Sabers are rattling this week with the consideration of seemingly draconian measures to stop Internet piracy of copyrighted materials. The FairPay model for monetizing content puts this issue into interesting perspective. It suggests the way to end piracy is not to reduce the supply, but to reduce the demand.
First, let's get back to basics. What is the real objective here? Copyright and ownership of intellectual property are not ends in themselves, but means to a larger end. This larger end, is clear in the Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
- Thus copyright is clearly only a means "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
- It would be foolish to apply measures to protect copyright that impede "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" more than they promote it.
- The real issue is that the Internet has facilitated piracy to the point that it threatens the ability of creators of writings and other arts to earn reasonable compensation for their work, and thus threatens the progress we seek for society. If creators lack fair compensation, fewer will create, and society will lose.
- We (society) support IP ownership to the extent that it is good for society, not the other way around.
- The ease and effectiveness of piracy relative to any issues of quality and risk.
- The ease and effectiveness of legitimate sources.
- The cost of legitimate access (relative to piracy)
- Social and ethical factors relating to the legitimacy of the IP owner, and the fairness of stealing from them (stealing service, not bits).
- When buyers can buy legitimately for a price they accept as fair, the cost becomes a non-issue. Those who have limited means or get little value can still buy for a price that considers those factors fairly.
- When buyers can buy legitimately for a price they accept as fair, the fairness of piracy becomes clearly insupportable for all but the most sociopathic. It is hard to argue that "information wants to be free" (as in free beer), when it is free enough.
As with any illegitimate product, it is generally easier and more effective to reduce demand, not to choke off supply. That is best done not by legislation, but by making the legitimate alternative more attractive.
- FairPay pricing is a significant step in the right direction, one that also supports the following steps. It makes prices more suited to individual buyers needs, values, and ability to pay. Copyright owners are given the right to extract "monopoly rents," but must balance that with the quid pro quo of society's desire to benefit from their creations.
- Making sellers more legitimate in the eyes of consumers is also a major factor. To the extent the IP owners are seen as evil and rigid, faceless corporations that exploit their consumers (and their creators), it is easy to justify stealing from them. Showing that they listen to consumers and can be flexible in pricing will greatly increase perceived legitimacy and deservedness.
- Getting sellers to be more clearly respectful of creators can also have a big effect. Many studios (such as music labels) are perceived as sharing little of their profit with their artists. While they do have real costs of nurturing, marketing, and managing, clearly the Internet is shifting that toward what Seth Godin calls "skinnier" models. IP aggregators must either get skinny, or demonstrate why they deserve the share they get, and be transparent about how much they share with the creators.