Changing attitudes on digital copyright

Several writers took issue with my assertion that with file sharing, a whole generation has been taught that music should be free:

D, Charles Shiderly Coppell, TX: I think you're wrong about the "digital generation." These people do not think media is free, they simply don't have the money to make any purchases. In this case, any pirated media is no loss at all, as there was no sale to be made in the first place. In my experience, once the consumers of pirated materials actually have the means to afford to purchase, they do so.

Of course, just because you don’t have the money doesn’t justify theft.  But perhaps there is a turn toward legal sources:

Devin Leonard, Albuquerque, NM: I am 24, and I admit that for a while I used free Napster and Morpheus. This was mainly due to the fact that I didn't think it was fair to pay 15 bucks for a CD with only 2 or 3 good songs on it. I didn't download hundreds of songs like the people who are getting sued, and I also tended to feel somewhat guilty when I did download songs free. Then iTunes came along and I stopped using free services like Morpheus, because it made me feel better, plus those free services put all kinds of adware and spyware on your computer.  If the studios and music companies come up with a fair solution that punishes pirates and protects the rights of valid users like me, I am all for it. But if they are going to say screw everyone, just so they can continue to have all their money (our money) then we will either boycott or defy them.

Evan, Las Vegas, NV: I use illegal file sharing and I feel that a major role in the reason why users are still illegally downloading is because it is so inconvenient to change our ways. We, as the so-called digital generation, have become accustomed to downloading for free but more importantly without a credit card. The use of credit cards is hard because it requires an adult to have one. If there was a way to download legally without a credit card I would no longer be a criminal.

Georgicus Henrique, Watertown, MA: I felt the article was very well balanced. However, I do take issue with the characterization that “the Digital Generation of Lasica's title ... have been taught that digital music is free." Not so fast — that same generation that spent many hours downloading from FTP sites, then Napster, then Kazaa, has also simultaneously spent billions on purchasing music over the past couple of years, including traditional CD sales and the latest generation of "legal" digital downloads, such as iTunes. The RIAA and the rest of us argue each year about whether revenue has declined or increased for the recording companies, but it certainly hasn't come close to disappearing. The truth is, this generation has learned not only that the world of music is bigger than top-40 radio and the handful of artists that record biz shoves down their throats, but is willing to shell out for music when the price is right (and even when it isn't right).

Some interesting opinions came in over the notion of the proposed “broadcast flag” that might limit users’ ability to record programming, and the notion that without copy controls, current free broadcasts might become pay services:

Michelle, Tooele, Utah: I'm addicted to media just as much as any other person. But if all of a sudden I had to pay for the new season of a show, I would be a lot less likely to watch it, and a lot more likely to do something productive. Maybe I'd play with my brothers and sisters more. Maybe I'd actually get outside and get a little bit of exercise. For the most part, I watch TV because it's there. Media companies could lose out big by moving to a subscription program. Someone like me wouldn't waste their money to watch those mediocre programs. They would simply find something else to do.

D. Evans, Portland, Oregon: What do you mean restricting TV access to those who pay is "bad for consumers"? We take everything for granted in the US. Why not pay subscriptions for all TV? In Japan, if you have a TV in your house, you pay. Period.  As a nation, we spend too much time in front of the thing anyway.

Readers were concerned about how copy protection could — or already is — changing the way they use media: 

Andrew Milner, Columbus, OH: Copyright protection has already gone too far! I have a nice collection of DVD's, but at least half of them don't work because my little sister scratches them up. I legally own a copy of each of the movies I have bought on DVD and I should be able to back up these DVD's so that when one gets scratched I can burn a new one.

Anonymous: My concern is a plan by some companies such as Disney to make purchased videos with an expiration date. If I legally buy a movie (and I am a collector of legal movies) then I should own it for eternity. Whatever happened to the customer is always right?

Mike, Louisville, KY: One issue that I have is that those who actually BUY products are punished for those who do not. I was outraged the other day when I opened up a new video game that I purchased and read a warning that said not to "Copy or LEND" this disk. I showed it to my wife and we both wondered at the audacity built into that one statement. I cannot LEND my disk to a friend. "Does this extend to one’s spouse?" we joked. Can playing a movie I purchased for myself, my wife, and my children now constitute illegal activity?  One of my personal pet peeves is the videos that now come on the front of purchased DVDs that explain how illegal copying of movies is a crime. I get to watch it every time I play my purchased copy of the movie. I’m sure the pirates cut that right out on their copies. I don’t know the cure, but aggravating those of us who are paying top dollar (or even bargain-bin pricing) for movies cannot be sound business.

And finally, a note from a fellow writer:

Mike Belzer, Brooksville, FL: I noticed you put in this phrase: “It's worth noting that "Darknet" is a book rather than a documentary film. Writers tend to be less concerned about digital piracy than other content creators.” However you failed to note that the library has been around for thousands of years, sharing writers’ work without any profit. And yet writers do not protest ... we view literacy as a right, and the libraries as the guardians of knowledge.

Libraries also loan CDs and DVDs, but only one copy at a time, and that’s the different between a library and file sharing. When libraries loan e-books, they loan only as many copies as they have licenses for. If libraries bought one copy of a book, then made a thousand copies to loan, you can bet writers would protest.

MORE FROM PRACTICAL FUTURIST

Practical Futurist Section Front

Will the Internet transform storytelling? What evolutionary psychology says about social networking At this radio network, the audience is the star Is the Internet dumbing us down? Who will fix my wired (and wireless) home? Will road warriors choose electrons over airplanes? Who will be the TV Guide of the Internet? Why is U.S. always last for new phones? Weighing the risks of biotechnology What will make the laptop obsolete? Practical Futurist Section Front   Add Practical Futurist headlines to your news reader: