Legalization of file-sharing – a survey

[connor17]

I understand that you made up your mind already, and thats ok.
But, asking about "the possibility of the legalization of file-sharing", when file sharing is already legal, just blows away mine.

"It is also however unlikely that copyright holders will stop their surveillance"
My personal data are protected by law, and no one can use it without my permission, and that include my IP. Copyright holders don't need to stop something that can't happen.

You say that you don't know the answers, but when someone gives some (privacy and not copyright), you just ignore it.

There are several countries in which their citizens are extorted by copyright monopolies, I guess that's where your "survey" is focused. So you're asking them if paying a bribery to those who extort them, in order to avoid the extortion, is a good idea. Good luck with that.

[LZA]

I took the survey... I was always of the opinion that if you can afford to buy it, then you should buy it. But most of us that can't, and I don't believe we should not have access to that stuff.

trying to answer in the spirit of the survey. one of the questions was how much would you feel comfortable paying for a "sharing license" per month. Let's say this was something that had to be done; I'd suggest that the dues be based on a sliding scale of how much the household makes... Again, I know this is all hypothetical. But I wouldn't mind paying what I could afford as long as I knew the creators got their cut. But that's another issue entirely.

[MarcAPAS]

Hey LZA - thanks for taking the survey and your feedback.

One previous panel survey (representative sample) found that 48% of Americans and 60% of Germans indicated support for a sharing license. So there is certainly some degree of public support for that. They however did not drill into the impact of the sharing license which is what I am attempting to do. For example, sharing licenses apparently do not have the support of copyright holders/industry because they see a sharing license as a competitor to commercial distribution channels that can generate lots of revenue. However, this assumes that a sharing license would actually change how file-sharers behave, which is actually unknown. Some file-sharers, as you indicate, might just want to contribute what they can to the creators/artists, and would not change how much they download or pay for things. I don't have the funds to do a paid panel survey, but am trying to do the best I can to further explore these questions.

And as you pointed out, the fee might need to to take into account the household income, or be so low that everyone could afford it. In the survey I mentioned above, the average proposed rate per month by Americans was $17.5 so not that high per se. I am seeing similar responses on my survey as well, between 10-20 dollars.

---

So you're asking them if paying a bribery to those who extort them, in order to avoid the extortion, is a good idea. Good luck with that.

No, that is not only what I am asking on my survey.
I am asking to see if people might consider a sharing license to kill two (maybe three) birds with one stone = Pay a bit of money to support creators/right holders in a way that is affordable/reasonable, and get the trolls off your butts, and avoid unneeded heavy-handed internet censorship and regulation (assuming rights holders would be pleased).

[kjf]

The current licensing process has allowed prices to be artificially inflated beyond the value of the product while restricting availability to the point where you can't even buy it in many places. We wouldn't be having this discussion if companies put as much effort into creating a market as they did protecting their notions that profit was a legal right rather than something they earned for doing a good job.

A "sharing license" isn't going to fix that. It'll make it worse by perpetuating a bad model.


Obviously I don't support this because it doesn't do anything to address the reasons people are sharing copyrighted content. If it could be reasonably obtained, they wouldn't be sharing it in the first place, eliminating any need for a "sharing license".

Ironically enough, the survey doesn't take any of that into account.

[MarcAPAS]

Ironically enough, the survey doesn't take any of that into account.

No it does not. The reasons why people pirate has been documented more than enough times already (and my survey is long enough as is; ). In fact, The Survey Bay findings contain all the reasons in the world why people pirate. www.thesurveybay.com

As I noted to you in another post, I don't disagree with you, and a sharing license might not be the answer to anything, particularly in addressing what you see as the root cause of piracy. That said, what do you propose needs to be done (actual concrete and realistic solutions) to address the reasons why people pirate (you used a lot of "ifs")? How do we reach the point where all things digital are reasonably attainable at a good price? Do you think markets will naturally reach such a state?

[NIK]

I am asking to see if people might consider a sharing license to kill two (maybe three) birds with one stone = Pay a bit of money to support creators/right holders in a way that is affordable/reasonable, and get the trolls off your butts, and avoid unneeded heavy-handed internet censorship and regulation (assuming rights holders would be pleased).

That's the problem I have with surveys in general--they're all predicated on assumptions: some stated, some not; some the surveyor understands, some they don't even recognise.

Your leading question specifically implies that non-creator "rights holders" have a legitimate right to profit. I (and many pirates) disagree. I don't believe shareholders of the Disney Corporation should be regularly pocketing royalties from a cartoon drawn nearly 90 years ago by an individual who died 45 years ago. I find it incredible that people are still being suckered into paying to sing "Happy Birthday" over 120 years since it was published. I find the courtroom antics of the "Conan Doyle Estate" [none of whom are even direct descendants of the long dead author] --trying to have antiquated works removed from the public domain for their personal benefit--repugnant. You are defending a farcical system.

All you're asking, and all you will report, is whether pirates are willing to pay an "affordable/reasonable" amount or not. With "yes" being considered an acceptance that such a charge is reasonable and "no" being considered not only an admission that pirates are not willing to be reasonable but that they wish to continue being trolled and subjected to "internet censorship and regulation".

Are you merely blind or are you deliberately setting out to deceive?

