AlbertPacino
Explorer
The lines of conflict between those who believe that digital works exist for the taking, and those (like me) who believe that creators of any form of intellectual property have the inherent right to control the use of that work, are well and clearly established.
To one camp, the rampant downloading of music is not just copyright infringement, it is also a blatant form of theft. To the other side, they believe it is their right to copy whatever they want under the auspices of the notion that information "wants to be free." Unfortunately there is no hope of any softening of either position. Those who feel they are being mugged will not absolve the muggers of their guilt, and those who are 'sharing' will insist on their right to share.
The accusation that copyright infringement is "theft" is met with extremely logical debates centred on existing legal and dictionary definitions of the word "theft." The basic premise is that since nothing physical was removed, since the owner still has their "copy," no theft has occurred. If these arguments were not so frustrating they would be humorous. By definition they are totally accurate. According to existing dictionary and legal definitions, copyright infringement isn't theft. End of subject. They win the debate.
But this only means that the definitions, or the words used, are outdated. Created before the magical world of exact digital duplicates, these definitions of theft don't take into account aspects of value, inherent in all creations, whether they are physical or virtual in nature. Like it or not, the value of a physical or virtual object is diminished when the object is copied. When that copy is made without permission, "value" has been lost, and therefore value has been "stolen".
Let's start with a simple physical example. Diamonds are expensive partly because they are beautiful and have industrial uses, but mostly because their supply in controlled by the de Beers and the Diamond Cartel. Find a way to manufacture sizable, high quality diamonds cheaply and a way to bring them to market, and the value of diamonds will fall to that of other gemstones.
Scarcity creates and instils value. For more examples of this Law of the Marketplace you need only look at the price flexibility of any item in high demand. From kids' toys at Christmas to automobiles, availability affects value. Try to purchase a Prius from a Toyota dealership; as long as demand outstrips supply, we'll be paying Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) if not more.
I, like thousands of other computer-savvy folks, understand that scarcity creates value, and that abundance reduces it. Music is no longer scarce. Perhaps it never should have been scarce in the first place, but it was and therefore had inflated value. Today I can go to the Internet and access music whenever I wish. It is no longer something I need purchase from a limited number of suppliers.
Many of us have music on our PCs which we listen to frequently, but have never paid for. The argument about whether or not we would have purchased this music from a store is a straw man. The fact is, we've not paid for the music, we've copied it, and we're enjoying it. The fact that we've invested the time to find and download it, to listen to it, means that it has value to us, value we've not returned in kind.
One could argue, and it is the argument made in Canada, that since the government has tagged a copyright tax/surcharge onto recordable media, that we have paid for our music downloads in some way. That argument falls apart when you realize that nobody knows which artists I've downloaded, and therefore the government has no possible way of compensating the artist whose work I'm listening to as I pen this article.
The proponents of "music sharing" (what a great euphemism for the definitionally impaired correct word, which is "theft") will correctly insist that nothing has been stolen, but they cannot in all honesty claim, if they listen to the downloaded music more than once, that they have received no value. And that is the crux of the whole IP debate. The creator of a work has the right to profit in some way from his/her effort and the value/pleasure their work brings to others.
Because if that is not the right of the creators, then they cannot devote their life, their efforts and their creative talents solely to the act of creating. The best they can do is make their talent a part-time hobby, while they find some other, more mundane way to make a living. That dilution of their artistic ability generates a loss, not just for the artist, but for everyone who enjoys that artist's work.
The RIAA and the recording companies are already dead, except they haven't had the common decency to bury the corpses. There is no longer any need to physically distribute what we can distribute electronically. They are as obsolete as the buggy whip makers and the home ice delivery companies of the early 1900s. What is not obsolete is the need to fairly compensate artists for their work.
What is needed is an easy to use micro-payment (MP) capability. This has been discussed for the past decade and a half, but the ability to easily and securely pay a few pennies to download a song, read an article, watch a movie etc. etc. doesn't really exist yet. While there are some solutions such as Paypal and Neteller, neither of these are global in reach.
An easy to use MP capability would not stop those who are determined to ste@l (a new word for the 21st century I've just defined. It means, "To take something of value electronically, without giving something of value in return") but it would allow those who believe in the philosophy of QPQ (see the title) to say thanks, in a meaningful way, to the artist whose work they are enjoying.
The micro-payment system should not be complicated. It could be as simple as this: To pay for the value of this article, pay $0.02 to Amex MP 869866645674.0023
The first part of that Amex Micro-Payment Number represents my Amex account, the second part tells me which article you've donated to. Of course, this could be placed at the top of the article after the first paragraph and a confirmation that you've coughed up the $0.02 from Amex back to this site would allow you to read further.
Nor should you have to use Amex to pay into my Amex account; any financial institution following the MP Protocol should allow you to make this MP. Even if your institution, perhaps MasterCard or the Royal Bank, charged you $0.10 on every $1.00 you spent this way, they'd make money and we'd all be able to easily decide whether to QPQ or Ste@l.
Of course, something else needs to happen. There needs to be a shift in thinking on what it should cost to purchase an electronic item. Is a song from iTunes worth $0.99? Or should it cost $0.10… which goes mostly to the artist? Which takes more effort? The creation of the work or making the work available through a website? To whom should the bulk of your Quid Pro Quo go to? Does an artist need a middle man to get between them and their patrons?
Source