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?

[houstonbofh]

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

The *IAAs do. That was the basis of the pirate bay case.

Re:Duh?

[raddan]

Believe it or not, the study of incentives is a very hot topic at the moment, across a whole range of disciplines, including computer science. The reason? Large groups of people using the internet do not behave the way economists/game theorists expect, and for the first time, it is possible to measure these behaviors on a large scale. Online labor markets in particular would benefit from better models.

I have not yet read the article, but I suspect that the author is confusing 'altruism' with 'mutual benefit'.

Re:Duh?

[Vanderhoth]

I can see how file sharing does harm some. The issue is, as I see it, the entities it does harm are greedy and have been screwing us for years. Unfortunately the little people, ("artist", "developers", etc..) are the ones getting caught in the cross hairs.
If I buy a piece of music I should be allowed to share it with my wife, so the fact that the *IAA comes out and says, "No your wife also needs to buy a copy of that to listen to it", only infuriates me and makes me see sharing as a cause.

I'm a developer, but I love what I do, I want people to use my software and am paid on salary. If I was paid a minimal amount per-copy of my software sold, I might be a little more upset when I find one of my applications on a torrent site. However, my company doesn't make money off my software, they make money of the results of it, so people sharing the application I wrote makes my company money.

Re:Duh?

[Skarecrow77]

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.

You can't make something legal by wishing it. These aren't fairies we're talking about here. you're not going to clap your hands and have tinkerbell drop legal blu-ray rips into your lap.

If you believe that the current model is outdated, You can lobby. you can vote. you can inform. you can raise awareness. you can debate. but just ignoring the fact that it's illegal doesn't make it legal.

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?

[zeroshade]

True, you are correct that just ignoring the fact that it's illegal doesn't make it legal. However, there are two driving forces that enable laws to work, 1) fear of punishment (vs risk of getting caught) and 2) the moral belief that what is illegal should actually be illegal. If the risk of getting caught for something is very very low, the only thing that makes people obey a law is that they believe it is wrong and that it should be illegal. If the majority of people believe that something that is illegal shouldn't be illegal and there is very little chance of being caught, then they aren't going to respect the law and will not follow it.

It's a case of psychology. not to mention that if a law criminalizes a majority of the population, it can't possibly be a good law.

Re:Duh?

[jejones]

How would that notion apply to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? The whole point of the US government is that there are checks and balances even against the people. It shouldn't be possible to deprive people of their rights just because a significant number of people think it proper.

Re:Duh?

[shutdown -p now]

Did anyone think that file sharers were making money?

"Financial gain" != "making money". It can also mean "not spending money".

And yes, I do think that it is precisely what motivates the majority of file sharers in practice. Actually, that's what TFA says as well:

For the leechers, pretty obviously, the major motivation was financial. They wanted to acquire music or films without paying for it because it was cheaper than going out to buy it.

What was interesting was the difference with the seeders, and it was quite apparent that financial motivations were nowhere near as prevelant; it was a kind of altruism.

So most leechers (who make up the majority on any file sharing network) are, in fact, motivated by money. Most seeders are not, however (duh).

Re:Duh?

[just_another_sean]

3. Distorts supply and demand and free market economy

How is it distortion though? It is definitely, provably, trivially easy today to make a nigh infinite number of perfect digital copies and distribute it to the masses for an order of magnitude less then it used to. Where are the savings that should be passed along to the customer now that the market has so radically changed? If anything, it is copyright lobbying and the media campaigns of the *IAAs that distort the reality of the free market.

On that note, I don't think anyway who supports 75+ years of copyright has any business bandying about the terms "free market" in the first place.

Re:Duh?

[Skarecrow77]

It's a case of psychology. not to mention that if a law criminalizes a majority of the population, it can't possibly be a good law.

Well, with the possible exception of civil rights laws, as someone else pointed out, I agree.

My line of thinking is that just sitting at home DOING it isn't likely to get anything changed given the opposition.

I have the utmost respect for people like the pirate party. These people are putting money, their reputations, and possibly even their livelihood, where their mouth is.

Re:Duh?

[Skarecrow77]

Where are you getting the idea that they don't think it's illegal? Illegal and wrong are not one in the same.

let me check

Joe Cox, of the Portsmouth Business School, said those uploading content for others to share don't see what they're doing as illegal

^ right there.

Re:Duh?

[idontgno]

ObStarTrek reference:

Think Ferengi. Altruism is criminal, or insane, or both. Not turning a profit on any transaction is Against The Ferengi Way.

That's the *AA for you.

Re:Duh?

[metrix007]

I agree with what you wrote, the problem is of course that the government currently grants an unreasonable amount of power/rights to copyright holders. Until that is fixed, such silly laws that allow for millions in damages for sharing a few songs should be rightfully ignored and broken.

