Dying to download - part 2

I wrote a post last week about a law being considered and the feedback on my opinions was resoundingly negative.

It made me think - did I rush over this issue? That's the last thing I want to do.

Hey, I'm not above criticism, so I thought I would revisit this to acknowledge and respond to some of the points made, and also to re-evaluate my stance on this to see if my opinion is justified.

I think it's important for everyone to remember that opinions vary.

So, I'd like to go over some of these points again and also to ask for more input on this.

It's a biggie, but I felt it was needed considering the response to my last post - which you should probably have a look over to understand the context.

My last post was a condensed version of this. Perhaps it needed to be said in full.

FAIR WARNING AND ISP COST

I get the feeling that a couple of major points may have been overlooked by some who commented, perhaps because they didn't check out the proposed legislation before making up their mind.

Alleged infringers will be warned twice before being cut off, with three weeks between each warning - a total of six weeks between first warning and account suspension.

According to new sections 122D to 122H of the bill, first comes a "detection notice"; if it continues after three weeks a "warning notice" comes and if it still continues three weeks after that the "enforcement notice" is sent.

People can reject a detection notice in the first week if they think they've done nothing wrong, and if the copyright owner doesn't challenge that rejection the whole thing goes away.

This gives users the ability to effectively call their bluff - if they have proof, the copyright owner will challenge it.

Also, the new bill (new section 122R) includes the provision for ISPs to charge the copyright owners for any work they are required to do.

So basically, you would get plenty of warning before anything gets cut off or any charges are made or anyone incurs any cost. That still seems pretty fair to me.

PRIVACY AND MONITORING

A number of commenters expressed concern that they would be monitored by their ISPs, or indeed that the whole Internet would be monitored, which is an invasion of privacy, or a presumption of guilt.

The ISP will have little to do with the actual monitoring. Standard practice is for copyright holders to engage third-party companies to investigate downloaders and sharers to log their IP addresses.

One tactic they use is to bait downloaders with torrents which they host themselves.

Once these are connected to and downloaded, the company then has the IP address of the person who connected. They use this as a record of the exchange and proof for any legal action.

I think most ISPs would be unwilling to help with monitoring unless they were required to do so by law, and lucky for them they won't have to.

There are no such requirements in this law - only the requirement to suspend accounts if ordered to by a civil court (after the warning process).

ENFORCEMENT AND CONSEQUENCES

Currently, to catch someone infringing on copyright, the copyright holder has to get a court order to obtain the identity of the alleged offender from the ISP, and then prosecute them.

This process usually costs more than any potential damages, which deters copyright holders, or those acting on their behalf to take any action at all, which is why this amendment was proposed - the current system is toothless and almost useless.

To those who think a tribunal would be ineffective or too slow - what other option is there? Surely the addition of an independent body is a step in the right direction.

Another point which was raised is that a whole household or shared connection could suffer from the actions of a single person.

Personally, I think the person who's responsible for the Internet account is also responsible for the actions of those who use it.

Let's say a teen downloads movies in a household. One day a "detection notice" comes in the mail, to the registered address of the account holder, probably the parent.

If the account holder does nothing and downloading continues, a "warning notice" comes after three weeks. If they continue to do nothing for another three weeks, the Internet is suspended.

How much more warning do they need? Just stop the downloading! Surely that is the parents' fault for not enforcing the law with their children? Ultimately, someone has to be responsible.

The same goes with a shared connection like a workplace or school. If one employee downloads something and a detection notice comes to the system administrator, and they do nothing to enforce the law, then they can expect that the connection will be cut off.

The reasons they are proposing this consequence is because it will get results. Most people will stop downloading after the warnings. Dragging someone through court takes months and is a complete waste of money.

Whatever happens, I think there has to be some sort of consequence for illegal copying, otherwise what is the point of a law at all? We might as well just open the floodgates and give every piece of content away free.

ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS MODELS

Some of the comments pointed out that record and distribution companies are clinging to a fast-declining business model. Many express the opinion that content is overpriced for what you get, especially if you are downloading it.

This is something I completely agree with, and I hope it will change. Thirty dollars for a CD is steep, even steeper if it's a digital download, and especially harsh when you know that the artist is getting very little of that.

One commenter rightly pointed out that even if they didn't get paid a cent, artists would still create content. But without a distribution company, they might not have the same reach. Not everyone uses the Internet, remember.

Without the big companies, we might not get as many big-budget movies, but taking some of the money out of the entertainment industry could undoubtedly be a good thing - most of the movies today are so cheesy.

CD sales are dropping and online sales are soaring. What remains to be seen is whether an artist can make the same money going it alone as the artist with the backing of a global company.

Someone pointed out that Radiohead was able to make money on their album over the net by themselves by offering it free, with a koha donation.

