othersna notes: This article was written by member “noshelter” as part of a paper he wrote for his Comparative Government class. I publish it unedited in its entirety.
* * *
Recently, IFPI, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, ordered a Norwegian Internet Service Provider, Telenor, to block access to a file-sharing site. Telenor refused, saying that the IFPI didn’t have any legal authority. The IFPI decided to sue Telenor in Norwegian court. After a short trial, the Court ruled that it wasn’t Telenor’s responsibility to control their users’ internet activity. I think that the decision was the right one and one that wouldn’t have been made in America.
File-sharing is an extremely popular, but misunderstood, topic. Most cases aren’t related to what citizens think they are. The problem with most cases pertaining to online filesharing is that the artists are never involved. Luckily, most European courts recognize this and deal with the cases accordingly. Copyright laws are good because they make sure that artists are compensated for their works and therefore able to continue to produce music/movies/art etc. However, the cases in which individual citizens are sued for enjoying the artists’ work for free have nothing to do with protecting the artists that produced it. Several studies have shown that while record labels’ profits are decreasing, more people than ever are buying shirts and online music, going to concerts, and promoting musical artists than ever. In the movie industry, box office earnings are at an all time, breaking last year’s all-time record. DVD sales are down, but Blu-Ray sales are skyrocketing and On-Demand, PPV, and online rental services are thriving. The reason that these lawsuits take place is the studio’s role as a middleman is no longer necessary thanks to technological advances. The industry(especially music) realizes this and is fighting to maintain their old business model that benefits them more than the individual artists.
The artists are beginning to realize that they don’t need to be tied to people who do nothing except take money from them to be succesful. Most notably, the English band Coldplay released their latest album with the policy that you could pay whatever you wanted and ended up distributing 3.5 million copies downloads. Obviously it’s a lot easier for a large, popular band like Coldplay to do this than some small band just starting up, but it shows that it’s now possible to get your music out to millions of people without having to be tied to a record company or agency. All an upcoming musician needs is a computer to record his/her music on, a computer, and some general technical knowledge. Also, the internet and file-sharing provide a historically unparalleled way for consumers to discover new music. It’s so much easier and convenient to surf around different sites and find new, intersting artists than it is to buy individual tracks or even entire albums in order to discover new music.
In the case of films, things are a bit more complicated. Directors obviously still need studios’ funding if they want to do a large-scale and/or expensive film. The redeeming quality of films, though, is that there are so many ways to financially support the films. You can now go to the theater, buy the DVD, buy the Blu-Ray, rent it at Blockbuster, rent it on Netflix, buy it On-Demand, or buy a digital copy of the film. I think that with so many ways to support the directors, actors, and film crews, the film industry has so many platforms on which to make a profit. The problem, however, is that the larger studios are refusing to see these platforms as a viable way to profit from the films. They still push DVD’s even though they’re obsolete, but resist releasing the movie online and have yet to consistently take advantage of the superiority Blu-Ray disks. The Blu-Ray disk can hold up to 128 gigabytes of data (though the usual commercial Blu-Ray is only 50), while the DVD can only hold 8, obviously meaning that this new disk format allows for over 6 times as many content and vastly superior video quality. In addition, Sony is currently working on a disk that holds four terabytes (4000 gigabytes), but that project probably won’t be completed for years. People are now building extreme home theater systems, complete with a giant television, sound systems better than the theaters’, and of course very comfortable seating. The movie industry needs to see that people are eager to watch movies in their own environment with the equipment that they bought and built themselves. With this new form of media (Blu-Ray), the studios have the power to make consumers really want to buy Blu-Rays by packing it full of extra material not seen in theaters, interviews, insanely superior video and audio quality, and a way to really take advantage of their home theater systems.
Both the music and industries seem to be resisting digital distribution. Consumers are much more likely to “impulse shop” online because they don’t see their money being taken away or put much thought into whether or not to buy it. American film companies, especially, have practically declared war on digital distribution. They think that they’ll make a lot less money and that no one will buy it because piracy will be much easier. However, piracy is just as easy now, and making $9.3 billion every year instead of $9.8 billion isn’t exactly going into an industry depression. With proper education and government encouragement, companies may be able to make the transition to digital distribution without all of the fuss they’re creating currently.
Across the world, but mostly in America, anti-piracy companies and music and movie industries see piracy as a way to make profit now. Several European countries, most notably Spain, have been active in preventing this. That’s one of the biggest problems with this issue. Copyright laws, in their traditional form, are good and should still be respected. If artists aren’t compensated for their work, they’ll be unable to continue to do their work, and it’s even worse when an individual or company sells their work without their authorization. The problem occurs when the law is twisted in order to benefit someone who didn’t make the artistic content (the studios, anti-piracy companies, etc). Looking at it that way, I think that the anti-piracy companies are worse than the file-sharers because they cash in on the success of the artists they claim to protect. Recently, the Obama administration has taken a few good steps in the right direction. During a Supreme Court hearing in which the Motion Picture Association of America was claiming that piracy took $300 million from them every year, the judges asked them to prove their stats, and of course they couldn’t. Obama followed this up by sending a message that the companies will have to prove what they claim from now on. What governments around the world need to do is create a new concept of copyright laws that applies to the modern day. No longer can the government say, “You can’t download music for free because it’s illegal,” or, “It’s not up to the consumer to pick and choose, deciding who deserves your money.” because times have changed, and the consumer can now easily pick and choose from different artists without even leaving the house.
Back in the 20th century, American film and music was the best in the world. People in other countries dreamed of coming here to become a movie star and saw us as the leaders in creativity. Lately, though, foreign films have been more successful due to increased exposure and independence from large studio funding. I think that we can return to the top of the film world, but the government needs to take steps to force the music and movie industries to take advantage of new technology instead of trying to make it illegal in order to keep their draconian systems alive for their own benefit. It’s now easier than ever for a single person to turn an idea into a work of art and spread that idea across the world for practically no cost. Countries like Norway and other European states have done a good job in encouraging content creators and providers to explore these new forms of media distribution, and I’d really like to see America do the same. Norway and Denmark, among other countries, have very fair file-sharing laws that make it so consumers can enjoy all of the content without hurting the artists. They have a “fair use” policy which states that it’s legal to download copyrighted material as long as the individual isn’t making a profit from it. This ensures that the copyright laws are working as they’re supposed to and adapting to new technology. If America could adopt similar policies and laws, our arts would be the envy of the world again thanks to our advanced use of new technology as it is implemented.
