1. Brad Hutchings on January 6, 2006 01:32 AM writes...

I'm gonna hazzard a guess that you don't have any non-techie friends. Because if you did, you'd know that the appeal of the file sharing networks is "free", plain and simple. It just seemed a hell of lot more anonymous and harmless than holding up the local Tower Records. There has always been "file sharing" in small networks (i.e. taping an LP for a friend) where one purchased seed could feed a few appetites, but there had not been near-instant, perfect-quality replication among a highly connected network, where one purchased seed could feed millions of appetites.

I have a friend who asked me if I could set up Limewire a few months ago, as a friend of this friend told this friend that one could get free music on it. These are 30-something adults who drive within 15 mph of the posted limits, pay their taxes, and pick up after their dogs. We're not talking hooligans. "Fortunately", this friend does not have broadband at home, so I could just say it wasn't gonna work well, rather than have to either give a moral and legal explanation of why it isn't a good idea or bite my tongue and do it.

What I learn from this is that keeping files valuable really does require two approaches. One is making them available legally, and that market is developing very nicely. The other is informing the general public that they are expected to pay for the files. When the BSA does "don't copy that floppy" campaigns or Lars Ulrich (prior to suing Napster) makes a plea to fans not to share files, they get ridiculed. So the industries sue egregious offenders and everyone gets bent out of shape. Frankly, I think they need to sue more people. The law suits are very much like the informal file sharing "networks" that preceeded Napster. If you had a friend who had a record you liked, you could tape it. Well, if you had a friend who has settled a suit with the RIAA, maybe you decide it's better to buy the music. Or if you're a parent and know that some other parent paid a few large because their kids became piracy kingpins, maybe you take a little interest in what your kids are doing on the net. The RIAA, in terms of numbers of lawsuits, is probably 1/100 of the way toward effective saturation by lawsuit. These things are known in the copyfight circles and not in the wide culture. It's not on the local ABC news. It's not on SNL.

Put another way, why in South Orange County, CA, a very large pocket of affluence, does the local PetsMart have 12V batteries in a locked case with RFID security tags on them? Because if they didn't, the batteries would grow legs and walk around the cash registers. People's behavior en mass does not suddenly turn choir boy when they get online. In fact, as evidenced by Napster, Grokster, etc., it probably turns worse and they've got lots of apologists egging them on.

2. Jesse Kopelman on January 6, 2006 06:41 PM writes...

Software piracy is wrong (be it music, video, or applications). Is it more wrong than speeding? I don't think so. Both are serious only if taken to the extreme. The real issue, however, is how best to stop the piracy. I would argue that the correct answer is not litigation better pricing and means of distribution. For example, ring tones and music videos on demand have shown that you can charge an outrageous premium for delivering content in exactly the form people want. Meanwhile, it is very hard and very expensive to legislate peoples' behavior. Instead of working very hard and spending lots of money to protect the status quo of media distribution, content owners would be better served by working out new methods of distribution (iTunes, Rhapsody) that are less vulnerable to piracy. At the same time content developers need to take a hard look at the current state of affairs and ask themselves if they are really getting enough from the old school content distribution mavens to justify giving them the lion's share of profit.