Why Money Doesn't Motivate File-Sharers

nk497 writes "File-sharers aren't motivated by financial gain, but by altruism, according to an economist. Joe Cox, of the Portsmouth Business School, said those uploading content for others to share don't see what they're doing as illegal, meaning current tactics to deter piracy are doomed to fail. 'The survey data suggested there was a deep-seated belief that this type of activity shouldn't be illegal, that there was no criminal act involved.'"

Comments

Duh?

[betterunixthanunix]

This is news? Did anyone think that file sharers were making money?

Re:Duh?

[choko]

The IAAs can't fathom why a person would do ANYTHING unless they are being paid for their work. There is a fundamental difference in philosophy here. These are the same people that think everyone is motivated by the same greed that they are.

Re:Duh?

[metrix007]

When a law makes illegal something that a significant number of people do and don't see as wrong, that is a problem with the law, not the people breaking it. Indeed, such laws should continue to be broken.

Re:Duh?

[geminidomino]

I'm pretty sure it's the file sharers who are out of touch if they don't see what they're doing as illegal.

No, it's just more evidence that our so-called "representative government," well... isn't.

Re:Duh?

[HungryHobo]

I put this post up before with a few more spelling mistakes but I think it might fit this topic too...

You know I sometimes wonder if the world would be a richer or poorer place without copyright, plenty of things would be different certainly and those who make their money from the current system will of course tell you the world would be a poorer, worse off world for it.

It's almost taken as a given that the world would have less creativity without copyright but I do wonder.

If the chef at your local restaurant had to pay royalties whenever he used a recipe published by a celebrity chef would you have a tastier and more enjoyable meal?
What if he risked being sued into the ground if he created a derivative work by altering the recipe slightly without a license?
or would you just have a more bland, unoriginal, uninspired and ultimately vastly more expensive meal?

If your hairdresser had to pay royalties whenever some kid comes in with a magazine picture and says they want their hair to "look like that".
Would everyone have far more interesting hairstyles or would it just cost far more and see people getting sued for doing their own hair at home in a copyrighted style?

Both these things are creative and also involve a skill much like storytelling or playing a musical instrument and in both cases I've heard of people trying to get copyright protections extended to cover them.

Imagine a world where in the 17th century someone had decided that recipes and cooking should fall under copyright along with books.
You can be sure that were someone to call for it's repeal 300 years later there would be no lack of "professional recipe composers" who would talk about how much work they put into working out new recipes and the time and effort it takes and how we're bad people for implying that they haven't worked hard and that they somehow don't deserve a cut whenever someone follows their recipes.

of course in a world where we're all free to take someone elses recipe, use it, copy it, publish it or even claim it as our own we know very well that fuck all harm has been done to the industry for the lack of legal protection on such creativity.
We live in a world where everyone has family recipes but hardly anyone has family music.

In a world where such legal protections existed and nobody ever knew such an open and unprotected situation as we have in this world it would be very easy to claim that there would be no creativity, no well paid chefs and that setting up a kitchen would be pointless since someone else would just copy the chefs recipes.

Similarly it's taken almost as a given that the world would have less good books, less good stories and less origionality without copyright but try questioning that even for a moment.

Of course someone is going to complain that composing and cooking a good meal can't be compared to composing and playing a good piece of music because..... well just because!

Who knows, the flip side of my argument is that perhaps if recipes had been made copyrightable 300 years ago and someone could charge you money every time you used their recipe there would have been more investment in automatic food preparation(for the sake of consistency, avoiding unintentionally creating unlicensed derivative works and accounting of who has used what recipe) and we'd all have autocooks like we all have MP3 players and every meal would be up to the standards of a master cheff.

Re:Duh?

[JockTroll]

The *IAA can't fathom why THEY shouldn't be paid for SOMEONE ELSE's work. FTFY.

Re:Duh?

[Gerzel]

You are implying that most artists A. Own the work they produce and B are able to make a living with copyright.

Most work for a company doing work that the company wants never owning the copyright to that work. Do you really think that without copyright ad agencies won't want artists to make their adds prettier?

The entertainment industry would still exist, people would still be willing to spend money but the derivative market would be far less.

Most artists are unable to live off their work now and there are some that do live in gutters. Given Poe's life he probably would have been in the gutter anyway artist or not.

Re:Duh?

[Opportunist]

If anything, Mickey Mouse is a prime example how copyright got out of hand.

The idea was to give writers and creators a way to recover their investment. Mostly, their investment of time. Copyright was created in a time when writers needed months, even years, to get their books published, and had no revenue but the sale of those books alone. And they could only hope and pray that it was published quickly and in large quantity, as soon as the manuscript was out, copies and knockoffs would be in the market in no time.

Fast forward to the 1930s and Mickey. The creation of Mickey took ... well, let's be generous and say hours. The original showing of Steamboat Willie most likely already paid handsomely for the time invested in its creation. And given that the "sale" of this comic figure in movies is only the tip of the mountain, along with other merchandize, I'd say that the investment paid off million- if not billionfold.

