Slashdot Mirror
AP Looks at Piracy, Misses the Point
TechDirt is reporting that the Associated Press has covered several stories recently about what a "huge threat" piracy is in other countries. This article, however, argues that they have perhaps missed out on the whole story by ignoring the other side of the coin. From the article: "the AP doesn't bother to mention how all that piracy helped created new and different business models for musicians in China that let them thrive despite the piracy (actually, in some cases, because of it). Nor does the AP bother to mention how software piracy helped boost certain aspects of the industry in China by decreasing the cost of inputs."
Since the AP believes its own business model is based on copyright, and gives bloggers who repost their articles a hard time, is it any surprise that they would defend copyright?
reporting on how well glaziers, builders, carpenters and building merchants also did in New Orleans after Katrina?
Misappropriating and/or "stealing" things that don't belong to you, or just flat out breaking the law (in some jurisdictions), is okay if in someone else's estimation it's actually "helping" them?
Brilliant!
Here's the problem: the new "business model" they talk about is that free music sometimes promotes something else (concerts, merchandise, or something new entirely). Ok, great. What if it's my music, and I don't want you to have it for free, regardless of how else it might "help" me? What if I've voluntarily signed on with a record label because I think that it's in my best interests (and no, I haven't been "brainwashed"), and that record label has a trade group that represents it, and what if the laws of my country support the protections of my creations?
I love how in the AllOfMP3.com story here recently, people talked about it as a new "business model" that the record labels and trade groups just hated. Um, huh? The Russian mob taking things that don't belong to them under the guise of a very weak argument that they can do it under radio license rules (which are designed, ironically, to get people to BUY the content, not as the mechanism for people to permanently obtain pristine digital copies) and selling them for 1/10 or 1/20 of what they sell for via legitimate channels is a "business model"? I guess if you don't believe that anyone should be able to "own" content like that, ever, and that the "legitimate" distribution channels are nothing more than a state-sponsored and -backed mob, ok.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that the the content owners might need to sell the content for 2 or 5 or 10 times more than AllOfMP3.com does to actually support the industry? If your answer is "no, they don't need all these ungodly rich Britney Spears types" etc., and should be able to sell it for just the costs of bandwidth, who the hell are YOU to decide that? Chances are, some of their promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing, and production is what made a particular artist - the popular ones people often pirate - desirable in the first place. And how is it even an argument that, essentially, you can "steal"/copy something on your own and get it for cheaper, and if it's more expensive than some arbitrary value you've set in your head, it's okay to just take?
But why is the anti-copyright argument always the one touted here?
And for those in the "copyright is bad on works that can be effortlessly copied in the digital realm", consider that "art for art's sake" isn't the end-all be-all argument, either. Have you ever considered that since economics isn't a zero-sum game, that there are millions of people who have indirectly benefited economically from the industries that have sprung up around, support, and are supported by, music, television, books, and movies?
I'm not saying the trade groups aren't out for control, and maybe even aren't greedy baby-eating bastards. But this isn't binary opposition: it's not RIAA-like "thuggery", or no ownership rights at all. Where's the middle ground? And no, I'm not saying copyright should be perpetual and infinite, either. But can we ignore A.A. Milne's shit that's 75 years old for a minute as an arguing point, and talk about what's really at issue, which is brand new, current, and popular music and movies?
This news item does not involve theft. I suggest doing some research into the FBI "UCR" crime reporting files, and other sources of data which distinguish the many different kinds of crimes out there. You will quickly learn that there are many other types of crimes (or possible crimes) out there which are not theft. Copyright infringement isn't t he only one.
Where were you when the voynix came?
As an anime fan, I download fansubs. Now, for the most part, this is piracy. These are television shows that have been recorded or ripped from DVDs, give subtitles, and been made available for free trade online through P2P networks.