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?

[funkyloki]

You mean...the FerengIAA

Re:Duh?

[Chapter80]

Actually, no, this is a Republic, not a democracy (assuming "this" refers to the United States).

And no, this is not "majority rule". The US Constitution is specifically designed to protect the interest and rights of the minority, OVER majority rule.

Sorry, were you trolling with intentional errors?

Re:Duh?

[girlintraining]

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.

There is often a misunderstanding about what "illegal" means. People very often equate illegal to immoral, as though the law was the standard for moral judgement. I think it would be more accurate to say that most file sharers do not believe their conduct to be immoral.

In the past thirty years, how many laws have been striken from the books? Okay, and how many added? Most legal experts will tell you that the complexity of our legal and judicial process is such that at any point in time, you are probably in violation of one law or another. In fact, this is so commonplace that contracts often come with several paragraphs of pre-empting clauses, and attempt to dictate the jurisdiction for any claims arising from said contract. Paid professionals dedicate their careers to becoming knowledgeable in small pockets of this enormous system. It is utterly impossible for the average person to follow all the laws, all of the time, but the expectation that they do remains.

So most people adopt simpler internal rules based on their religion, cultural norms, and personal history and live by those instead. And as long as that belief system doesn't conflict substantially with those around them, that is usually the end of it. File sharers are no different; And let's be honest -- this push for intellectual property laws is a recent invention, and not one that is well-understood or supported by the public, which is exactly why they have all these draconian laws on the books. Not because it's fair, or even supports their business model, but because people getting convicted under them make headlines. It's free PR when you sue someone living in their basement for $20 million bucks. Nevermind that it'll eventually get whiddled down, or settled, or even dismissed outright. These aren't legal costs -- these are promotional costs.

The majority of people are either apathetic to intellectual property (don't know, don't care), or somewhat hostile towards it. Only a small minority support it, and those are usually people with "something to lose"; i.e. middle-aged adults who now own property, have a family, etc., and while they might be morally opposed to it, they're not going to rock the boat, so in essence they support the paradigm by inaction. Besides that, the very rich, for obvious reasons: They get rich by creating artificial markets, like "intellectual property"

Re:Duh?

[Yvanhoe]

Actually, there is the world of haute-couture where designs are not protected by copyright, trademarks, patent, etc... Therefore, they have to invent new things every year. Looking at how desesperatly innovating this industry is, I have no doubt that a world without copyright and intellectual property would go much much faster.

Re:Duh?

[JockTroll]

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

Re:Duh?

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Not turning a profit on any transaction is Against The Ferengi Way

Which Rule of Acquisition is that?

Re:Duh?

[commodore64_love]

Without copyright, artists would be living in gutters like Edgar Allan Poe used to do. HOWEVER the lifespan on the copyright should be no longer than the original act (14 yrs) plus possibility for renewal if the author is still alive.

As for motivation:

I don't usually share, except on Private trackers having restrictions that block you if you do not upload ABOVE 1:1.

Re:Duh?

[GreatBunzinni]

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.

It's ironic that you are accusing others of being out of touch by claiming that file sharing is illegal. In fact, it is only illegal under some jurisdictions and, if that wasn't enough, only on very specific circumstances. Let me explain.

First of all, you must be aware that when people talk about "file sharing" or, nowadays, even "piracy", they are referring to nothing more than a copyright violation. That means that the issue is none other than distributing a work of art without the copyright owner's* explicit authorization. This bit of information is important to understand this issue, as there is a lot of FUD and propaganda muddying the waters, so that ignorant folk believe nonsense such as "you wouldn't download a car" or "copying a file is theft".

Now that we know that this "file sharing" thing is nothing more than distributing works of art without the copyright owner's explicit authorization, you must understand the rules which are implemented in different jurisdictions. For example, in countries that follow the French tradition of copyright law, it is very legal to distribute a work of art without the copyright owner's explicit authorization. It's legal to copy and distribute any work of art, provided that the sharing is being done whole following a couple of conditions, which are:

• The work is shared without any commercial compensation (i.e., the sharers aren't making a buck out of it)
• The distribution doesn't affect the commercial distribution in a meaningful way

So, in any jurisdiction that recognizes those basic values any citizen is free to distribute any work he wishes, provided that he isn't earning money from it and that he isn't personally responsible for undermining the entire commercialization of that work of art.

As a consequence, we have countries where it has been explicitly declared that sharing files is perfectly legal.

You can't make something legal by wishing it.

In the same manner, you can't make something illegal by mindlessly claiming that it is.

These aren't fairies we're talking about here. you're not going to clap your hands and have tinkerbell drop legal blu-ray rips into your lap.

Of course not. You just go to the library and pick up any book, CD, DVD or leaflet, or even just right-click on a file and click "download". It's much, much easier and simpler than getting tinkerbell involved. And perfectly legal, too.

