noname2200 said:
Apologies for the stream of consciousness that's about to follow.
The more I think about software piracy, the more my head starts to spin at the numerous contradictions. I'm definitely opposed to it, not so much because of the lost sales idea (I myself firmly believe the bulk of pirates would never have purchased the product) but because you are simply taking something that belongs to someone else without that person's permission. That's basically the reason that the doctrine of unjust enrichment was created, a doctrine that I think clearly applies here.
The problem is that we don't apply that principle evenly. It is, for example, perfectly legal to record any television program for your personal, non-commercial use, even when the program is a movie that you would otherwise have to purchase. I don't believe it's at all illegal to use a tape recorder to record any song you hear on the radio. And while things get murkier with photocopying books, I find it revealing that every law library in the country contains a photocopy machine for patrons' use.
One could argue, with some success, that the situations are not completely analogous with software piracy, as with the above examples the consumer had permission to use the product in some form, while software pirates simply take the lot without the copyright holder's knowledge or consent. But at the same time, the copyright holder is only letting the consumer use the product for a limited purpose: it is not their intent to give away their content for permanent use. Indeed, movie studios unsuccessfully sued VCR manufacturers for just that reason. What makes software piracy any different? Ease of use? In the age of Tivo I don't think we can really use that argument anymore. For that reason alone, I think point D is slightly off the mark: this is NOT a new problem by any stretch.
I think the question you ask at the end, and the way it is framed, is a good one, and I would look to the past to answer it. Copyright holders fought the VCR tooth and nail, but when they were forced to live with it, they ultimately co-opted it to their advantage, to the point where they often make much more money on selling the DVD than they do at the box office. I think this shows that most consumers WILL pay money for the product under the right circumstances, although what those circumstances may be remains to be seen. I would also add the caveat that things have indeed changed since the 70's, and that copyright holders now have less power to control how their product is distributed than ever before.
I'll keep thinking on this. |
I never meant to say that piracy is a new problem, and any item, going back to the Chinese printing press a thousand years ago, that makes dissemination of ideas cheaper may have been viewed as a similar "problem". I think you'll agree with me, though, when I say that it is only with the advent of computers and the internet that the cost of copying has been reduced to nearly zero. With VCRs and casettes, you still had to pay for the cost of the media, and the time, effort, and specialized equipment needed to create the copies. With digital items, though, the cost of the most efficient option for distribution has plunged - all you need to pay for is the computer (mainly the hard drive, proecssing power, and burner), the connection to receive the data, and maybe the blank media, which is something you can find in almost anybody's house in North America, Europe, and the developed parts of east Asia.
The cost of effort has all but vanished with computers that do nearly all the legwork, the once-specialized equipment is nearly universal, and the storage media dirt cheap if you're so inclined. Computers and the internet proved to be the game changer because business models that account for the costs of distribution of physical media and the difficulty associated in copying them are suddenly outdated in the face of the ability to infinitely create perfect copies of any data, each copy, and its n-th generation copies, a pristine duplicate completely indistinguishable from the original in digital format.
As for the legal aspects, I'd prefer to leave that to another topic to address, since it is my belief that it is more important to look for a workable copyright system before we work to codify it in law.
You are certanly correct when you say that copyright holders learned to live with, and ultimately benefit from technology such as the VCR, and that people can and will pay for intellectual property, as evidenced by the fact that the entertainment industry is bigger than it has ever been. I fear, though, that unless we can fully understand exactly what those circumstances you describe are, the current arrangement is unsustainable, and its failure means evreybody, from the artists to the programmers to the consumers, will lose.