However, it proves beneficial. Take for instance, Funimation. At conventions, the Funimation booth runs contests, and on the entry form you may list anime that you would like Funimation to consider licensing. They know these shows are being downloaded, and instead of condeming the person downloading like some other organizations, they ask if they should bring it stateside so that it may be introduced to a wider audience through American television.
I would prefer to see many organizations take this approach. I would love for record labels to ask "what unsigned artists are you listening to that you think we should consider signing".
Piracy can actually be used to a company's advantage at times, and too many seem pre-occupied with the short term loss of a $20 Ashlee Simpson CD to notice.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
And nor does AP bother to state that the US itself explicitly encouraged the pirating of foreign works in its 1790 Copyright Act:
Only in 1891 the US started protecting foreign works under the Chase Act. It serves to remember that the US justified pirating foreign works as being economically beneficial for the country. Even the Chase Act wasn't too friendly to foreign authors: it did protect their rights, but the Manufacturing Clause prevented their publishers from publishing their works in the US. This clause was removed only in 1986. It took the US 101 years to join the Berne Convention.
Actually, it is copyright that is an entirely recent development, for it appeared only a few hundred years ago in the West. The ancient world had no concept of "intellectual property", and creators of content in Greece and Rome understood that their work would be freely copied without compensation. As far as I know, they never protested the situation, and the only objection to some copying (in Martial's epigrams) was that often the poet was not being credited, but rather others claimed to have written it. Even today in place like India, the former Soviet Union, and southeast Asia, copyright makes no sense to the local population.
Now, just because there was no ownership of ideas for most of the history of mankind doesn't necessarily make copying just. After all, slavery and wife-beatery was also widespread until the modern era. However, the recent and geographically-limited genesis of copyright should nonetheless make one question if it is indeed a desirable institution, or merely a means of protecting the rich while limiting the rights of the many.
Goes back to the old saying, "one person's pain is another person's gain" Of course piracy has benefits, but usually it only benefits the people pirating.
TFA and it's linked stories don't really go into much detail about what the actual benefits for the chinese industry are.
Can anyone supply some more information?
It's easy to invoke the old arguments about a colapsing business model and the failure of big companies to react to the market etc. etc. but how and why are chinese artists better without a working copyright system?
This isn't a rhetorical question, I'd like to know.
You have a good point, but let's take it one step further. In a developed country, such as the US, capital (software in this case)is relatively inexpensive and labor is relatively expensive (ie why we have H1B visas). ...
Now in the case of a developing nation, such as China, labor is relatively inexpensive and capital is relatively expensive. Numerous microeconomic models have different ways of combining capital and labor which yields output. The important thing here is that "cost" of captial goods are often the limiting factor for a developing nation. Piracy does lower this cost allowing developing nations to deliver capital intense (techy) goods at a lower per-unit cost. So one could make the arguement that by people in developed countries (such as the US) they are in effect allowing developing nations to produce good at an artifically lower price. However I don't see how lowering the price of music/videos much effect on a developed nation
I followed a few links from that Google search but failed to find a single one that pointed to a definition in the US code that included copyright infringement as theft. If there is a link there then please post it. Otherwise stop calling a spade a theft.
Tim Wu just had an article on Slate last week about how China is trying to grow their own film industry.
One of the interesting points: China has to orient (no pun intended) their films to an American audience because rampant piracy in China means that there isn't enough of a local market to support Chinese films.
I've heard the same thing from Chinese video game makers, they have to make games that will sell in places where copyright is to some degree respected because they would starve trying to live off the money they can make in their home market.
If everyone pirated everything we would have no Lord of the Rings movies, no video games like Halo or Grand Theft Auto -- we'd still have small indy films and subscription games like WoW, but piracy only works now because it's a group of parasites feeding off media that the rest of us pay for.
When I spend 60 dollars on a shitty game for my wife (Sims2) then the first disk gets messed to the point of not being able to install the game what do you do? I tried emailing EA (bahahahahaha) No response. If it weren't for a copy of the game on the internet that I downloaded I would be screwed out of my money because of a few scratches and crappy software support. I for one am glad that this and all media is out there for people to use for legitimate reasons. As an amateur musician, I also support file sharing as a way of getting out new or hard to find music. The people who bitch about pirating are multi millionaires. *snif* *snif* OOhhh you took .3 dollars out of my 300 million dollar paycheck....please.
