A huge controversy over the past decade or so has been over the piracy of file sharing and the legality involved. There are pros and cons either way, but the pros are proving to outweigh all the rest. Tim O'Reily defines piracy as comparable to shoplifting, because that is the action being performed...robbery of the artist. Is it robbery though if it's ultimately building a fan base through mass exposure? Progressive taxation is in other words artists getting screwed and not getting paid but still are letting people access their work in hopes of gaining their money back through fan loyalty. Tim say's "obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy." Without taking a risk, there is a loss of business.
As the use of technology devices and internet services find new ways of selling products, books in this case, are dwindling in the number of hard-copies, or printed documents sold in retail stores. In addition to the slim chance you even get whatever you are selling into the store, it's likely it won't be on shelves for a substantial amount of time anyway. If the store's inventory says the product is in stock, and it gets shoplifted, it may take months or forever even for them to even notice its gone and order a new one. That's where the phenomenon of online publishing comes in. It will never go away because no matter what the medium, buyers of all sorts (customers, retailers, wholesalers) depend on the publishers and vice versa.
According to Tim's argument, sites like Amazon.com are keeping books alive that otherwise would have no outlet at all and can be bought. Authors feel lucky if their publishers give them the rights to make their work accessible free of charge, simply because of the exposure. Because the internet allows for such advanced searches on just about anything, people are able to find rare material that is not available in stores. By discovering this hard-to-find product, artists get to showcase their skills and up their reputation leading to increased sales. Many artists can agree with Michael Moore's recent statement at a press conference, " I make these books, movies, and TV shows because I want things to change and so the more people who get to see them the better. So I'm happy that that happens. Should I not be?"
Record companies can answer a big fat no to that question. Like authors with their books, the music industry self-proclaims itself as soon to be dead because of lack of record sales. According to CNET "Labels point to unauthorized CD copying as one of the most powerful trends, along with Internet file sharing through services such as Kazaa or Morpheous, that is undermining the music industry's core business." Recently these record labels have been pushing to make all CDs unable to be burnt. This has sprouted a legal issue because of the law known as the Audio Home Recording Act. It states the "key purpose of (the legislation) is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog and digital recordings of copyrighted music for private, noncommercial use."
I can understand record labels and publisher's frustration when it comes to file-sharing because obviously they are initially going to think they are losing money. I agree with Tim's belief that in the long run mass exposure equals mass revenue. In a way I feel like that's why consequences for piracy aren't harsh at all. Deep down the facts are there to prove that people will buy things that offer the best over free things that are only ok. Why have only what's available, when you can have anything and everything for a small monthly fee? People's behaviors won't change, business survival won't either, and eventually the two will live in harmony. Until then, I know borrowing a CD or book from someone isn't robbing squat, but rather educating myself about something that may be an interest of mine in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment