Link to original story

The relevant question here is whether music is still being made in Spain.

I’m certain that the answer is Yes, indeed. Sure, if one wanted, he could cull a slew of examples of bands saying they think that file-sharing is horrible, but the interviews like this that I have seen in documentaries and industry propaganda are far too generalized. They simply ask if the band members agree with not paying for music.

Well, what would you expect them to say? What they aren’t being asked is whether they realize that they get business in the form of gig attendance from people sharing their music. That never quite makes it into the conversation.

A story covered in Slashdot refers to the eventual judgment (naturally) for the plaintiff – Wizards of the Coast – against defendant and popular ebook site Scribd. The charge was allowing a user to upload a copyrighted Dungeons & Dragons ebook, which was downloaded 2,600 times before Scribd pulled it from the site.

Wizards was awarded $125,000, which – par for course – was exorbitant considering that Scribd made no money from the ebook.

What’s worth noting here is that companies making ebooks should use the built-in abilities to market ebooks better than regular books to advertisers. Then, the economic backlash of the book being shared is largely or completely mitigated.

For example, there are various educational reports on all manner of subjects – from using Google AdSense to writing a killer blog. They make their money off affiliate marketing embedded in the links in the PDF, not off the sale of the report. Sure, these reports bear a price tag, but they are rife on p2p sites, and have long thrived without backlash.

Why? Because the bulk of their moneymaking model is about getting eyes on the product, not on the money generated from sales.

So couldn’t PDFs of WotC content operate in the same way? Instead, they waste time and effort trying to track down and sue companies such as Scribd for a consequence they didn’t intend.That’s not to say that Scribd shouldn’t be responsible for whatever is on their servers and site; it’s just a pretty poor model when the only way you’re going to address the inevitability of piracy is to file lawsuit after lawsuit. Instead, how about coming out with more innovative ways of selling your products?

After all, it’s very arguable that whoever would download an ebook of D&D is likely not going to and never would have bought the paper product. So how do you make money off of such potential customers? Perhaps in-book adverts aren’t the only answer, but I can tell you what certainly isn’t the answer: suing everyone and making yourself look like jerks.

A recent Ars Technica story covers a Web site that collects donations from people who feel guilty for the things they’ve pirated. I’m not making this up.

The site, which is more of a blog with a donation button, seeks to let the only mildly piratical among us to give money back to the industry they’ve ripped off in hopes of being able to sleep at night. Ironically, the benefactors of these donations remain unveiled for supposedly legal reasons (since admitting to taking pirate booty passively accepts digital piracy).

Donations cannot be tracked, and do nothing to mitigate potential lawsuits. Comments from site visitors notes that donating (via PayPal) is part and parcel to admitting guilt. While I seriously doubt that any company could use such information to effectively form a “hit list” of pirate targets, I wouldn’t put it past owner/operator Drew K from Australia to sell the list of donors to the highest bidder. I just don’t happen to think there’d be any bidders.

It’s amazing that we’ve been able to feel so guilty that someone’s job can be reconciling that guilt with money – certainly very little or none of which will reach the artists after passing through this company, the anonymous beneficiaries, and the legal bureaucrats in-between.

So what’s a more pragmatic answer? If you feel guilty and want to give back, why not purchase what you pirated? Then – according to the first sale doctrine – you can always resell or gift it after you’ve enjoyed it. Pirated products don’t sell well nor are they good gifts. Buy something you pirated and enjoyed, and you can give a good gift and feel better all at once. After all, you wouldn’t purchase something you pirated that sucked, would you? You would only buy something that you really enjoyed. So giving it to someone else to enjoy should free you from any residual guilt you feel from file-sharing it.

Or, you could always buy a derivative or sequel work. If you downloaded Firefly, go buy Serenity. If you downloaded both of them, buy the graphic novel (which is quite good, I might add).

But just sending this opportunist some money to feel better? Not so much.

Luckily, Drew K admits that the site hasn’t been too popular since its January 2009 launch. Doubtless, it will sink into the abyss before long. Despite big media propaganda perpetually trying to solidify the guilt we should all feel from copyright infringement, it just isn’t happening. Hmmm….I wonder why that is.

The Business Software Alliance (BSA), which investigates copyright infringement and piracy for a slew of software clients, has been on the forefront of scare tactics for some time. As covered on Slashdot, they recently estimated that 41% of software on PCs is pirated, and attempt to make the corollary between piracy and malicious code.

This has been a scare tactic for some time now, and many people buy into the supposed direct relationship between piracy and malware, viruses, and other malicious code. BSA’s motivation is clear: if people believe that file-sharing is the culprit in “making their computer run really slow” then perhaps they’ll refuse pirated products. Though their stats on the growing percentage of pirated programs speaks differently.

All BSA’s assertions do is increase the fear that lay computer users feel regarding all things on their computers. They say: “I had a nephew visit for a weekend, and now I get warnings about viruses. I think he downloaded illegal stuff.” Or: “My son ripped a friend’s CD on my computer, and now I have windows popping up telling me I need an virus scan or I’ll lose my data!”

Alas, the only people benefiting from this paranoia are the companies selling “scareware” which gets computer greenhorns to buy completely superfluous security software. Such programs often don’t work at all, are universally overpriced, or do little more than further scare the buyer into getting the entire “suite ” of products and extorting even more money.

But who’s at fault here? Are pirated apps really full of viruses, or are p2p networks teaming with malware posing as pirated apps? And more importantly, who put it there to begin with?

The fact is, the only people suffering from this fear are those who don’t know how to navigate p2p apps appropriately, and who have no understanding of what constitutes copyright infringement. No such scare tactics deter pirates in the least. All malicious code is easily avoided with experience and – God forbid – with learning some general knowledge about computer science and your operating system, whether you share files or not.

I’m not condoning piracy, but I also do not condone BSA’s fear campaign that surreptitiously sidesteps the force that created the market for scareware to begin with – companies like BSA.

The issue of net neutrality – the inability for ISPs to discriminate between information packets on the Internet – is back in congress for review. Don’t quote me on the Time-Warner figures, but my message is clear: prioritized packets means more money from consumers and for big business. That is all.

Listen to more on this article.

The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) ordered that video of musician Calvin Harris be pulled from YouTube. Only one problem – it was Harris who posted it.

Listen to more on this article.

France finally pushed through a “three strikes” law that would fine, blacklist, or even imprison Internet users accused of file-sharing.

Listen to more on this article.