Walt Disney died in 1966. Yet the copyright for this figure he created is supposed to run out 70 YEARS after his death. I say supposedly because I do not yet believe Disney (the corporation) will allow it without a fight.

Where is the sense in that? What purpose does this insanely prolonged copyright serve? Even if you said that the creator should be able to make a living from a single creation (something I definitely challenge, show me one architect that gets to charge forever for a house he designed!), the copyright almost invariably runs longer than the creator could possibly live! The original intent, to protect the creator, has become a farce. Art has become a simple commodity. Worse, not even art itself, but the right to use art.

That's sick, people.

Re:Duh?

[JustinOpinion]

Good points. (Relatedly, see this TED talk about how the fashion industry thrives despite lack of copyright protection.) Let's think about various things that can and cannot be copyrighted (many examples taken from that TED talk):

Creative things that cannot be copyrighted:
-Recipes, cooking styles and techniques, etc.
-"Look and feel" of food
-Fashion/jewelery/etc.
-Furniture
-Sculptural design of vehicles
-Magic tricks, jokes, etc.
-Sports techniques/moves/plays/strategies
-Fireworks displays
-Hairstyles
-Smells/perfumes
-Rules of games

Creative things that can be copyrighted:
-Pictures/photos/etc. -Movies/video/etc.
-Books/essays/etc.
-Software
-Music/musical scores/sound recordings/etc.
-Choreography
-Sculptures
-Architecture

From these lists we can infer a few things. Firstly, it should be clear that the usual heuristic rules people carry around about copyright are not reflected in the laws. Those who defend copyright often talk in terms of an artist's "right" to control their work, yet clearly there are many artistic endeavors in the first list that go without protection. Similarly discussion about artistic incentives seem strange, given that some creative acts are afforded the incentive of copyright and others are not.

Which brings us to the second thing worth noting. Do the protected acts (second list) generate far more valuable creativity/art than the first? It can be very difficult to measure the impact and importance of creative work. (For what it's worth, the economic activity associated with the unprotected items dwarfs the protected ones.) So let's consider an easier question: Is there a lack of creative output for non-protected art (first list)? The answer is pretty clear: despite a lack of legal protection against copying, the activities in the unprotected list are vibrant, interesting, innovative, and rapidly advancing. Despite the lack of protection/incentive (arguably, because of it) these industries create interesting new products, artists devote themselves to inspiring works, and large sectors of the economy grow as a result.

So the question becomes: considering that we have ample evidence that many creative activities can thrive without protection, what is the justification for copyright protection? I do agree that there are some differences between the lists (e.g. it's trivially easy nowadays to copy music, whereas copying a hairstyle requires more effort and a skilled craftsperson to do the work each time). But even in cases of very close analogy (photographers claim they need protection for prints of their work; meanwhile the fashion industry has found a way to stay relevant without protection, even though they are just selling a style/look/etc. that others can and to copy).

I think there are many examples where creativity thrives without copyright. That doesn't mean that copyright isn't a good idea (maybe creativity thrives even more when protected?), but it does mean we should be very suspicious of simplistic arguments that claim creativity/art wouldn't exist in a world without restrictions on copying.

Oh, I am sure most...

[PortHaven]

Oh, I am sure most file-sharers understand that it is illegal. The billions of $$$ that our government wastes on anti-piracy, and sending Homeland Security after them.

But is it immoral? That is the real question. And most file-sharers do not feel it is immoral.

--

A large part of this is because we have been ripped off for decades by the music cartel (RIAA). Who has also been ripping off artists for even longer. When we're paying $15 for a $2 product and the artist is lucky to see a dollar. Somehow that cartel's claims that "we're stealing", fall on very deaf ears. And when we see lawsuits which fine someone $2.5 million for a few 99 cent songs - quite clearly in violation of the United States of America's Constitution. We lose any pity we might have for a corrupt industry whose business model is extinct. And if not for the fact that they have paid billions to buy off our government, would have been put out of business a decade ago.

There is a feeling of justification...

Re:Movies

[JayRott]

This picture someone made says it all: http://www.thebuzzmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/why-people-pirate-movies-steps-to-watching-video.jpg

This isn't altruism

[edremy]

Altruism is giving something of yourself. If I write a kickass piece of software or a great song, or a novel and give it away under a GPL or CC license for the rest of the world, that's altruism.

Giving away something that somebody else made and who presumably doesn't want it given away (otherwise they would have done so) is *not* altruism. You can argue theft, copyright infringement, whatever, but it is in no way comparable.

Doing what you like

[lymond01]

I keep thinking that, perhaps, one day we'll be able to do what we want to do with our time. If actors want to act, they'll do so without the guarantee of acquiring money (see local community theaters). If musicians want to play, they'll play. I guess it comes down to being able to create food and shelter for yourself -- you wait tables because you need a home, but you play music because that's what you love. I think it's great that popular musicians get paid for doing what they love, but it's sad that it's a necessity.

Sigh...not even sure what I'm trying to say other than I'm not sure what the end goal of a capitalistic society is. We're technologizing ourselves out of jobs, always have been. What happens when robots are doing all the work, creating the music and art? Aside from the robotics engineers, who's collecting a salary?