Ideas on Internet Piracy

Correlation Between Illegal Downloaders and Buying Music

2012-12-11T21:49:00.000-08:00

A Hadopi study shows that those who pirate music, the same people that the industry hate, are their best customers.

Could it be perhaps that they have a budget for music and pirate the rest? Not all pirates are scumbag steve freeloading trolls, another Columbia University study shows strong correlation between file-sharing and media spending. (Read more here)

Just remember you pirates, if want something you value Buy It. Because:

Seriously though...

Canadian Copyright Law Caps File-Sharing Lawsuits at $5000

2012-12-11T21:13:00.003-08:00

Anti-Piracy laws in Canada have made the front page, much of it not so good, but some of it is reasonable.

The Entertainment industries have again been trying to hammer down on the Pirating trolls. The Daily Dot reports that a Canadian "Forensic" Anti-Piracy firm called Canpire has provided evidence in the NGN Prima Productions case, in which NGN is trying to claim cash settlements from alleged sharers of its action movie "Recoil". So far, there have been 50-100 IP addresses that have been identified, and the company intends on pursing them. Canpire also threatens to ID a million more illegal downloaders in the future. Already a country where file-sharing is legal, on what grounds will these pirates be charged? and how accurate is the data retrieved by Canpire?

Typical right? But what's new?

A new law called Bill C-11 has passed, which reforms digital copyright laws, particularly for pirated music/movies. The law would limit non-commercial cases of infringement to a maximum of $5000 and a minimum of $100. Notice the word "non-commercial", this means the 13 year olds downloading One-Direction songs aren't going to have to go to jail (possibly a bad thing? jk). Although this is much better than the U.S. maximum penalty which is at $150,000, people don't want to see a letter saying they are going to court for illegal or "negligent" downloading.

Not long after this law was passed, Voltage's case of suing pirates for sharing their movie "The Hurt Locker" has been abandoned. There was no statement given for the reason, but a good inference is that the new C-11 copyright reform will make the penalties not even worth pursuing.

In my opinion, Bill C-11 seems to be pretty reasonable and deters both sides from their bad habits: Pirates getting their "free" content are going to be annoyed with court hearings and menial fines, and large entertainment corporations in the industry won't be getting large sums of money for suing teenagers on the internet. It's actually a phenomenon how much money entertainment companies make from suing, yet still claim ridiculously large net losses.

Consumer/Producer Attitudes still need to change, and we aren't close to a real compromise, but it's nice to finally see some a baby step toward an appropriate legal policy that puts a cap on frivolous piracy lawsuits.

Anti-Piracy Draconian Law in Japan, Music Sales Drop

2012-12-10T18:17:00.000-08:00

With the pressures of ACTA (the global Anti-Piracy initiative) in place, a Draconian Anti-Piracy Law goes into effect and Music Sales subsequently plummet (more details at TechDirt).

According to Japan Today, downloading copyrighted music and video can be punishable by up to Two years in jail and a 2 million yen fine ($24,284 USD). Two years of trying your best not to drop the soap while losing the money for a new car... for downloading a stupid song. Scary? That's the point.

Unfortunately the music industry in Japan needs someone to blame for the decline in sales. No, they don't blame the crappy artists, high-priced CD's in a struggling economy, or their lack of initiative to increase revenue in other ways beside direct royalty from music purchases. They conveniently point their fingers at the evil RPG wielding internet pirates, who need to be observed every second because they are so "dangerous"...

Music Industry's Perception of Internet Pirates

The backfiring is obvious, this law has discouraged the already decline in interest in today's music. Many Japanese people state that when they do purchase music, it's from a foreign store because music at domestic stores are too expensive.

With that said, seeing that now the download button isn't available, and the music doesn't seem worth buying, people just don't bother anymore. Yet, the industry and lobbyists still fail to recognize this.

Internet Pirate in Real Life

The War on Piracy: Battle Map

2012-12-09T23:14:00.000-08:00

Battle Map

The War on Piracy: Piracy Tactics and Mechanics

2012-12-09T23:10:00.000-08:00

Pirate Hierarchy and Mechanics

Click to Enlarge

Internet User Psyche

Click to Enlarge

Author Neil Gaiman on Copyright and the Web

2012-12-05T11:57:00.008-08:00

Author Neil Gaiman Shares an Interesting Point of View on Internet Piracy

Watch the video, Gaiman points out some odd ways piracy has helped accelerate his career, and his success as an author is testimonial. Perhaps this could help other authors or even music artists jumpstart their sales and ambitions.