If you believe that the current model is outdated, You can lobby. you can vote. you can inform. you can raise awareness. you can debate. but just ignoring the fact that it's illegal doesn't make it legal.

See, you wasted your post mindlessly repeating that it is illegal without pointing out a single evidence that it is so, no matter where you are, no matter where you are from. Meanwhile, people who happen to live in civilized countries whose legislative branch wasn't (yet) dominated by content distributors do enjoy some legal rights, including the right to access copyrighted works without the owner's explicit authorization (i.e., file sharing). But keep drinking that kool-aid and repeating your "it is wrong, mmmkay?" mantra.

* the sad state of affairs is that some jurisdictions bastardized their legal concept to change "author" to "copyright owner" and then make it possible to transfer copyrights from the artists, those who actually produced the work, to commercial entities who dedicate themselves to market and distribute what they label as "content". Therefore, this copyright issue, in those jurisdictions, stopped being about copyright but about the ability for a corporation to control and hold content hostage.

Re:Duh?

[bberens]

There was a video about this very subject a while back on SD. Essentially you can't patent/copyright a "look" or things that are too common like clothes. Therefore you have things like giant horrendous LVs all over Louis Vuitton clothing. You can still go after them for trademark infringement.

Re:Duh?

[MightyYar]

deprive people of their rights

You are confusing or conflating natural rights with copy "rights". Copyrights are completely artificial and have no basis in morality. They are a government-constructed entity - like a corporation or paper money. The only similarity to civil "rights" is that the same word is used for both.

Re:Duh?

[Carik]

Assuming "this" is America, you're wrong. If the majority of people convince their elected officials to vote something into law, then that is the law. But you can't change the law by simply ignoring it: you actually have to have it changed. By all means, if you think a law is unjust, choose not to follow it. But when you get caught, you're not going to get out of the penalties by saying "A majority of Americans think this law is dumb, so it's not actually the law."

Re:Duh?

[Americano]

The government exists to serve the people, not the other way around.

That's true, but you have to realize in a disagreement between two groups of people, "serving the people" doesn't necessarily mean "Give me what I want, tell those other guys to fuck off." When two groups of people have competing interests, you can't just expect one of them to cede all of their rights & entitlements to the others with no consideration given in return. In other words: The RIAA is overcharging, and overzealously trying to preserve a business model that's outdated. The file sharers are underpaying, and overzealously trying to kill a business model in an industry with little regard for the sociopathic nature of their behavior.

Artists have a right to set a price for their work. It doesn't matter what the medium is that they choose to distribute it. If the price is too high, then you shouldn't pay them for their work - but you also should not TAKE a copy of their work without paying. If you don't find the enjoyment you get from the work to be worth the price the artist is asking for the work... then find another artist whose work you do value, or who sets a more reasonable price.

Re:Duh?

[MightyYar]

3. Distorts supply and demand and free market economy

I had to kind of chuckle at that... it doesn't distort the "free market" when the government grants you a monopoly over data that is in the free and clear for 95 years?

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?

[Archangel Michael]

A couple of things.

First, To copy a hair style, takes flair and adaption. IF I could have Brad Pitts hair I would. I would download it and put it on my head. It doesn't make me Brad Pitt. But I don't have Brad Pitt's hair, and it takes a skilled artist to even come close.

Second, to copy a Chef is more than recipe. There is a style to the knife work, cooking and other skills required beyond ingredients. Recipe is only PART of the artistry. I we could duplicate the cooking style of a chef, automatically with the fictional cooking machine, which duplicates the entire meal perfectly, who would own the skill of the chef being programmed into the machine?

When I cook, each time I make something, it is slightly different from the last time I made it, it is flair. A TRUE artist has flair and skill that makes each performance unique and yet distinctly the artists. People like the Grateful Dead understood that each performance was its own artwork, and didn't rest upon the recording of a single performance in perpetuity. I don't rest on that one great performance (awesome dinner, if I say so myself) I had two years ago for my wife's Birthday. And if I tried to recreate the meal today, it would have the same basic ingredients but would be distinctly different, the artist's flair.

The idea of resting on one's laurels is sad among the "artist" crowd these days. We miss the great performances that transcend the "notes" of the music. If you've never seen a great performance artist, you're missing something.

Re:Duh?

[HungryHobo]

In the UK most full time musicians are close to or bellow the poverty line.

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/most_musicians_are_on_poverty_line.html

can the same be said of full time chefs in the UK?

Re:Duh?

[cheekyjohnson]

If I was paid a minimal amount per-copy of my software sold, I might be a little more upset when I find one of my applications on a torrent site.

