Are we all thieves? Is stealing natural? According to Michael Arrington, the founder of TechCrunch, it is.
Responding to Viacom Inc. (NYSE: VIA)'songoing billion-dollar lawsuit against YouTube Inc. , Arrington concurred with Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) (YouTube’s parent) that Viacom’s legal action “threatens” the Internet. I don’t know about the Internet, but Arrington’s position certainly threatens our culture.
Yes, that’s right. Uber-blogger Arrington -- who in late April Time magazine included in its 2008 list of 100 Most Influential People in the World -- really uttered this dismal bit of sophistry. Sounding like a remix of French anti-private property anarchist Pierre-Joseph “property is theft” Proudon, Arrington argued on TechCrunch that the time has come to “rethink copyright laws” because “it’s bad to criminalize natural behavior.”
Arrington’s stance, of course, epitomizes the permissive attitude about intellectual property that has already destroyed the music business and is now threatening to kill the holy trinity that includes Hollywood, the television industry, and the book trade.
In 1999, when Napster first assaulted the recorded music industry with its peer-to-peer technology, we heard similarly open-minded nonsense from Web 1.0 moguls like MP3.com founder Michael Robertson and Public Enemy’s Chuck D. Almost 10 years later, the catastrophic consequences of Napster’s mass piracy are all too tragically evident. In 1997, global recorded music sales were $45 billion. By next year, it is estimated that they will have fallen to around $23 billion -- an almost 50 percent drop in sales in a little more than a single decade.
Might all of this have something to do with the fact that peer-to-peer technology essentially legalized the online theft of music? And might it also be that street-corner demagogues have convinced the easy-to-seduce online crowd into thinking that it is perfectly natural to borrow other people’s property (even if the owners haven’t actually given them permission to do so)?
Arrington argues that the problem of grand online larceny lies with the law. But Arrington -- who, ironically, used to be an intellectual property lawyer -- is scapegoating the very institution that most effectively protects private property.
The real problem is with us and not the law. The truth, of course, is that the theft of digital content is no more “natural” than holding up little old ladies on street-corners or crashing civilian airliners into tall buildings. And it’s the responsibility of thought-leaders like Arrington to use their privileged positions to educate the innocent about the evils of digital thievery.
By stating his opposition to criminalizing "natural behavior," Arrington is not only legitimizing online theft, but he is also undermining the credibility of entertainment companies, such as Hulu or Blinkbox that have invested major resources into building entirely legal Web businesses. Defending YouTube’s flagrant disregard for intellectual property laws is tantamount to justifying criminal behavior. That’s the libertarian logic of Arrington's argument.
Indeed, it appears that Arrington is openly encouraging the development of businesses that actively undermine the law. In his own words:
It’s time to rethink copyright laws, and it’s time for copyright holders to rethink their business models. The winners won’t be the companies that win or lose billion dollar lawsuits. It’ll be the companies that throw out everything that’s come before, and build new businesses around the natural behavior of people. Remove friction and win.
But I disagree. Just as we shouldn’t be rethinking laws about prostitution or drugs, there is also no need to rewrite copyright laws. Unfortunately, digital technology has made online theft risk free. The solution is not to legalize this crime, but to punish it.
We’ve got to be more aggressive about prosecuting intellectual property miscreants. Unlike Arrington, therefore, I applaud Viacom’s billion-dollar lawsuit against YouTube. Ironically, it is the law itself that remains the most efficacious weapon to make online theft more unnatural.
— Andrew Keen, Silicon Valley author, broadcaster, and entrepreneur
But there are places to buy them from. iTunes being one of the biggest. If you want P2P, there are many too (even Napster is a legal resource now).
In the U.S., where the purchasing power is well above most of the World, the issue is directing the people from illegal to legal - charging a small amount.
But I don't know for the rest of the World. If you earn 300 US, you can't expect to go to a 10-30 concert, but you can't expect to sneak in either. That's the whole problem of it, they do it because they feel it's right.
speaking about small musical companies and promotion...The Internet by itself gives promotional opportunities that have never been before.You know- Youtube is the best promoter.I think, in a certain way, independent artists now, have better chances to get their target public.
Speaking about the whole issue,I would like to say- for many people in the world, p2p network is the only way to listen to their favourite music or to watch their favourite movies.The licensed prices are still high comparing to the profit.If your salary is $300 a month, I don't really think you would spend from $10 to $30 to enjoy your favourite artists.
I think ,if p2p networks demanded some small payment- for registereing and then for month or year usage- and pay a certain amount of money to producers- it would help -not so much,of course, but better something,than nothing.