More Insight from Widen The Web

2012-12-05T11:57:00.005-08:00

Long before making this blog, I stumbled upon a WP blog called "Widen the Web". Two articles I felt would be relevant to this blog were ones about the Ethics of Censorship/Restriction of the Internet and the other about how The Benefits of Internet Piracy (click the links). One thing I really like were that blogs have a nice "SAD" analysis structure to them which concisely yet effectively examine the issues.

Internet censorship: right, wrong or both?

Published on July 20, 2012 by Widen the Web in Uncategorized

Advocates of unlimited free speech hold that the internet should never, under any circumstances and by any person or organization, by censored in the United States. My heart agrees but my better judgment tells me there are certain instances in which some form of internet censorship is necessary.

The structure for this argument follows the SAD formula of Situation, Analysis and Decision (Louis Alvin Day, 2003).

S: Situation Definition

What are the facts?
The World Wide Web started off as the World Wild West, completely open and uncontrolled by any authority. However, now that ordinary people have the means to put potentially damaging and disruptive content online, governments are realizing that the internet has to be controlled in some way.
Many countries now censor their national internet, including Burma, China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. The Kremlin has this week voted in a new law to censor the internet in Russia, with a national list of banned websites that ISPs must shut down. Among the reasons cited are child pornography websites and sites that encourage drug use and teenage suicide. Iran has plans to launch a “national internet” – and in China, the classic case of internet censorship, access to some Western news sites and to content that might destabilize the Communist regime is effectively blocked.
The fact is that many governments and organizations censor their local and national internet space in some way. Should the U.S. follow suit?

What the principles behind internet censorship?
Oliver Burkeman argues, in an excellent Guardian newspaper report, that debates about censorship and freedom of speech online boil down to the “fundamental question of whether the internet should be ‘open’ – a place of unfettered expression, self-organising order and plenty of chaos – or ‘closed’ and controlled, subjugated to existing frameworks of politics, policing and law.”
The Western value system leans towards the “open” internet, since freedom of speech is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and in fundamental Western philosophies such as those of John Stuart Mill.
At the extreme end of freedom of speech is digital utopianism – that free speech should reign supreme, and that online openness should be championed at all costs. The phenomenon of digital utopianism is excellently espoused in Frank Turner’s book, From Counterculture to Cyberculture. This is the view of techno-libertarians and groups such as the OpenNet Initiative and Reporters without Borders, who publish an annual list of “Enemies of the Internet.”
At the other end of the scale are many conservative citizens and mums who desire the internet to be a civilized space, free of child pornography, sex, drugs, suicide, violent death and other social taboos.
In the middle are people like me, who recognize that some sort of control over the internet space is necessary – but that in most cases it is either technically impossible or socially undesirable to censor the net.

What is the fundamental issue behind internet censorship?
Accepting, for the sake of argument, that the internet can and should be censored in some way, I identify four areas of controversy.

WHO has the right to censor the web – and who decides who has that right?

In what CONTEXTS is it right to censor the web?

WHY? What is the purpose behind internet censorship, and is that purpose legitimate?

Are there alternatives to internet censorship that would be more effective and easier for the public and free speech advocates to swallow?

A: Analysis of the Situation

Ideas vs information
Even free speech advocates will admit that there is a vast chasm between censoring ideas and censoring information. Ideas should never be censored, however unattractive they are. Information, on the other hand, can and should in some cases be censored.
During World Wars I and II, British censors blacked out whole sentences and paragraphs in personal letters and newspapers in order to hinder information-gathering by German intelligence. If World War III were to break out and somebody decided to leak the entire US defense strategy on the internet, I would hope that they would be prevented from endangering the country.
Arguments about national security are admittedly shaky. Who is to decide what is and is not to be censored in the interests of national security? In many countries, “national security” can be used as a smokescreen for dodgy dealings and corruption. However, that doesn’t mean that national security is not a good reason to prohibit some content from being freely available online.

Private and corporate vs. state censorship
Local, privately owned organizations on the internet can legitimately self-censor their own online spaces, as long as they make their policies clear. For instance, if somebody makes an inappropriate comment on my personal blog, I am at liberty to “censor” their freedom of speech by removing it. A company might decide to censor their internal network to stop employees releasing corporate secrets, whether deliberately or inadvertently.
In an interesting recent case, Facebook were lambasted for removing a link to a Human Rights Watch report posted by the free speech advocacy group Article 19. The group’s executive director, Dr Agnes Callamard, complained: “The deletion shows the looming threat of private censorship…. Facebook act like judge, jury and executioner.”
However, even though Facebook could and should have done more to investigate the case and inform the group before removing the link, it is arguably justified that Facebook have a moderation team that removes offensive or inappropriate content. In a way, this is an example of a community being responsible by censoring and policing itself.