If I pirate an album and the artist bitches I'll mail them a check for 25 cents because that's what they get if I buy their album. The company who releases it can suck me. 15-20$ for a cd that cost you 10 cents to burn?!!?! Yeah I'm crying for your losses.
In addition CD sales aren't dropping because of piracy they're dropping because your music is crap.
Also, selling songs online nets them more per track than selling cds and they don't even have any overhead for printing the media in the first place.
In short
RIAA = GREEDY SCAMMERS
Viva La Pirat
Missed the point? You've got to be kidding me.
Do the math: AP provides stories to publishers. Publishers are owned by large companies who publish stuff--like books, music, movies.
Did you REALLY expect them to bite the hand that feeds them?
Why would they publish a story that favors piracy helping people when they could push the agenda their way to protect the interests of the corporations pirates are hurting?
Look--piracy is stealing no matter what kind of spit shine you put on it. Are the BSA, MPAA, and RIAA going a bit over the top about it? Yes. Does that somehow make piracy right? No. It's still stealing. Just because the AP isn't picking up on what some techblog mentioned on slashdot doesn't make them morons. I think we glorify our own technical punditry beyond the tempest in the teapot that it really is.
It's never about what is the "best"--it's always about what's more popular. That's where the money is. Windows and VHS are testments to that. It's all about margins and paying off the share holders.
The REAL story is going to be which of the publishers (movie studios and record labels included) survive the learning curve of the new business model--the computer as an entertainment hub. The whole MP3 thing blew up not because of piracy but because it was EASY and CHEAP. That's what consumers want--easy and a fair price. The content providers are catching on--hence all the TV-a-la-carte on the iTMS.
Is it the best? Probably not. But is it lucrative? Hell, yeah. You don't have to be Warren Buffet to figure that out.
It's all about the Benjamins, baby.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
2) There ARE real other sides to this issue. For example shmucks calling things "piracy" when they are just fair-use. Or vile corporations pricing things WAY WAY too much, then ripping off the artist by paying them a fraction of the profits, then saying that "piracy" is killing their business. Or those same corporations, understanding that modern technology will destroy their buiness model, do everything they can to sabotage the new technology then complaining when people turn to piracy, not to steal the media, but instead just to put get it in a fair/reasonable format for their MP3 player that the )(*@#$ labels did not want them to.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
It's the difference between breach of trust and denial of goods.
I'm not just talking technically here, but as I can't be bothered to rehash the arguments right now, I'll link to to a post of mine in an old JE.
Please also note that I'm not saying that breach of trust is a good thing: society is built on trust. I am only saying that piracy and theft are not the same thing,
Wikileaks, no DNS
How about the Offspring? They even tried to release one of their albums for free off the internet but were stopped by the record company.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Contrary to the above our current state pushes innovation and geopolitical invention. While the status quo states of the developed world push IP as a last ditch form of imperialism, developing nations and "pirates" derive new venues by running outside the highways of the status quo.
When these last issues are put to bed with one power group climbing into bed with others then the innovation that comes from the hurly burly of piracy will leave us with a status quo installed and fortified by international law. It may be that what is now seen as piracy is the last invigorated period of innovation we will see.
just my loose change
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
Ok, I guess I'm a bad geek or something. I just never watched Futurama. Perhaps because I can't stand ads so I rarely watch TV to begin with.
That said, I didn't watch Futurama until I downloaded some episodes quite some time since the first run was cancelled. Then I downloaded the entire series and watched them. Now I own all four volumes on DVD and am looking forward to the next run.