That's not surprising considering that many people tend to hold onto illogical beliefs if it benefits them personally. File sharers aren't actually taking anything. In order for them to be taking something ('loss' of 'right' to distribute their own works does not mean something was taken from them, because that's exactly the 'right' that I think shouldn't exist), when they copy, someone else must lose something that they already had. They didn't have the file sharer's money, so that wasn't stolen. The product was merely copied, so that wasn't stolen. The authors didn't even lose any time because of the pirate (it did take time to make the media, but that isn't the pirates' fault). Saying that 'loss' of future potential gain equates to harm is like saying that someone harmed me because they didn't give me all of their money, or that competition harms businesses because someone might choose to shop at a competitor's store. It would only be harm if they lost something that they already had. This simply isn't the case.

Re:Duh?

[Antisyzygy]

Even so, you should only be liable for the damages you actually caused. I.e. how many people directly downloaded it from you times the cost of the work maybe with an additional small multiplier for penalizing the person and of course the court fees. An example would be 99 cents per song X 50 people that downloaded it X 2 penalty + Court costs. Getting hit with million dollar penalties is ridiculous. Its not right to illegally acquire media, but its also not right to hold onto copyrights for hundreds of years. It ends up generally screwing the artist over more than anyone else since these copyrights are usually held by big business. The state of the industry uses its employees (artists) and muscles its own consumers around. Its just god awful business practices, but its essentially an oligopoly so theres not much we can do about it short of listen to crappy indie music.

Re:Duh?

[cheekyjohnson]

The costs of writing and recording the music are paid before hand.

That's nice, but that wasn't his point. When you copy something, no one has lost anything due to that copying. In order for them to lose something, they must already have it in the first place. See my other post for more details.

You can't blame the file sharer because the company spent money to produce it. The file sharer had absolutely nothing to do with those costs. It was the company's own decision. That's like saying everyone should have to buy the music because the musician spent money to make it, even if they had nothing to do with that cost (that's essentially what the file sharer is doing: not paying them money to make up for losses that the file sharer didn't even inflict upon them in the first place).

Re:Duh?

[Brannoncyll]

Copyright is a misnomer. It is *not* a right like free speech. It is a privilege granted by the people to an artist to allow them a time limited monopoly on their artistic work before it is submitted to the public domain. It was meant to encourage the arts to produce more works, thus benefitting the world in the long run.

In the modern world, copyright has been twisted and abused by those companies that leached off the artists and got rich, and now it no longer fulfills its function and must be changed.

Re:Duh?

[vegiVamp]

Shame that they're mostly concerned about the wealthy minority these days.

Re:Duh?

[Attila Dimedici]

You are misconstruing the OP's argument. They were responding to a post that said that if a significant number don't see something that is illegal as wrong, there is something wrong with the law. They were pointing out that a lot of people didn't see anything wrong with the things that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made illegal and that that doesn't make it a bad law.
However, if a significant number of people see nothing wrong with doing something that is illegal, there is a serious problem that requires open and frank discussion. It may be that this situation exists because the law is a bad law that should be repealed. It may be that a significant number of people do not fully understand the consequences of violating this law (not counting the legal consequences). Most likely it is a varying degree of some of both.

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?

[cheekyjohnson]

Elevating yourself to the position of god doesn't validate your beliefs.

Stating my opinion along with reasons that I believe what I do is elevating myself to the position of an entity that is often depicted to be a tyrant?

Perhaps you might explain better why you believe an artist should not have the right to distribute their own works.

Didn't I already explain this in my posts? Oh, well.

I believe that file sharing should be legal simply because the file sharers aren't doing any harm whatsoever. In order for harm to be done, the artist must lose something that they already had. File sharers aren't taking money away from the artist because the artist never had the file sharer's money in the first place. File sharers also aren't taking the product itself because they're merely copying it and everyone still has it. They also aren't wasting the artist's time because they never even interacted with them (time may have been used to make the product, but you must remember that that wasn't the file sharer's doing or their choice). 'Loss' of potential future gain can't equate to harm because again, they've lost nothing that they already had. If it could equate to harm, then everyone would be 'guilty' of inflicting this 'harm' upon others since you could do that merely by not giving another person all of their possessions (if you don't, they've 'lost' potential future gain).

I believe that instead of criminalizing the entire population for deeds which logically don't hurt anyone, we should instead fix (or try to) our broken capitalistic society which almost forces artists of digital media and other people to introduce artificial scarcity in order to turn a greater profit. The real question is: how? We certainly won't get there by continuing to believe the false assumption that file sharers are hurting others, that much I know for certain.

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.

Re:Duh?

[nomadic]

You're actually linking to bizarre websites of "proof" of something? You are wrong, but so are most of the people on slashdot on this subject so don't feel too bad. A democracy is government where voting is used to determine actions taken, including whether to appoint elected officials as proxies for the will of the people. A republic, from the Latin res publica, or "public thing," simply means ultimate ownership of the state is held by the people. The United States is both.