When record companies can sue individual users and win, resulting in large fines and awards, then something is wrong with the system.
There will always be those who do not want to pay for anything, who somehow feel better about themselves when they can get something for free.
However, I believe that most people will gladly pay a reasonable fee to download music, videos, tv shows or anything else. The key is it has to be easy and reasonable.
Music sales may have dropped 50% wordlwide but who is really at fault. If the music industry stayed ahead of the curve and provided a means for their customers desires, then I believe that the majority of those customesr would have spent some of those missing billions.
Do you actually believe clips of The Daily Show on YouTube threatens our culture?
We are seeing that today in all telecommunication industries. The fixed/wireless companies are merging back. It's just how it works, corporations try to reduce costs and one way to do it is through economies of scale.
And with the convergence of technologies into triple-play and even (cuadruple?)-play it's only logical for companies to merge or make partnerships.
Regarding the music industry, a small record label won't be successful. It might find a new artist and try to promote them around the city/state/area/country but they'll find that it's too expensive. Only big ones can afford to invest that kind of money. If the small one decided to try, after two or three failures, it'll find itself in bankruptcy.
I agree that "this situation is at least as relevant to the music industry's problems as internet piracy", it's a problem of culture. We, as a society, do it because we know we can get away with it. Until proper regulations and measures are put into place, it'll continue to happen.
The bottom line, for record sales and for everything else. Novelty is good buisnes but as the lapse of time grows bigger form its realease it is harder to control its distribution because it becomes widley available, it gets socialized. At this stage, (lets say six months form its realese) trying to sell it even half price is dificult, but its not that bad. If youve ever wondered how many cds are sold in mexico, a hell of a lot more than in the US. The product is cheap to make, the publicity you argue, after six months how much expensive publicity is really done, not alot, at least not in the same market. One dollar max if it is a dvd is the cost of production with grafics in the disk cover. Consumer reaccion is diferent. They can buy a cd for one song even if they are not intrested in the rest of the content, they can do it several times because at that cheap price they lose it or dont store it properly. The product sells well and a lot more in big cuantities.
New devices and networks render regulation irrelevant
Regulation is like slicing a pie and deciding who gets the big pieces.But rapidly evolving technology means everyone is eating cake.By the time politicians decide there is something new to regulate and slice, people have moved onto pizza and tidbits to weird to itemize.
The holy grail of regulation is Local TV broadcast licenses.But, today less than 15% of the population get TV via broadcast signal.Cable regulation is getting into gear, but now some people are getting their media over Xbox live or Bit Torrent.Satellite networks are another option, and kiosk delivery like Red Box is also a factor.And what about TiVo, Amazon and Netflicks new Set Top Box?
Audio networks are also morphing quickly.There are two, soon to be one Satellite networks.Terrestrial audio based on high-definition digital technology has effectively unlimited bandwidth.Drive time (school bus drive time) listening for many kids is now via a WiFi linked “Bus Radio” that stores content at night in the bus yard, and plays during the morning and afternoon rides.
What the recording industry has done is continue to make buggy-whips in a automotive era. They did not move.iPhone could have been from Columbia Records.Too late now.
I wouldn't necessarily say that the music business brought damage on themselves. The big music companies weren't responsible for changes in legislation deregulating broadcasting companies. As I understand it, media producing companies have been quite screwed by the deal.
I don't have the document in front of me, but the FCC did a report on monopolies resulting from the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Prior to deregulation, the largest corporation in radio had something like 25 radio stations across the country -- which approximated the limit, per laws governing media control. Today, Clear Channel Communications has over 1800. The runner up has something like 600 radio stations.
When you have lots of independent radio station catering to many different tastes, and influenced by many different people, music corporations ended up "discovering" lots of groups, and played a mentoring role to a large number of artists. When, instead, a music corporation is forced to pay money to radio stations to play a musician's work... the corporation spends time crafting a corporate asset, instead. It's just an entirely different -- and in my mind less effective -- way for music to develop. And I don't really see that the music companies have real alternatives.
I think most businesses benefit from regulation, even when they feel badly restricted by the constraints. And more to the point, I think that this situation is at least as relevent to the music industry's problems as internet piracy.
So are you saying that the music business brought it to themselves? that if the internet wasn't here, we still wouldn't be buying CDs?
Maybe there aren't as many "ugly-but-talented" artists anymore, but I doubt is the lack of talent but that they are not ugly anymore.
I think the internet is the problem of the music industry - not the internet itself but the lack of control over it. People are downloading illegal music not because they think it's right or not illegal but because they can, and there's no one that can stop them.
