Channel Mike

An interesting study was done lately to vindicate my views on copyright infringement and file sharing. The piracy issue is very simple on the surface, but has quite a bit of complexity that shows up any time you try to figure out a proper policy to handle copyright issues. This entry will explore one facet of the multidimensional intellectual property debate going on today.

Allow me to start out by stating very simply, content creators have a right to be reimbursed for their work. I believe very strongly that any society must have an intellectual property framework in place to reward innovation. I believe in copyrights. I believe in patents. And I believe in trademarks, but for a wholly different reason. This is not to say that I believe the United States has implemented this framework in the best possible way.

My feeling is that copyrights have lasted for too long ever since the Sonny Bono/Mickey Mouse extension in 1998. Prior to that, copyrights outlived those they were invented to protect for 50 years. Now, they outlive them by 70. If I publish a book today, August 13th 2007, it won't enter the public domain until 70 years after my death. Assuming I live until I'm 85 (optimistic?) that will be about 2130. I'd be dead by 2060. My kids would pass on by 2090; grandkids by 2120. And my copyright would still be there, whether or not my work was still relevant. Come on. Part of what any meritocracy is built upon is the idea that people are as successful as they are able to be. We shouldn't elect presidents based on their pedigree, but on their competence and political views. We should not allow a billionaire to pass on all his or her wealth to his or her children. As Bill Gates has stated, he does not want to ruin his heirs. Where would Paris Hilton be without inheritance? Where would George W Bush be without his dad's connections? We'd all be better off in a real meritocracy, wouldn't we? For the same reason, an author ought to be able to write a book and know that he/she can earn royalties or license the content for movie rights or whatever else comes along for as long as the author lives. A musician ought to be able to do the same with his/her creation. I would even grant with very little argument that survivors maybe could have a few years before they start producing themselves, but then these copyrights should expire and the content should be in the public domain.

From the perspective of an entire society, not an individual, it makes sense to have as much art and information in the public domain as possible. The more free (in both senses) intellectual property in the society, the more literate the society will be. It is a good thing to have literature, artwork, music, software, etc in the public domain. However, as a society, we need to understand that there is a price that must be paid for great content. We must value those able to create great content. We must create a legal framework that guarantees artists are compensated for creating beauty for all. That price is paid in granting copyright. Our society grants to anyone, regardless of volume sold or quality of work or political leanings of work, a period of their entire lifetime to have exclusive rights to their product. That's great. That provides the incentive for talented producers to produce rather than go be bankers or businessmen. But extending that copyright out for seventy years after the death of the artist does nothing more than ensure that his/her survivors will lack that incentive to produce. Why would they when they can live off of inheritance?

Now that a small portion of my views on intellectual property have been stated, I'll get to the point of this post. Felix Oberholzer-Gee of Harvard University and Koleman Strumpf of the University of Kansas published a paper entitled "The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales." This paper has been cited in Ars Technica and The Atlantic Monthly recently. You can read it to ascertain the details and mechanisms they employed for their conclusions. It basically says that file sharing has an effect on sales that is statistically zero. There is no effect on sales due to file sharing. I'm giddy because the RIAA and the MPAA have been idiotically suing their customers and tarnishing their own reputation and generally pissing away any goodwill they once had lately by attacking the file sharing community. While they have a valid point, they lose credibility by taking that one point to extremes. There's no discussion of the viral marketing contribution these file sharing webs create. File sharers aren't generating revenue directly, but they are passing around music and generating buzz around a new album. How many sales result from this? I surely don't know, and if the RIAA has an estimate, they're not even mentioning the possibility. Even if they are right, and people, who otherwise would have paid the price for the CD are downloading freebies instead of buying CDs, is suing people who have already proven to be their demographic by showing interest in their music a viable long term strategy? Of course not. You're losing customers, don't push them as they walk out the door! Give them a hug and ask them to refer their friends. Maybe you can turn the theft into a sale instead of alienating your potential customer base.

I will grudgingly grant that mass file sharing is illegal. I will argue for fair use when files are shared between people who know each other, and when they're copied for use by the owner in different ways. I'll pass a CD on to my brother if I'd like to share the musical experience with him and never give it a second thought. I will take a track from that CD and put it on my computer, my mp3 player, my psp, and still let my brother listen, and not feel a single twinge of guilt. I will even knowingly violate the DMCA by breaking whatever DRM is polluting the tracks to allow this use. This is all fair use as far as I'm concerned. However, putting the tracks on usenet, or posting them online for the public to take, or using gnutella, kazaa, etc. to share them with people I've never met violates copyright. I don't agree with this behavior. This is still true after the release of the Oberholzer-Gee, Strumpf paper. But after all of the stink coming from industry groups about claiming piracy is responsible for the decline in sales, I'm really delighted to see some real data disputing that excuse. I don't imagine it happening, but wouldn't it be fun to see the stodgy old bastards have to admit that iTunes is a step in the right direction and that they wish they'd had the foresight to understand what was driving the Napster phenomenon?