Censorship in context
Context matters greatly in debates about internet censorship. For instance, most parents would agree that websites which encourage teen suicide, glamorize drug-taking or show violent and pornographic material should be censored on school computers, by filtering software or a code of conduct. Those same websites may be legitimate and (borderline) acceptable in other settings, such as private homes or research institutes.

What else?
Several other factors must be taken into consideration.

There is a difference between censoring the internet and censoring traditional media such as newspapers. There are a finite number of newspapers and each newspaper has a finite number of pages, which makes censorship more straightforward. Moreover, newspapers are written by trained journalists who are careful about claims that they make and information that they release. On the web, the amount of content available is infinite, uncontrolled, impossible to keep track of and produced mainly by people with no fear of lawsuits or training in journalistic codes of conduct.

Many laws already exist that may be sufficient for stopping harmful content being available online. For instance, privacy laws, and laws against illegal drug sales or child pornography. Before enacting any internet censorship bill, we should look at existing laws that impact these issues.

Should censorship should be reactive or proactive? Installing filtering software on computers in libraries and schools is a form of proactive censorship. If, on the other hand, we wait until something harmful is put online then demand that an ISP removes it from the internet, that is a form of reactive censorship.

It may not even be possible to censor the web effectively. People get around current censorship in China and Iran using proxy websites or VPNs. It is likely that whatever censorship methods are put in place, determined hackers will always be able to get around them.

Duties and responsibilities

As a society, we have a duty to our fellow citizens to protect their freedom of speech…but also to protect society as a whole. The latter duty underlies arguments for internet censorship on the grounds of national security.

We also have a duty to protect an individual’s right to privacy. When one person’s freedom of expression infringes on another’s right to privacy, we should be able to resolve that by limiting that freedom of expression in some way.

We have a duty to our children and teens, to protect them from obscene or harmful content while they are young and vulnerable.

We have a duty to protect intellectual property and corporate secrets in order to allow the economy to flourish.

We have a duty to protect individuals from con-men and fraudulent phishing websites whose sole purpose is to engage in criminal activity.

D: Decision
Context matters so greatly in questions of internet censorship that I find it impossible to list areas where censoring content is either right or wrong. Rather, I think every issue should be discussed openly and transparently.
Rather than entrust a few people with decisions as to what should be censored and why, I think we should engage in candid debate – as a society, through politics, the courts, the media, and internet blogs and forums.
Hillary Clinton has campaigned globally for “internet freedom.” Attempting to censor the web would put the U.S. government in the strange position of encouraging people in foreign regimes to beat internet censors, as this article in the Guardian newspaper explores, while preventing their own citizens from viewing content freely.
Moreover, we can’t stop the web. Rather than focusing on censorship, I think we should explore innovative ways of helping useful, better quality internet content triumph over the bad stuff. Options include refining search engines, exploring so-called “net neutrality” (which stops ISPs making it harder to access one site over another) and plain old self-censorship by organizations that listen to their users.
I think this would satisfy the generally accepted Western idea that freedom of expression should be limited only when there is a real, demonstrable and universally agreed need to prevent harm to vulnerable people.

Internet piracy helps everyone

Published on July 21, 2012 by Widen the Web in Uncategorized

“In these difficult economic times, I cannot afford to purchase the latest song ffrom my favorite artist, to pay to go to a movie theater to see the latest blockbuster or upgrade to the newest editing software, so I am going to go to a torrent site. How much damage can one person really do?” A former student’s post.
Right, wrong, or more complicated than that? I believe it’s right. In fact, I believe that far from causing damage, internet piracy is actually a helpful force. I shall focus not on the legality of internet piracy but on the ethics.

The structure for this argument follows the SAD formula of Situation, Analysis and Decision (Louis Alvin Day, 2003).

