Part of the issue is, not everyone agrees that it is wrong. As my last post on piracy pointed out, everyone is in breach of copyright on some level, we are all in the legal “wrong,” yet many of us believe we are morally correct in minor copyright infringements.
I’m going to examine this argument broken down by the piracy subcategories discussed in last piracy post (for better or worse).
Purchaser: This person has already paid for a legal copy of the film. Now, the Purchaser might want to do a number of things that are technically in breach of copyright:
a) Burn a copy of the dvd for personal use, so that their original copy won’t get scratched.
b) Create a digital copy for use on a portable MP4 player, media gate, or computer.
c) Lend the burned dvd to a friend for their personal use (their friend being a Previewer).
d) Lend the digital copy to a friend for personal use (which actually involves making another digital copy).
All these things are technically acts of “piracy,” however, are they all morally “wrong”? Is copyright law applicable to the mores of the digital age, or does it need to be updated?
As the purchaser has already paid the fee to own the dvd and watch the film repeatedly, why does it matter if they copy it for personal use into a form that prevents destruction of the original and allows them to watch it on a variety of media?
Lending it to a friend gets a bit murkier. There are two ways of seeing this:
- You can lend the original dvd to a friend, but not the copy. (Legal argument)
- Lending a copy in digital form should be no different to lending the physical version (alternative argument).
The quandary is whether there is a difference lending a physical dvd to lending/sharing a digital copy. This is a divisional point, and both sides have good reason for the stance they take. For the purpose of finding a reasonable middle ground, I suggest:
- It’s okay to give them a burned copy if it is a ‘lending’ situation: they don’t copy it for their own collection, and they give it back after watching it. Your original purchase stays safe in your archive.
- It’s not okay to give out multiple copies. The notion is that only one version is in use at any point in time – either one in your home, or one you have leant.
i.e. The friend can watch your copy, but not have a copy to keep – they have not purchased a user license fee, so can only watch it under yours. Much like lending a book, or a jacket.
Is that reasonable? Is that fair? Should laws be updated to allow this legally?
And what should the punishment be for breach of these terms? [Keeping in mind we’re just talking about a Purchaser at this point (I’ll discuss the more serious forms of Piracy in another post), and a good many of otherwise law abiding citizens will on occasion give a burnt copy to a family member or close friend... ]
How serious is this crime compared to others misdemeanours in our society?
- Library fine $2
- Parking fine $197
- Shoplifting $235
- Aggravated littering $375
- Nuisance dog barking $880
- Drink driving $1,100
- Common assault $2,200
As you've pointed out, people lend each other books, music and video games it's a normal thing. Technically, it's a breach of copyright, but then again, the receivers weren't going to buy that item in the first place. Allowing them to watch it would gain their interest in buying it for their own collection or be interested in future films or products from the producer.
ReplyDeleteBut wether not the friend makes copies and lend it to someone else, then that gets iffy... but I don't see how it's not different from Audio Cassettes and VHS back in the days.
The increase of knowledge and culture in society should be a good thing and to make exorbitant amounts of money off that is morally wrong I think. Should I pay in order to see a van Gogh or a Renoir? Should I pay to listen to Bach or to read the general theory of relativity? Well, if there are costs associated with providing these services, then yes of course. But should that amount be over and above the cost price of providing that service? Take libraries or museums. In England most museums are free and so is joining a library. These are funded through taxation, so in England at least, you can successfully argue that our common culture and knowledge is something that society as a whole owns and funds through the taxes that we all (should) pay. How would that apply to a new film, book or music cd? Well, when I go to a theatre, concert venue or cinema I have to pay to get in and no-one would expect to get that for free. If I want to read the very latest book, I won't be able to get it in the library, so I'll have to go out and buy it, and I don't think anyone would expect otherwise. But once something has been published for a while and has proven to be popular or worthwhile my feeling is that it should be fair game to read, watch or listen to. Perhaps artists should be rewarded for past works the way this works with UK libraries at the moment through the Public Lending Right scheme. 'Piracy' is here to stay and I for one am glad. It makes for a more equal and just society when everyone has access to the same knowledge, ideas and culture regardless of their social status or net worth. Because at the end of the day, someone who has a large expendable income will rarely resort to 'piracy' I think. It's just too much hassle. It's much easier to just go out and buy it or simpler still, order it online.
ReplyDeleteWhy is the presumption here that these acts are 'technically in breach of copyright'? That is not necessarily true, as supported by 'Fair Use.'
ReplyDeletea & b have been repeatedly supported by the courts as permissible under 'Fair Use.' (In the case of DVDs, if they are DRM'd it becomes a different issue- that of bypassing DRM which is banned by the DMCA...not a copyright issue per se.
Thanks for your comments - all very good and thought provoking.
ReplyDeleteThe issue with "Fair Use" as I understand it (but I'm no lawyer" is that it's not been well defined in the legal system of most countries, so what one person believes is Fair Use, another argues isn't.
Eg. in Australia some people in the free-to-air TV industry have publicly argued that to record TV and skip through the ads is a breach of unwritten terms - free to air TV is paid for by advertising, in hooking our TV up to it we are implicitly agreeing to watch those ads.
I agree a lot should fall under Fair Use - but we need our legal system to get up to date on definitions so that it's clearly spelled out. Until there's a review of this stuff, there will continue to be huge debate.
Techdirt has linked to this and - having a far larger readership than lil ol me - has a huge debate raging in the comments section. Well worth the read... http://techdirt.com/articles/20100312/0310218536.shtml
ReplyDeleteIt makes for a more equal and just society when everyone has access to the same knowledge, ideas and culture regardless of their social status or net worth.
ReplyDelete