DIGITAL MEDIA PIRACY IS NOT HARMFUL

Minh-Ha Le
Instructor: Stephen King

June 15, 2012

[DIGITAL MEDIA PIRACY IS NOT HARMFUL] Abstract

The purpose of this research is to prove that modern technologies are offering the world more benefits than dangers. Piracy issues raise numerous lawsuits and controversies in the late 20th century, which still continue to the beginning of 21 st. However, the root of the issue is that the ways governments react are contradict with peoples attitudes, which unintentionally leads to the battle between online community and entertainment-based corporations. Specifically, anti-piracy has induced a great deal of threat for Internet users despite of its contributions and innovations. This research will discuss four key issues of anti-piracy: human right violations, a threat to online creativity, an innovation sources barrier and an inevitable part of technology. Introduction In October 2011, the whole world was shocked by the event of the introduction of Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Immediately, it faced the largest protests, the online community reacted angrily with this legislation because if SOPA was enacted, saying goodbye to free online contents, materials and free online entertainment such as music, movies seems to be inevitable. Since the surprisingly-negative attitude of the world, even famous corporations (Google, Facebook, and Wikipedia) raised their voice against SOPA, it has been suspended. However, despite of the short existence, SOPA has caused mass disruptions namely the shutting down of MegaUpload, a sharing site whose founder was condemned a 50-year sentence, and regulation changes of numerous hosting sites. Both Internet services and its users and now people start asking the question whether the so-called piracy is as serious and revenuedamaging as entertainment-based companies claim.
1|Page

June 15, 2012

[DIGITAL MEDIA PIRACY IS NOT HARMFUL] Background

Since the 2000s, going along with the rapidly-developed high speed Internet is the digital media business, and the amount of online contents and materials is also in positive correlation with this acceleration. However, there is no effective method to control and manage the contents which were distributed by individuals. Therefore, copyright infringement, which can be seen obviously by illegal movies and music downloading, is unavoidable, leads to the problem that many entertainment companies completely blame their revenue loss on piracy. These corporations, who support SOPA legislation, want their products become exclusive, which is why they think SOPA is an effective solution to restraint individual online distributions. The remained question is that whether digital media copyright infringement costs as much as $12.5 billion and 71,060 jobs annually (p. 21) for the US that the entertainment companies claim in their reports (Groc, 2007). Anti-piracy Violates Human Rights The reason governments and entertainment-based companies are eager to impose antipiracy policy in the first place is that they expect SOPA will bring back justice to digital media industry. Nevertheless, imposing anti-piracy policy is a violation of the right to have freedom of speech, to take part in social activities of human (Wong, 2011). In another research, Doctorow (2011) also pointed out three main issues that SOPA will cause eventually. First, it will pose a new threat of censorship on any website that contains copyright-violated contents. Second, the power to censor anything that is considered piracy will not only belong to the government but also entertainment-based corporations. Specifically, the SOPA can provide a list of websites
2|Page

June 15, 2012

[DIGITAL MEDIA PIRACY IS NOT HARMFUL]

that contain inappropriate materials. After being accused, these sites will be removed in five days. Third, any page that posts a link to another piracy-related site will be accused of copyright infringement. Doctorow (2011) clearly stated that the purpose of controlling and protecting ownership of online contents and materials, which are inevitable components of the Internet era, fails to represent protection and piracy prevention but shows a total disregard for humanitarian consequences and it betrays a depraved indifference except their fears (p. 38). Instead of considering every aspects of the issue, the bill fearlessly shows negligence toward human rights and philanthropic aftermaths. Anti-piracy is a Threat to Online Creativity Entertainment-based corporations believed that a strong regulation can be used to prevent intellectual properties from being stolen (Chung, 2009). However, such regulations only works for short-term, Internet users will consider anti-piracy as a threat to online innovation (Polis, 2012). Specifically, Falkenberg (2009) stated that motion picture and record companies have strayed too far from their original purpose, which is entertaining audiences. In other words, they wanted to control their customers but failed to give them what they want; consequently, piracy is blamed to be responsible. Cheng (2009) took the conflict between Universal picture and Redbox, who provides movie selling and rental services, is an example. Redbox offers customers with a great price, $1/night, for any new movie. However, in the term of conditions, Universal required Redbox to postpone release date of new movies 45 days, which can be more beneficial for Universal to raise price. Because of this constraint, the movie rental brought the motion picture company
3|Page

