By Ana Diaz
Last Wednesday, January 18th, was a day that will
live in infamy as the day the internet went on strike in protest of the
controversial SOPA/PIPA bills. Popular sites, such as Wikipedia and Wordpress,
either completely blacked out their pages or had very noticeable alterations
informing visitors of the two bills’ dangers. Though these bills aim to protect
entertainment industries by punishing copyright violators, can they really alter our current system of consumption?
The 24 hour blackout: a story we will tell our
grandkids.
The main issue giving rise to these bills is, of course,
piracy. With the Internet becoming an intangible network of unlimited
information an anonymity, illegall activities have become a regular part of the world
wide web. Downloading and sharing is all but common among today’s Internet
users. Some sources claim that one out of every four Internet users visit sites that illegally contain copyrighted materials.
Considering these statistics, the SOPA/PIPA bills seek to cut down on illegal
activity through some arguably drastic measures. Under these bills, websites
could be held responsible for their users' content. Facebook and Youtube could
be faced with the impossible task of policing user content to ensure
legitimacy.
Under these bills, Justin Bieber’s adorable
rise to fame via Youtube may have been a criminal act.
For the most part, the entertainment industry backs such bills
because of their belief that piracy is a problem associated with billing and payment,
rather than a problem with the product itself. Yet it seems as if the problem
is something more akin to that of a distribution issue.
Drake does not seem to be having a “billing
and payment” issue.
Today, a computer can connect anyone to everything. Despite having
the world literally at their fingertips, the entertainment industry is fighting
to keep an increasingly archaic distribution method afloat. For instance,
despite the obvious preference for digital files, a consumer must purchase an
album at a brick and mortar store to avoid a slew of cumbersome DRM
restrictions commonly associated with the format of choice.
Even after this
physical and legitimate purchase, a consumer does not necessarily own the
content. For the RIAA, the Recording Industry Association of America, a CD purchase only means the consumer can use the product
rather than granting ownership. The same applies for software.
Instead of exchanging money for goods, a consumer is exchanging money for a
service that can be retracted or altered at anytime. Illegal downloading, on
the other hand, is a very convenient method of acquisition that grants unlimited
ownership. It bypasses all the middle men. Many claim to pirate music because
of these technicalities.
Pictured: something you spent tons of money
on but don’t own.
As mentioned in a previous blog post, digital sales have surpassed
physical sales. The Internet has turned the digital into something as
commonplace as water. Therefore, it is unlikely that altering the convenience
of the Internet will lead to substantial retroactive change. Digital files are
not assets but commodities, in a sense. Piracy is likely rampant not because
consumers stubbornly refuse to pay but because the legal means of acquisition
are becoming increasingly inconvenient. Proper compensation is obviously of
upmost importance but ignoring the constantly changing means of dispersal or
distribution is an unrealistic approach in a progressively intangible world.
0 comments:
Post a Comment