An introduction to the future of copyright

Futureofcopyright.com offers a platform for discussing the future of copyright, an issue governments, content industries and other stakeholders have been struggling with for years. How do we protect copyrighted material in an information society without severely limiting access to the wonderful possibilities the internet has to offer, like sharing information online? How can we make sure that copyright owners receive proper compensation for their work, so that they may continue to produce the films, music, games and software we all enjoy?

This may sound simple, but the issue of digital copyright has proved to be a hard nut to crack. In the past ten years, no workable solution has been found. Futureofcopyright.com does not presume to have all the answers. We do, however, want to contribute to the debate by presenting a fresh view of the facts. Progress has been slow partly because governments, stakeholders and internet companies are reluctant to let go of views they formulated years ago. As such, they are not very open to new ideas and arguments and they are slow to adapt to changing circumstances. Also, stakeholders often do not communicate openly about the subject.

It is our ambition to help break the stalemate. We aim to do this by analysing the actual state of affairs, by allowing all parties involved to have their say and by outlining the different views and underlying interests. We shall put every argument to the test. Furthermore, we will monitor relevant political, technological, legal and social developments and bring you updates on the latest news. We hereby extend an open invitation to everyone who might have something to contribute to this discussion. We hope it will produce new insights and contribute to a structural solution that is acceptable for all.

Files for free

The first step is to get a clear picture of the present situation and the developments that lead up to it.  A more comprehensive view will be presented in future documents, but if we come right down to it, the heart of the matter is this:

When high-speed internet became widely available, many embraced it as a means of sharing files and information. It created possibilities hitherto unthinkable; people were able to share their film and music collections with people across the globe without ever having to leave the comfort of their own homes. As a result, the exchange of online content increased dramatically, while entertainment industries saw their sales plummet.

Even though most downloaders knew they had free access to material they would normally have to purchase, they seldom thought about whether their actions were legal. On top of that, many people held the view that the entertainment industry, and the music industry in particular, was overcharging for its products. Therefore, they did not sympathise with the losses record companies were suffering. But be that as it may, the implications of file-sharing were far greater than simply correcting inflated market prices.

The traditional way of selling products through controlled distribution no longer worked. The industry lost control of its products and was having a hard time making even a reasonable profit from selling copyrighted material. Every artist, from art school student to puppeteer to entertainment emporium CEO, needs a return on investment to stay in business. It goes without saying that artists are entitled to a reasonable financial reward for their work, just as supermarket employees are entitled to a paycheck at the end of the month. After all, everything has its value and its price.

Ironically, some parties use the price tag attached to copyable digital products as justification for refusing to pay any kind of compensation. A debate about price to quality ratio may be valid in itself, but it is often misused to justify illegal copying and downloading. Strangely enough, this rationalisation is only ever used in regard to digital products. No judge would rule it legal to steal petrol just because many people feel fuel prices are too high. One of the challenges of the internet is the absences of central authorities that could enforce universal ethical norms and the lack of universal systems to arrange compensation for creative work.

Furthermore, advances in technology and the advent of uploaders enabled people to get what they wanted almost anonymously and at no cost. This is still the case. I was a student when the concept of file-sharing emerged. To me and many others, it was as if high-end stores suddenly opened their doors and presented their inventory to the world. You could get things you normally could not afford for free, and the fact that everyone did it just seemed to make it okay.

Tackling the problem

As a result of these changes, the music, film, games and software industry suffered an enormous loss of revenue and was forced to take measures. It quickly became obvious that litigation and threats did not produce the desired result and often did more harm than good. Likewise, technical measures against file sharing can be irksome for paying customers and freeloaders alike, who argued that they were fairly easy to circumvent. A third measure the entertainment industry resorted to was the development of alternative business models.

The music industry started to capitalise more on live performances and merchandise. Not a bad idea, as many people are quite willing to pay for live footage of their favorite artists. For the film and games industry, however, the situation was more complicated. Once downloaded, a film or game can be watched or played over and over again, making it unlikely that people will subsequently go to the cinema or the shop for the real deal. People will often listen to their favourite songs time and time again, but they will only watch a film once or twice. In this sense, music and film are fundamentally different products.