Re:Duh?

[ScentCone]

Ah. So you're not avoiding the issue of lost sales because it's notoriously difficult to exactly pin down who would have purchased something vs. not purchase it in the context of easy piracy ... your contention is that every single person who watches pirated movies and listens to pirated music is someone who would not otherwise have purchased it... and that that makes copyright law irrelevent to piracy. And you were lecturing somebody else about their illogical beliefs?

Re:Duh?

[causality]

('loss' of 'right' to distribute their own works does not mean something was taken from them, because that's exactly the 'right' that I think shouldn't exist), Elevating yourself to the position of god doesn't validate your beliefs. Perhaps you might explain better why you believe an artist should not have the right to distribute their own works.

Would you be inclined to explain why questioning the validity/legitimacy of a legal right is the same thing as "elevating yourself to the position of God"?

I mean, that's very dramatic and everything but it is not reasonable. Copyright has not always existed. It exists now. It could also be repealed. It is clearly a man-made construct. One who questions this legal right or takes a position against it is dealing with one's fellow men, not with an almighty Creator God.

If you come from the perspective of "inalienable rights granted to us by our Creator" as explained by the authors of the Constitution and Declaration of Indpendence, please do note, copyright does not appear in the Bill of Rights. It is rather one of the federal government's enumerated powers. It is not a God-given fundamental human right, such as the right to freedom of speech. It is a power granted to government as part of what you could call a social contract. It belongs in the same category as the power to tax and the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Re:Duh?

[cheekyjohnson]

your contention is that every single person who watches pirated movies and listens to pirated music is someone who would not otherwise have purchased it

I'm sure that if you actually tried to understand what I was saying you wouldn't have arrived at this conclusion. Whether file sharers would or would not have bought the product is irrelevant to my entire point. My entire point is that even if they would have, the artist never even had their money in the first place. It is logically impossible to say that the artist lost this money because they never even had it! Not to mention that competition 'hurts' (at least by the "'loss' of potential future gain equates to harm" logic) businesses and people in the same way. If their competitors had not existed, people might have went to them instead. I even explained this in my post, but so many people ignore my points anyway.

Read this.

Re:Duh?

[Philomage]

You realise that trackers that require everyone to upload greater than 1:1 can't work in the long run?

That's effectively a pyramid scam: someone has to lose out.

Re:Duh?

[coaxial]

Think Ferengi. Altruism is criminal, or insane, or both. Not turning a profit on any transaction is Against The Ferengi Way.

Grand Negus Ayn Rand couldn't have said it better.

Re:Duh?

[ncc74656]

Wouldn't that be #1?

Nope...the First Rule of Acquisition is, "Once you have their money, you never give it back."

Re:Duh?

[JesseMcDonald]

You are making two major mistakes here. The first is the—far too common—idea that copyright (in the United States) is meant to be some sort of balance between producers of copyrightable works and the public. It's not. The purpose of copyright is entirely to enrich the public domain, for the benefit of the public. The means by which this is done is to trade away a part of the public's natural freedom of speech and other property rights in regard to copies of an original creative work in a time-limited distribution monopoly as an incentive for someone to create the work in the first place.

(Note that the constitutional conflict between copyright and free speech is well-documented; copyright came very close be prohibited as a violation of the 1st Amendment. It was only permitted as part of the compromise which created exceptions for "fair use".)

The second mistake is here:

Artists have a right to set a price for their work.

On the contrary, one only has the right to set a price for their alienable property. Inalienable property (such as self-ownership) obviously has no price, as it cannot be traded away. That which is not property, such as a "work" in the copyright sense, cannot have a price for much the same reason—as a non-rivalrous good, no one need seek your permission to benefit from it; the fact that the good is non-rivalrous means that their benefit causes you no harm, which in turn means you have no rational basis on which to seek compensation as you would were someone to interfere with your use of your own rivalrous property for their own benefit.

Artists and the like are, of course, free to set a price for the labor of creating an original work, or of distributing a work (original or otherwise) to an individual buyer or the public at large, or for access to any of their property in which a work may reside. They can also seek to control distribution through contractual relationships, much like trade secrets, but in this they are limited to seeking compensation voluntarily agreed to in advance as part of the contract; they cannot go after anyone outside the contract for simply receiving or distributing the work in question.

Re:Duh?

[Mister_Stoopid]

Moreover, requiring your users to maintain a 1:1 ratio guarantees that your torrent site can never really be private, since you'll always need a constant influx of new users to replace the banned "leeches" and prop up the "good users" ratios. If you want a good, healthy, private tracker it's probably best to require a ratio somewhere between 0.5 and 0.7.

Re:Duh?

[kahless62003]

18: A Ferengi without profit is not Ferengi at all

Re:Duh?

