There
has been a lot of learned people talking about the SOPA and PITA legislation
that was being pushed through the US legal system, and there was a lot of
hyperbole and bias written about why it was or wasn’t a good idea – generally,
I disliked the legislation as it did indeed give powers and control to people
who shouldn’t be able to wield such control. It is not, however, my place to be
able to pick it apart and understand the legalese in such a way that meant I
could impart new opinions on it; more verbose writers have managed to do that.
The one
thing that I can do is talk from the point of a few different people that are
in the argument and what my opinion is on being one of those people. I am
1.
A
consumer
2.
A
creator
3.
A
prior pirate
As a
Consumer
I am
someone who spends a lot of their disposable income on media – it’s mostly
music, but also in there are films and television, as well as books and other
art forms. It’s remarkably easy to spend a lot of money these days on such
items for several reasons – they are expensive and they are volumous. In saying
that, there is also loads of newer ways to consume. Instead of buying all my
music, I have the ability to rent it and only pay once. Spotify allows me to do
this and I have been doing it for a long time. It entirely replaces the need to
steal music (illegal downloading is stealing, in my view) and for a small
amount a month also gives you even more music that you might have came across
otherwise.
The
concern comes when talking to one of my best friends about this – he states
that he would rather download the music for free than pay £4.99 a month to rent
it. He sees no moral reason to not steal music for free than pay someone to let
him listen to it. The argument is that he won’t pay for something that he
doesn’t own – but the thing is that you never own the rights to anything you
buy anyway. Buying music is no different to buying a ticket to an art show –
just because you have the copy of it in your hands (or on your hard drive)
doesn’t mean you have any licenses to do anything with it. And there is a large
knowledge gap in what ownership of media means.
I cannot
fathom why anyone wouldn’t use a pay-for streaming service today. I agree that
the artists are dealt a bad hand when you “pay per play” on these services, but
it’s a lot better than the distribution of albums entirely without cost online
peer to peer networks, isn’t it?
There is
a problem when you look at the implications of children and teenagers growing
up with the ability to grab every piece of music or film for free instantly –
and the media is right to be scared.
As a
Creator
A few
years ago a friend of mine stumbled onto an article posted from my blog into a
German Magazine. It was this one about people’s personalities and the types ofcars they drive – a bit of fun. I was flattered at first, then I felt a bit
violated. The site had reproduced my work, changed it, and then not even
mentioned it was me who had created it. Of course, I had no money to be made
and look to make no money from this blog (right now, heh) but the realisation
that I was creating “something” and I had not adequately protected it from
copyright theft.
This
lead me to understand what Creative Commons was – a concerted effort to
introduce the ability to share copyrighted material easily and fairly. My blog
is still to this day under Creative Commons under the “Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
2.5 UK: Scotland (CC BY-NC-ND 2.5)” license meaning that you are allowed to,
freely, copy, distribute, display, and perform the work as long as you
attribute me, it’s not for commercial reasons, and you can’t change or build
upon the work. I only put it on for piece of mind – I don’t expect someone to
come and ask to rework my text into a novel, for example.
However,
on my Flickr page I do the same things – my photos are Creative Commons too.
And I believe in the ease of the system allowing creators to control and
understand the rights they can apply to their work and as I user of them I also
am now becoming a proponent and supporter of them. I have created other works,
like videos and music podcasts, and I make sure I am within my legal ability to
make them – one video I made two years ago used Boards of Canada’s music without
permission, and I still feel uneasy about it. The one I made about the year inTexas was made using music that I got permission from the band to use in that
video. And my Radio Show is hosted on a site that claims to pay artists PRS
fees (though I am unsure of exactly how that mechanism works in practice).
Creative
Commons gives me the power to apply rights to these things, but can I control
them? Not really. And seeing how little people pay attention to them on websites who
steal photos from Flickrs and blogs I sometimes wonder if people really do
care. Are we heading to an entirely free system of works that no artist can
make money from? Is that even a bad thing? I am unsure.
As a
Prior Pirate
During
my teenage years and later I downloaded a lot of music. In fact, the majority
of my musical exploration during the later part of my university career was
downloaded illegally – and I will not be ashamed to admit it. I can’t really
defend it, as it’s obviously at odds with my current stance, but there are two
reasons why I am able to reconcile my thoughts – the first is one of means.
I had
little to no money as a student and I downloaded illegally because I had
internet. That’s not a defence, it’s just the reason I did it.
The
second reason was that the technology hadn’t caught up with my internet – I
could download an album and put it onto my phone and Creative Zen faster than
people could make download controlled systems. The threat of DRM was something
I didn’t really mind at first and happily paid £14.99 a month for unlimited
Napster downloads... until Napster failed me and stopped doing it. I lost
hundreds of albums I’d rented and downloaded to my computer. That was the
problem with Napster’s idea – it blurred the idea of owning and not owning a
music file.
So since
Spotify I know that I don’t own the music. The line is defined. Also,
technology has caught up – even iTunes sells DRM free tracks that can be moved
and copied to anywhere I want them. And I can now download them again and again
thanks to iTunes in the Cloud, another step in the right direction.
And now
I don’t download music illegal anymore and I implore others to do the same;
recently having convinced one of my friends to use Spotify on his phone.
However, laws and censorship, such like SOPA won’t fix it as it is so easy to download
music, and with faster internet it’s going to become even easier. What will fix
it is competitive, easy and compelling reasons to not, and Spotify is one of
them.
0 opinons:
Post a Comment