S: Situation Definition

Facts, principles, values and the fundamental ethical issue
In debates about internet piracy, there is a strange tendency towards hyperbole and hysteria. The folk at CopyNot.com call it “The Unseen Menace” and claim it is responsible for “funding, and sponsoring the ever present, ever growing menace of the twin evils that blight our society,– organised crime, the illegal drugs trade and terrorism.”
In contrast, I believe that internet piracy is a good thing not just for individuals but for the record companies, movie producers and software manufacturers who make such a fuss about lost earnings and supposed “theft.”
Let’s get our facts and principles straight.
The fact is, the marginal cost of production of digital content is almost zero. In a book by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development entitled Piracy of Digital Content, the authors pointed to the “virtually negligible marginal cost of reproduction… By comparison, in the case of tangible products the reproduction of a given good involves certain positive marginal costs of production.” When pirated, it really is zero for the company. So internet piracy is not theft in the same way that going into a store and running off with a new handbag is theft.
I believe in the principle that you are only harming a company if you would have purchased an item from them, and didn’t because you could get a free copy. In most cases of piracy, as this article in Mays Business Online points out, the individual would not have purchased that item if they couldn’t get it for free. “Therefore, the projected loss in sales attributed to piracy represents a dollar amount the company would not have achieved even had there been no piracy.”
Many people believe in the principle that creativity should be rewarded. In fact, in most cases the money from album or software sales doesn’t go to the artist, actor or software programmers and developers. It goes to the agent, record label and producer, as this article and graph indicate. I don’t have much sympathy with these mega-corporations.
Another potent fact is that record companies, movie producers and software manufacturers do not make money by selling albums, films and software CDs to individuals. Rather, as this article in CNet explains, musicians make their money through tours and concerts. Movie producers make their money through movie theaters. Software companies make money through selling their software to large companies. None of these sources of revenue will dry up if an individual pirates a copy of their work.

A: Analysis of the Situation

Competing principles and values, external factors, duties and applicable ethical theories
Let’s think about these facts for a moment, using case studies to explore the competing principles, external factors and duties of the different parties.

1. Music piracy
Mark is a sociable guy who loves music but doesn’t have a lot of money to buy albums. He downloads a bunch of pirated songs and – wow! He’s really taken with a band called X Marks the Spot. So he shares the songs with all his friends and raves about them on Facebook… maybe he even mashes up one of their songs and puts it on YouTube.
The result? Huge, effective, word-of-mouth publicity for X Marks the Spot, at absolutely no cost. Some of Mark’s friends go out and buy an X Marks the Spot album, or buy tickets to their concert next time they’re touring in the area. And they tell their friends…. and so on. All due to one single act of piracy that harmed no-one.
Some musicians are actually coming around to this way of thinking. Singer Billy Bragg, for instance, reportedly said that many of his fans had discovered his music through file-sharing and paid for his music in other ways.

2. Software piracy
Sarah has just graduated from Quinnipiac University and has lost her special “education” discount on software. But she really needs the latest Adobe Photoshop in order to set up a small business offering graphic design services. It’s hugely expensive so she downloads a pirated copy for a fraction of the price. That’s stealing! say Adobe.
But let’s think. If Sarah had not downloaded the pirated copy of Photoshop, she may well have turned to a cheaper, open source alternative to Photoshop such as Gimp. She would have become so accustomed to Gimp that when her business grew and she had the money to buy software legally for her new staff, she would have eschewed Photoshop in favor of Gimp. She may well have gone around telling others in her industry that there’s no need to buy Photoshop when you can use Gimp for free…undermining Photoshop’s position as the industry standard.
So Sarah’s act of piracy leads to Photoshop winning out, both directly in terms of future sales, and indirectly in terms of maintaining its position as an industry standard for graphic design.

3. Pirate competitions
The other benefit of internet piracy is that it forces record, movie and software companies to be competitive. It forces them to come up with innovative ways of selling their products to consumers.
For instance, Apple’s decision to start selling albums in chunks of one song at a time, priced at 99 cents, benefits the consumer – lower prices and greater control over what exactly is purchased. This was arguably a result of the need to compete against internet piracy. The same goes for Amazon and Netflix with their attractively priced and unlimited movie streaming packages.
Companies must also make their purchasing systems so user-friendly that it is a much more attractive option to pay for legal content than to download free illegal content. Antiquated purchasing systems and slow download speeds are out – make it easy, fast and secure and people will be willing to pay for that.
In the past, I myself have downloaded pirated videos and music from illegal torrent sites. But I don’t any more. It takes ages, and you never know if you’re going to get the real deal or a crackly version with subtitles in a strange language, or a piece of software with bugs. If you pay online for a pirated piece of software, you worry about the security of your credit card.

D: Decision and Defense

Internet piracy benefits individuals who can get hold of music, movies, software and other digital content that they would not otherwise be able to afford.

Internet piracy benefits record companies by giving them free word-of-mouth and social media publicity at absolutely no cost. Recent research papers testify to the power of music piracy to drive sales.

Internet piracy benefits software developers by helping their products become the accepted industry standard – which means companies will be more likely to purchase that software in bulk. The above-mentioned Mays Business article calls this the “network effect principle” – that “the more people have a technology, the more valuable that technology is, as it becomes the industry standard.”

Internet piracy benefits the entire system by introducing an element of competition… leading to greater efficiency, more innovation and a better deal for the consumer. As this scholarly article by Sanjay Jain explores, “contrary to the claims of manufacturers, there are conditions under which copying can increase firms’ profits, lead to better quality products, and increase social welfare.”