[suutar]

So the only thing they seem to have in common is that copyright wasn't available to them. I fail to see how you can definitively claim that the removal of copyright will result in one of those situations but not the other...

Summary wrong

[guyminuslife]

The interviewee says that uploaders don't think that what they're doing should be illegal, not that they aren't aware of the legal ramifications or that education about the law would suddenly change everything.

Re:Summary wrong

[guyminuslife]

As opposed to saying "don't see what they're doing as immoral."

Re:What about file shearing old games that are not

[Dexter Herbivore]

What about file shearing old games...

Old games depilate you????

Filesharing is a boon for some of us

[Pojut]

::begin self-plug::

Filesharing is a boon for people like myself. I do some writing (nothing released to the public yet, although once it is it will all be distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike license) and also make some spacey-ambient and drone-type music. The music I make is freely available to all (both on Last.FM and in a torrent.) Since I care more about people hearing my music (and, in the future, reading my writing) rather than getting money for it, filesharing is perfect for me.

I've got a donate button on my site, but even after I officially put my stuff up for "sale", I will continue to ensure it's available for free. I've gotten my fair share of music and writings for free...I feel like I should contribute something back, know what I mean? ::end self-plug::

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...

Bingo.

[metrix007]

At the most it could be immoral, although sharing things for people who may not be able to afford it otherwise would hardly seem so.

I paid to see about 3 movies in the cinema last year, and only two this year. The rest simply don't seem worthy of risking a $10 movie ticket, considering I don't have a disposable income.

I downloaded about 100 over the last two years however, and got some enjoyment from them. I would not be able to pay for the DVD's, and rentals are not a realistic option for me.

Likewise games. In the last 2 years I played Batman:Arkham Asylum which was horribly disappointing, MW2 which was fun but I finished it in about 5 hours, and don't care about multiplayer, Bioschock, which I thought was horribly overrated, Medal of Honor which was shorter than MW2, but without any redeeming features, and Fallout 3 and Fallout 3 NV. Out of those games the Fallout 3 games are the only ones I would pay for, but I still can't afford it. Even if I did pay for them, I would probably throw the game out, as the pirated versions are so much more convenient and bug free.

Given how well the content industries are doing financially, all the hubbub against copyright infringers just smacks of greed, and nothing else.

You wouldn't steal a baby

[metrix007]

Unlike XKCD, this IT crowd clip is actually obligatory.

Re:You wouldn't steal a baby

[chemicaldave]

My favorite from their ads is the line "You wouldn't steal a car."

Fuck you. If I could download it I would.

Still trivialising the issue

[Grumbleduke]

While there was some interesting thoughts here (although nothing particularly new), I think he still makes one of the funamental mistakes the copyright industry pushes for;

For the leechers, pretty obviously, the major motivation was financial. They wanted to acquire music or films without paying for it because it was cheaper than going out to buy it.

He is willing to accept that seeders might not be only interested in financial gain, but fails to consider that this might also be the case for some leechers (as other studies and real-world situations have suggested). The greater convenience of pirated media over a licensed version can be enormous. For example, there have been cases where material has been offered on a "pay-what-you-want-but-pay-something" basis and yes people still pirated the content; showing that there is a disproportionate difference between paying $0.01 (or £0.01) and not paying. For some this might be some principle of not paying and being cheap, but for others this may well be an issue of convenience.

As for the "pretty obviously" part, whenever someone states that something is obvious I recall something my analysis tutor said; "if someone is obvious, prove it; either it is obvious, in which case it won't take long, or it may turn out to be obvious, but untrue." Obviously this was in maths, which has much higher levels of proof, but it does seem that calling something "obvious" is a way of dismissing the converse without proper consideration.

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.

Also, it is worth noting that in the UK there isn't necessarily any criminal act involved with unlawful file-sharing. Our copyright law is based on civil lawsuits and "actual damages", provided one avoids infringing in the course of business. Of course, this hasn't stopped the copyright industry from twisting our fraud laws to prosecute (unsuccessfully, in general) and persecute those allegedly involved in copyright infringement.

Re:Still trivialising the issue

[mehrotra.akash]

theres also the issue of people not having a way to pay even a token amount..
for example, I have no way to purchase anything from outside India online, as I dont have a credit card, so for many things the choice is pirate or dont get it.
Similarly, movies(eg: the Saw series) are often not released here, and TV shows (BBT,etc..) are often many seasons behind here, so torrents it is.

Re:Movies

[netsavior]

At the beginning of every movie and the fast forward and skip disabled, there is a FBI warning about copyright.

