Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Courses/Spring 2011/Politics of Piracy (Max Klein and Patrick Berger)/Schedule/4

Questions
Please answer either of the following:

Confessions
The Caterpillar attacks, “perhaps if readers were more confident that the majority of the money went to the author, people would feel more guilty about depriving the author of payment.” To what extent is a publishing company’s greed to blame for their loss of readership, and to what extent is this tirade a moral justification of illegal practices?

Optional—Pigs
Does the battle of music distribution and p2p technology online detract from Lessig and Stallman’s wars on the status-quo of copyright? How does p2p help and hurt the efforts of those trying to change copyright (by public image, scandal, representation of critical mass etc.)?

Confessions of a Book Pirate
I believe that The Caterpillar has a valid point. Furthermore, he has clearly spelled out his thoughts on the morality of what he and others are doing in the pirating of books, so I do not believe that he is using this argument as moral justification.

I believe that this reasoning applies for some people who download illegally, but that this is not the strongest reason. Far stronger, I believe, is the argument of convenience. The Caterpillar says it well: "I guess if every book was available in electronic format with no DRM for reasonable prices, it just wouldn’t be worth the time, effort, and risk." Far more than a sense of guilt, I believe that this is the primary reasoning driving illegal downloaders, and these are the issues that need to be resolved if publishers want to decrease the pirating of their works.

--Amlz (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Guilt is the main culprit behind illegal downloading. I am guilt ridden every time I spend money on something I could have had for free. People, for the most part, are reasonable and they will more often make a choice that is to their best benefit. Illegally downloading music as an inequality: [Joy from music]-[(Probability of a lawsuit)x(ABAJILLION DOLLARS)] > [Joy from music]-[($10)-(however much you feel goes to the artist and if that makes you happy)] Rsryan (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that the publishing company's greed is the primary driving factor behind IP pirating. I think what is really appealing is the ease and speed of pirating. For most of us, downloading full movies now takes a shorter period of time than running to the local Redbox or waiting for Netflix to come in the mail (which is why Netflix streaming is doing particularly well). At the same time, since storage space is virtually costless now, pirating is often times a 'precautionary' measure. What if once in a blue moon, we want to listen to a song that is no longer a top 40? Would we really be inclined to pay for it when storing it on a HD is just as cheap and effective? My argument is summed up by the Caterpillar's argument that "because someone downloads a file, it doesn’t mean they will read it. I realize that buying a book doesn’t mean someone is going to read it either, but clicking a link and paying $10-$30 is very different – many more people will download a book and not read it than buy a book and not read it."

--Dlchu1230 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that the different ways both the book and music industries function plays into a consumer's guilt in pirating the different media. I have always had the mentality that if a band was good enough, their music would translate to ticket sales for live shows, which leads to merch sales. Obviously, some bands have keyed into this idea since some artists are releasing their music for free with the option to donate (Radiohead, girl talk, etc.) If the music is out there, whether paid for or not, the artist will get fans and a source of revenue. There are more limited ways of bringing money for both the publisher and the author in the book industry. There are no live shows and people seldom wear clothes that bear the names of books (although urban outfitters has relatively recently begin to sell "Catcher in the Rye" and other novel shirts.) In this way, perhaps pirating books could be more detrimental to the industry while pirating music seems less harmful. Raimi.michael (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The publication industry is largely motivated by greed, but the rapid proliferation of digital books might cause the publishers to lose their readers. Print publishing industry is going through a transition phase. On one hand it has to respond to the growing market of digital books which cost comparably less to produce than print books, but at them same time, pricing has to be set so that the print market's sales aren't cannibalized by the cheap prices of digital books. The publishing industry wants to be able to extract the same profit from digital products as it does with its print products. This strategy will not work because as more people buy digital books, there will be an even larger amount trying to pirate it as they do not want to pay the same amount for a digital book as they would a print book. There are no easy solutions to this problem for the publishing industry, but the least it can do it lower the prices for its digital and print books and bring them in parity with each other thereby somewhat eliminating the people's desire to pirate. Akawow (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it is the pirate's disgust with the greed of the publishing company that drives their actions. Rather, I find that the essential ability to get something for nothing other than some hard drive space and a few clicks is what drives the actions of the pirate. However, the notion of guilt plays a rather interesting role in this act. With the massive disconnection people feel from idolized musicians(whose songs about glamor and opulence serve to remind us of their baller-ness many times over) and authors trapped within ivory towers all over the globe, there is no real human connection to remind people that they are reneging upon their fellow person. Do we owe the musician or author for their creations? What is music if not a person making noise? What is a book if not the collection of a person's perfected ramblings? They hold their art hostage and allow release upon a ransom payment. Perhaps this is a drastic comparison, but most artists do it for the love and release it commercially. The consumer promotes that stockholm syndrome.

