This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
The online copyright war: the day the internet hit back at big media
The online copyright war: the day the internet hit back at big media
(about 4 hours later)
A casual observer could be forgiven for thinking that major media firms hate technology. They certainly fear it. Since Jack Valenti, the legendary film industry lobbyist, said in 1982 that the VCR was like the Boston Strangler, preparing to murder the innocents of Hollywood, they have viewed such advances as a Godzilla creature rising from the sea to threaten their existence.
A casual observer could be forgiven for thinking that major media firms hate technology. They certainly fear it. Since Jack Valenti, the legendary film industry lobbyist, said in 1982 that the VCR was like the Boston Strangler, preparing to murder the innocents of Hollywood, they have viewed such advances as a Godzilla creature rising from the sea to threaten their existence.
In the past 30 years in the US, they have lobbied for 15 pieces of legislation aimed at tightening their grip on their content, as technology has moved ever faster to prise their fingers open.
In the past 30 years in the US, they have lobbied for 15 pieces of legislation aimed at tightening their grip on their content, as technology has moved ever faster to prise their fingers open.
In this seemingly never-ending battle, 18 January 2012 was a defining date, a day when the internet hit back. Mike Masnick, founder of TechDirt and one of Silicon Valley's most well-connected bloggers, remembers running through the corridors of the Senate in Washington, laptop open, desperately trying to find a Wi-Fi signal.
In this seemingly never-ending battle, 18 January 2012 was a defining date, a day when the internet hit back. Mike Masnick, founder of TechDirt and one of Silicon Valley's most well-connected bloggers, remembers running through the corridors of the Senate in Washington, laptop open, desperately trying to find a Wi-Fi signal.
Around him was chaos. Amid a cacophony of phones, political interns were struggling to keep up with the calls and emails from angry people across the US and the world claiming Hollywood-backed legislation was about to break the internet and end its open culture forever. In an unprecedented day of action, Wikipedia and Reddit, a social news website, had gone offline in a protest organised by their communities of editors, and backed by thousands of other sites, large and small. Google had blacked out its logo in protest. Students around the world were bitching on Twitter that they couldn't get their homework done without Wikipedia. Even Kim Kardashian came out swinging.
Around him was chaos. Amid a cacophony of phones, political interns were struggling to keep up with the calls and emails from angry people across the US and the world claiming Hollywood-backed legislation was about to break the internet and end its open culture forever. In an unprecedented day of action, Wikipedia and Reddit, a social news website, had gone offline in a protest organised by their communities of editors, and backed by thousands of other sites, large and small. Google had blacked out its logo in protest. Students around the world were bitching on Twitter that they couldn't get their homework done without Wikipedia. Even Kim Kardashian came out swinging.
One senator's office that Masnick visited calculated they had taken 3,000 calls. Within hours of the unprecedented assault, Sopa, the Stop Online Piracy Act, was dead and a sister act, Pipa, a neat acronym for the tortuously titled Protect IP Act (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act) was sunk too. In Europe, the action buoyed up opponents of Acta, the US-backed international copyright treaty that has sparked protests across the continent. Countries including Bulgaria, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovakia have all refused to sign, arguing that Acta endangers freedom of speech and privacy, and the bill has stalled. But for how long? "The industry has this down cold," Masnick says. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), Valenti's old stomping ground and one of the most powerful lobbying bodies in Washington, has emerged bruised from the battle, but few doubt it will rally.
One senator's office that Masnick visited calculated they had taken 3,000 calls. Within hours of the unprecedented assault, Sopa, the Stop Online Piracy Act, was dead and a sister act, Pipa, a neat acronym for the tortuously titled Protect IP Act (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act) was sunk too. In Europe, the action buoyed up opponents of Acta, the US-backed international copyright treaty that has sparked protests across the continent. Countries including Bulgaria, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovakia have all refused to sign, arguing that Acta endangers freedom of speech and privacy, and the bill has stalled. But for how long? "The industry has this down cold," Masnick says. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), Valenti's old stomping ground and one of the most powerful lobbying bodies in Washington, has emerged bruised from the battle, but few doubt it will rally.
There is widespread anger among leading media companies about the way the Sopa fight played out. The protest had many voices but there was no doubting whom the media executives blamed – Silicon Valley in general and Google in particular. President Barack Obama had "thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters", according to Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp empire includes the Fox studios. "Piracy leader is Google who streams movies free, sells advts around them," Murdoch wrote on Twitter. "No wonder pouring millions into lobbying."