That's why I rip all of my DVDs to straight video files and/or prefer downloaded movies. They don't have 10 minutes of unskippable commercials/warnings, some stupid menu that takes 60 seconds to load, then a bunch of stupid "extra features" that my kid can accidentally select instead of the movie.
IMO if you watch a legit movie, you get a worse experience. I have downloaded movies which I own DVDs for, just because it was faster than ripping it myself, and I was tired of shitty dvd menus.

This just in...

[MrNemesis]

...from the findings-obvious-to-the-lay-person-but-will-be-routinely-ignored-by-big-content-even-if-proven dept: dehydrated water still a long way from market feasibility.

Buh but it's INFRINGING, not STEALING!

[AmazingRuss]

So it's ok.

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.

Re:This isn't altruism

[VShael]

They are giving their time, CPU cycles and bandwidth, altruistically.

Re:This isn't altruism

[Aceticon]

So you don't tell any jokes to your friends right?
Unless you make them up yourself, you would be telling somebody else's jokes and they might not want you to do so - can't risk your buddies having a laugh from somebody else's hard work.

Also, I bet you don't share any cooking recipes: after all, somebody went to the trouble of making that recipe and they might not wish you to give it to others.

Sharing cool ideas you heard/read somewhere? Nope
Sharing fashion tips? Nope
Sharing professional advice you heard/read from others? Not unless you have their permission.
Talking about the cool show you saw on TV yesterday? Nope, its copyrighted: can't risk giving away the story (which is also copyrighted) - its hard work staying within the confines of fair use: better stay on the safe side and not say anything about it.

You do understand that copyright law would theoretically affect most of those things I listed above (but in meatspace there's usually nobody watching people for sharing copyrighted jokes - but there are online). Please explain to me how exactly is immoral to do any of the above.

Re:This isn't altruism

[HeckRuler]

And they're running the risk, however slight, of being sued into oblivion.

TFS is subtly misleading

[shutdown -p now]

The very first sentence:

File-sharers aren't motivated by financial gain, but by altruism

is overly generic. In practice, here's what TFA says:

For the leechers, pretty obviously, the major motivation was financial. They wanted to acquire music or films without paying for it because it was cheaper than going out to buy it.

What was interesting was the difference with the seeders, and it was quite apparent that financial motivations were nowhere near as prevelant; it was a kind of altruism.

So it only applies to those who deliberately upload.

Yet more proof!

[DarthVain]

Money Doesn't Motivate File-sharers.

Now think of a pirate. What are his motivations? Booty (money), rape, and pillage.

So as long as file sharers are not motivated by raping (Julian Assange doesn't count!) and pillaging then they should finally be off the hook and put to bed that stupid terminology!

Re:More Like This

[Pojut]

On the flip side of that coin (Because I love exploring those) what would you do if someone swiped your music off your web site and started selling it as their own? I've actually seen that happen to a couple of artist friends in the past. Actually some magazine was doing that just recently, too...

Honestly? I'd be flattered that someone liked it enough to think there was money to be made in selling it under their own name, but on the other hand I'd feel a little betrayed that they were making money off something I intended to be given away freely.

I would likely ask them to at the very least attach my name to it (attribution and all that), but I don't think I would necessarily threaten them with legal action if they didn't stop selling it. I'd ask them to stop, sure...but that'd be as far as I went.

Like I said, my interest is mostly limited to people hearing it...there isn't much in the way of drone and spacey-ambient out there, so I'm just doing what I can to help the culture expand.

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?

Re:Doing what you like

[marleyboy]

I'm dreaming with you there buddy. Capitalism doesn't work with today's technology. I do think robots should be doing the jobs that people don't want to do. Instead of a salary based system, perhaps a resource based economy would make more sense. Money is only the energy of the banks and is used to facilitate the transit of goods in a supply and demand system. Right now I think the trick is to raise ourselves up enough that we can become interdependant with the systyem, instead of being a dependant of the system. then we can reach out and raise up others who have evolved enough to be able to handle the responsibility of being interdependant. It's a different perspective and comes from a different thrust of movement that today's enculturation tells us is how things work. It's based on sharing, not on greed.

Ever given thought to how much upheavel teleportation technology would cause in supply and demand? Trucking goes out of business...so does the postman. Think of the unions. No more shipping containers, no more reliance on oil for transportation of goods. No more big rigs, and kids of that age will think Transformers are wrong. The world's oil addiction is cured, and airplanes become irrelevant. National boundaries become moot because if teleporation beomes a portable thing, well, the world becomes like the Steam game 'Portal'.

Now just what kind of society can handle that kind of technology? Certainly not capitalism. I think it'd be something were there's more light...

Re:What about file shearing old games that are not

[phyrexianshaw.ca]

you ever try picking up a NES cartridge from either?

Ebay: it will just be a third party version of the ROM flashed onto a hacked flash, (thus making it as illegal as the version you were getting online)
Bargain Store: You'll buy every copy in the city, only to find out that ONE of them works, but the flash has been written to so many times you can't save a game.