That said, what do you propose needs to be done (actual concrete and realistic solutions) to address the reasons why people pirate (you used a lot of "ifs")?

Another assumption: that if pirates don't accept the legitimacy of the existing model they should come up with an alternative.

Pirates don't know how the entertainment industry should remodel itself (if they did, they'd be next gen entertainment moguls themselves). But it is not and never has been the responsibility of consumers to tell producers how they can profit.

[ But if you are interested, TechDirt has a considerable stock of ideas: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/200705...free.shtml ]

[kjf]

That said, what do you propose needs to be done (actual concrete and realistic solutions) to address the reasons why people pirate (you used a lot of "ifs")? How do we reach the point where all things digital are reasonably attainable at a good price? Do you think markets will naturally reach such a state?

It's all been asked and answered already...

... sharing licenses apparently do not have the support of copyright holders/industry because they see a sharing license as a competitor to commercial distribution channels that can generate lots of revenue.

... if companies put as much effort into creating a market as they did protecting their notions that profit was a legal right rather than something they earned for doing a good job.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is one of the top torrents on TPB.

If I had a big wad of cash in my hand, there is no where I could spend it to legally view that movie.

But on TPB there are over 50,000 people sharing just the top HD torrent. So I'll go that route. Not because I don't want to pay for it, but because it is simply not available for purchase.

[MarcAPAS]

All you're asking, and all you will report, is whether pirates are willing to pay an "affordable/reasonable" amount or not. With "yes" being considered an acceptance that such a charge is reasonable and "no" being considered not only an admission that pirates are not willing to be reasonable but that they wish to continue being trolled and subjected to "internet censorship and regulation".

Are you merely blind or are you deliberately setting out to deceive?

Hey NIK (and others) - thanks for the feedback. No that is not the point of the survey, to lump yes versus no, and to characterize anyone as not willing to be reasonable (etc.). Contrary to what you are saying, there are no presumptions to the survey, I was merely listing some potential advantages of a sharing license in this thread to give examples. But I totally get and understand that many of you would answer no to a sharing license for many reasons, and that you see it as still supporting a "farcical" system.

Also, there was an open-ended question at end end of the survey meant to capture this type of feedback, but I have made a couple modifications to the survey that allows respondents to report reasons why they may or may not think a sharing license is a good idea.

In my mind, I also don't necessarily see a sharing license as addressing some of these fundamental issues many of you have, but what if in 10 years all sites like TPB were blocked due to anti-piracy lobbying? Could a sharing license then have been a compromise to possibly avoid that situation (assuming copyright holders would accept a sharing license, which they currently don't)? I know many of you think that it is up to the industry/markets to adapt to consumer needs, and I can't predict the future, but I do see the internet changing on an annual basis towards one that is less open... Hence my interest in exploring different scenarios, possibly those involving some kind of "compromise" between internet users and industry. But I know many of you might see compromise as surrender. Also my interest in a sharing license is not to push for its implementation but to understand community and stakeholder perceptions on that possibility and to help determine its potential impacts. Just exploring!

Thanks, Marc

[NIK]

...what if in 10 years all sites like TPB were blocked due to anti-piracy lobbying? Could a sharing license then have been a compromise to possibly avoid that situation (assuming copyright holders would accept a sharing license, which they currently don't)?

That isn't a worry, for two reasons:

1. TPB is already the most blocked website in the entire world, yet it continues to grow because blocks can be circumvented. The best predictor of the future is the past. Each time a new blocking technology is invented, it is attacked, and defeated.

To put it another way, I fully expect sites like TPB will be blocked due to anti-piracy lobbying--but that won't stop ever increasing numbers of people using them.

2. Simple demographics. The current generation of lawmakers grew up in an age where the sort of sharing that is going on now simply wasn't possible, because the technology wasn't available. So to their minds what we're now seeing is "unnatural" and they don't have any problem with trying to stop it. But we're not too far away from a time when the majority of lawmakers will have grown up sharing files--they will repeal the laws that are being put in place now, de-criminalising behaviour they consider "natural".

So no compromise is needed.

Certainly not one which embeds an obsolete model.

And certainly not one which is totally and completely impractical. Blank media levies (which is effectively what you're proposing) have been around (in a simpler world in a simpler time) for years but they only ever (at best) compensated "recognised" musicians. But with youtube and soundcloud and createspace and app stores etc. the bank of "artists" has increased tens of thousands of times already. If the government (or an ISP) did collect some money, how could they divvy it up between all the TV producers and filmmakers and musicians and programmers and authors and so on? [And not just the ones residing in-country but content creators all around the world] The administrative overhead of attempting to run such a scheme (I say "attempting" because the sheer complexity makes failure inevitable) would be astronomical.

[MarcAPAS]

Hi everyone,
Just one other reply - I want to thank everyone who completed the survey and who provided feedback on this thread; this information will eventually be synthesized and written up; I will keep you updated.

In the meantime, I will keep the survey open for the next little while, so feel free to complete it if you haven't had a chance or if you come just came across this thread - it only takes 5 minutes for the main part and is anonymous.

Also, a big thank you to TPB staff for allowing me to post the survey here - your research advocacy is much appreciated.
Cheerio,
Marc