Why AFACT is wrong (and always will be)

36

This blog post was authored by Mozart Palmer, a spokesperson for Pirate Party Australia. It was published in reaction to this article by AFACT executive director Neil Gane, which argues that the controversial SOPA/PIPA and ACTA anti-piracy laws being debated internationally have been been unfairly criticised.

opinion Copyright lobbyists love to use words like ‘stealing’ and ‘piracy’ to describe sharing copyrighted materials online. ‘Theft’ is another word commonly applied by these copyright protectionists to what is already a widespread practice. The expression ‘copyright theft’ is a paradox: it is impossible to take away a person’s right to copy information or ideas. ‘Theft’ is used to misinform the public, media and, most importantly, lawmakers, in order to outlaw what many see as perfectly normal behaviour.

We are taught from a very early age to share, and in the Information Age, where sharing information, ideas and culture is incredibly easy, it is only natural for people to continue to do so.

This ability is being hampered however, as groups such as the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT, whose name is ironically a paradox in itself) continue their efforts to protect the failing business models of an industry too complacent and comfortable to adapt. Whenever a new technology comes along that facilitates the dissemination of knowledge and culture on a much wider scale than before, the content industry – the copyright owners and their representatives – complain that it will destroy them.

The video cassette recorder (VCR) was famously condemned in 1982 by Jack Valenti, the then president of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), who claimed that “the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone.” Clearly the VCR did not kill the film industry. People did not suddenly stop paying for content. The industry adapted and moved on.

We are facing much the same scenario with the Internet. It is a tool that allows an egalitarian ‘information society.’ Access to content has never been easier or cheaper than now.

Yet this poses a dilemma for the content industry. Producers of content are forced to choose between fighting to maintain their old way of doing business or adapting to the ‘brave new world’ that the Internet is creating. Rather than be innovative and embrace the new technology, they seek stricter enforcement of the old ways of doing things.

What we are witnessing is an abject market failure. Consumers are forced to buy licenses to content that they have no real rights over, that are crippled with digital rights management (DRM) restrictions and are not easily accessible or conveniently delivered. When contrasted with the ‘pirate’ versions, where licenses are redundant, there is no DRM, and content can be accessed 24/7 on multiple devices, is it so hard to conclude why piracy is a popular way of accessing media?

Exorbitant losses are claimed as results of ‘piracy’ or ‘theft’ when litigating, without evidence as to whether those ‘pirates’ intended to purchase the content they accessed. Organisations such as the UK Intellectual Property Office express doubts regarding the methods of calculating ‘losses,’ offering the view that an item is only worth the value a consumer ascribes to it in the digital economy. Copyright holders must find a way of making their content valuable to the consumer – reasonable pricing and unfettered access might be good places to start.

Instead, they support the introduction of legislation that threatens the very civil liberties the Internet is capable of providing – to protect their copyrights they will gladly impinge upon our rights to freedom of speech and expression, not to mention the cultural rights enshrined in international law.

Neil Gane, the managing director of AFACT, is uninformed when he claims the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) would not go beyond preventing ‘large scale theft’. The wide provisions contained within SOPA and PIPA raise concerns regarding who is responsible for policing the Internet, and who has the authority to take down websites that are claimed to infringe copyright. There is also concern over false claims against competitive websites, as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has already been abused by rights holders.

Gane fails to address the concerns that the international public have about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). He ignores the fact that it does not delineate between commercial and non-commercial copyright infringement, which could allow for criminal liabilities to be taken against file-sharers.

He also ignores the grave concerns that the strict patent enforcement provided by ACTA would prevent medicines reaching those in developing countries who desperately need them. But as he is concerned with protecting the ability of content owners to empty our wallets in the developed world, perhaps it is unfair to expect him to think of those less fortunate. Regarding the claims that ACTA’s negotiations were transparent: anyone who believes that is deluded. Any transparency achieved was the result of leaks, and it is clear that only industry lobby groups received copies of the negotiating texts.