Maybe this example is the exception and not the rule, but the fact of the matter is that my "piracy" or "illegal download" led to Fox getting some cash out of my pocket for the DVD. Cash that they would not have gotten otherwise. At the end of the day, I don't care what the AP says or does not say: piracy has caused me to spend more money than I would have without it. I'm tired of crappy entertainment or lack of creative writing talent ([sarcasm]I can't *WAIT* for the remake of the revenge of the nerds[/sarcasm]). I want to use it and then decide if it's worth my money: if not I move on; if so I buy it.
If I can't do that then I'll abandon/boycott/ignore the whole damn thing until I can. It's like being in the matrix and taking the red pill: once you snap out of the mindless, lemming-like world of the MPAA/RIAA/whatever-there-is-for-TV-networks-AA you take note of how crappy it was being Thomas A. Anderson.
And I'll watch nothing but TV ads & infomercials before I get suckered into the "you don't really own X any more and you have to pay $1.99 ever time you want to watch it." Sorry, but fuck that. Keep your damn blue pill.
:wq
Actually, it shows a command of the English language. Note definition 2.
Is identity theft not theft? Theft of services?
Bonsai Kitten: TNG
1: Unreasonable patents caused early film makers to head out west to california, to this little place called hollywood, where they created an industry which makes billions from their product.
2: Video recorders cause hollywood to become worried because people can 'illegally' copy stuff, and they try to kill it, but it leads them into a prosperity never before seen, eventually spuring research into the dvd.
3: Filesharing causes media companies to become paranoid about loss of profit, then spurs the creation of online media delivery, again vastly increasing the potential profits of said media companies.
I wonder what the next thing is that they'll fight till it suddenly turns into a money maker?
"Actually, it is copyright that is an entirely recent development, for it appeared only a few hundred years ago in the West."
I believe you're referring to the Statute of Anne and the Licensing Act of 1662. It is no coincidence that these came about at around the same time as the printing press.
"The ancient world had no concept of "intellectual property", and creators of content in Greece and Rome understood that their work would be freely copied without compensation."
Because, of course, copying was a slow, tedious process, and most people were illiterate anyway. It was a non-issue.
Other examples of laws changing to keep up with the times:
"Our ancestors didn't need copyright laws, so we don't either" is a good rallying cry for P2P enthusiasts, but it breaks down on inspection. Those same P2P enthusiasts are likely very grateful for the new laws that protect them in the countless other parts of life where technology has continuously improved. While we may still wish that copyright law had remained in its pre-printing press (or even pre-broadband) form, we understand why it has not.
"However, the recent and geographically-limited genesis of copyright should nonetheless make one question if it is indeed a desirable institution, or merely a means of protecting the rich while limiting the rights of the many."
Copyright law protects us all. You have the right to say how your work is copied whether you make $10 a year, a million bucks a year, or even give it away for free. Lots of other laws help rich and poor alike.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
The ancient world had no concept of "intellectual property", and creators of content in Greece and Rome understood that their work would be freely copied without compensation.
People have since the beginning of civilization tried to claim things. In ancient times "intellectual property" mostly existed in the form of trade secrets. Recipes and processes that were closely guarded family trade secrets passed down from generation to generation. The primary reasons there were no laws for written works were: the high cost of reproduction, lack of audience, lack of awareness (how would somebody in Italy know their book was copied and taken to Greece).
Modern changes like mass production and digital communication, have also shifted the economy from valuing physical labor, to valuing IP. Hence the focus of ownership has also shifted from physical objects to ideas.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
A suitable shorthand term for copyright infringement would be useful, but "theft", "stealing" and "piracy" are all terms which already have meanings of their own: to use them for another purpose causes confusion, so I'll stick with "illegal copying". Only six syllables, and succinctly describes the exact nature of the offence being committed - making a copy of something where someone else has used the law to explicitly make such an act illegal.
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
"IMHO, an artist should be concerned with one thing: the spreading of his art."
Not food, clothing, shelter, feeding their family?
I see on your xanga that you are married. Would your wife be happy if you told her that you would no longer try to earn money for what you do? I also see that you just bought a new Mac -- great! Did you buy that with money you earned by working?