There is widespread anger among leading media companies about the way the Sopa fight played out. The protest had many voices but there was no doubting whom the media executives blamed – Silicon Valley in general and Google in particular. President Barack Obama had "thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters", according to Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp empire includes the Fox studios. "Piracy leader is Google who streams movies free, sells advts around them," Murdoch wrote on Twitter. "No wonder pouring millions into lobbying."
But trying to blame Google or even to cast this as a battle between Silicon Valley and Hollywood is to misrepresent a major shift in the media landscape, say those pushing for a more open internet.
But trying to blame Google or even to cast this as a battle between Silicon Valley and Hollywood is to misrepresent a major shift in the media landscape, say those pushing for a more open internet.
Elizabeth Stark, a free culture advocate who has been campaigning for a relaxation of copyright law for years, says the Sopa battle will be seen as a landmark in a much wider debate about the open nature of the internet compared with the closed, copyright-protected world from before the digital age.
Elizabeth Stark, a free culture advocate who has been campaigning for a relaxation of copyright law for years, says the Sopa battle will be seen as a landmark in a much wider debate about the open nature of the internet compared with the closed, copyright-protected world from before the digital age.
"This wasn't Google v Hollywood," says Stark, a visiting fellow at the Yale Information Society Project. "This was 15 million internet users v Hollywood. That's what they don't get. I think they think we can just get a few executives and put them in a room and call those people 'the internet'. Well, now they know that's not going to work." That said, Stark doubts that this battle is over. The losing side is rallying its troops. The media giant Viacom, owner of Paramount Pictures and Comedy Network, has reanimated a $1bn (£630m)suit against Google's YouTube, which it accuses of allowing users to use its copyright material from shows such as South Park and The Colbert Report. No legislation in the US is likely before November's election. But as Wikileaks showed, the US has already pushed for Sopa-style legislation in Spain and in the tech community, few doubt that Sopa will be revived.
"This wasn't Google v Hollywood," says Stark, a visiting fellow at the Yale Information Society Project. "This was 15 million internet users v Hollywood. That's what they don't get. I think they think we can just get a few executives and put them in a room and call those people 'the internet'. Well, now they know that's not going to work." That said, Stark doubts that this battle is over. The losing side is rallying its troops. The media giant Viacom, owner of Paramount Pictures and Comedy Network, has reanimated a $1bn (£630m)suit against Google's YouTube, which it accuses of allowing users to use its copyright material from shows such as South Park and The Colbert Report. No legislation in the US is likely before November's election. But as Wikileaks showed, the US has already pushed for Sopa-style legislation in Spain and in the tech community, few doubt that Sopa will be revived.
After the act was shelved, Cary Sherman, chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which represents music labels, wrote a blistering article in the New York Times attacking Wikipedia and Google for spreading misinformation in order to cause a "digital tsunami" that "raised questions about how the democratic process functions in the digital age".
After the act was shelved, Cary Sherman, chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which represents music labels, wrote a blistering article in the New York Times attacking Wikipedia and Google for spreading misinformation in order to cause a "digital tsunami" that "raised questions about how the democratic process functions in the digital age".
Sherman wrote: "The hyperbolic mistruths, presented on the home pages of some of the world's most popular websites, amounted to an abuse of trust and a misuse of power. When Wikipedia and Google purport to be neutral sources of information, but then exploit their stature to present information that is not only not neutral but affirmatively incomplete and misleading, they are duping their users into accepting as truth what are merely self-serving political declarations." Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales says the RIAA is missing the point. "They are irrelevant at this point. I don't care what they have to say. Someone is so far out of touch with what is going on in Washington, with the public and with their own industry."
Sherman wrote: "The hyperbolic mistruths, presented on the home pages of some of the world's most popular websites, amounted to an abuse of trust and a misuse of power. When Wikipedia and Google purport to be neutral sources of information, but then exploit their stature to present information that is not only not neutral but affirmatively incomplete and misleading, they are duping their users into accepting as truth what are merely self-serving political declarations." Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales says the RIAA is missing the point. "They are irrelevant at this point. I don't care what they have to say. Someone is so far out of touch with what is going on in Washington, with the public and with their own industry."
