Digital Robin HoodsAdded: Tuesday, December 14th, 2010
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Current Events
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
An economist at the University of Portsmouth Business School believes that file-sharers are all “altruistic”. They also believe that sharing files is not illegal, because they are not receiving any profit from the practice. As a result, the only way to address the problem of piracy is to declare copyrighted content a “public good” and support the creative works through some taxation.
Joe Cox suggested a global rethink of the way rights owners fight piracy after finding out that major part of file-sharers believe they’re not doing anything immoral. A Finnish national survey of over 6,000 people revealed the file-sharing habits and attitudes of those people towards legitimate and unauthorized file-sharing. 95% of the respondents were male, aged 28 at an average.
Interesting enough, some people who were actually committing copyright infringement, i.e. violating the law, saw themselves as the Robin Hoods of the nowadays digital age. Since they strongly believe they are not doing anything wrong, finding the best form of deterrence and punishment becomes quite difficult.
Joe Cox separated file-sharers into 2 categories, leechers and seeders, and pointed out that the latter was having an obvious “altruistic” streak, because they tend to making material available without profiting from their activities. They largely consider the probable cost of punishment to be minimal, because of the low perceived likelihood of the fact of detection.
Meanwhile, since the survey revealed a deep-seated belief that file-sharing shouldn’t be illegal, it became very hard to deter people from doing that. That’s why Cox suggested the need for a global rethink in funding the content, offering public funding as a solution.
Here comes the most interesting part, where the economist compares creative works to “public goods” which can’t be excluded from using. Indeed, the web has made it possible for people to share perfect copies with countless audience and everyone understands that there’s really no way to stop it. The only way out is to make the content a “public good” with a stipulation that if the free market fails to properly sustain the production of creative content, then society must step in and support it.
Cox brings the examples of street lighting and national defense, which government funds through taxation. Although it might be quite radical to claim that government should fund the creative industries too, there are creative ways knocking around right now.
December 14th, 2010Posted by:
Tuesday, December 14th, 2010
|posted by (2010-12-14 22:31:38)|
|. They largely consider the probable cost of punishment to be minimal, because of the low perceived likelihood of the fact of detection."" u cant run from the men in black but this is a good idea just think about the millions it would make in just a week global for 10 dollars....Millions in one week.......|
|posted by (2010-12-14 23:05:53)|
|That's all fine and good in theory, but who's to say that "the government" won't reallocate the funds that SHOULD be given to these public goods for use in something like the ongoing wars or advertisement campaigns, just to make society end up paying more in taxes to make up for the missing funds? People need to realize that you can't trust any government to do the right thing with money; they're the most highly corrupted organizations ever created and will find any reason and method to re-purpose money to meet their wants instead of the needs of the general public.|
|am 28 and a male COOL!|
|..if i am in my friends car and he just bought a new music CD from the store and so he plays it and im listening to it ..should i be charged with piracy ive mentally just obtained the music without paying for it..see i truly believe piracy was andalways will be used as a scape goat for the entertainment industry to explain why there music album or movie or whatever they just got 24 million in funding for only made 1 million..IT WAS THE PIRATES!!!!!|
|also i think "digital oliver twist" is more appropriate than " robin hood" ..imean robin hood was just one guy robbin from the rich to give to the poor and thats not really piracy..|
|posted by (2010-12-16 11:54:15)|
|I agree with SyKoTiK 100%. you can't trust any government to do the right thing with Money||
Most Popular Stories