June 15, 2012

[DIGITAL MEDIA PIRACY IS NOT HARMFUL]

into a lawsuit about misconducting copyright policy. Since the technology is on its way to emerge, entertainment industry needs to use it innovation to target the right market and regain profits, not by using enforcement to make it products exclusive and valuable. One more example of abusing anti-piracy law is the stories of DVD players, which are crafted without a recording button. Likewise, films are produced with protected conversion, which only belongs to film makers. The defense for this act is that movie producers demand for exclusive contracts to acquire the specialized decryption, which DVDs need to play that movie. This is an evidence to prove that entertainment industry is trying to refuse the needs of customers instead of satisfying them (Falkenberg, 2009). In addition, creativity cannot flourish if people try to prevent it by applying long-term copyright (Falkenberg, 2009). Hence, the copyright that protects ones works for 70 years after death can bring up negative effects such as increasing intellectual prices, which can be a restraint for innovation of others works. In addition, restricting customers and suing piracy do not get it profits back. In conclusion, entertainment-based companies have to find effective and gentle solutions to win their customers back, not by using force. A Source of Innovation Although piracy is usually accused of stealing ideas, concepts and reason for corporations revenue losses, it is not wholly responsible for these damages. Falkenberg (2009) specifies that non-creative and repetitive ideas are the two points that do not satisfy audiences. According to Robbert van Ooijen (2010), despite being considered a counter-part of digital

4|Page

June 15, 2012

[DIGITAL MEDIA PIRACY IS NOT HARMFUL]

media industry, copyright infringement provides innovative ideas and inspirations in a short time. This notion is thoroughly contrastive with the usual. The story of Napster, which is a music sharing website (Pepitone, 2011), is evident to how piracy can turn out to be an innovative idea and create new markets. The establishment of Napster in 1999 not only brought unexpected downloads and encouragements from Internet users since it provided people with high quality music but also engaged into various lawsuits with record companies because of copyright infringement (The Rocky Mountain News, 2009). Although Napster had been forced to shut down in 2001, its legacies are valuable. After being launched, peoples perspectives with online contents, which are considered die hard, have been converted. Online community got used to the new concepts of online music and this brought new challenges to the entertainment industry. The old-fashioned ways became

obsolete, a notion of online music is brought up to a whole new level and adaption must be made. Therefore, iTunes Music Store, a legal version of Napster and a great success of Apple, was founded and music lovers are willing to pay for what they listen (Ooijen, 2010). Another creation that deprived from Napster idea is YouTube, a video sharing site. This is an idea that combines piracy and legal services, instead of allowing user to download contents to their computers, YouTube grants them the rights to watch it online anytime. Since the creative combination, YouTube has been ranked in 3rd place of top 10 websites have the most daily visitors and pageview, only after 2 giants Facebook and Google (Youtube.com Site Info, 2012). Copyright infringement is not as serious as it sounds, it even contributes to the digital media markets innovations and creativities. The typical stories of media giants are evident to

5|Page

June 15, 2012

[DIGITAL MEDIA PIRACY IS NOT HARMFUL]

adjust entertainment industries attitude toward piracy. Keeping holding an opposition against the foundation of innovation is not bringing positive outcomes. A Part of Technology Era Piracy prevention is approved by worlds governments because it is considered a kind of stealing, but the question remained is whether these methods are effective. Tassi (2012) pointed out that although piracy is illegal, the way government deals with piracy such as proposing two bills SOPA and PIPA (Protect IP Act), which aim to prevent copyright infringement, only makes the problem worse. The enormous online protest is a consequence of abusing anti-piracy laws. Google, Yahoo!, Facebook and Consumer Electronics Association raised their voice against it because these policies are given large-scale jurisdiction to remove any website (The Washington Post, 2011). However, there is a reason to call it the global demonstration. Not only did the giants but also other corporations such as WordPress, Mozilla blacked out their homepage to deny the new policies (Kelion, 2012). Furthermore, he said in his second point Piracy is not raiding and plundering Best Buys and FYEs, smashing the windows and running out with the loot (p. 2). Piracy is not a crime, it does not harm anyone or anything. The actual definition of piracy is that people take but in the end, nothing is physically taken since products will be immediately replaced with others. Tassi indicated that companies losses are not as serious as they claim. Governments should not try to impose legislation, they have to treat people with respect instead and by that way, people can head back to the right route. Modern economy in the 21st century has a great assistance, which is technology. It is a helpful companion although many drawbacks are included. According to Park (2010), A
6|Page