Even today, there is no workable solution for digital copyright infringement. The industries affected have not been able to design adequate barriers to block illegal sharing of content. The result is a sense of desparation which, in one or two cases recently has driven companies to aggressively tackle private consumers, much to the detriment of their image in the public eye. It may not be commendable practice, but it is an understandable one: these new technologies have put the very survival of individual businesses at stake.

It is important to remember that this is not only their problem, but ours as well. Billions of people worldwide love and enjoy what entertainment and software industries have to offer. It is therefore in everyone's interest to ensure that they stay in business. Some might feel that consumer interests will once again lose out to corporate interests, but this is not the case. The challenge is to look at the big picture. We need to find a solution that is acceptable to all parties; one that allows us to enjoy films, music, games and software conveniently and at a fair price.

The people often viewed as the entertainment industry's greatest enemies are actually its biggest consumer base. I do not think film and music lovers are at fault. Most of them do not have bad intentions. They will simply choose the cheapest, easiest option available; you can hardly blame them for that. The notion that consumers are basically well-intentioned is supported by the success of iTunes. Sales numbers show that people are more than willing to purchase content, provided it is presented in a user-friendly way: safe and easy payment, a good selection and the guarantee of virus and malware free downloads. The industries understand that consumers are not the real problem, and that taking private individuals to court is not the way to go.

Pirates of the world wide web

We have finally arrived at the sore spot: piracy. What started out as simple file-sharing between friends developed into a professional and highly profitable branch of the service industry. The internet is no longer a community of hippies that share peace, love and online resources. Nowadays, the internet is rife with commercial parties that make a lot of money by charging people for access to websites or UseNets where they can illegally download content and find information on where to go for the latest films and music. In addition, many of these parties garner income from advertisements, ThePirateBay being a good example.

The fact that these sites clearly cater to a need may be viewed as a lesson to the entertainment industry, but the fact remains that they profit from distributing copyrighted material without properly compensating the owners. Many of these sites and their proponents call upon the freedom of speech to justify their actions, but even a child knows this is beside the point. These websites are like shady cab drivers that take you to unlocked warehouses, inviting you to load up on goods without paying for them. At the end of the day, they are essentially parasitic in nature. They know full well how their profits are made, and it does not involve the exchange of amateur poems.

Some of these parties like to present themselves as modern-day Robin Hoods, online defenders of the freedom of speech and information. In the offline world, many would see them as ordinary criminals, making money by selling things that do not belong to them. Even though they operate in a different setting, they are regarded as little better than the pirates roaming the coastal waters of Somalia. These commercial parties seldom enter the public debate, believing it impossible to rationally discuss the issues at stake. We would hereby like to invite them to participate and leave their comments on www.futureofcopyright.com. We will do our utmost best to interview them, engage them in the debate and weigh their arguments objectively.

The way forward

As long as politicians do not acknowledge the fact that some stakeholders only care about self-enrichment and have no concern for the greater good, it is unlikely that politics will resolve the situation. It is a good thing that governments are starting to become more aware of cybercrime and the excesses of the world wide web, even if it is safe to say that they have some catching up to do when it comes to tackling parties engaged in illegal online activities.

We at futureofcopyright.com believe that a structural dialogue between all parties involved is the key to finding solutions. A willingness to compromise is more productive than defending fixed positions at opposite sides of the fence, but at the same time we need to pinpoint the problems and tackle the parties that cause them. Only then can we find workable and sustainable solutions to continue to enjoy digital creative work.

Our first challenge is to determine the scale and scope of the problem. We cordially invite you to contribute to this discussion. Be sure to check out futureofcopyright.com, where you will find regular updates on the latest news and findings. Please feel free to share your thoughts and ideas with us. We look forward to reading your comments!

See you at futureofcopyright.com!