length. Yes, it is tremendously bad, but the scope of copyright -- what it applies to, what exceptions exist, the procedure for getting a copyright or licensing or conveying rights, etc. -- are also of crucial importance. Merely reigning in term length would not be good enough to fix things.

I concur re: inexcusable greed.