I may not download pirated content and software myself any more, but that’s because it’s easier and more reliable to pay for it – and because I can afford to pay for it. It’s certainly not through any feeling that internet piracy is morally wrong.

These works are not mine, I respect them and do not intend to use them or plagiarize which is why I linked these articles back to their mother blog. Please visit http://www.widentheweb.com for more info.

Concluding Thoughts

2012-12-05T11:57:00.002-08:00

The internet was built on the principle of freedom to information, communication and anonymity. But that could drastically evolve in a negative direction if a censoring legal policy is enforced as a stupid knee-jerk reaction to a radical self-entitled consumer culture.

The problem of piracy will continue to inflate unless producers and consumers reach a compromise and gain better understanding of the issue and their part in it. Once that is resolved, the real and effective three-pronged solution of shifting industry and consumer attitudes, new business models and developing an appropriate legal policy can be truly implemented to reduce piracy.

Before this solution can even be actualized, more people need to realize whats at stake:

Their Individual Rights, Opportunity and Innovation
The future direction of the internet and digital technology
Consumer/Producer Culture

Actions need to be made and behaviors need to change from all parties, including the government, if a free and growing internet is to be preserved. Motivation is a fundamental requirement for any effective solution to a problem, including piracy. It will be a drudging process contaminated with political filth to implement the solution, but with enough motivation and initiative, I am confident Internet Piracy will be reduced to the point where it ceases to be a hot media issue.

So, what can you do? Well, by reading this and seeking more info about Internet Piracy you'll be more informed and empowered. Talk about this with peers, spread concern and awareness, especially when Congress tries to silently fart out Rights-Infringing Bills like SOPA. Be Proactiv.

Hopefully with better understanding, a new perspective will encourage you to change your actions (like not being a total leech) and to participate in discussions or conferences on piracy.

<<<Back

The 3 Step Plan in Solving Internet Piracy: Step 3

2012-12-05T10:08:00.001-08:00

Step 3: An Appropriate Legal Policy

Now that producer-consumer initiatives have been discussed let's look at current and proposed legal policy for internet piracy.

For many years, the U.S. policy has been neutral but inefficient and ineffective, as suggested by high traffic of pirated content online, and rage between producer and consumer that have led to lobbying for bills like SOPA, PIPA, CISPA and ACTA in 2010-2011. SOPA/PIPA are proposed legislation that wanted to essentially enforce no access to sites and software deemed by the government as "infringing"
law (More & Infographic). They were shot down, boycotted and did not pass because it would basically censor the internet, but ACTA and CISPA did. ACTA was an international initiative to crackdown on copyright infringement, counterfeit, and internet piracy and CISPA allowed a broader no-warrant system for government agencies to access private cyber information. These two legal policies caused many file-sharing and hosting sites (ex. MegaUpload) to be shut down through DOS worldwide (took lots of resources to accomplish), basically taken down without legal due process from intelligence and security agencies. Government action is needed to reduce piracy, but ambiguous bills that prescribe a strict controlling solution for an already inflated problem do not help.

What concern us, is that internet piracy can ultimately lead to an extreme reaction through laws such as those discussed above, that would limit individual rights and the internet. Not only are these censoring policies unethical, they are also ineffective due to ignorance. China's government has the "Great Firewall of China" to censor their citizen's internet, but simply look how effective it's been; China still remains the largest hub of counterfeit and piracy.

Author/expert on software security and copyright Bruce Schneier has proposed that the government focus on preventative standards such as software protection rather than regulation of the internet. DRM or Digital Rights Management, although a restricting anti-competitive practice, in one study has worked particularly well with software dependent on online service in which verification of the software is checked before it can be used. Anti-Virus and browser security that warn users about a potentially harmful webpage has also worked well in discouraging piracy by inducing paranoia/risk of malicious software attacks to users. Available software security technology such as these need to be applied where they are most effective.

One problem many companies have to deal with is the costliness of high-profile lawsuits followed by irrelevant punitive measures such as the case against KimDotcom's Mega-upload. On top of litigation costs, government resources, aka tax payer $$$ must be utilized in order to obtain evidence and subpoena. Often times these investigations are unworthy of pursing, such as the case in which a 9-year old girl in Finland was arrested after a house raid for downloading a song on the notorious piratebay.com.Those Cops must be feel real bad ass...

After reading Wally Wang's book "Steal This File-Sharing Book", I realized that copyright laws for digital property need updating. The book has suggested that legalization of clearly defined types of file-sharing, downloading and uploading would simplify the litigation process and have it more focused on the queen bees of large illegal hosting sites and illegal online vendors trying to sell pirated goods rather than adolescent down-loaders.