...is the complete formula, tratar de despejarla esta chido (didnt kow how to translate it)...Lelgal not legal what he does... it. Have I, have I not the wright my cousin wanted some movies from my visiting cousins, from the United States, it couldnt be done, my moms new computer with windows vista doesnt allow it. I bought (downloded if i were to live in the united states, comers involving people were i live) the newest version o Nero and tired to burn the product the media content. Its too bad I cant do it, the media content of that cd is protected. If my brother were her I would pass the problem, he wold look for a way around.... he wouldnt program a software to brake it, unless he was paid to do it. Fiesta, Elmos Potty Time and.... I forgot the last tittle. If the title was a new release it woud have cost so many dolares. If it was on sale it cost so many of the green bills. My little nephews already now how to go to the batroom, but I will look for it anyway, using the number one law of geeks work your less efort.My cousin is happy she is going by her self to the bathroom. If I dont find the titles in the puesto (i've payed 5 bucks for the program already) I will try and download it form the Internet for free. My conclusions are the folowing, i can find ways arround it, I dont mind buying it first at a reasonable price from another human being, cant ait for Henrys potty time. I could learn how to program and brake the code used to protect it but Im sure it didn cost that much when it was new anyway.
Using Music Sales as the basis for copyright arguments may seem natural, but has an inherent flaw.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 paved the way for massive monopolies in radio. This is a radical change in the music industry which happens to coincide with the emergence of the internet, but is unrelated. I am among the many people who consider this to have been the death of music. A few monopolistic media corporations prefer a managable number of cross-media megastars over the broad range of music talent that existed 10 or 20 years ago. The focus on youth, great bodies, big attitude, and paparazzi appeal has driven out the ugly-but-talented artists that dominated music decades ago.
Worse yet are the marketing targets that this type of monopoly creates. Teenagers and early 20-somethings buy the majority of music. And while they may be the most important demographic, the industry's almost exclusive focus on them has left a huge portion of the music market sitting on the sidelines.
I find myself buying very few CDs. This is not because I am pirating, but because the last time anyone cared about my musical interests was in the early 90's. I bought CDs back then, and don't need replacement copies very often. Sure, a few new albums pique my interest every few years -- and I buy them -- but it's rare. With today's technology, we should have more variety than ever. I'm disappointed that technology hasn't delivered on that potential.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
The problem with much analysis of the old-versus-new media wars (including some of my own, I confess) is that we always assume that there’s a moral struggle going on, that the real battle is between fairness and injustice, and that, in the best Hollywood tradition, good will eventually triumph over evil.
In an age of a myriad of media devices and platforms, what does the digital consumer want? The answer, in a word, is simplicity. When a consumer buys a book, a movie, a magazine, or a musical track, they want to watch, read, and listen to their product on every device and platform -- from their two-channel hi-fi to their home theater-powered television to their Internet-enabled computer to their 3G smartphone to their revolutionary new touch tablet.
Thus reads a thesis from American political scientist Robert Kagan, meaning that Americans are intrinsically warlike while Europeans are the natural pacifiers; Americans destroy things and Europeans fix them.
Good news for those with a religious faith in Sarah Palin: She’s done the impossible. Miracle of miracles, she’s made me -- the Antichrist of Silicon Valley -- fall in love with the Internet.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
Saunders is wrong on Hulu, Fritz thinks. By most measures it's been
a success, and there's no reason this model won't become even bigger in the next three years. Oh, and he hates Steve's hat.
Techies are going crazy over the possibility that Google might design and sell its own Android phone. Some writers say it's a very big deal. Reiter questions whether it will happen and, if it does, whether it even matters.
Comparing Internet services is tough because service providers price and market their services based on a best-case scenario connection that most consumers will never enjoy.
YouTube launches 'YouTube Direct' to give 'citizen' journalism a better platform and in so doing may just ensure that 'quality' journalism soon becomes a thing of the past.
The problem with telepresence is that it's not universally accepted, because video calling isn't. While we can all do video calling, we also apparently worry too much about how we look. If we want HD telepresence in our future, we have to dress down, mess up our hair, and dive into our online life.
Research shows that the youth of today like Facebook – but not blogging or Twitter. Does that mean Facebook has won, or just that it's not yet out of favor? Will all the services we see today fade into Ovaltine-or-Wheaties status in just a few years?
What kinds of companies are doing the most innovation in the data center? Turns out it's midtier enterprises that are taking the "Just Right" approach.
Ray Kurzweil's Blio and Apple's iPad tablet will make it easier than ever to have books "read" to us, says Dr. Kim, who believes that talking tablets will become interwoven into our consciousness as we "merge" with the increasingly elegant machines we hold in our hands.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