-- Shakeandstir (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Featured Comment PatBerger (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

While I do not sympathize with the plight of publishers, I would not call their desire for profit a result of greed. Publishers serve a critical function in the distribution of media; they allow authors to expand their readership to levels that would be difficult, if not impossible, through their own accord. Publishers and record labels are doing what they set out to do: exchange a service for a profit. The reason publishers are suffering is not because they are greedy, they are suffering because a new mechanism of distribution has been introduced, one which bypasses the market economy and delivers expressions of creativity directly into the eyes and ears of the population. The age of P2P is slowly moving the avenue of media away from its physical forms and transforming it into a purely digitized state, a form that can be easily transferred between individuals, effectively cutting out the need for publisher’s role as the intermediary. People become pirates, not out of a dislike for publishers or record labels, but out of a desire for convenience. The moral implications of this practice are a different issue altogether, but the fact remains: unless these companies find a way to secure customer loyalty, they will find their market being hijacked by their consumers.

JKordi (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is definitely true that much of the turnoff to purchasing hard copies of books or CDs comes from corporate greed. People might feel a moral obligation to financially support one of their favorite artists, when they feel like the money they pay does not go to those artists, paying for a product loses its appeal. Many record companies do not do much of the work involved in creating music, only taking part in the advertising and distribution, yet receive a large amount of the money. If people are able to discover music on their own and distribute it via p2p networks, record companies play an even smaller role, and arguably deserve less money. Christopher998 (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not the publishing company’s greed, but rather the rapidly changing market dynamics that are to blame for loss in traditional print book readership. If publishing companies were motivated by greed, or rather if they hoped to continue their business in the future, they should focus less on complaining about the inevitable effect of internet expansion, and spend more time developing methods for expanding digital readership - a market, which currently they are failing to exploit. I agree with Caterpillar that almost all readers would be willing to pay used book prices for electronic versions of a book. A price well worth the added convenience and complete selection that publishing companies could provide on their websites, in addition to the guarantee that the book is good quality and virus free. “Confessions of a Book Pirate" in no way aimed to justify the online sharing and distributing of copyrighted print material, a practice that each individual will have to define for themselves to be legitimate or immoral. Rather, the honest interview succeeded in presented the real-world situation faced by publishing companies as the internet provides society with a platform to engage in world-wide peer-to-peer sharing. As is so often the case with change, it is time for publishing companies and authors to come up with new solutions that work better for them, and create solutions that are demanded by the public. It is too late to impose laws and expect society as a whole to change its behavior; instead it is time for publishers and authors, representing only a fraction of the population to adapt to the ever-changing needs of society. talk Kolibrical (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that a large portion of people who download pirated ebooks have little idea of the relationship between publishers and authors. They are simply trying to justify their actions any way they can. While some contend piracy is condonable because large publishing companies are taking advantage of authors and reaping the majority of profit from book sales, others argue that piracy is condonable because prominent, grossly affluent authors are the ones benefiting from book sales. The population of book pirates who are somewhat aware of the struggle between publishers and authors may qualify their stance, saying that pirating is moral in all cases except those in which new or lesser known authors are involved. In the end, nobody would like to pay for a product that is available for free at a click of a button, including me. Despite the losses that major publishing companies are suffering due to the pirating of their products, I still think there will always be a market for physical books. Though the publishing industry will become less lucrative regardless, publishers can salvage revenues by lowering the price of physical books as well as ebooks. Perhaps publishing companies can develop ways to enhance the reading experience of their digital media such as coming up with software or filetypes whose features make them easier and more comfortable to use. Jeevz (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The caterpillar goes on to say “I think most of the filesharing community feels that the record industry is a vestigal organ that will slowly fall off and die – I don’t know to what extent that feeling would extend