What the content industry fails to acknowledge above all is that it is cannibalising itself.

The Swiss Government have found that while file-sharing is popular in Switzerland, the budget these ‘pirates’ reserve for entertainment remains constant. People are simply supplementing their ‘cultural consumption’ with file-sharing because they do not have the money to purchase everything. Content is being created too fast for incomes to keep up, and copyright is lasting longer. At life + 70 years, the amount of content people are expected to purchase far outweighs their disposable incomes.

If the content industry and their representatives want to remain competitive, they must understand this, and adopt new business models that aren’t reliant upon squeezing every last dollar from us, but from offering reasonable, affordable and accessible services.

This article was originally posted on Mozart Palmer’s website and the Pirate Party Australia’s website and is replicated here with his permission. It has been licenced as Creative Commons.

36 COMMENTS

  1. All of my friends and aquaintances around my age bittorrent all their music, tv shows and movies. They haven’t paid for a cd, mp3, dvd (outright or rental) or gone to a movie for years and years. I know I’m not exceptional in this regard.

    Even if there were a range of legitimate, reasonably priced sources to acquire this content from – they wouldn’t, because it’s cheaper to get it for free.

    You can try and justify this behaviour by arguing semantics including the meaning of the word “theft” – but I’m not sure that actually achieves anything.

    These types of diatribes are getting pretty tiresome.

    • And what is your age?

      Is your friends and acquaintances full time, casual, part time employed?

      I used to torrent all the games back when I was unemployed now I buy everything from Steam as it’s easy/convenient and not too badly priced.

      • I’m in the 24-40 year old bracket. My friends are middle-income earners with relatively stable employment.

    • …and I would add:

      does this mean the entertainment industry got it wrong by not offering legit online services earlier? Of course they did.

      Should the industry be punished for that mistake in perpetuity by way of the internet industry refusing to take any steps to mitigate piracy levels? I don’t think so.

      • Music industry got themselves sorted rather well in getting their content online to be purchased. Movie industry is lagging way behind.

        • Actually, I would argue they were bullied into it by Steve Jobs, kicking and screaming the whole way. But as you note, the sky didn’t fall after all!

    • Your friends can get the same content from Radio/TV for free also (paid for by adds), so being able to downloading isnt the issue.

      The issue is that distributors need to pricing official downloads at a comparable rate to what TV stations get per viewer from broadcasts, and then add an extra premium if they can deliver it before it gets on tv.

      But when distributors dont even understand their industry, as a random consumer like myself they clearly dont deserve to be in business.

      What needs to happen is for consumers to continue the boycott of these official distributors until the system breaks, then we can rebuild it sanely.

      join the BLACK MARCH

      • “The issue is that distributors need to pricing official downloads at a comparable rate to what TV stations get per viewer from broadcasts, and then add an extra premium if they can deliver it before it gets on tv.”

        +1

        • And here’s something I watch all the time:

          http://www.crunchyroll.com/

          (btw their iPad app is twice as good as the site)

          It makes torrents a waste of time, because it’s just a simpler, faster delivery method.

          Consumers pay for better service … not … very … complicated.

  2. It’s a little difficult to argue that online piracy isn’t theft to a certain degree, because it does still mean that people who potentially would have paid for it now won’t.

    However this article is right in (if) the entertainment industry is pumping out more material then before it’s illogical for them to expect their revenues to increase by the same amount, the money still has to come from somewhere and people don’t have bottomless pockets.

    The Age reported this article from AFACTs perspective .. http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/business-it/preventing-online-theft-benefits-all-20120226-1tw39.html

    Arguing that we need SOPA/PIPA/ACTA to be able to take down sites like megaupload, the problem with that argument is that we don’t have those in place now yet still were able to take down megaupload. And of course it ignores the further damage that these bills could do beyond attempting to stop online piracy.

