Digital Piracy: A crime?

The definition of piracy has evolved as information technologies impact the established order of society. Let me explain. The act of copying a recording is construed as a crime by the holders of copyright music only when they ar threatened by the ability of the individual consumer to make perfect copies of recordings. When only imperfect copies were possible, usig analogue techniques, copying was not regarded by holders of copyright as a crime ... i.e. it was not considered damaging to theiri interests.

Now that perfect digital copying has been generalized, and only at that point in the evolution of copying technology, the action of copying has been regarded by some as immoral or as a crime... more specifically regarded as a criime by the holders of copyright. But, unsurprisingly, not so regarded by the happy copiers and distributers of copied materials. The definition of crime is a refection, therefore, of the vested interests being defended. The act of digital copying and distribution, particularly when possible at a low cost, and only then, becomes a crime. Why?

Evidently, we one need to examine the morality of the action of copying. Does the use of a cheap more perfect method of copying render the activity immoral or was it in fact always immoral An alternative is argue that the context rather than the action of copying determines the morality of the action of copying. Of course another solution is to argue that the definition of crime has noting whatever to do with morality. and that the evolving legal definition of 'crime' reflects the relative power in society of the various organized groups, organizations, and individuals involved. Thus the definition of crime necessarily evolves as a function of the shifting balance of legal power in a society ... a balance in turn influenced by the availability and take up of new technologies.

Thus crime definition evolves as a function of the take up of new technologies and the consequent evolution of social structures and attitudes. The roots of the definition of crime stemming from a complex relationship between historically acquired positions of legal, financial and cultural power on the one hand and the evolution a differential rates of asopting and making efffective use of new technologies.

If we avoid using the emotionally provocative terms 'crime' or 'moral' and concentrate on the most economically productive use of copyright material that can be distributed by electronic means. Even today, intellectual effort is not necessarily rewarded financially as any player of chess can testify. He has no legal right to control the distribution of the game he created in collaboration with his opponent. Yet if he had used the same time to create a song .... his rewards might have been considerable.

The point is: piracy of chess creations has long been habitual, while it is a new experience for music files, CDs and DVDs to be commonly pirated. The former is at present legal, the later is illegal. The classification is purely arbitrary, and is the result of subjective judgement by society.

Nevertheless, attitudes are changing. Given the additional human satisfaction that can be realized by the free distribution of digitalized materials it is by no means certain that society will continue to allow increasingly redundant commercial structures to obstruct the free distribution of digital files. Such files include those involving recorded music, films and video materials, and written texts such as books or the future equivalent of news media. Alternative means of financing the produces of such material will have to be found. Certainly, many individuals write or play for pleasure, satisfaction or status. Others may find financial reward from advertisers and sponsors seeking prestige or purveying advertising and public relations materials.

In short, given the economic advantages that can now be obtained from freely copying digital media,we will have to find another economic models for sourcing and digital books, music and video materials. The sooner acceptance of the reality and the advantages of digital piracy are recognized, the sooner the world's poor will have the same access as the rich to the pleasures and advantages of free access to digitally distributed material. There is no human satisfaction to be found in the creation and enforcing of 'legal rights'. Indeed from an economic perspective the charges inflicted on consumers of digital media constitute an unnecessary burden, restriction and cost.