Aside from maximizing the potential of current technology and adjusting copyright laws, the development of a wrist-slapping policy should be emplaced to avoid costly lawsuits and also to be an effective deterrent. The government needs to invest in an accurate, efficient and fair system to mediate conflicts between producer and consumer. The Copyright Alert System or CAS, is a non-punitive piracy detection system being developed by CCI. It would serve as a fast (annoying) warning system to file-sharing sites that allocate high levels of copyrighted material. Instead of shutting them down without due process, a systematic 7-strike rule would be enacted.

The first being informative warnings to the site owner to remove certain illicit content and to stress the seriousness of the matter, and the last would be a notice that "mitigation measures" will be enacted. Mitigation measures include temporarily slower server or internet speeds, reduced bandwidth or redirection out of the site. This would continue to occur until the owner contacts their Internet Service Provider or "ISP" to discuss and resolve the matter. Other variations of the CAS are also being proposed such as a wrist-slapping fining system in which internet users who pirate copious amounts of content and are caught must pay a small fine to their ISP or Internet Service Providers, which is then redistributed to creators. These systems strive to respect privacy and not be intrusive on rights, which is why they are still in development and being reviewed by the public.

By changing our legal policy to an appropriate one that is more focused on developing piracy-mitigating technologies than destructive censorship or numerous unwarranted raids, piracy would be ~~slashed~~. Increasing the application of effective current software protection through standards, modernizing copyright laws, and investing more effort to create a fair wrist-slapping policy would make up this appropriate legal policy. The overall goal of all these legal measures and policies is again to properly reward creators while maximizing the potential of the internet.

<<<Back Conclusion>>>

The War on Piracy: Logistics

2012-12-05T09:30:00.000-08:00

Enemy Hierarchy and Mechanics

Click to Enlarge

The 3 Step Plan in Solving Internet Piracy: Step 1.5

2012-12-05T00:30:00.001-08:00

Step 1.5: Shifting Consumer Attitudes

Now that the need for a more adaptive and constructive attitude and new business models in the industry have been addressed, it is time to examine what changes consumers need to make.

According to a Adelphi University study which surveyed multiple universities, 81% of students felt it was acceptable to copy commercial software and download music on the internet. At the same time, the students highly disapproved of plagiarism, intrusion of privacy, yet the majority knew that it is illegal to download and copy commercial software/music. This study shows that although many people, especially young people, know they are pirating, ignore the illegality of it because it isn't immoral. Surveyed university students claimed that piracy did not harm anyone or the industry and use the "I wasn't going to buy it anyway" excuse as justification.

The problem is that people who follow this philosophy contribute to a self-entitled culture where digital products are free. Consumers cannot just simply take and not give back. Luckily, the majority of consumers, including the youth, still purchase digital products. A different study showed that consumers have a budget for entertainment and digital goods, and when they exceed that budget they compensate by pirating. There was also a correlation found that those who pirate the most, actually spend the most money on digital goods according to Julian Sanchez from arstechnica.

The solution for consumers is simple; actually buy their SH!#T and encourage others to do so. Consumers need to be ingrained with fundamental values that respect creators and ingenuity, even if they pirate. Awareness campaigns about indie artists, bands, studios, games, etc. should be initiated to educate consumers that they are the most dependent on royalties and encourage them to purchase indie products.

Regardless of method, consumers should strive to be honest and support the creators, artists, software, films, etc. they value most by legitimately buying the products. Even if a consumer has a budget limit before pirating, that is still much better than a complete freeloader. It is important for our consumer culture to pass on these values and practices to the future generations through our actions.

Don't be this guy....

<<<Back Next>>>

The 3 Step Plan in Solving Internet Piracy: Step 2

2012-12-04T22:59:00.003-08:00

Step 2: Evolving Toward New Business Models

As mentioned before, a different business model in which availability and distribution are increased has been shown to decrease piracy. Two major factors that limit availability and encourage international piracy of digital goods are Geo-Restriction and Geo-Pricing. In many countries in Europe and Asia which are our largest markets, consumers may have restricted or removed features in their digital products or simply no access to even purchase them physically or digitally, this is called Geo-Restriction (More). Foreign consumers also usually pay more for the same or likely restricted version of the product that we buy. For instance, a game that costs $59.99 for us would cost €59.99 Euros for EU consumers, even though their currency has a higher value ($78.70), this is called Geo-Pricing. The majority of digital goods are distributed online and therefore shipping and logistic costs is not a problem or excuse. Geo-Restriction sometimes leave international consumers no choice but to pirate in order to access content, and Geo-Pricing leave consumers feeling hustled. It's not so ironic why Internet Piracy is so prevalent and going strong in Europe and Asia.