    Personally I see there being 3 levels of people involved in piracy.

    * The end user who downloads the material, these are the ones targeted with the with the “pay us $X000 or we’ll take you to court”, yet typically they also spend money on entertainment material at the same time.

    * Those creating/encoding the material the end users obtain

    * Those selling the material for sell profit.

    Really the targeting should be in the reverse order of this list, and if done this way then there are already laws in place to take down just about everyone they need to.

    • “However this article is right in (if) the entertainment industry is pumping out more material then before it’s illogical for them to expect their revenues to increase by the same amount, the money still has to come from somewhere and people don’t have bottomless pockets.”

      The problem is the entertainment industry doesn’t reliase that every time a new work is released it decreases the value of every other work available. They still expect us to pay the same price however… and exactly why should we be paying exorbitant prices for something they can effectively copy an infinite amount of times without any cost to themselves?

      • Yeah, the whole digital distribution thing is what Kenny Rogers and co is suing the content distributers for at the moment.

        You’d think if one of their clients is suing them they might wise up that something is wrong, but apparently not.

  3. “People are simply supplementing their ‘cultural consumption’ with file-sharing because they do not have the money to purchase everything.”

    I call BS. “Cultural Consumption” is not, broadly speaing, “Entertainment”. Just like you argue “Infringement” is not “Theft” – even though the copyright owner is permantly deprived some income (maybe not for every infringement) from the sale of their content.

    If people do not have the money to “purchase everything”, than, in a market economy, they should not consume what they cannot/are not willing to pay for.

    “Content is being created too fast for incomes to keep up, and copyright is lasting longer. At life + 70 years, the amount of content people are expected to purchase far outweighs their disposable incomes”.

    If it is being created “too fast”, than, in any sense, than one needn’t consume it all, therefore not purchase it all, and only consume what they are willing to purchase/can afford.

    You final statement smacks of hypocracy and self righteous justification:
    “If the content industry and their representatives want to remain competitive, they must understand this, and adopt new business models that aren’t reliant upon squeezing every last dollar from us, but from offering reasonable, affordable and accessible services.”

    Your whole parties premise is based on consuming content to which you currently have no legal right, for free because you don’t intend to onsell it (non commrcial) and that for that purpose, it should be legal – yet you arguing here a different position – unless you are arguing that by “reasonable, affordable and accesible” you mean they should just make everything they have available – for free, because you will take it for free if they don’t.

    If AFACT is always wrong, and always will be – you, as the polar opposite – despite your arrogance, are no more correct, and suspect, never will be.

  4. Any argument that copyright theft isn’t theft is completely stupid. If I spend hours writing a software application am I not entitled to be compensated for my time by selling it? Next you’ll be arguing that you shouldn’t pay anyone in the service industry because it’s not really theft if you’re only taking their time and not a physical product.

    The government provides copyright and patents so that people will spend time innovating and creating new products. The problem isn’t the existence of these rights but the way they have become abused.

    1. We have protection that lasts too long. This is now having the opposite effect of allowing companies to stifle innovation and competition while living off past glory.

    2. We have companies using new technologies and licence models to control how people use their product. If I buy a car I can use it in any way I see fit. If I want to fit third party after market products to it then I can. This isn’t an argument against editions with limited functionality because they’re like Holden selling V6 and V8 commodores. It’s an argument against DRM and licences that restrict how I can use the content.

    Like many people I haven’t purchase a CD or DVD in years. It’s not because I’m downloading music but because I haven’t found anything worth purchasing in a while. By contrast my consumption books has increased thanks to decreasing prices although I do stay away from DRM ebooks.

    • Seriously?

      You do realise that theft is defined as “the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession”

      So when you make a copy of something, you are doing just that a copy, sure you spent hours working on it and it may equal a lost sale. But no one is stealing your time or your software.

      If they stole the master copy from your house. As in the physical device it was stored on, then yes theft has occurred.