"Art used to be thought of as a means of promoting thought and creativity but gradually began to be thought of as a means of profit and popularity."
Art has been made for profit since the history of currency. Shakespeare, Mozart, and countless other grand masters were in it for the money. Sure, they liked what they did, but they were in it for the money -- just as you might have chosen a career in programming or IT because you enjoy it, but you're doing it for the money.
"Are artists going to make as much money? Probably not. Should that be their focus? I don't think so."
Well, I think that people in [INSERT ANDREW NAGY'S PROFESSION HERE] are too money-focused, and paying people like Andrew should be voluntary. Will Andrew make as much money? Probably not. But we'll get [THE OUTPUT OF ANDREW NAGY'S PROFESSION] for free, or at least cheaper.
I also see from your xanga that you are a religous man. Please re-read Luke 6:31, Luke 10:27 and Matthew 7:12 and consider how you can reconcile your attitude toward artists with the teachings of Jesus.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Expecting a piracy story to give "all" the facts from both sides is foolish. The companies crying about piracy are the same ones advertising in that newspaper. = Lets play with public opinion!
It's kind of like expecting a congresscritter to have a clue about anything in the tech world. Their campaigns are financed by the same companies advertising in the newspaper. = Let's get the laws written the way we want!
Same story, different day - no news here move along....
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
First, copyright infringement isn't theft. Courts know the difference and so do lawyers. Historically, the US is in no position to make the complaints some of the trade groups are making such as the classic complaint that only surfaces when our ox is gored, but not when we do the goring. The US copyright system has its roots in what is being called "piracy" here (without much critical examination of that language, I might add). The US copyright system didn't initially recognize foreign exclusive rights, so American book publishers were free to domestically commercially reprint Dickens' serials without paying Dickens, for example. Dickens didn't like that, but plenty of other people did.
Also, some of the distortion in the argument proposed by the MPA, RIAA, and big book publishers focuses on the plight of the artist when it is actually these organizations that have no problem screwing these same artists in situations where illicit copying and distribution haven't entered the picture.
Some forms of media we cherish were initally percieved as wrong: Radio, which you mention, was initially dismissed as "piracy". So too was cable TV, recorded performances of various kinds (analog video tape, analog audio tape, digital audio tape, digital video recorders), and sheet music.
One thing seems clear to me through the years: the organized businesses apparently don't know their business well enough to be taken seriously when they claim the sky is falling on their business model, and it's not clear to me that the businesses are properly interpreting the intent of copyright.
Digital Citizen
"Wrong, copying was quite efficient since there was a large class of slaves and copying of books was just as big an industry as today. And literacy in the ancient world was higher than people today often think."
Thank you for the clarification. I am always glad to learn something new. What was the literacy rate in ancient Greece? Were slaves also part of the target market for books? When you say that the book publishing industry was just as big back then, how big was it? I assume you don't mean in units or currency, but in books consumed per capita?
"No, firms which sell copyrighted content often make creators sign away their rights. Copyright doesn't work for the little guy, he either sells away his rights or he doesn't get published at all."
I'm a "little guy," at least in the sense that you're using, and I've had no problem whatsoever publishing my web site and filling it with content which I've copyrighted. I've done pretty well, too. In the music and print publishing industries there are plenty of outlets for people who want to start small and/or retain all rights to their works. There's plenty of opportunity for little guys to get their work out there, and use copyright as they see fit.
The ice cream retailing industry can also be tough for the little guy. It's dominated by big companies like Ben and Jerry's and Baskin Robbins. It can be quite hard for somebody who wants to start an independent ice cream shop -- they simply don't have the marketing or ad budget of the big guys, they'll likely pay more for materials, and they need to build brand awareness and sales from zero. The same goes for lots of other industries. This is a feature of the competitive retail market, and not limited to the IP industries.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Microsoft wouldn't be as big and powerful as it is today without software piracy. Even today, the fact that a lot of copies of Windows and Office are pirated is what makes Microsoft software so ubiquitous; if everybody actually paid the price Microsoft is asking, many people would likely switch to genuinely free alternatives.
