Piracy Involves Hypocrisy From Both Sides: Where Are The Solutions?
Whilst TMV wrote about the SOPA legislation last week we were barraged with comments from the Anti-SOPA camp – many of them rather anti-free speech if you consider the personal attacks and the rage associated with me presenting my opinion on the issue. Folks regardless of opinions from either side, free speech is a universal right that TMV does agree with.
However, TMV does not condone ISP’s and search engines profiting from facilitating piracy of content, whether it be intentional or not. The DCMA act was passed in 1998 a long time before the current and very real scourge of file sharing on the Internet and SOPA. The DCMA legislation is out of date and not fit for purpose in today’s world. Why should just the content creating industries be one hundred percent responsible for policing content online when content creators do not control access to the Internet?
SOPA was by no means a good piece of legislation, yet the content industry have attempted for years to negotiate with both ISP’s and search engines to reach a compromise where both parties take some responsibility so a workable solution could be agreed. Despite this both ISP’s and search engines have continued to ignore collaborative calls to reach a solution. So the content industries make a decision to push for a very one-sided piece of legislation. Labels overseas had previously stated legislation is in no ones interest, but left with no one to negotiate with clearly they decided on the ‘Nuclear Option’.
Private companies such as ISP’s make money from charging users for Internet access and have a direct customer relationship with file sharers. Search engines such as Google link to file-sharing sites and in some cases share profits from serving up network advertisements on these file-sharing sites. When this occurs Google generally receives 50% and the files-sharing site receives the other 50% of money made from serving up these digital advertisements.
Examine the chart below which outlines that torrent sites take up 13.5% of overall Internet bandwidth in the United States. In comparison to iTunes, which only takes up 2.7% of overall Internet bandwidth.
Source: Evisional Ltd
ISP’s are making money of selling this bandwidth to their customers in the United States. Is it right that they take no responsibility for their customers that use Torrent sites? That is like a business in the physical world saying we will sell the keys to the lock on your house numerous times but take no responsibility for any burglars we sell those keys to…
Reinforcing this is the fact that the picture is even worse in the European Union where Bit Torrent sites actually make up 28.4% of all Internet Bandwidth used – that’s more than double the figure in the US. Google provides millions upon millions of links to these torrent sites whilst also like ISP’s profiting from enabling content pirates.
Source: Evisional Ltd
Yes the music business and labels generally have a lot to answer for in terms of not being transparent in payments to artists signed to their rosters and also attempting to sue individual file sharers instead of sites that facilitate file sharing. On the same note both ISPs and search engines like Google also have to take some responsibility for the fact that their customers use their businesses to carry out illegal file sharing activity.
It is clear negotiation is required on both sides of the coin, however every party needs to be willing to negotiate. Because if one side refuses to negotiate, than legislation which is not good for either side and/or consumers is what we are left with. As previously stated for better or worse these are the actual circumstances that led to a push for SOPA by the content creating industries.
Now it is all way too easy for the anti-SOPA camp to state legislation is not the way forward. How about being constructive and providing some viable alternative solutions? Yes SOPA was bad legislation there is no doubt about that whatsoever. However, what options did and do the content creating industries have but legislation if companies that sell the keys to enable their customers to file share content refuse to negotiate and take some responsibility? By this TMV are in no way advocating that these companies should take 100% of the responsibility, in our view it needs to be shared.
So it will be interesting to see if any SOPA critics, TMV included, can suggest VIABLE solutions to the scourge of piracy. Lets all be proactive here as piracy affects art and artist’s need to feed themselves and families regardless of the corporate entities that they do business with. It is all too easy and the lazy way out to say legislation is not the way without providing viable alternatives…
Related posts:
- Companies Opposed To SOPA Are Acting Like Spoilt Children
- Piracy: The Pirate Bay Verdict (Will Piracy Ever Lose?)
- Net Neutrality Debates Relevance To Online Piracy
- Google vs. Content – Why Rupert Is Right!
- Google Willing To Help Record Labels Combat Music Piracy, But It’ll Cost Them
Posted by Jakomi Mathews
on Jan 24 2012. Filed under Digital, featured.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Loading ...
Poor babies want their free music and free movies. And then also a job in the industry. Can’t have both, folks. Sorry. Get your brain cells together.
People are claiming that SOPA-like enforcement of IP rights would place an unconscionable burden on file-hosting sites and ISPs.
I point to pawnshops, which–at least in the USA–are required to keep detailed records of every person and every thing that comes into their shop; who they say they are, where they say they live, what they say the item is and where it came from, all of it. And they’re required to maintain close liason with the police to check whether anything they’ve got matches the description of a recently-stolen item. Similarly, storage-space owners can be liable for certain types and levels of criminal activity in their buildings.
It’s not out of the question to expect a fence to keep his nose clean.
Hi Betinna,
The thing is ISP’s already filter out child pornography and/or terrorism when sifting through your access to the internet gateway they charge you for. What is wrong with them doing that to sites that pirate content as well? Search engines also filter out links to child pornography and terrorism as well. Both ISP’s and search engines can do the same in respect of pirated content so what’s the problem? People seem to have no problem with child pornography being filtered – it would be the same process for filtering out pirated content, so what is the problem? ISPs and Search Engines require the same level of access to undertake either filtering process…The thing is Google already have algorthyms that do scan Google docs and links severed up whilst ISPs already use filtering so its a bit late to be saying you do not want them doing that because they already do.
