technoculture314-09

Since more and more people take the advantage of free downloading these days, whether the copyright should be more restricted in the 21^st century is a major discussion. It is relatively difficult to absolutely conclude that the change of the copyright will minimize the piracy issue for sure. Issues are likely minimized if the sections are set toward more criminal way that the action of piracy is seen as a sense of killing the intangible goods. It means that if people are downloading music albums for free, it is a way of “killing” the artists’ careers since publishing albums are their jobs and they gain profit from selling music albums. Thus, restricting copyrights might be a way of reducing the piracy issues if the rules are set into a more serious way.

On the other hand, the restricting of copyrights might not make any changes to the issues at all. Laws are set for the people who are obeying the rules. If those minor groups of people are already following the old copyright rules, they will be keeping following the rules no matter what. The rest of the society who are not the better citizens will keep doing what they have always been doing. There is the possibility that some people maybe more careful when they are downloading, but after all, they still have the intention to “steal” the artists’ works. Therefore, restricting copyrights might not seem to be working and artists’ may have the risk of losing the recognition of the public.

The conflicts in whether managing the copyright in a different way always exist. A better way of solving the problem is to set an amount or percentage of downloads. However, this may only seem to work in countries like New Zealand since we have the limitation on the Internet speed that downloading too much may reduce speeds. Large countries like China and USA do not face the problem of Internet speed limitation.

The issue of copyright, especially in regards to downloading music and intellectual property rights is a very topical one that seems to get almost everyone fired up. It also seems to be an area of law that is so vague, intangible and subject to personal opinion that I feel it will be a very long time before any kind of consensus as to what is ‘right/legal’ and what is ‘wrong/illegal’ is decided upon.

Among my age group (early 20s) downloading music from the internet seems to be universally accepted. The only thing that would possibly stop you would be if you weren’t very good with computers. I remember the day I figured out how torrents work and where I could get them from… I was so happy! Yes! Free music for me! Not for one moment did any kind of moral or legal restrictions enter my mind as something that could prevent me from having the latest album by whoever…

Dominey Flores brings up an interesting point which I totally agree with: many people (especially, I would think, in a small country like New Zealand) will claim that it is wrong to download or rip music by local artists, but doing the same to hugely popular foreign artists on major record labels is fine, with the reasoning behind this being that local artists have more to lose in terms or royalties, where as huge pop stars are so rich anyway losing out on that extra $2 royalty they would have received won’t even put a dent in their massive fortunes.

I think where this idea comes from is a combination of the idea of proximity and the level of tangibility. For example, in the past I have purchased albums by local bands such as The Mint Chicks and Lawrence Arabia, both because I like the music and I felt it was good to support them through the purchasing of their music. This desire to ‘support’ them may come from the ‘proximity’ I feel with local bands… chances are I’ve been to several of their gigs, seen them walking around the city or even served them at the bar I work at. Music by the Rolling Stones, on the other hand, I have never paid for. I have also never seen them live, met them or felt any personal connection to them. And I’ve never felt guilty about downloading their stuff, either. With regards to tangibility, I think that downloading music or movies absolutely is not like stealing a handbag or a car, as the popular advert states. I reckon that if I could get a car for free with minimal effort, virtually no chance of being caught, and all my friends did the same thing then I probably would!

The article by Yar (2008) brings up the nature of law, which is relevant here. In this, she states that certain conducts being identified with crime depend on whether or not “the behaviour in question constitutes a breach of acceptable social norms, and that it partakes of some moral wrongdoing or injury that offends against a society and its members”. In the example I provided before, it would make sense that I am quite happy to download music from huge American bands, because it doesn’t feel like a crime. I don’t have a sense that I am breaching social norms because the actual ‘theft’ is so intangible, nor do I feel like I am personally injuring the Rolling Stones by downloading their music.

It’s a complex issue…

Piracy of television shows is a widespread practice, with episodes available on filesharing networks hours after premiering on television. The same issue is affecting the music and movie industries, but the difference is that television sales still operate on a regional model. Unlike movies or albums which usually have worldwide release within a month, television series are sold to individual networks who broadcast them at a later date - and that's if a network chooses to buy the program at all. In the age of the internet, for people seeking instant gratification, this is unacceptable, and so they turn to piracy.

By delaying broadcasts of a television series in other countries, networks essentially limit their audience. Especially in the case of returning series - many fans who are already invested in it would have already downloaded and watched it. This leads to lower ratings, and advertising fees for the network when it is eventually aired.

Delaying broadcasts also shuts international fans out of fan communities. For someone such as myself, who is "spoiler-phobic", trying to avoid reading about the current season of a series is becoming increasingly hard. Participation in fan culture is cut to a minimum to avoid coming across spoiler material. Since television is a medium which lends itself to speculation, with ongoing storylines and evolving characters, being unable to participate in the latest discussions ruins part of the collective experience that comes from being part of a fandom, especially for genre shows, where the number of fans are already fairly limited.

The industry needs to realise that once a program has been released in one region, it is impossible to stop it from leaking onto the internet - effectively releasing it in all regions. By minimising the delay between the original broadcast and a regional one, viewers may feel less inclined to download episodes of their favourite shows immediately, and choose to show their support by watching it live.

I think it’s fantastic how digital media operate. Thousands of people can have the same song, movie or software in their possession without reducing the quality, or depriving anyone else of access. As explained by Majid Yar in last week’s reading, digital content “can be endlessly reproduced, but this does not entail dispossessing anyone” (pg. 613).

... according to new UK research featured in today's Guardian. "The survey of 1,000 fans also shows that many14 to 18 year olds are now streaming music regularly online using services such as YouTube and Spotify."