For decades, the media industry has tightened its hold on copyright material. There are valid arguments for protecting the rights of content creators, but it is now clear that applying these rules to the digital age isn't going to work – not least because those now affected by copyright rules are not just other companies but ordinary people. "The public think it's gone too far," said Wales. "It's just possible that we may be at a point where we can stop the march forward of this ridiculousness."
For decades, the media industry has tightened its hold on copyright material. There are valid arguments for protecting the rights of content creators, but it is now clear that applying these rules to the digital age isn't going to work – not least because those now affected by copyright rules are not just other companies but ordinary people. "The public think it's gone too far," said Wales. "It's just possible that we may be at a point where we can stop the march forward of this ridiculousness."
The internet has changed the world so much that current legislation is not adequate, said Wales. "Go back 50 years and copyright was an industrial regulation that most people had no contact with," he said. "It was pretty difficult to find yourself in a position where you had committed a felony." Now the US is trying to extradite Richard O'Dwyer, a 23-year-old UK-based computer science student, on copyright infringement charges. "When, 50 years ago, could a kid sitting in his basement in the UK commit a crime in the US? It's disturbing."
The internet has changed the world so much that current legislation is not adequate, said Wales. "Go back 50 years and copyright was an industrial regulation that most people had no contact with," he said. "It was pretty difficult to find yourself in a position where you had committed a felony." Now the US is trying to extradite Richard O'Dwyer, a 23-year-old UK-based computer science student, on copyright infringement charges. "When, 50 years ago, could a kid sitting in his basement in the UK commit a crime in the US? It's disturbing."
What are the legitimate limits to copyright? What's the ethical norm for copying? "None of that is clear yet. It's going to take time to work that out," said Wales. Until 18 January, the debate within legislatures had been about extension and enforcement of the current rules. Now he hopes there may be time for a bigger debate. "We also need to bring back into discussion serious issues about the length of copyright, which has been extended again and again for no good purpose. We need to talk about what constitutes fair use, what kind of copying can the public do without getting into trouble." If, for example, someone uploads a video of their child's birthday party and then finds it has been deleted because a copyrighted song is playing in the background, "that's not piracy. That's how we use our music these days," says Wales. "A lot of what people want to do now is not legal but should be legal. We can say that and still be against full-scale piracy."
What are the legitimate limits to copyright? What's the ethical norm for copying? "None of that is clear yet. It's going to take time to work that out," said Wales. Until 18 January, the debate within legislatures had been about extension and enforcement of the current rules. Now he hopes there may be time for a bigger debate. "We also need to bring back into discussion serious issues about the length of copyright, which has been extended again and again for no good purpose. We need to talk about what constitutes fair use, what kind of copying can the public do without getting into trouble." If, for example, someone uploads a video of their child's birthday party and then finds it has been deleted because a copyrighted song is playing in the background, "that's not piracy. That's how we use our music these days," says Wales. "A lot of what people want to do now is not legal but should be legal. We can say that and still be against full-scale piracy."
Wales said he had never heard of Megaupload, the online file sharing site at the centre of an international criminal investigation, before it was shut down, but had friends who used it. "It was people who lived outside the US who said they would have bought such and such but they don't sell it here," he says. "If there's some great show that they are not showing over here, they are very tempted. We can morally disapprove, but that's the way people are." Megaupload was charging a subscription to people who wanted a lot of content. "Why should you pay these assholes money when you could pay the people who actually made it some money?" said Wales. If the media industry addressed the needs of its audience, there would be less piracy, he believes.
Wales said he had never heard of Megaupload, the online file sharing site at the centre of an international criminal investigation, before it was shut down, but had friends who used it. "It was people who lived outside the US who said they would have bought such and such but they don't sell it here," he says. "If there's some great show that they are not showing over here, they are very tempted. We can morally disapprove, but that's the way people are." Megaupload was charging a subscription to people who wanted a lot of content. "Why should you pay these assholes money when you could pay the people who actually made it some money?" said Wales. If the media industry addressed the needs of its audience, there would be less piracy, he believes.
Stark points to a study by Musiksverige (Music Sweden), an industry association, that found music piracy in Sweden fell significantly after the introduction of Spotify, a streaming music service. "It shows what we have said all along: people want to reward artists for their work."