And I don't think this point is lost on Microsoft either; they could have easily piracy-proofed their systems long ago, for example, by making hardware dongles part of their PC spec. But Microsoft probably doesn't want to do that; in addition to the benefits that piracy-provided differential pricing gives them, this way, the company also has power they would otherwise not have: power to raid companies and force violators to do their bidding.
Hah! You say civil disobediance is a spit on the face of Democracy? I say Democracy cannot exist without civil disobediance. I say the two are forever juxtaposed. Civil disobediance is the breast from which Democracy suckles. Apathy and capitulation are the sustenances of tyranny.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
The general population usually has a good moral compass. Throughout history, if a large number of people were breaking the law, it meant that either the laws were bad or there was an oppressive government in place.
The fact that regular people in the US can justify some form of copyright infringement means that the system is broken. The classic example is prohibition. Prohibition was created to get the country on the "right track" my "well meaning people", but all it really did was make criminals out of regular people and make organized crime a big business.
Apparently, most of the world and much of the US feels the same way today about copyright. There is going to be a lot of proverbial breaking open beer kegs on the 6 o'clock news and a lot of public raids. Then, in 20 years, after causing a rediculous amount of pain and altering the economic lanscape of the world forever, most of the governments of the world are going to say "Oops, My bad" and enact reasonable copyright protections.
I would really like to avoid those 20 years and get on with fixing the laws today.
In the USA today article that was mentioned above, former Byrds frontman Roger McGuinn is used as an example of an artist that has made gains in his career through giving away mp3s for free. Of course, the mp3s he gives away are of his performances of old folk songs, not his new original material. Those songs are available on CDs, which he sells at his concerts. For a profit.
The question still remains, how do less popular artists gain from the free digital music movement? If an artist sells their own self-produced recordings (CDs or MP3s, whatever) directly to the public, and these sales make up a significant part of their income, do they really gain anything by suddenly giving away their music for free?
Lets take a New York Jazz Pianist for example. Let's call him Frank. Frank gigs constantly with four different groups all over the five bouroughs and elsewhere, and between the gigs and sales of his independently produced cds (as well as teaching/workshops) he can eek out a reasonable living. Now what if we suddenly make the whole idea of "buying music" an anachronism. Does that really help Frank?
Obviously, huge pop stars like Beyonce or Britney would be fine, because they would get commericals and other endorsement deals, and the like. They also play sold out stadium shows, but what about independent artists who mostly play smaller venues? And if you say the public will be more likely to hear their music if its free, that just isn't really true. Tons of people had free mp3s on mp3.com back in the day, and they didn't do so well.
Also another thought. It takes money to build a recording studio. Who's gonna pay for that? There won't even be any indie record labels or indie recording studios if they don't have anything they can sell to make a profit.
**Fortunately, Microsoft's new DRM implementations in Vista will blank one's monitor when using pirated media and help police such abuse.**
That is until the new DRM in Vista makes a or decides it doesn't like your home movie and blanks your monitor. Or even better, decides that your legit backup copy isn't legal and won't play it.
Or hell, simply decides that it's time to send a complete list of all your viewing history to it's makers/partners in order to provide you with "specials, discounts and promotionals targetted to your demographic"
"moral relativism". Nice catch phrase, but I am not sure you understand what this means (It's quite comical). This would mean that I am okay with copying someone else's work, but not okay with someone else copying mine. Disagreeing about the definition and morality of "copyright infringement" is not moral relativism. It is just a different in opinion. It is perfectly acceptable to believe that copyright infringement is not morally wrong while theft is wrong. The beliefs do not conflict with each other.
The history of Metalica includes a lot of live concerts and a lot of bootleg recordings of those bootleg concerts. Theese recordings were the basis and reason for Metalica's success.