      Also me as a customer isn’t paying for someone in the ‘service industry’ I am paying for their SERVICE. As in they give me a massage, I pay for the massage. I don’t pay for the person. You also can’t steal a massage. You can leave without paying, but it isn’t theft.

      While I’m at it I’ll give you this link http://www.geordieguy.com/?p=1177 which also explains this whole, it isn’t theft thing rather well.

      • Yes, I am serious. Arguing that failing to pay for an electronic product or service isn’t theft because you didn’t take a physical product is exactly why AFACT has any credibility. You are depriving the person/company who produced it of income in world that is very quickly moving away from producing physical goods. I’m really not sure how anyone can argue that producers need to move into a brave new world while consumers are clinging to the “old way” to justify their actions. All this does is make the case for the use DRM and restrictive licences.

        Both sides of this argument need to grow up. Consumers need to admit that copying digital products is stealing. Producers need to admit that once a digital product has been purchase it belongs to the consumer and can be used any way that want.

        • But if I copy a movie, this doesn’t mean I was going to actually buy it in the first place and so doesn’t equal a lost sale.

        • If someone buys something, and is allowed ownership of it, then they are allowed to do what they like with it. If I buy a lawnmower and lend it to my neighbour instead of him going out and buying his own, then this is normal for a sold item, surely? Therefore, if I buy a CD, I am allowed to upload it for other people, or burn a copy for a friend, as I own it, according to you.

          Unfortunately, all they do is license it, which means you own the CD, but only have permission to use the content singularly. I think that’s partly what the Pirate Party is objecting to. If you buy something, it seems you really have no rights to it.

  5. At risk of getting nailed, I’ll admit to downloading songs, movies/TV and software.

    Most of the songs I download aren’t available through any legal channel in Australia, which opens up the grey area of “Is it a lost sale if the product is not available in a given region?” As a preference, I prefer to download my songs off iTunes, since most of them, if not all, are now DRM free. As pointed out by someone else, the Music Industry was pretty much dragged kicking and screaming into this new method of distribution by Steve Jobs, among others, and yet the industry itself is apparently thriving.

    Movies and TV shows are a different case though. Given my restricted income, I am rarely able to afford a cinema ticket, which range from $15-$20, more if you want 3D. This doesn’t include the cost of travel, or food and drink (since my local cinema won’t allow anything in unless it’s purchased at the snack bar,) which then pushes the cost upwards of about $30, per person. So, I go and download the movie, and if it’s a good watch, I’ll go to the cinema and watch it again. If it’s not, then I won’t go. Take Avatar as an example. I downloaded it initially, but after about 10-20 mins, I decided that I’d seen enough to get a reasonable impression of the movie, and made my decision to see it in cinema. I went on to watch the same movie 3 times while it was in Cinema, because it was a good movie. If I feel it’s a bad movie, I’ll give the benefit of the doubt and watch the whole thing on my computer to see if it was just slow to start, and I’ll make my decision at the end. Chances are though, I won’t go and see it.

    For my software, I try to pay for what I can, such as games through Steam, and I try to use Open Source software where I can’t pay for something (I use GIMP in place of Photoshop, as an example.) If I download some software, and it’s not priced stupidly, I’ll purchase a licence or a years subscription.

    TL;DR: I try and pay for what I use where I can. If it’s not available to me, then I’ll Download it as a last resort. Movies being the exception, as I download them to decide if it’s worth going to the cinema.

  6. Out of interest, besides the big busts like the people selling burn DVDs and the like, have any individual consumers actually be fined in Australia yet? I know people have received the infringement notices but can’t remember seeing anything beyond them.

    • Not that I’m aware of and think this is because they can only be done for the cost of court and the cost of the lost sale and not ‘damages’ like in the US

  7. Personally I feel the copyright itself needs a reset. Tear down all the arguments based on the established system and revisit the reasons for it’s existence in the first place and see to what extent they remain valid and relevant in todays world.