Stark points to a study by Musiksverige (Music Sweden), an industry association, that found music piracy in Sweden fell significantly after the introduction of Spotify, a streaming music service. "It shows what we have said all along: people want to reward artists for their work."
Alexis Ohanian, Reddit's co-founder, agrees. "I'm hopeful right now. These are not soundbite issues, they are complicated. If you look at the work that Reddit's community did investigating Sopa, you can see that there is a lot of thought going into these issues in the community. Like a lot of rights, I think we took our right to a life online for granted until it was challenged. I think we are on guard now."
Alexis Ohanian, Reddit's co-founder, agrees. "I'm hopeful right now. These are not soundbite issues, they are complicated. If you look at the work that Reddit's community did investigating Sopa, you can see that there is a lot of thought going into these issues in the community. Like a lot of rights, I think we took our right to a life online for granted until it was challenged. I think we are on guard now."
Media execs are on guard too. Many look to the music industry and fear they may be next. Since the peer-to-peer filesharing site Napster emerged in 1999, music sales in the US have dropped 53%, from $14.6bn to $6.9bn in 2010. The digital world is a lot less lucrative than selling DVDs.
Media execs are on guard too. Many look to the music industry and fear they may be next. Since the peer-to-peer filesharing site Napster emerged in 1999, music sales in the US have dropped 53%, from $14.6bn to $6.9bn in 2010. The digital world is a lot less lucrative than selling DVDs.
Last year the movie industry made $30bn at the box office worldwide. Ed Epstein, author of The Hollywood Economist, calculates box office revenue accounts for just 10% of a hit movie's money. The rest comes from cable and satellite channels, pay-per-view TV, video rentals, DVD sales and digital downloads. All that extra cash comes from sources that Hollywood once railed against, and pressed Washington to crack down on.
Last year the movie industry made $30bn at the box office worldwide. Ed Epstein, author of The Hollywood Economist, calculates box office revenue accounts for just 10% of a hit movie's money. The rest comes from cable and satellite channels, pay-per-view TV, video rentals, DVD sales and digital downloads. All that extra cash comes from sources that Hollywood once railed against, and pressed Washington to crack down on.
But this time Epstein believes the industry may be right to be worried.
But this time Epstein believes the industry may be right to be worried.
As the music industry has shown, digital sales are worth a fraction of physical sales. There are already signs that the movie industry is changing.
As the music industry has shown, digital sales are worth a fraction of physical sales. There are already signs that the movie industry is changing.
There was a new player in town at the Sundance film festival this year, one who had financed 17 of the movies on show. That player was you. Kickstarter, a three-year-old website that hosts crowdsourced fundraising for creative projects, had funded 17 films at Sundance, about 10% of the total, and had another 33 films at the South by Southwest festival in March. The company is now a significant player in independent film, allowing cinematic hopefuls to take their case right to the people. It's just the beginning of a major change in the industry, says Kickstarter's co-founder Yancey Strickler.
There was a new player in town at the Sundance film festival this year, one who had financed 17 of the movies on show. That player was you. Kickstarter, a three-year-old website that hosts crowdsourced fundraising for creative projects, had funded 17 films at Sundance, about 10% of the total, and had another 33 films at the South by Southwest festival in March. The company is now a significant player in independent film, allowing cinematic hopefuls to take their case right to the people. It's just the beginning of a major change in the industry, says Kickstarter's co-founder Yancey Strickler.
"I think we are at a point where we are asking whether you really need a film industry for a film to be made or a music industry to make music. People can now speak directly to their audiences," he said. "And the demands of an audience are very different to the demands of an industry. An industry wants to know about merchandising tie-ins with McDonalds – that's not necessarily what the audience is looking for, or what the artist is concerned with."
"I think we are at a point where we are asking whether you really need a film industry for a film to be made or a music industry to make music. People can now speak directly to their audiences," he said. "And the demands of an audience are very different to the demands of an industry. An industry wants to know about merchandising tie-ins with McDonalds – that's not necessarily what the audience is looking for, or what the artist is concerned with."
Strickler was at Sundance this year, where a number of Kickstarter-financed films were offered distribution deals. But many people were also rejecting deals they saw as disadvantageous.
Strickler was at Sundance this year, where a number of Kickstarter-financed films were offered distribution deals. But many people were also rejecting deals they saw as disadvantageous.