Of course, a band that sucks balls, would not have success. (One can argue the point about Metalica, but a lot of people seemed to like them at some point in time)
Will the world be a worse place, if the industrialized crop of music couldn't be sold, whatever the cause?
That would only be moral relativism if you view copyright infringment as theft. Many of us don't, and have reasons why we think so.
A couple of examples of the difference between copyright law and property law:
1. copyrights expire, property ownership does not expire.
2. Copywritten material may be copied by private citizens for fair use. Property has no fair use exclusion that allows you to take it.
There are also natural differences (since you gave the example of a car):
If I make a copy of a song, the copyright holder does not loose anything they had. With or without permission, the act of copying does not remove the property. If I take a car (with or without permission) the owner no longer has the car.
None of this proves that copying copyrighted material is either right or wrong, just pointing out that it is inherently different to property theft.
There is also the fact that property ownership has been generally recognised by most societies throughout history. It could be regarded as self-evident. Even when people set up communities that don't acknowledge personal property rights, there is generally a tendency to re-establish property rights eventually (USSR, China, various hippy communes whose ex-members are now capitalists etc.) Property rights could be considered self-evident. Copyrights, however, are purely the result of legislation. That doesn't mean that copyright isn't good, even necessary, just that it is a different catergory of rights to property rights.
You don't have to agree, but we are not being logically inconsistent, and it isn't moral relativism.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
The U.S. Constitution made provisions for copyright (for a limited time) in order to allow society to benefit from USEFUL works. It was originally meant to give the creator of said USEFUL works a LIMITED monopoly on distribution. The idea was to make it worthwhile to the creator for producing USEFUL works by allowing him or her to recover the cost of creation and production. Much of the stuff that is released by the media cartels is not useful but rather detrimental to society. The reason why copyright infringement is so predominate is because copyright has been ABUSED.
Another question one may want to ask is, "Can a person who releases his or her work so that is can be freely redistributed make money?" This is a question one may want to ask Linus Torvalds. Here is someone who has both money and fame for something he set up to be freely redistributed. The copyright issue is not going to be resolved by the courts or new laws. It is going to be resolved by the marketplace. If a cheap subsitute for petrol is discovered or if a cheap and simple way to increase the fuel mileage of vehicles is published, then the price of petrol will decrease drastically even if there are laws put in place to ban the way of increasing fuel efficency or petrol substitute. People tend to want to do what is right and beneficial - especially when doing so is practical. It is practical for some people to use and/or produce open source products. Many people make money doing so. It is also practical for many to use Linux. Other people find it more practical to spend lots of money in order to use Microsoft products. Microsoft products are pirated rampantly, yet Microsoft thrives on selling operating systems and office software. Open source software is also rampantly copied and shared, and companies thrive on selling open source products such as Linux.
When I intend to use commercial software on a regular basis, I buy it even when I can copy it from somewhere else and use it for free. I bought Windows XP and use it on one (of 32 computers I own) computer. If I have to replace the motherboard on the computer and Microsoft refused to reactivate Windows, I would download a hack to reactivate Windows XP without hesitation and not feel a bit guilty for doing so. Is this considered copyright infringement? YOU BET IT IS!!! However, I bought the product and refuse to be ripped off. Would I copy the Windows XP CD and give it to another? No, I would not. However, I do not consider copying Windows 98 and redistributing it wrong (No, I haven't done so) because of the fact that 1. Microsoft no longer sells '98 or supports it and 2. Microsoft has had over seven years exclusive copyright in order to make is money back as well as a handsome profit.
A LIMITED copyright on USEFUL works serves both producer and consumer very well, however, when the balence of power shifts entirely to the copyright owner and copyright becomes unlimited then there will be a backlash when it is feasable. This backlash is occuring in the music, software, and movie industries. Copying can be beneficial to both copyright owners as well as customers. I both download for free and purchase music, movies, and software. I do not however, buy product from members of the RIAA, BSA, or MPAA. I do not like bullies nor will I support them.