So, I got a reply to something I wrote elsewhere, arguing about whether I had used the appellation "Pirate" properly - or maybe accurately. It got me thinking about the issue in general - in particular, who is being hurt by electronic theft of intellectual property. It seems to me that the parties being damaged most by the theft of copyright-protected materials are the middle men - the vampires who do not produce anything, but rather enrich themselves by leeching off the creative efforts of their clients.
While it is impossible to argue that there has been no economic effect from the widespread use of pirated materials, it is my opinion that the effected businesses needed to be killed off. Technology has made many of the music and print businesses redundant. But the effects of electronic piracy are far from limited to negative effects on businesses. While it is difficult to prove, I believe that copyright owners of items like books and music have benefited from piracy. By distributing books and music to persons who would otherwise not had possession of them, these materials are is essence advertised to potential customers who would otherwise not be exposed.
There are certain individuals who will not pay retail for items that can be purchased for less - or gotten for free. These persons are not likely to become retail customers whether or not pirated materials are available to them. Whether that person downloads his CD's illegally, or legally buys them used at a pawn shop, the music industry is not going to see a dime from him. But the industry can still benefit from the individuals use of that CD; the use and familiarity of the CD cannot help but trickle out into the community in which that person lives. Friends, co-workers and neighbors can all be indirectly or directly influenced by that persons posession and use of that music. The illegal download of a book can lead to the "addiction" to an author or series, resulting in sales.
I am one of these "individuals who will not pay retail if there are other options". I started reading the Harry Potter series after my wife Beth was given the first two books. After reading them, we went out and bought the third book in the series at a used book shop. We were, however, not willing to wait for the rest of the books to show up at the used book shop. As the rest of the series was published, we purchased each one from a bookstore new. We pre-ordered the books, so we did save a little bit of money. But I would have never purchased this series - kids books! - on my own. I was exposed socially, and given the first few books. If the publisher and author can tolerate used book stores, which do not make them a cent- at least from the sale of used books - whats their problem with pirated ebooks?
I think that we as a society need to begin moving beyond the folly of law. Laws chafe against the natural inclinations of man; the very best laws merely litigate and mitigate problems of the past. Human beings are Anarchists in their hearts, manipulated and muscled by society into accepting the rule of law as a safety measure. With the exception of violent crime, laws are largely unnecessary. Very much like the piracy issue, the law purports to protect society, when in application it protects and defends the rights, privileges, and continued power of a select few. If Laws were really useful, if they could assist an individual in experiencing a better life, then we would expect to see the proliferation of "Personal Laws"; however, we dont see such things very often - when we do, they are usually in a religious rather than social context.
To get to the truth of something, you dont just accept the accompanying explanation - you can't, if you want to get to the heart of it. Social institutions are best judged by their effects and actions; as such, the Law is the vehicle of the rich and powerful - a complex charade, crafted to conceal the fact that there are different rules for different classes, and in particular, that there are far lesser penalties attached to the misbehavior of the powerful.
When the U.S. government spends tax revenue to develop new military technology, the U.S. citizens might expect that our country would retain the rights to that technology that we paid to create. When that technology trickles down into dozens of commercial applications, we might expect that the potentially huge profits from such publicly bankrolled research would be used to offset future financial needs of the country. Instead, the rights to new, tax funded military research go to the private companies that originally secured that government contract.
No comments:
Post a Comment