Furthermore the breach of privacy RED HERRING continually used as an excuse by ISPs and search engines is a smoke screen because both already filter your access and links served up. Furthermore Facebook has slammed ‘privacy’ so much that it is almost non-existent online anymore…or do you agree with FB using your every keystroke and every like, conversation and every friend interaction to sell your information to advertisers? That is also filtering but not only that they store every single keystroke and interaction you’ve ever made and sell it to multiple companies…
The problem with only having the authorities police the internet is that ISP’s are private gateways that charge customers for access and hence bring up the business confidentiality ‘red herring’ and refuse to allow governments proper access to adequately police the internet. The ONLY solution is a collaborative one whereby content owners, ISPs, search engines and the authorities agree standards of business practice as is common in the physical world. Sadly to date ISPs and search engines are the only ones who have refused to come to the table despite repeated calls from both content owners and the authorities (i.e. government). Governments do already scan everything on Twitter and facebook and Google+ and to believe otherwise is extremely naive!
The content industries have repeatedly stated government legislation will be bad for both content owners, ISPs and search engines – yet with a continued middle fingers from ISPs and search engines, the content industries are left with no option but to encourage government legislation. I’m sick and tired of the content industries being slated for standing up against having their content being stolen. Since 2005 onwards the content industries have continually tried to negotiated with ISPs and search engines but keep getting given the finger. What choice do they have if ISPs and search engines refuse to come to the negotiating table?
In terms of SOPA the whole red herring about free speech was taken up by the already blinded apple fan boi like feavour of cloned uneducated idiots. I never supported everything in SOPA, but whether we like it or not governments already insist ISPs and search engines filter certain content whether you like it or not and we accept this in society as a necessary because we dislike such behaviour – what is different about stealing content??? Why is it alright to steal artist’s content? people advocate police/punishment and policing of stealing/shoplifting from supermarkets – so what is the problem with doing the same online with content? The double standards in this space are astounding!
Jakomi, let me know where you disagree and we can continue.
KIllian,
The EMI VP is right in one respect yes we’ve got to provide better services…but better services still do not stop piracy – it needs to be a two pronged attack, better services and ISPs and search engines playing there part in the equation.
On another note I wonder about this guys real reason’s for stating his own opinion. I bet it is because EMI was purchased by UMG and he is highly likely to be out of a job soon as we all know UMG has a killer Urban promotions team.
So in a contracting recorded music business what better option than to join the side that actively profits from Piracy? Keep and eye out, AT & T, Verizon or Google do you have a position for a major label executive ready to fight your fight for you?
And there are people in the music industry who seem to agree:
EMI VP Comes Out Against SOPA/PIPA; Says The Answer To Piracy Is Providing A Better Service
Bettina,
You make some great points and I agree with most of them! lets continue the conversation.
PS: I have at least a little proposal: While Google should not be responsible for showing search results for illegal sites they should be responsible for paid ads promoting illegal sites. If they sell ads they should check the content of the ad, that’s what newspapers also have to do.
PPS: I know that many don’t like the point, but Bittorrent is a platform for distributed content. Unfortunately it’s used for illegal content but also for a lot of legal and legitimate free software distribution. I have no idea how big the respective shares are but for sure those Bittorrent pieces up there do not represent the amount of illegal file sharing. That’s what the industry hides from the average reader. I would be interested in learning about the segmentation of the Bittorrent traffic though.
While I agree with Kilian re: TV shows, it does not apply to music. The music is almost always available simultaneously in all major countries and there are good shops to buy and download from in excellent, DRM free, platform independent formats. A lesson the TV and movie industry still has to learn.
But Jakomi, I have to disagree with your article: “Why should just the content creating industries be one hundred percent responsible for policing content online when content creators do not control access to the Internet?” – it’s not the content industry that’s responsible but it should be the authorities. Do you agree that phone operators should not be responsible for policing crime commited over their phone lines? I would not want them to filter my phone calls. Would you?
MegaUpload seems to be a special case. I’ve never dealt with them but I read that they might have encouraged or even rewarded illegal uploads. If they did, this is clearly illegal and what happens to them right now is absolutely ok. But they are not an ISP, they are a content hosting platform. An ISP as I understand it delivers Internet access to people and companies. But even for content providers I wouldn’t want them to filter my stuff. Would you like Google to scan all your company or private documents you upload to Google Docs? I surely wouldn’t. It’s private data. Ok, I don’t use Google Docs because I fear that they DO scan the content or give it to US authorities or whatever. But still. Let the police do the policing, not the companies. Separation of powers and the ban on self-justice are there for a reason.
I rest my case folks. As stated in the article if all you can do is say nope it is not ISP’s and search engines and are unable to provide an alternative solution – you are a waste of time! It is always all to easy to complain that something is not the right way but then offer no alternative solution. Where are your solutions folks? Or is all you can do is complain about current industry solutions whilst not offering and alternative? Rather lame!!!
As much as a hate piracy, you cannot blame the isp’s and search engines. That would be like car manufacturers being blamed for hit and runs, drink driving or providing getaway cars. I don’t know the solution but its not what has been suggested above.
BitTorrent has a bigger share in Europe because there is no Netflix and (continental) Europeans are forced to wait one or two years before American TV shows and films are shown. Whenever there is a legal alternative to filesharing, filesharing decreases.
Plus, BitTorrent is also used for legal content.