Geo-Restriction and Geo-Pricing exist because of tax regulation laws but more importantly, because it's an old business model that attempts to extract the most profit it possibly can from consumers. The solution is to repeal and fix this unnecessary practice. Distribution services such as Valve's Steam, Netflix and iTunes have done this, resulting in significantly reduced piracy in their respective industries, while greatly expanding and making billions. Their success is attributed to convenient universal access to content, fast/reliable service and affordable relative pricing to all, including international consumers.

To reemphasize the impact of this new business model that increases global availability of digital products, using reliable online distribution channels without Geo-Restriction and Geo-Pricing, Video Game Piracy accounts for 6.7% in 2011of all pirated goods which is significantly down from 10.4% in 2008, and still on the decline. This is attributed to services like Steam.

The new business models that have been described have been implemented and worked in successfully reducing piracy by better appealing to consumers and constructively listening to their market demand, and thus gaining their loyalty. New business models always concern industry leaders because of risk and the possibility of not being able turning back, but the inception of the internet has leveled the playing field.

I'm not saying that companies directly copy/adopt iTunes, Steam, and Netflix's business methods, but the Industry should model their attitude and approach to these companies', in that developing innovative methods and new effective business models to significantly reduce piracy is the solution, and definitely more worthy than not changing and lobbying for draconian policies.

Ubisoft Has the Right Attitude

<<<Back Next>>>

The 3 Step Plan in Solving Internet Piracy: Prelude & Step 1

2012-12-04T22:59:00.001-08:00

My Argument:

Internet piracy is a continuous issue, and it will never be stopped, but it can be effectively reduced and managed by shifting industry and consumer attitudes, new business models and an appropriate legal policy.

Step 1: Changing Industry Attitudes

In order to reach potential solutions, the economic impact of piracy should first be considered and examined. An OECD Report has said that many statistics about how internet piracy has had a hugely negative impact on the economy and respective industries are skewed and inaccurate (read). Piracy of other products though, such as pharmaceuticals, electronic and automotive components have a much greater impact.

Executives in industries that rely on Digital copyrighted intellectual property such as music, film, software, argue and claim lost revenue due to pirates getting their work for free. The problem is that the entertainment industry forgets to recognize and factor in the benefits the internet, digital technology and piracy has given them, such as zero-cost viral promotion, cheap production costs, and a wider supporting audience. (More on this)

Even during tough economic times, the entertainment industries in music, games, software, books and film have grown over 50% in the past ten years, total film box offices have increased 7+ billion from 2006 to 2010 according to complied statistics from UNESCO, Bloomberg, MPAA and others. Job losses? The net job loss in music and film industry in 2010 was roughly 70,000, but the statistic fails to directly indicate piracy as the cause. In an international study done by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), there was no correlation found between internet piracy and significant revenue loss and also no correlation that piracy discouraged creators and studios to produce more works.

Unsurprisingly another study showed that the top pirated films were the ones most successful at the box office, so another perspective is that if your movie isn't being pirated, people probably don't want to see it.

Notice, I it didn't say good movies, even this horrible movie has a continuing box office because of it's cult following.

Again, the point here is that the issue of Internet Piracy is exaggeratedly blown out of proportion and belongs nowhere near the list of economic problems in the U.S., and the industry needs to fix its level 5 DEFCON attitude about it. Contrary to Pro-Piracy critics though, it is a very real problem in that it is advancing a self-entitled and disrespectful generation and culture of consumers (Perfect Example).

The industry therefore needs to partake in the solution by accurately understanding data and the impact of piracy, rather than radically claiming losses and attempting to keep an old and ineffective business model. A more comprehensive attitude and approach in which the industry adapts to the evolving markets and technology is itself, a solution because it leads to development of newer and effective business models.

When RIAA record labels produce and try to sell a 13 song album for $15-20, and consumers only want the one good song, they will much rather use the internet's iTunes to just buy that one song for 99 cents or pirate it. To many record labels, that is a loss in $14-19 right there, because they were not able to rip you off a whole album for one song. Consumers are discouraged to purchase CD Albums in this perspective, which is why businesses should use music as a gateway to promote other products. A study has shown that Japanese albums that come with memorabilia and non-digital exclusive content, have directly made more sales than normal CD's. Another Techdirt analysis reveals that although physical album sales have decreased, more money has gone into live performances and shows, which businesses should capitalize on. Slight changes in business models like these could have significant impact on sales.

Next>>>

Why Internet Piracy Matters... to People Like Us

2012-12-04T22:45:00.003-08:00

Just to re-emphasize, the majority of people who use the internet have participated in internet piracy in some form, regardless of intention.

