Copyright - The Other Issue

Over the last couple of years or so, the movie and music industry have been targeting peer-to-peer sites and software providers trying to stop people from downloading free of charge. Their argument has been that they lose revenue through these illegal downloads via reduced sales, reduced tickets at movie theatres and more.

Now, they are also targeting sheet music and lyrics that can be found online because they claim that they are also loosing revenue for these products. Google is also in the midst of a legal case over its plans to scan thousands - if not millions - of books and put snippets of the content online.

All this is being done in the name of "copyright" and "loss of revenue".

Now, please do not get me wrong. Artists - whether singers, actors, producers or writers, to name a few - produce their work so they can actually make money. Thus they deserve to earn royalties from their works, just like everyone else who provides a service or product.

However I think they have missed the point as to why people download music, movies etc. It is not for greed or lack of money that people do it. There are a myriad of reasons, however if you ask most people who download these copyrighted products, they will simply tell you that the cost of buying the goods is too high.

Take for example a CD by a popular singer or band. In Australia, the cost is between $25 and $35 per CD which would have between 10 and 12 tracks. Of these, 3/4 of the songs are what most would describe as "Crap" or "fillers". Only 2 or 3 songs are worth buying the CD for, yet why would anyone want to spend that sort of money just for a couple of songs?

The record companies would argue that it costs money to make the CDs and promote them. Yes, no argument out of me on that one, but how can they justify the cost being so high? And, how can they justify that 3-6 months after the new CD is released, one can buy it for only $10-$20 instead of $25-$35? Has production costs decreased, or have they made enough money during the first 3-6 months to subsidise the reduced sales price? I think not.

The same goes with movies. A cinema ticket is around $14 unless you go on a cheap night [normally Tuesdays]. Or one can wait until it is out on DVD and buy it for anything between $30 and $40 upon release, or $15-$25 a few months later. Novels and other books are no different. Buy them when they are released and you pay "an arm and a leg", but wait a few months and you can pick them up from $1 upwards.

Now, if the entertainment industry is really serious about reducing pirating of their goods, then they need to look at the reason behind people downloading their products. The cost is one factor which if they used their ingenuity, would follow in the steps of Apple and it's I-tune store and sell the music online for a nominal price. People would then legally download the music because they can pick-and-choose what they wanted. Same goes for movies, books etc.

The second thing they need to do is make available their entire collections to the public, not just the hit albums, songs and movies. Many people download music and movies that are no longer available for purchase or are too difficult to find.

The thing that the entertainment industry tends to forget and ignore is this. If a CD or movie is not available for purchase, and someone downloads it from someone else who already has it, then there is no loss of revenue for the producer. The purpose of the Copyright laws are to protect the creator from someone else copying it and earning an income from it. However, if the movie or song [or book for that matter] is no longer available for purchase, then the entertainment industry's claims are not valid.

It is interesting to note that the US FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT AND COPYRIGHT ACT OF 2005 states that for one to be punished for Copyright violation, one must do this for commercial advantage or financial gain, must be in excess of $1000 within any 6 month period, and make it available to people who one knows are going to use it for the above reasons. [below is an copy of the actual act].

Finally the third thing the entertainment industry needs to consider. People download music and movies because many wish to "preview" them before forking out their hard cold cash. In these tough economic times, people do not wish to throw money away for a 2nd rate or 3rd rate album or movie. If they like it, they will then either buy the CD or DVD, or go and see the movie at the cinemas.

Enough said.

US FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT AND COPYRIGHT ACT OF 2005 [excerpt below]
(a) Criminal Infringement.--
``(1) In general.--Any person who willfully infringes a
copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of
title 18, if the infringement was committed--
``(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or
private financial gain;
``(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including
by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or
more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted
works, which have a total retail value of more than
$1,000; or
``(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared
for commercial distribution, by making it available on a
computer network accessible to members of the public, if
such person knew or should have known that the work was
intended for commercial distribution.
(2) Evidence.--For purposes of this subsection, evidence
of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by
itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful
infringement of a copyright.
``(3) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `work being
prepared for commercial distribution' means--
``(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion
picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording,
if, at the time of unauthorized distribution--
``(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable
expectation of commercial distribution; and
``(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work
have not been commercially distributed; or
``(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of
unauthorized distribution, the motion picture--
``(i) has been made available for viewing in a
motion picture exhibition facility; and
``(ii) has not been made available in copies
for sale to the general public in the United
States in a format intended to permit viewing
outside a motion picture exhibition facility.''.