    It’s a pipedream I know, no one is actually going to do this. Instead we’ll make entire generations into criminals in an attempt to maintain the increasingly anachronistic status quo.

  8. there’s more to it than just pricing. what about availability? much of the content that is “stolen” simply can’t be obtained in our market. when i consume content that a local broadcaster has acquired the rights to but chooses to hoard or delay for a year or more – somehow that just doesn’t feel naughty. you can argue about semantics and i can see both sides of the argument but the traditional “content distributors” that seek protection from AFACT generally seem to be dinosaurs that contribute nothing meaningful and get in the way by hoarding content when they think it suits them. new age content distributors are starting to create their own content and sports leagues are building their own content networks which bypass the old networks and go straight to your set top box or mobile device – no need for the dinosaurs. the world has changed, if you don’t add value and the only way you can survive is to try and get the legal system to preserve an antiquated model and enforce your hold on a market, then you’ve forfeited your right to survive. you can’t or won’t change – so goodbye!

  9. How dare he use studies from sources independent of the content industry to validate his arguments!? How dare he use international law to justify participation in cultural activity!? How dare he show how legislation is continually abused!?

    It’s these kinds of reckless, evidence-based opinions that will destroy the reputation of the industry! He must be stopped! Evidence must be ignored at all costs! Burn the books!

  10. Dear Mozart,

    Many thanks for referencing the cultural rights that are enshrined in international law. Had you actually read the United Nations document (and article 15, paragraph 1 (c) of the Covenant) that you kindly provided the hyper link to, you would have realised that it was not “impinging upon YOUR rights to freedom of speech and expression”. It was in fact outlining the right to protection of the material interests of the author of a scientific, literary or artistic work. In other words the human right of a creator (author) of content to benefit financially from his or her work….in other words a film maker…in other words said international law is outlining anything but YOUR “right to freedom of speech and expression” and to download and consume entertainment content that belongs to someone else. Oh, and incidentally , this right , recognised by international law, is not a cultural right but a human right.

    • Dear Jason,

      I read everything that I reference, so let me assure you that I am not ignorant of this particular article. I would like to refer you to the study that I linked to, page four of which states:

      “…the protection under article 15, paragraph 1 (c), need not necessarily reflect the level
      and means of protection found in present copyright, patent and other intellectual property
      regimes, as long as the protection available is suited to secure for authors the moral and material
      interests resulting from their productions, as defined in paragraphs 12 to 16 below. ”

      Paragraphs 12 to 16 set out that the author has the right to attribution, and to benefit from the material interests (interpreted as “profits”) that the work may generate. You can read the document yourself for the details.

      They do not – I must emphasise this – imply that the author has the right to sue people for not paying them, but that if material interests are generated, they deserve at least a slice. So the onus, in my interpretation as both a writer and musician personally, is on the author to create something people feel the need or want to pay for, and if they aren’t willing to pay, then case closed.

      I should also clarify: when I referred to “cultural rights” I was referring to them within the context of the United Nations, and should point out that social, cultural and economic rights are a subset of international human rights laws. I have spent considerable time researching in my role as Head of Media Relations at Pirate Party Australia, and so implying that I am ignorant does not seem fully appropriate.

      Regardless of this, I would like to thank you for your input in this discussion, and hope you find my reply well considered, even if you disagree.

      • Dear Mozart,

        Paragraphs 12 to 16 ( and I too must emphasise this) do not imply that the author does not have the right to sue people for not paying them. I would agree with your “interpretation” up until you left it hanging with tenuous implication…It would indeed be in a writers or a musicians or a film makers interest “to create something people feel the need or want to pay for” however “if they aren’t willing to pay” it does not give them the cultural, moral or human right to take it (download it) and consume it for free without paying – unless the author affords them permission to do so. That is called copyright infringement / theft / looting or whatever synonym is morally acceptable to you. Paragraph 15 also specifically references Article 15 of the Covenant and its close linkage with the right to own property which is recognised in Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 which states that a person “has the right to protection of moral and material interest….resulting from artistic production of which he is the author”.