to publishing houses since they are to some extent a different animal. In the end, I think that regular people will never feel very guilty “stealing” from a faceless corporation, or to a lesser extent, a multi-millionaire like King.” I think that record companies “greed” is only slightly justified because they are important are for are to set industry standards and produce state of the art content. However, in the other assigned reading by demonbaby titled “WHEN PIGS FLY: THE DEATH OF OINK, THE BIRTH OF DISSENT, AND A BRIEF HISTORY OF RECORD INDUSTRY SUICIDE,” demonbaby, a purported insider at a major label, ridiculed the lavishness that record labels drowned themselves, describing the scene of the workplace as “Music posters and stacks of CDs littered every surface. Everyone seemed to have an assistant, and the assistants had assistants, and you couldn't help but wonder "what the hell do all these people do?" I tagged along on $1500 artist dinners paid for by the labels. Massive bar tabs were regularly signed away by record label employees with company cards. You got used to people billing as many expenses back to the record company as they could. I met the type of jive, middle-aged, blazer-wearing, coke-snorting, cartoon character label bigwigs who you'd think were too cliche to exist outside the confines of Spinal Tap”. It's hard for people to feel guilty about depriving the author of payment, especially if the description is a norm for major label companies. Moreover, there probably is a symbiotic relationship between stars and the label company. Though they might not earn the direct sales of music, the stars are probably reaping the benefits of being part of the label, including fine dining and transportation. The company can be seen as a hotel service for the star, providing the luxuries for the star to live a star life and charging exorbitant rates to the public,  so the star can maintain their lifestyle and produce their works. Stars will continue to do well, regardless of music sales are. In the end, the diehard  or sympathetic fans that will continue to support a star. These fans will continue to purchase the stars music and merchandise. How guilty does one need to feel about depriving the author of payment when the internet as  a double edged sword, and does have it's benefits? And although the not-so-zealous fans are probably not paying because the internet is a convenient vehicle for  obtaining illegal music, It allows stars to gain international popularity and reach a fan base that would have existed without the web. A burgeoning independent star, who does not yet have a major label, can probably just put up a PayPal donate button on their site and receive benefits, and earn a lot of virtual currency. Dtslife (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Caterpillar does not and probably cannot comment on any extravagant practices that might take place in the publishing industry, as the demonbaby article does about the recording industry. Unlike the recording industry, whose product to which they own the rights has undergone a digital transformation, publishing companies still provide a crucial physical format of the content in the form of bound books that burgeoning electronic readers and tablets have not yet eclipsed. I think that publishing companies have a short window of opportunity to catch up with modern distribution practices that record companies have missed out on — but knowing how large companies handle issues related to intellectual property, it seems unlikely that they will do so. Like Caterpillar's suggestion, they could provide DRM-free digital copies at reasonable prices. If they don't have the plain shrewdness to monetize the type of files people want, but instead try to get consumers to conform their methods and restrictions of digital distribution, then any loss of profits are not only highly predictable but probably deserved. And, in the latter case, unless people can find ways to support writers directly (which is a more nebulous enterprise than it is for musical artists, who perform concerts and sell lots of merchandise), then piracy is not the moral superlative but, unfortunately, it is possibly the more moral option. Hmanes (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the article "When Pigs Fly" sums up this question perfectly. Even though this article talks about the music industry whereas "Confession of a Book Pirate" focuses on book industry, it addresses the same problem: corporate greed and lack of adaptability to the changing market. Corporate greed is what causes publishers to demonize their customers with words like pirates and the hefty fines associated with the lawsuits they pursue place people in the same category as bank robbers (Demonbaby). Why I find this incredible is one would think it prudent to maintain a business model that serves and caters to your customer interests. Instead of accepting that the market is changing and developing a new business model to maximize revenue within the new market, I believe, due to publisher greed, that these publishing companies will not be viable in the years to come. I think people have generally become aware of the corporate itinerary and choose not to support their products because doing so would promote the very ideas that they are trying to change. I guess people see it as their duty to downloaded illegal music to hit the publishers right where it hurts....the bank.Gorozco1 (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgorman-ucb (talk • contribs)


