Rationalism and Piracy

The culture of file-sharing has forever been an issue between consumers, pirates, and corporate copyright holders. It is one where each side possesses valid arguments for their actions, and one where each of their arguments stands “invalid”. While articles written by Steinmetz & Tunnell (2013) focused on a study of On-Line pirates and Condry (2004) focused on the culture of music in the United States and Japan, both were comparable in: sampling, pirate network distribution, and the cost of content. According to Steinmetz & Tunnell (2013) pirates have argued that Ink, a small independent film, would not have been popular had it not been for piracy:

yet pirates claim that internet file distribution actually increases the popularity of independent, smaller studio films. As example, at the time of our research, participants were discussing file sharing’s effects on the success of the independent film Ink (p. 61).

They further argue that, “Ink would have been ignored and remained obscure if not for pirate network distribution” (p. 61). Similar, Condry (2004) argues that dojinshi “take their characters from mainstream manga in clear violation of Japanese copyright law, and some of these fan artists can support themselves on sells (p. 354). To coincide with Steinmetz & Tunnell’s (2013) argument, Condry (2004) states “that manga publishers realize that the dojinshi markets do not substantially hurt sales, and in fact, if a particularly racy fanzine causes a stir, it helps sales of the mainstream manga” (p. 354). In my opinion, this is the only benefit that results from piracy.

However, McCourt & Burkart (2003) concluded, stating that pirating infringes on their rights and urged for stronger copyright laws:

we conclude that the Big Five [EMI, Universal, Sony, Time Warner and BMG] seek a trans-dimensional extension of copyright law and leak-proof control of distribution channels through legislation, litigation, merges and acquisition, and anti-copying technologies (p. 334-335).

In contrast, Steinmetz & Tunnell (2013) performed a study in which they explored the subculture of pirates. Accordingly, they came to several findings, one of them being that young people choose to pirate content because it allows them to make discretionary decisions on how to spend their funds, or that they were hesitant purchasing the product, were not able to afford it, or they simply had access to the material (Steinmetz & Tunnell, p. 58). Similarly, Condry (2004) argues that students believe that CDs are too expensive and that marketing is deceptive, thus giving them ample reason to pirate. Instead, they argue, that sampling a CD should be permissible as it gives them an opportunity to ‘test’ the product before its purchase. According to Condry (2004), CD production costs are well under a dollar. Which makes me question how those label companies price their products? What type of relationship that exists between the retail price and the cost of production? When do they, label companies, achieve their targeted profit for each intellectual work and do they have a reasonable target? And, when is it possible for label companies to decrease the price of the product? With existing laws, it seems to me that they, corporate copyright holders, will never be forced to decrease their prices, as they will continue to hold the belief that “goods and services are only worth what people are prepared to pay for it” (Steinmetz & Tunnell, 2013, p. 62).

If we look at Table 2: Sales of 99 cent songs from Apple’s online iTunes Store, it shows that they, the corporate copyright holders are the main beneficiary in the system, they are making most of the profit, while downgrading artists’, producers’, publishers’, and songwriters’ profitability. According to Table 2, it points out that label companies make 47% while artists make only 7%, the publisher makes 8%, and the producer makes only 3% (Condry, 2004, p. 357).

With that said, I believe that the US needs to consider how it approaches its copyright laws and in turn, take a more positive and realistic avenue, like Japan, when dealing with these copyright issues. In addition corporate copyright holders need to squeeze the gap between their sales market and the piracy market to a minimum. In doing so they will create an affordable financial alternative to consumers, i.e. giving young users the choice of purchasing high quality product versus low quality content for a small or reasonably enough difference in price. In realizing this, I argue that corporate copyright holders will manage a break through if rational solutions are sought out were they will dry out the demand for piracy. They should tackle this issue from its source, realizing that their actions have lead to the existence of piracy. If they, the corporate copyright holders refuse a change, I coincide with Steinmetz & Tunnell (2013) in that “trying to make digital file uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet” (p. 60) and that the problem would continue and they must face reality. One could argue further in saying that even if they seek rational solutions and prices are reduced, would it stop piracy?

References

Condry, I. (2004). Cultures of Music Piracy: An Ethnographic Comparison of the Us and Japan. International Journal of Cultural Studies. 7 (3), pg. 343-363. McCourt, T. & Burkart, P. (2003). When Creators, Corporations and Consumers Collide: Napster and the Development of On-line Music Distribution. Media, Culture & Society. 25 (3), pg. 333-350. Steinmetz, K. & Tunnel, K. (2013). Under the Pixelated Jolly Roger: A Study of On-Ling Pirates. Deviant Behavior. 34, pg. 53-76.