        I respect your courteous last sentence, Mozart, but a discussion is best served with facts rather than a side dish of cherry picked assumptions.

  11. Dear Jason,

    Good point, and well made. I just feel that copyright is a little too stifling at the moment, and would like to see provisions for non-commercial use. This still means that if you’re going to make money from it, then you should pay the author for its use.

    As you’ve shown, the article in question can be interpreted several ways, and you’re entitled to interpret it that particular way. I don’t really think it’s fair to stop people engaging with their culture merely because they can’t pay for it (or, alternatively, won’t) – I pay for everything (or use Creative Commons/Public Domain), as there’s not much out there that I enjoy that I haven’t already got. It’s a bit of a pain in the neck to have to order DVDs and books from Germany or the States because things aren’t available here, but nonetheless, I do consume ‘legitimately’.

    Courteousness will get you a long way I’ve found, and I’d rather not be at loggerheads with people just because we don’t see eye to eye on everything. I’d argue that I don’t cherry pick, but do in fact select my resources with care (as any good academic does!).

    I would also recommend, if you’re interested in learning more about the Pirate Party perspective on intellectual property reform (even just to critique it), that you grab a copy of “No Safe Harbor” by the United States Pirate Party – It’s Creative Commons, free to download, or you can buy the hardcopy from Amazon for US$20 including shipping (if you don’t mind waiting three weeks, like I did!).

  12. Dear Mozart,

    Your measured response is respected and appreciated. As is your honesty for paying for content which is not intended nor made available for free . If only your small crew of Australian swashbucklers and those of your overseas counterparts had similar scruples. The crux of this whole debate is your moral reasoning that you “don’t really think it’s fair to stop people engaging with their culture merely because they can’t pay for it (or, alternatively, won’t)”. This is where again I would accuse you of gross cherry picking and advocating the broadest possible definition of “culture” and indeed the words “their culture”. How an episode of “Gossip Girl” could be argued as a being a piece of culture (nevermind Australian culture) beggars belief – and I say this not as a disparaging criticism of the TV show. I have read every possible definition of “culture” as expressed in the Macquarie Dictionary and your argument always comes back to the same conclusion – merely an attempt at moral justification for people who engage in “the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another ” (which, Mozart, is the Macquarie Dictionary definition of “theft”)

    • There have been several studies that self-confessed pirates spend more than non-pirates on media.
      See: http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/technology/29016-pirates-spend-more-on-music-than-the-rest-of-us

      I would argue that Mozart’s ” small crew of Australian swashbucklers”, of which I am a member, do in fact, when possible, pay for media, and despite disliking the companies who make up the industry, are actually their biggest, financial supporters, per capita.

      • The research you refer to is actually called the “Digital Music Survey” and is specific to digital music piracy and does not reference any other form of digital entertainment such as film or TV shows.

        The research actually found that 26% of those using unofficial music services “buy a little/lot more music as a result” whereas 19% said that they bought “a little to a lot less” music as a result of accessing illegal sites.

        Looks like it is a consistent problem amongst pirate party members to refer to research claiming it supports their argument WITHOUT reading it in the first place…..

  13. Dear Jason,

    I think we’ll have to agree to disagree – unless you want me to prattle on about “globalisation of culture” (or other buzzwords) and the fact that copying a file does not deprive the owner of it, and therefore isn’t theft, but copyright infringement (I advocate the use of the latter – I accept that it is an ‘infringement’). While I personally see no value in a lot of popular culture (I’m a bit of a cynic to be completely honest), it still has to emanate from somewhere – “culture isn’t created in a vacuum”. You don’t carry away a good if you duplicate it in my opinion.