It's important to note, though, that Radiohead already had a huge fan base and a good reputation, which made them a target for media interest and word-of-mouth advertising - a reputation built up from their years with the labels.

Artists, actors, producers, directors, gaffers, grips, musicians, programmers and singers all need to pay their bills. The creativity won't stop, but it will always cost someone.

Do you honestly believe that if every music, software and movie company switches to an online sales model it will be the end of torrent sites and peer-to-peer sharing? Well, I don't.

COPYING VS STEALING

This was a good point which I want to acknowledge - at the start of every DVD you hire, you get a screen which says "you wouldn't steal a car, so why would you steal a movie".

Stealing deprives the victim of their possession. So stealing movies is not really a correct definition - you are copying data, not taking it away permanently.

But still, if you copy a movie as opposed to going out and buying a copy of that movie, the effect is essentially that you are depriving the producers of that content of something physical - the money you would have paid to buy it.

In essence, copying a movie and watching it is consuming a product which you would otherwise have had to pay for, right?

IT COSTS TOO MUCH

Buying something online shouldn't cost the same as getting a CD or DVD. I agree with this fully, but that's the current state of things.

We might not like the price of something, but we are not forced to buy it.

Some of the movie sites I visited were selling downloads for absurdly low prices.

*Updated* A reference to movieberry.com has been removed because of concerns about the legality and/or ethics of this site. Best to look around for others - there are plenty - but always read the fine print.

But, I guess anything is more expensive than free.

AVAILABILITY

One of the biggest motivators for illegal downloads, it seems, is that the content is not available in New Zealand, at least not straight away.

I don't think it is true to say that you can't find a place to pay for music or movies. That sounds like a copout to me. There are hundreds out there.

There also seems to be issues with people not being able to access material because it is only available to some regions.

It's unfortunate, but we are tucked away down here in New Zealand. We get things after everyone else, from movies to iPads.

People are impatient - broadband internet and the digital era have made us this way. We dislike having to wait for anything.

I still hold firm to my opinion that just because it isn't in New Zealand yet, if at all, you are not then entitled to copy it - that's a pretty thin excuse.

But I will agree that a lot of the most awesome documentaries and smaller-budget films never make it here, and it's a shame. One of the few downsides to living in New Zealand.

ENTITLEMENT

It seems to me that a small few see online content as a right. One commenter said they already pay for Internet access, so why should they pay to download content as well?

Unfortunately, content like movies and music is not a need or a right, it's a want.

Content is something which someone has worked to make and then expects to sell to cover their costs, and then some on top. That's what pays their bills.

RIGHTS AND WRONGS

In the argument for and against copyright infringement, there are a few distinct schools of thought. I think most people's standpoints can be boiled down to one of five models:

Absolute: Piracy is wrong because it deprives others of money for their work. It is against the law - end of story. If you do it, you are a criminal.

Virtuous: I don't copy content because it is morally wrong OR I do copy music because I believe content production and distribution companies are greedy and greed is wrong.

Necessity: I have tried my hardest not to, but the only way I can find this content is using illegal downloads. Companies should work harder to provide for me, and I wouldn't have to.

Utilitarian: I know downloading content is wrong, but I justify it by thinking it's not depriving anyone of anything physically and it's providing me with enjoyment. It doesn't hurt anyone except the greedy, rich companies.

Apathetic: I steal music and movies and I don't care if anyone doesn't like it. It's there, so I take it. No one will catch me.

It's also a good idea in discussions like this to recognise the biases held by each of the groups involved.

Of course, the music and recording industry will be all for this law, because it will allow them to prosecute those who repeatedly circumvent their business model (more on this soon).

Wouldn't you be upset if someone was taking away your profits? I would and I think you probably would too.

Authorities and governments face a difficult task, as they are basically charged with pleasing everyone and one group will inevitably think they are getting a raw deal.

The artist who lost most of their profit due to illegal downloads; the ISP that lost a good customer because it had to suspend their account; the record company employee who loses his job because his company goes under; the parent with an unruly teenager who refuses to stop downloading.

All I'm trying to say is that we need to try to see it from all sides before we make up our mind.

MY OPINION

We as a society have grown accustomed to being able to quickly access content, from music to movies to software, free of charge and we use a variety of views to justify this practice.

Most of the arguments against this law are essentially looking for excuses to download, from what I can see.

I would rather have a two-warning system in place than a lawsuit with no warning.

From this post, I hope you understand a little better where I am coming from. I'm not trying to convince you to do anything, or think any way, I am just stating my opinion.

I still think this law is a step in the right direction.

Let me know what you think.

» Join Connector on Facebook, Twitter @lukeappleby or Email Luke at connectornz@gmail.com

» If you like this blog, vote for it in the NetGuide People's Choice Web Awards! Go here to cast your vote for it as Best Blog. Voting closes on July 30.