Def. of Internet Piracy: "the unlawful reproduction, distribution or usage of copyrighted digital property, i.e. copyright infringement"

No? Think about it.

The word "usage" should be highlighted because this essentially means that watching a YouTube video containing copyrighted content without legitimate permission to be uploaded, such as a song lyric video, is considered piracy. Over 72 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube per minute, and as you can imagine, this happens all the time.

As you've heard in recent years, there have been increasingly aggressive bills and initiatives proposed to stop piracy, enforced with harsh penalties. The question at large is who is going to be criminalized? Every average John/Jane Doe on YouTube/ the Internet? and since piracy is such a common "crime", will they threaten privacy, innovation and free speech rights? As piracy and the internet develop, industry and legal policies will too, and these policies could potentially put crippling limitations on the way we use the internet and digital technology in the future. The internet could evolve into a strictly censored place where anonymity no longer exists, or one where extreme piracy could make it a dangerous place for not only businesses, but also users and their security of private information.

The central idea here is that Internet Piracy is an obscure matter that is both a gift and curse, but will remain a concerning problem if not resolved, because misled legal and industry reactions can severely backfire in way that will warp our beloved internet. Internet piracy is a continuous issue, and it will never be stopped, but it can be effectively reduced and managed by shifting industry and consumer attitudes, new business models and an appropriate legal policy. (Details.)

All in all, it is important for all of us to be informed, aware, concerned, and proactive of whats going on in this "War on Piracy" in order to preserve our rights and a free and growing internet. One easy thing we can do is simply talk about it with our peers to spread info and awareness.

My Thoughts on Internet Piracy

2012-12-04T18:24:00.002-08:00

It's a problem, but Blown Out of Proportion

You hear about all that freakin' stuff on the news on how these law-makers are trying to pass stupid bills like SOPA/PIPA/CISPA? Yeah remember those? Aren't there more important problems they should spend their "brains" on solving? Like the deficit, taxes, medical care, education, military, environment, etc. Internet Piracy shouldn't belong anywhere near the top problems in the U.S. not even specifically in "domestic economic problems".

With all that said, it is still a problem though, one that we have an obligation to fix because it will continue to grow unless properly managed and reduced. In order to do so, I've devised a 3 pronged solution to piracy without destroying the internet. It is based on and addresses the needs for shifting industry/consumer attitudes, new business models and appropriate legal policy. Find more details here.

But really, Piracy is a hugely exaggerated problem backed by inflated statistics. Digital Technology has just gradually made music studio workers in the RIAA all whiny and butt-hurt because they can't adapt. So they start throwing some serious racks on racks to their pimped lobbyists in Washington.

I mean everyone has pirated, including that idiot Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) who drafted and propsed SOPA/PIPA and notoriously called Internet users "scumbags". I think the goal of stopping piracy is ridiculous, the goal should be to simply reduce and manage piracy. Moar Realistic? I think so. Internet Piracy has become "The War on Piracy" like the War on Drugs, its a perennial problem in which neither side can or will give up. Except Internet Piracy is way more exaggerated and no way comparable to the issue on illicit drugs.

First Post & Blog's Purpose

2012-12-04T17:10:00.000-08:00

Hey Everyone,

This is obviously my first blog post, but before I start uploading content, I want to discuss the purpose of this blog. My blog will simply attempt to follow important news on the whole affair about internet piracy, whatever else that concerns or affects the future of our beloved internet, and thoughts/ideas on them.

It's important for us to stay informed and have a good understand of piracy and copyright infringement if we really want to preserve a free and growing internet from bashing regulation.... so here I am, nobly spreading awareness.

More about me

Ideas on Internet Piracy

Correlation Between Illegal Downloaders and Buying Music

Canadian Copyright Law Caps File-Sharing Lawsuits at $5000

Anti-Piracy Draconian Law in Japan, Music Sales Drop

The War on Piracy: Battle Map

The War on Piracy: Piracy Tactics and Mechanics

Author Neil Gaiman on Copyright and the Web

Author Neil Gaiman Shares an Interesting Point of View on Internet Piracy

More Insight from Widen The Web

Internet censorship: right, wrong or both?

S: Situation Definition

What are the facts?

What the principles behind internet censorship?

What is the fundamental issue behind internet censorship?

A: Analysis of the Situation

Ideas vs information

Private and corporate vs. state censorship

Censorship in context

What else?

Duties and responsibilities

D: Decision

Internet piracy helps everyone

S: Situation Definition

Facts, principles, values and the fundamental ethical issue

A: Analysis of the Situation

Competing principles and values, external factors, duties and applicable ethical theories

1. Music piracy

2. Software piracy

3. Pirate competitions

D: Decision and Defense