UNIXgod said:
Really had very little to do with protecting the interests of artists.
That is rarely the intent of anti-piracy organisations and/or politicians meddling with things they don't understand. The most unfortunate thing is that most artists are not astute enough to realise that and to fight for their own interests.
Illegal reproduction of copyrighted materials is pretty much as old as the cassette tape. Only back in those days piracy was usually limited to family, friends, co-workers/fellow-students and other such closed circles (but we've all done it, be honest). The Internet changed all that and people from Oslo can now happily exchange copyrighted materials with people from Buenos Aires whom they don't know and have never even met.
The practice itself remains as illegal as ever, but technology seems to have developed to a point where it gets very hard to prevent it from happening. Ban one protocol and another one gets developed. Ban the Pirate Bay and another site comes up. Plus "organisations" such as Anonymous will attack you. Try to pass legislation in one country and it soon becomes apparent that the Internet as a whole is difficult (if at all possible) to legislate globally. This is an even bigger problem for the U.S., who are often accused (justified or not, that's another discussion) of trying to police the whole world.
In my opinion the key point is not in legislation but in moving from the conventional business models to something new. For example: the film industry may complain but doesn't suffer as much from piracy as the music industry does. Why? Because movie DVDs are affordable (maybe less so when they're brand spanking new, but that diminishes quickly) and people are still willing to buy theatre tickets to see the movie in a cinema because those are affordable. Blockbuster movies make millions if not billions of revenue in their first few weeks alone, due to people buying theatre tickets and merchandise. The music industry, on the other hand, is
sicker than a terminal cancer patient in their last days. Album CDs are already prohibitively expensive and concert tickets are almost unaffordable. Another problem is that movies usually only make sense as a whole. Music on the other hand is judged on a per-song basis and if a band/artist makes a crap album with one hit song, people are reluctant to buy the entire (expensive!) crap album just for that one cool song.
In the end, piracy is a crime, I won't deny that, but it's nigh-impossible to prevent from a technological point of view (see the cassette tape again). So in my opinion the order of business should be to develop a system that minimises the gain of piracy compared to legal purchase. Charging 10 euros or less for a cinema ticket works. Selling DVDs (with features and all) for 10 euros or less works. Charging 20 euros or more for a music CD does NOT work. Charging 100 euros for one lousy concert ticket certainly doesn't work. In my student days (with limited income!) I've seen the Stones, I've seen Bon Jovi, I've seen Kiss, I've seen Mark Knopfler (post Dire Straits) etc. But nowadays I don't go to concerts anymore. Not because I'm becoming an old fart, but because tickets are getting more and more expensive.
The industry - and particularly the music industry - needs to rethink things. Piracy cannot be prevented completely, that's a technological reality. But the trick is to make it as little profitable compared to the real deal as possible. The film industry knows where to go. The music industry doesn't want to follow
because the record companies only care about money, not the artists. And the artists are not astute enough to see that they are basically being exploited for the profits of greedy, selfish and self-perpetuating leviathans.
Fonz