"Going straight to the web, or video on demand, or doing a deal with independent cinemas – these are all viable options now," said Strickler. "Look at the success of that Joseph Kony video. This is just the beginning."
"Going straight to the web, or video on demand, or doing a deal with independent cinemas – these are all viable options now," said Strickler. "Look at the success of that Joseph Kony video. This is just the beginning."
• Explore the seven-day special series on the Battle for the internet
• Explore the seven-day special series on the Battle for the internet
Comments
278 comments, displaying first
18 April 2012 6:17PM
So many great quotes in this article:
"When, 50 years ago, could a kid sitting in his basement in the UK commit a crime in the US? It's disturbing."
EXACTLY!
+
"I think we are at a point where we are asking whether you really need a film industry for a film to be made or a music industry to make music. People can now speak directly to their audiences,"
To be honest, I feel like the emerging generation, who easily have the most natural grasp of the internet, gets perplexed when trying to think of how to rationally enforce copyright laws. It's an enigma. It's very hard to translate this pre-internet concept to the a post-internet world. Now, if those who have a natural understanding of the technology are at a loss, it's no wonder the bills are being written so ridiculously by those who are not even attached to the internet.
I think what people are going to realize is that we are now living in a time where you are no longer entitled to be paid for creating culture. It's a hard truth to swallow, but it's simple supply and demand. Everyone is creating culture, and a lot of it is actually pretty worth it to experience -- whether it's an insightful YouTube comment (yes, these exist!), a resource-heavy piece of e-cinema or the newest mixtape. It's everywhere and furthermore, everyone is influencing everyone else.
The smoke is still clearing, but when it does, people will wonder why this was ever an issue in the first place.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 6:20PM
What actual use is copyright? Seems that in many respects it's actually a block to human soicial and economic development. Check out this TED lecture from Johanna Blakley on the fashion industry who, barring brand names, do perfectly well without it.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 6:35PM
By far the most uplifting part of this is the idea that creators don't need dinosaur companies pimping and funding their work anymore. Their greasy financing fingers can up kept away from your project if you can raise your cash independently through sites like KIckstarter. Let's make record and film execs history!
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 6:39PM
A friend makes a critically acclaimed iphone game, charges 69p for it, with four other developers. There were around 250 000 pirated copies, a proportion of which couldn't afford that I'm sure, and a proportion that chose not to.
Regarding the latter, that simply isn't right, though I have no solution myself. He worked incredibly hard and people basically thought they could have it for free. He no longer makes iphone games.
It isn't universally true that "people" are looking to reward artists. Some are, some aren't, and those that aren't should have their access curtailed, unless the artist themselves deem otherwise.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 6:39PM
You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
They will lose.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 6:40PM
@Ocoonassa
But surely that's because you can't copy a dress onto your computer and email it to a million people? Yes, the design can be copied but the physical production still needs to take place. Ditto theatre, to a certain extent art. But for filmmakers, musicians and increasingly authors, copyright is vital because otherwise people can steal from you with a click of a mouse. I don't know what you do for a living but I'm pretty sure you'd be pissed off if I got your paycheck at the end of each month when you did all the work.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 6:43PM
As a minor content creator myself (and no, I don't mean my CiF postings) I would quite like people not to steal my work. But the trick is - as noted in this article - to find out how to distribute and/or finance it in a different sort of way, not to scream and shout and throw your rattle out of the pram because your model doesn't work as well any more.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 6:57PM
"I think we are at a point where we are asking whether you really need a film industry for a film to be made or a music industry to make music. People can now speak directly to their audiences," he said. "And the demands of an audience are very different to the demands of an industry. An industry wants to know about merchandising tie-ins with McDonalds – that's not necessarily what the audience is looking for, or what the artist is concerned with."
HALLELUJAH!
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 7:00PM
I love Astral Weeks. I bought it on vinyl back in 1970. Then I bought it for my Car cassette player in '76. Then I was convinced to dump all that old stuff and buy a shiny new indestructible CD version. The along came digital downloads. Now I may not be the sharpest knife in the cutlery drawer but the penny has finally dropped... even for me. I aint paying for it this time!
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 7:04PM
Copyright infringement, is by legal definition, not stealing or theft. Those acts require physically depriving the owner of future use of the item. That doesn't happen with digital goods. It's still illegal of course, but there is an increasing trend by content producers to act like copyright infringement has actually deprived them of something.
