"Theft" And "Piracy" And "Lost Revenue," Oh My...

Ok.

I am not here to advocate anything illegal, and I would never recommend anyone do anything illegal.

Peer-to-peer downloading of movies and music is illegal.

So, don't do it.

That said...

The RIAA and the MPAA both have orchestrated, for the last several years, a huge campaign - of advertising, of legislation and of legal action - to make file sharing go away.

It hasn't.

Sadly, the defenders, such as they are, of file sharing are far less eloquent, and their positions less well-thought out, than the positions and spokespeople for the RIAA and MPAA.

Because of this, the campaign has managed to convince most people that downloading is in fact theft. Most people who download now believe they are stealing from the RIAA and MPAA, as a form of protest.

This is wrong.

In a theft, something is stolen. A car, for example. After a car theft, the owner of the car no longer has the car; it is gone, and removed in totality from their use. When a movie is downloaded, the studio still has it; nothing physical has changed hands. What has happened is that the downloader has created a copy of the movie. The original owner still possesses it; can still use it; and in fact is unaffected in that way.

So, what, precisely, is a downloader supposed to have stolen?

More on that in a second.

In piracy, a product - music, movies, software, whatever - is copied repeatedly, and then SOLD. The revenue from this sale is then kept by the pirate, as opposed to the owners of the property. This actually IS theft.

I'll tell you why, again, in a moment.

Most downloaders are not pirates. I know dozens of people who actively download, and I know none of them burn copies of movies, music, software, or whatever, and then SELL THEM to their friends.

So, what's stolen?

The RIAA and MPAA both make the same argument. They claim that each person who downloads their product is one who would otherwise have bought the product at store prices, and thus, the download is theft of the sale revenue.

But it's not. The unsafe assumption being made in their argument is that each person who hears or sees their product would, in fact, pay for it.

The problem with labeling downloading "theft," is that it isn't.

Their next claim, with which they purport to refute my reasoning there, is that the very act of consumption of the product in the first place deserves (which I find arguable at least in some cases. Think Gigli.) compensation, and the downloader is stealing the compensation due them for the act of viewing or listening itself.

Again, a false argument. If the act of listening to a song in itself deserves compensation, then according to their logic, listening kiosks in music stores, video rental stores, and radio and TV stations are all illegal - not because the "artists" aren't compensated, but because they're not compensated by each individual consumer.

Downloading does not remove revenue from the owners. In many cases, downloaders purchase far greater quantities of the RIAA and MPAA's products than those who do not download. Why?

Because, having seen or heard the product, they know whether or not it is sufficiently valuable to them to justify purchase.

In this day and age, most people are having to stretch their budgets. Frivolities like movies and music are moving ever farther down the priority list for most people, as it gets more difficult to merely put food on the table. For this reason, music and movie sales are slowing, as the ridiculously high prices for them are rapidly outweighing their value to the consumer. Customers have to be far more careful to get value for their dollar, since their entertainment budgets are rapidly shrinking.

Enter downloading. While it's true that an average downloader downloads and watches dozens, even hundreds, of movies, it's also true that they will buy more of them - at stores - than people who do not download. Because they know which movies are worth their money. This is why video rental stores are doing just fine; in point of fact, it's a more expensive way of doing the same thing.

"But you pay for rentals," you say? Yes. And every penny of that money goes to the video store, not the movie company. The video stores buy the movie sat the same price you would, often, in the case of smaller stores, at Wal-Mart, just like you or I. This means that after they've rented it out about 7 times, they've made back the money they spent on it, and everything subsequent to that 7th rental is pure gravy for the video store. Not one more penny than the original purchase price ever makes its way to the "artists."

Which means that realistically, downloading is free advertising for the RIAA and MPAA. Each customer that downloads a song or movie is one who has SEEN OR HEARD IT, and can therefore either purchase it, or tell others to do so.

I, personally, do not buy movies or music sight unseen. Yet I possess over 150 legally purchased DVDs. This is because, in each case, through whatever means, I have come in contact with the product, and decided to purchase it.

A legal copy of a movie, bought on DVD, contains content - DVD extras, featurettes, trailers for other movies, interviews, commentary, all kinds of crap - that a download does not contain. Regardless of downloading, a compelling reason remains to purchase the product. The same is true of music; a store-bought CD contains liner notes, artwork, and other content simply not available through downloading.

The RIAA and MPAA are suing their primary customer base, as a means of maintaining a business model that is clearly no longer appropriate.

They've managed to cover that fact by calling downloading "theft," despite the fact that the Supreme Court distinguishes between "copyright infringement" and "theft." This is why downloading is a civil misdemeanor, and theft is a felony.

Even the Supremes know that when you download, you're not stealing.

Stop buying into the myth, folks. I don't care if you download or not; but don't let the RIAA and MPAA convince you that downloading is the moral equivalent of car theft or piracy; it isn't, and nothing they can do will change that.