June 15, 2012

[DIGITAL MEDIA PIRACY IS NOT HARMFUL]

copyright system must balance the interests of creators and users of copyrighted works (p. 58). Specifically, since the copyright industries are on the rise, innovation will be charged more expensively. The explanation is simple: there are two sides of copyright, which are protection and creativity, and governments have lost the balance. Mainly focusing on defending content from being stolen is declining innovation gradually because of high intellectual properties costs (Park, 2010). Furthermore, the connection of copyright system and economy is strong and inevitable (Park, 2010). One of the potential benefits for business, which piracy can provide, is that genuine product sale can increase due to users interests on pirated versions. Conclusion The 21st century not only offers people with numerous benefits but also various kinds of negative effects. Specifically, technology is pulling economy forward but it raised an ethical battle. Although piracy is called with different vicious aliases and governments are eager to eradicate, people cannot deny that piracy has contributed innovative ideas, inspirations and foundation for the modern world. Nevertheless, the reacts of governments adversely affect Internet community. They should come up with treating people respectfully instead of using different kinds of forces (SOPA and PIPA). Moreover, trying to control online contents is equal to human rights violation, especially the freedom of speech. Finally, uprooting piracy is impossible because it goes along with economic development, like Ying and Yang. Users benefits and business revenue must remain balanced. If imbalance happens, negative consequences will occur and impact on both side of the war. However, this research is still superficial and needs to be studied deeper since the piracy issues are global and governments

7|Page

June 15, 2012

[DIGITAL MEDIA PIRACY IS NOT HARMFUL]

not only are reported but also have to observe specific statistics and data. Further research can enhance the evidence and credibility if they provide detail information and its sources. In conclusion, every idea, invention or innovation has two sides: positive and negative. Totally refusing the negative is not an effective solution but to deal with it cooperatively is the goal that entertainment-based corporations should aim for.

8|Page

June 15, 2012

[DIGITAL MEDIA PIRACY IS NOT HARMFUL]

References
Cheng, J. (2009, August 6). Fox joins Universal's war on Redbox DVD rental kiosks. Retrieved from http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/08/fox-joins-universals-war-on-redboxsdvd-rental-kiosks/ Chung, E. (2009, July 26). Copyright rules must protect innovation, groups say. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2009/07/24/tech-copyright-digital-locks.html Doctorow, C. (2011). Copyrights vs. human rights. Publishers Weekly, 258(49), 36-38. Falkenberg, K. (2009). When Copyright Is Wrong. Forbes, 184(10), 20-22. Groc, I. (2007). The Price of Piracy. PC Magazine, 26(21/22), 21. Kelion, L. (2012, January 18). Sopa: Sites go dark as part of anti-piracy laws protests. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16612628 Look for silver lining. (2008, July 17). Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/11750492 Napster wounds the giant (2009, January 5). Retrieved from http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/02/napster-wounds-the-giant/ Ooijen, R. (2010). Why Piracy is Good For Innovation. Retrieved from http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2010/11/why-piracy-is-good-for-innovation.html Park, W. G. (2010). The Copyright Dilemma: Copyright Systems, Innovation and Economic Development. Journal Of International Affairs, 64(1), 53-68. Pepitone, J. (2011, November 30). Today is Napsters last day of existence. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/30/technology/napster_rhapsody/?source=cnn_bin Polis, J. (2012). Anti-piracy bills posed threat to online innovation. Northern Colorado Business Report, 17(10), 30. SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) debate: Why are Google and Facebook against it? (2011, November 17). Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/sopa-stoponline-piracy-act-debate-why-are-google-and-facebook-againstit/2011/11/17/gIQAvLubVN_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop Tassi, P. (2012, February 2). You Will Never Kill Piracy, and Piracy Will Never Kill You. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/02/03/you-will-never-kill-piracy-andpiracy-will-never-kill-you/
9|Page

June 15, 2012

[DIGITAL MEDIA PIRACY IS NOT HARMFUL]

Wong, C. (2011, November 18). US Piracy Law Could Threaten Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.cdt.org/blogs/cynthia-wong/1811us-piracy-law-could-threaten-humanrights Youtube.com Site Info (February 6, 2012). Retrieved from http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/youtube.com

10 | P a g e