They argue it has 'lost them a sale'. Well, by the same token, Sony could claim they lost a sale when someone stole a television from someone else. The notion is ridiculous.
The bottom line is that morally corrupt people will not pay for something they can get equally good OR BETTER for free. Better, you ask? Well, lets look at the way MP3s, ebooks and games restrict the way you can use them, or make it more and more difficult for legitimate owners to enjoy their content.
Things like always-on-internet connections required for some games, which only affect legal owners (these things are stripped out in pirate versions). Or the fact you have to sit through 5 minutes of piracy warnings and adverts on a legally purchased DVD - when pirate copies don't have these things. Tell me, why do I need to watch piracy warnings when I paid for the damn thing?
I don't know what you do for a living, but in engineering I don't continue getting royalties for my work for the rest of my life (and decades after that).
In order to curb piracy, content providers need to provide MORE VALUE than offered by illegitimate sources - they seem to be satisfied with offering less value, more inconvenience and are even suspicious of their own customers.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 7:08PM
Yup middle men companies complaining about $6 billion market in music and $30 odd billion in movies, they're obviously doing something wrong
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 7:13PM
I that's a picture of Rebecca Brooks shes got a ferkinn cheek.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 7:17PM
The digital world is a lot less lucrative than selling DVDs.
And there is the problem. Why would I pay 20 bucks for a DVD that I will probably only watch once when I can rent it on iTunes for 5 bucks? Which is pretty much the same problem the cable networks have, why should I subscribe to HBO or AMC when iTunes will let me watch them the next day? And I am prepared to pay for my content - I am sure I could get it all for free I was really minded to. Until the film and TV industry (and the music industry too) gets it, they will be fighting a loosing battle.
One other point - I seem to remember buying albums in the 80s that told me that home taping was killing music - it still seems very much alive and kicking despite all the tapes I made from mates albums (and they from mine).
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 7:20PM
I agree that the SOPA / PIPA protests are something of a watershed.
The SOPA / PIPA protests are the point where the tech industry ( - effectively a sleeping giant in comparison to the music industry (~$60B revenues worldwide) and film industries (~$130B revenues worldwide) - woke up and started getting involved in the politics that effects them. For some comparative tech industry figures, Apple have ~$120B revenue alone, IBM ~$100B, MS ~$70B, Dell ~60B, etc etc). If we added telecoms, and electronics manufacturing then there are plenty of other individual companies bigger than the whole of the music industry be revenue.
Question for the politicians: What's worth more to you? The 'recording' industry that is quickly becoming obsolete, with diminishing revenue of $10's of billions a year worldwide, or the 'tech' industry which has seen sustained growth for nearly 50 years at an unprecedented rate with revenues of $1,000's of billions a year worldwide?
Is it really worth hobbling the tech industry for a few measilly billions for the music and film industries?
As I read else-Web on a geeky site (paraphrasing): "You might want to be careful with regulating the Internet. Lot's of engineers have worked hard to make it what it is. If you break it, they might not build you another one."
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 7:24PM
I don't know what you do for a living, but in engineering I don't continue getting royalties for my work for the rest itof my life (and decades after that).
I don't know how much you earn but the median annual income for authors in the UK is £4,000. A handful if writers are at the JK Rowling end of the spectrum. (Many authors never receive a royalty payment because the book doesn't earn out its advance.) Publishing is not a way to get rich as it is, and I can't see why it's so outrageous that someone should expect to receive some compensation for 18 months of work.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 7:26PM
Well obviously we're talking of different industries and they can't all be regarded in a single way. In the case of musicians they craft their songs in order to have a repertoire to perform. Before the invention of the phonograph their source of income was in performance. This source of income still exists, nobody can steal it, people go to concerts and pay to do so. Therefore IMO musicians should regard their recordings as advertising for these events.
Similarly the product of film makers was and is primarily destined for the cinema and no amount of of copying of DVDs is going to diminish the desire of audiences to see the work of their favourite directors and artists on the big screen. Before the invention of the necessary technology for home viewing and recording the cinema, and later TV stations, were the sole revenue streams. Very clearly a good living was made by all involved and so we can see that the technology has not really led to any loss of livelihood per se but to a minor loss of profit and yet the industry is more successful at generating revenue that it has been at any point in history. I find it hard to sympathise.
