Why Money Doesn't Motivate File-Sharers 633
nk497 writes "File-sharers aren't motivated by financial gain, but by altruism, according to an economist. Joe Cox, of the Portsmouth Business School, said those uploading content for others to share don't see what they're doing as illegal, meaning current tactics to deter piracy are doomed to fail. 'The survey data suggested there was a deep-seated belief that this type of activity shouldn't be illegal, that there was no criminal act involved.'"
Bingo. (Score:4, Interesting)
At the most it could be immoral, although sharing things for people who may not be able to afford it otherwise would hardly seem so.
I paid to see about 3 movies in the cinema last year, and only two this year. The rest simply don't seem worthy of risking a $10 movie ticket, considering I don't have a disposable income.
I downloaded about 100 over the last two years however, and got some enjoyment from them. I would not be able to pay for the DVD's, and rentals are not a realistic option for me.
Likewise games. In the last 2 years I played Batman:Arkham Asylum which was horribly disappointing, MW2 which was fun but I finished it in about 5 hours, and don't care about multiplayer, Bioschock, which I thought was horribly overrated, Medal of Honor which was shorter than MW2, but without any redeeming features, and Fallout 3 and Fallout 3 NV. Out of those games the Fallout 3 games are the only ones I would pay for, but I still can't afford it. Even if I did pay for them, I would probably throw the game out, as the pirated versions are so much more convenient and bug free.
Given how well the content industries are doing financially, all the hubbub against copyright infringers just smacks of greed, and nothing else.
Still trivialising the issue (Score:5, Interesting)
While there was some interesting thoughts here (although nothing particularly new), I think he still makes one of the funamental mistakes the copyright industry pushes for;
For the leechers, pretty obviously, the major motivation was financial. They wanted to acquire music or films without paying for it because it was cheaper than going out to buy it.
He is willing to accept that seeders might not be only interested in financial gain, but fails to consider that this might also be the case for some leechers (as other studies and real-world situations have suggested). The greater convenience of pirated media over a licensed version can be enormous. For example, there have been cases where material has been offered on a "pay-what-you-want-but-pay-something" basis and yes people still pirated the content; showing that there is a disproportionate difference between paying $0.01 (or £0.01) and not paying. For some this might be some principle of not paying and being cheap, but for others this may well be an issue of convenience.
As for the "pretty obviously" part, whenever someone states that something is obvious I recall something my analysis tutor said; "if someone is obvious, prove it; either it is obvious, in which case it won't take long, or it may turn out to be obvious, but untrue." Obviously this was in maths, which has much higher levels of proof, but it does seem that calling something "obvious" is a way of dismissing the converse without proper consideration.
The survey data suggested there was a deep-seated belief that this type of activity shouldn’t be illegal, that there was no criminal act involved.
Also, it is worth noting that in the UK there isn't necessarily any criminal act involved with unlawful file-sharing. Our copyright law is based on civil lawsuits and "actual damages", provided one avoids infringing in the course of business. Of course, this hasn't stopped the copyright industry from twisting our fraud laws to prosecute (unsuccessfully, in general) and persecute those allegedly involved in copyright infringement.
Re:Duh? (Score:4, Interesting)
ObStarTrek reference:
Think Ferengi. Altruism is criminal, or insane, or both. Not turning a profit on any transaction is Against The Ferengi Way.
That's the *AA for you.
Re:Duh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Duh? (Score:5, Interesting)
In the UK most full time musicians are close to or bellow the poverty line.
http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/most_musicians_are_on_poverty_line.html [ultimate-guitar.com]
can the same be said of full time chefs in the UK?
Re:Duh? (Score:4, Interesting)
If I was paid a minimal amount per-copy of my software sold, I might be a little more upset when I find one of my applications on a torrent site.
That's not surprising considering that many people tend to hold onto illogical beliefs if it benefits them personally. File sharers aren't actually taking anything. In order for them to be taking something ('loss' of 'right' to distribute their own works does not mean something was taken from them, because that's exactly the 'right' that I think shouldn't exist), when they copy, someone else must lose something that they already had. They didn't have the file sharer's money, so that wasn't stolen. The product was merely copied, so that wasn't stolen. The authors didn't even lose any time because of the pirate (it did take time to make the media, but that isn't the pirates' fault). Saying that 'loss' of future potential gain equates to harm is like saying that someone harmed me because they didn't give me all of their money, or that competition harms businesses because someone might choose to shop at a competitor's store. It would only be harm if they lost something that they already had. This simply isn't the case.
Positive Feedback (Score:1, Interesting)