    Nevertheless, thank you for a fascinating debate, and if you ever want to contact me outside these comments, feel free to – my details are on our site. Also, cheers for being rational – I’m impressed that you resisted cutting me down and actually engaged calmly. Good to see some diplomacy!

  14. To arguments that there are still people who will not pay for content that they can obtain for free, that is true. But there are plenty of people who *will* pay. And those who will pay, pay enough to make being an artist feasible.

    It’s not up to society to help artists squeeze the maximum amount of money from society; it’s up to society to help artists squeeze enough money from society in order to make being an artist worthwhile, so that society benefits from the increase in knowledge and culture.

    A copyright length of 70 years passed the death of the artist is not going to help or motivate the artist. It will not motivate their estate either, though it will certainly help their progeny slip into a life of sloth. We all know that the real beneficiaries of ridiculously long copyright terms are the publishers, who often use nefarious business practices in order to cheat artists out of their dues, even during the term of their life.

    To arguments that the sorts of things people download do not constitute culture, every bit of knowledge that is communicated to a person is culture at some level. An “in” joke affects the culture of a group. A stupid cat meme affects the culture of the world. Any given TV show affects the culture of the audience, despite that effect rarely being measurable in practice. Having watched The Simpsons, large parts of 3 generations of Western civilisation now exclaim “D’oh!” to communicate various forms of failings. That word is a contribution to culture.

    I guess the point I am trying to make is that you can’t prove the evil of piracy by pointing out that *some* people won’t pay, or that *some* shows don’t contribute much measurable culture when shared.

    Anyway, the worst thing with Neil Gane’s article is that it is written from an extremist, corporate perspective. I’ve got no problem with corporations striving for maximal profits, but when the strategies employed are to reach those goals at the expense of civil liberties, whether due to evil, ignorance or incompetence, that’s when we’ve all got to put our feet down.

    That’s just what the internet denizens did when SOPA and PIPA were about to be passed, and it’s for one of my 3 listed reasons that Neil Gane just doesn’t get it.

    • You argue – “To arguments that there are still people who will not pay for content that they can obtain for free, that is true. But there are plenty of people who *will* pay. And those who will pay, pay enough to make being an artist feasible”.

      So your argument is that it makes both economic and moral sense for the “honest” people in society who pay for content to subsidize those who choose to commit an illegal act ( to infringe copyright is a breach of a Commonwealth law) . What a society we would have if all market economics complied with this concept…..

      You argue – “It’s not up to society to help artists squeeze the maximum amount of money from society; it’s up to society to help artists squeeze enough money from society in order to make being an artist worthwhile, so that society benefits from the increase in knowledge and culture”.

      Perhaps you could share with us what job you have – I will then construct a similar argument that your job is all about the betterment of society and you are being greedy for asking for a pay rise as well as expecting to be paid for overtime when (in my opinion) you are already paid enough to make a “feasible” living as a XXXX (please describe your job here)

      Yoou argue – “Having watched The Simpsons, large parts of 3 generations of Western civilisation now exclaim “D’oh!” to communicate various forms of failings. That word is a contribution to culture”.

      That word is now a commonly used expression not a “contribution to culture”…..Describing it as a “contribution to culture” and thus a justification to illegally download the complete Simpsons box set is , well,….all I can say is “D’OH”. To “google” is also a commonly used expression ergo a “contribution to culture” – can I have their algorithms for free please?!.

      You argue – “I’ve got no problem with corporations striving for maximal profits, but when the strategies employed are to reach those goals at the expense of civil liberties, whether due to evil, ignorance or incompetence, that’s when we’ve all got to put our feet down”.

      All these “evil” corporations are doing is making and selling music, films, TV shows, games , books etc. If you feel your “civil liberties” are being expended then you have every liberty to a) not buy the cinema ticket / DVD / CD / book / game or b) not watch / read / listen to / or play that piece of music, film, book or game etc.

Comments are closed.