 * This mention of a corporation's need to adapt to the changing market is an important aspect within the debate concerning piracy. The loss of revenue for major industries signals a need for either the abolishment of or adaptation to this new technology.  Seeing as up to fifty percent of online traffic consists of the use of this technology while severe actions taken against its rise in popularity have resulted in public resistance in the form of protest and increased use, the latter of the two appears to be more appropriate in this situation. To combat the rise of popularity in using this technology, perhaps corporations should each have a number of experienced employees who focus solely on reducing the number of illegal downloads of their product. This can be attempted in many ways. For example, this sector of the corporation could work to "poison" torrents of their products on popular file sharing sites, a process in which a torrent is filled with false information, made incomplete or filled with malicious viruses, making it either unusable or detrimental to the file sharer. The only reason I think this may be effective is because it is the only thing that has forced me to purchase a product that I could potentially download in the past five years. I couldn't find a fully functioning version of a program I was looking for and when I eventually did find one, it installed a trojan virus on my computer. Fed up with how difficult and time consuming it was becoming, I just went to Best Buy and purchased a legitimate copy. This surfaces a major point that one of the major reasons people choose to torrent download instead of going to the store to get a legitimate copy of a product is that it is simply SO much easier to click a few times and then just wait for what you want to finish downloading (a wait that is usually shorter than the time it would take to go to a store that sells the product). Therefore, perhaps corporations should be looking into ways to make this extremely easy and convenient method of obtaining goods more difficult and less convenient, while at the same time developing their own system of digital distribution that is more user friendly, reliable and risk-free (and could even make use of the P2P protocol). Gunheim (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Featured Comment PatBerger (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with the sentiment that most people who pirate media are probably doing so more for personal gain than for punishing the greedy publishers and evil record companies, the fact remains that users obviously don't feel guilty about it. At least, not guilty enough to stop them from downloading. The adolescent/adult conscience is developed past the stage of simple reward and punishment; just because something is illegal does not necessarily mean we think it's immoral. Ideally, laws should be made to reflect our collective conscience – not to prescribe it. When the law is misaligned with our conception of morality, people will not feel guilty about disobeying it. And if there is little evidence that they will be penalized for their actions, there is no incentive to stop illegal behavior. Unless you believe in an objective morality, morality is 'decided' by the public/society/popular opinion/whatever. If so much of the public feels that sharing digital media is ethical enough to engage in, then the laws and corporations should accept it and find a pragmatic compromise. Bromanski (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

When Pigs Fly
The obstinate refusal of the recording industry to change with the digital revolution and focus solely on the wrong-doing of the customers and not the systemic problems within the industry itself fueled the fires of piracy. By blindly focusing on file-sharers and litigation the record industry mandated change from its customers while it stalled in its tracks. The recording industry’s remedial use of technology has also kept the discourse about file-sharing and copyright on a strictly sue/counter-sue level. Until a systemic overhaul of the RIAA takes place this discussion cannot be raised to a civil discourse. Aeforrest (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)