QotW3: Their Good vs. Our Good – Is it possible to strike the perfect balance?

The issue about intellectual property and copyright issues has been debated about to death. On one end, you have the consumers going online to download anything from movies to music. On the other end, you have the conglomerates suing these people for violating intellectual property, and infringing copyright laws. Despite the actions taken against these so-called pirates, it is almost nearly impossible to totally clamp down on copying and piracy. Just why is it so easy for people to copy nowadays? Can there really be a solution that will be able to placate both the consumers and the conglomerates?

With the advent of P2P networks, it is little wonder why piracy is so rampant nowadays. According to Androutsellis and Spinellis (2004), these “architectures and systems are characterized by direct access between peer computers, rather than through a centralized server.” One of the most popular applications includes BitTorrent, which is widely recognized as a second generation P2P network. Like the first generation programs Kazaa and Napster, BitTorrent also works in the same way – in the form of a decentralized network. However, it works like the barter trade – individuals who download files can act simultaneously as the client and the server. Such a system has made it easy for even the computer-illiterate to copy and unwittingly engage in piracy. And, of course, even harder to track them down.

This has, of course, caused the huge record companies to fly into a flurry. According to Von Lohmann (2004), there have been “four thousand two hundred and eighty lawsuits” that have been brought by major record labels to music fans that engage in P2P downloading since 2004, and the number is still increasing. Those found guilty, would have to pay fines for amounts ranging from $3,000 - $11,000. Looking at the number of people sued, and the hefty fines they had to pay, one would think that P2P downloading had huge repercussions on the record label industry. On the contrary, however, research has shown that “file sharing displaced less than 1% of albums per year for the entire music industry.” (Oberholzer & Strumpf, 2005) In other words, P2P downloading has little to no effect on record sales.

What these conglomerates are concerned about, is probably not just about the money lost, but the blatant infringement of their intellectual property. As consumers, we too have to understand their stand. If you painstakingly created something, put it up for sale, and within a few days, find that your work is readily available for free download online, you would not be pleased. It is not just about money anymore – it’s about the ethics.

However, with the Internet growing in influence everyday, who’s really going to put up with the idea of ethics and copyrighted property? Downloading files and leaving a trail of infringed copyright laws in your path is really easy. According to Oberholzer and Strumpf (2005), however, “file sharing is attractive to those who are time-rich but cash-poor, and these individuals would purchase fewer CDs even in the absence of P2P networks.” Think of it this way – if you had plenty of money to spare, would you even bother to download? You would probably walk into the nearest record store and purchase all the CDs you wanted without even batting an eyelid. The conglomerates must understand this – that those people committing these ‘crimes’ do not commit piracy intentionally; they are left with no choice. With a plethora of games, movies and music available online for download, and little money in their wallet, they resort to piracy to get what they want.

The key word to this situation is compromise. Infringing intellectual copyright laws is obviously not right, but the conglomerates too have to understand the mindset of your average P2P downloading consumer. With such a wide range of choices, is it really practical to pay for an album when all you want to sample is just one song? Fining those guilty of sharing and download files only works as a deterrent, but it does not solve the problem. What can work, however, is if these conglomerates lower the prices of their CDs, and recognize the growing potential of the Internet as the powerful medium of this generation. They should put more albums up for free download, and probably, put their better selling albums up for download for a minimal fee. We can never strike the perfect balance – one way or the other, there will still be some individuals among the conglomerates and the consumers who will be unhappy. However, this is just how the compromise works. On both sides, it is impossible to meet all stated conditions. It’s how you tackle and work around those conditions that you are left with that really matter.



References

Androutsellis, T.S. & Spinellis, D. (2004). A Survey of Peer-to-Peer Content Distribution Technologies. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from

Izal, M., Urvoy, K. G., Biersack, W. E., Felber, P.A., Hamra, A. A., Garces, E. L. (2004). Dissecting BitTorrent: Five Months in a Torrent’s Lifetime. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin.

Oberholzer, G.F. & Strumpf, K. (2005). The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis. Retrieved January 30, 2007, from

Pouwelse, J.A., Garbacki, P., Epema, D.H.J. & Sips, A.J. (2004). A Measurement Study of the BitTorrent Peer-to-Peer File-Sharing System. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from

Von Lohmann, F. (2004). Is Suing your Customers a Good Idea? Retrieved February 2, 2007, from