"Altruism", What a Load of Crap...

[llZENll]

Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others. I guess they don't count the artists who made the content they are enjoying for free, or in the long run the sad truth that they are slowly destroying said content. Rather than promoting the fear of legalities for file sharing, perhaps we should promote the fact that by using art for free you are only aiding to the downfall and cheapening of such art. You can argue fair use and copyrights notions all you want, it doesn't matter, if someone isn't paid for making art you will see less of it and less quality of it, guaranteed. By file sharing you are fulfilling a want for art and not paying for it. It doesn't matter if the artist never would have sold a single copy, if you had not been able to get the free art you probably would have purchased art from somewhere else, thus promoting the market for such art, and the teaching, learning, and advancement of technologies in such art. Sure if everything was free art would still exist, but you are kidding yourself if you think it would be even close to the quantity and quality it is now. The problem is the effects of sharing and the destruction of art is benign on the small scale, but on a large scale is malignant. People can't relate to this and thus share.

Morality/ethics has no place

[noidentity]

The law is the law. You want to lend your hardback book to a friend, because you see nothing wrong with it, but you don't consider that it's illegal, and cuts into the profits of the booksellers and publishers. They have to eat too, you know.

Oh, it's not yet illegal to lend books? Well, wait a few years, and leave your silly altruism out of it, because you can't let that get in the way of profits.

Redefining altruism.

[Ostracus]

"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.'"

There's a word for individuals who practice altruism with creative content. It's called open source and unlike the "altruism" practiced by copyright infringers, it's done with the permission and respect of all parties concerned. Truly the distinction between selfish and unselfish. The "I made that's" versus the "I copied that".

More than "motivations"

[eepok]

It's not that money doesn't motivate them, they *know* there's not money in it to begin with. Thus, they have no money motive AND no money expectation.

It's a fine difference, but it goes a long way. It's the difference between a teacher knowingly being underpaid because of his/her passion for education (s/he isn't motivated by money, but still needs it) and someone who gives up his/her career, goes to a 3rd world country, and serves as a freelance 1-room school teacher to share his/her education (where there would be no *expectation* of money).

File-sharers (the massive portion of them), in fact, actually PAY to share (internet connection, hard drive space, blank media, etc.).

But those distinctions are entirely too honest to use in a politicized court of law.

File sharers != P2P sites admins

[NeverNow]

The Pirate Bay case was about the Pirate Bay admins, who are not - in this context - file sharers but - possibly - do make money from running the site. File sharers are those who put files in their shared folders in p2p apps, keep their torrents seeding after downloading them, and so on.

Re:Information wants to be free.

[VShael]

Anything which speeds the US down the road to a more obvious Fascist/Police state (because there are those who would argue they're already there), is possibly a good thing in the long term, as it should speed up the civilian uprising which will bring about its downfall.

If it doesn't happen soon, it could be argued that technology will progress to the point where any civilian uprising will be impossible. And then Fascism can arrive safely, and be here to stay.

Re:Information wants to be free.

[Anonymous Coward]

2. You write a novel; it takes you two years. I post it online in Kindle, Nook and Sony reader formats.

3. You take out $20m in loans to make a movie or a video game, and you spend five years of your life on the project, hoping that you can leverage this into a career. I post your game or movie online before it is released.

...We -- the hackers of today -- need to think long and hard about this. By destroying the ability of others to profit from their work, we may be sabotaging the very people we sought to empower all those years ago.

Stop trying to do this "art" stuff for money. It's often vastly inferior, and always less cost effective, than art created by people who are driven to simply create art. I make & record music. You can't pirate it, but you can continue to seed the torrent :P (no link - no troll).

I don't intend to make money from it, I make music because I have to, my soul requires it of me. The internet will destroy the music industry, but it will be a spectacular boon for music. The sooner the profit-driven media factories are kicked out of our creative meme pool, the better. Then art will be made by people who are motivated by art rather than money, and the world will be a better place.

</hope>

Of course not

[Corson]

They are motivated by a sense of ethics and pride. Prices for digital goods are no longer set by supply and demand, there is no negotiation process the digital "market economy". Prices are mainly driven by what Alvin Tofler identified as "power". The end user has to accept the price set by the seller or else. Companies must be profitable but who says they have to make billions of dollars in profits rather than hundreds of millions?

Re:Movies

[devent]

Exactly. If I couldn't RIP my DVDs I wouldn't buy or watch any. In a time where we have 1TB hard disks for 50$ they are really expecting me to stand up to my shelf, search a DVD, insert the DVD to a DVD player, go through the menu to watch a movie? I just open my Videos folder with more then 100 movies, look through the RIPs and select a movie which I like to watch. I didn't even bother to convert the DVD RIP to a AVI file anymore.