Here's an interesting article from the Beeb.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8106805.stm
Of the four tools we have to regulate behavior, money, law, physics and norms, it looks as though norms will be getting a showing.
They are gonna try the AM radio politics approach. (My apologies to the solid people on AM, who are NOT doing this!) That is just start blathering and entertaining compelling, if unproven or poorly supported views, that reinforce norms they prefer.
Hey, it worked for Rush Limbaugh!
And it starts with this article! (Which I think is funny in that a PR firm is writing about the value of using PR! Nice one guys!)
They use the word theft in the article, when it's infringement. I always work to highlight this error because failing to use the right word, fails to convey the problem correctly, and that renders the discussion futile, for the most part.
These clowns bonehead this right out of the gate. So much for potent PR.
Theft absolutely requires a loss. That's the baseline element that defines theft as a crime. It's bad because the former owner doesn't have the property anymore.
Infringement isn't theft, because infringement is the word we use when an owner is violated, but nothing is lost. The baseline element required for the crime of theft to be in play isn't on the table.
Infringement means the owner still has their work, still has the opportunity to sell it and arguably might stand a better chance given the infringer has a quality sample under consideration or for recommendation, and still has their publishers rights.
Theft is a different thing, defined by a loss.
Piracy is all about making copies that infringe on the publishers right to regulate those copies.
When we make files available that we don't hold the rights to, we may be infringing. This is actually quite likely, but not always likely. I might make a file available for me to pull down at work, for example. Usually, this is infringing, but when it isn't, it's likely to be fair.
Big media doesn't want to talk about fair, just as much as they want to talk about theft and how bad that is. They hurt their cause with this because even fairly ordinary people are beginning to grok how this works and nobody respects manupulators once they know they've an agenda.
IMHO, that agenda is control and pay for play. Control first, pay for play second, if possible.
The ad being discussed as a demonstration piece ends with:
"Downloading pirated films is stealing. Piracy. It's a crime."
Is it so hard to just say, "Downloading pirated films is a crime." ?!? Or, "when you share movies without permission, it's piracy and piracy is a crime." ?!?
We know it's a crime, the law is clear it's a crime, so let's talk about the actual crime instead of mangling it into some other crime that isn't really the real crime; namely, infringement.
I think a big part of this happens to be that nobody likes thieves. --Even other thieves! It's a natural fit to make that false association and capture and potentially leverage all the anger over theft for the greater good. Problem is, there just isn't any theft!! The bottom will fall out of that one sooner or later, leaving the state of the discussion poor enough to be worthless.
Seems to me we should be discussing infringement as a crime. To be fair to big media (and I'm very fair here), not all infringment is criminal. Until recently, it was a civil violation too, not criminal. I believe that changed, meaning people could be felons for playing a legally purchased media on a legally purchased player on Linux without permission to do so from the publisher / owner. That's hosed up bad law. Really bad law.
Sometimes I think we are doomed on this matter because of this one failure to grok the difference between theft and infringement. Big media knows. Little media mostly knows. Ordinary people are learning. Most ordinary people also understand fair and equitable as concepts too. Concepts that are largely missing from this discussion. Desire for control lies at the root of that.
These things are a big deal because it complicates matters and has already resulted in bad law.
Bad law that everybody knows is bad usually ends up being mostly ineffective law, or at best selective enforcement kinds of laws that nobody respects and everybody tends to fear. Ineffective law doesn't regulate behavior, and could easily impair the use of the other three regulatory tools.
When this all adds up, we've a mess and nobody is happy!
Infringement. Say it. That is what the crime is. If we start there, we can begin to actually do some damage on this matter before we end up with too much bad law that will take generations to sort out, if ever.
BTW, bad law is associated with another digital related crime called circumvention. This word has the same problem that infringement does. Analogies to breaking and entering abound and they are just as flawed as the theft analogies are with the law being poorly written as a result.
We have the DMCA, which is an anti-circumvention law that has been abused sixteen ways to Sunday. Bad law, bad regulation = ugly and convoluted mess. It hobbles legit reverse engineering efforts, threatens expression of all kinds, threatens fair use rights, open code and a whole batch of other stuff. Is the basis for a lot of big corporate technology lock in too.
For those seeking a market where they can profit from their works, having bad law mangle norms and ignore physics means money will not flow where it should and since money is what the artists want and big media control is what nobody but big media wants, we've all a very keen interest in keeping the discussion clear, both producers and consumers alike.
If we don't take this interest seriously, those with the most gold will win out, meaning there just won't be an equitable opportunity for everyone to go and get after their share of the gold.
I want my shot at the gold and I want others to have theirs. Won't happen unless we sort this stuff and start having real discussions about it all.
Posted on June 19, 2009 - 11:20 PM
#