I do however sympathise with authors and believe that theirs is the most problematic situation and think it's worth saying that copyright was invented solely to help and encourage these people. However their predicament can fairly easily be ameliorated by them refusing to publish in an electronic format.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 7:31PM
There are programmable sewing machines that can be programmed to create anything, but children are much cheaper...
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 7:33PM
If only there was a torrent for water and electricity, I'd have that too...
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 7:35PM
Hopefully, not for much longer! (Sadly, this will probably take more decades than I have left - I have about as many years to go as I've already had - so it's something I'll probably never see.)
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 7:45PM
My recording equipment and musical education cost about 60grand in total. I dont see what is so bad about getting a few pence of each track that joe public might (voluntarily) choose to download...
Making music is actually very labour intensive and very expensive. Four musicians at 250 a day is a grand.
Why the double standards ? The freetards who think my work 'should' be free probably expect payment for their day jobs...why not content creators as well ?
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 7:46PM
Is it really that hard? Place the bill out online for people to read, include a summary for people who can't be bothered to read it all. Let them vote in a referendum. Why should the people not have a say on a bill that would affect them on such a scale?
If it wasn't for GOOGLE, Youtube, Wikipedia etc, the US Government would have a totalitarian rule over the US Internet.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 7:47PM
"Why should you pay these assholes money when you could pay the people who actually made it some money?" said Wales.
Because when you pay the assholes you are generating royalties for the creators, and when you download using torrents you are paying nobody anything.
Stop the backsliding. People download movies from the internet because they don't want to pay anyone for it. If the money went straight to Trey Parker, say, do you seriously think people would start paying for a download of South Park? Or that PirateBay would suddenly close down? Get real.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 7:48PM
Why the double standards ? The freetards who think my work 'should' be free probably expect payment for their day jobs...why not content creators as well ?
Because people will invent whatever standards they need to justify their behaviour, especially when that behaviour is copied by millions and endorsed by establishment figures (vested interests).
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 7:48PM
Publishing is not a way to get rich as it is, and I can't see why it's so outrageous that someone should expect to receive some compensation for 18 months of work.
There's nothing outrageous about compensating the author.
It absolutely is outrageous to require us to compensate the author's great-great-great-grandchildren for their ancestors work. UK copyright expiry on literary works is 70 years after the death of the last author.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 7:50PM
If your good enough music wise you will make a decent living out of it, no matter piracy or not.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 8:02PM
"I think we are at a point where we are asking whether you really need a film industry for a film to be made or a music industry to make music. People can now speak directly to their audiences,"
This is a key point, the old pre internet models created an opportunity for large production and publishing companies to control the market. The advent of mass internet use, allows and demands for new models to develop. If the large media companies can't fit within these new models and still be profitable then they will naturally fail. Over control and manipulation of your audience brings its own consequences. If they don't adapt, the must fail and get out of the picture. People want to pay the original creators, not all the costs of the bloated middle management in between.
The big companies may not like it, but trying to use bully boy collusion with political lobbyists to penalize people's rights, is at best shooting your own audience in the foot, and at worst a disgusting attempt to give media companies total control of creative expression. Lets face it, people are sick and tired of the soupy middle of the road crap thatr these monopolistic giants dish out. It inhibits free expression and fosters an elitist cliche of celebrities
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 8:06PM
To be fair to the companies who make film, tv and music; I agree one hundred percent that we don't have a god given right to watch and store their products without paying a penny.
What does annoy me is when companies will not make the content available. I ended up buying the Region 1 import of Dr Katz to see the final season because I had enjoyed it as a child but even that wasn't available until about eight or nine years after the show finished in America.
As for music mostly sites like Youtube have taken the place of MTV and the radio. I won't buy every song I listen to but if I like a couple I would rather have the hard copy of the album somewhere and CDs have really come down in price.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 8:08PM
@0800
I think you completely misunderstood what Wales was saying. He was saying why pay Megaupload (they were the assholes referred to).
What he was saying is that the media content owners do not understand their customers and what they are prepared to pay and for what.
I have long lobbied in the music industry if that there was a Spotify competitor offering licensed streams of all content from all record labels from the 1940's onwards (a bit like radio is licensed), then I would subscribe. but I will not subscribe to a 1/2 complete effort where artists and labels pull tracks from Spotify. Essentially blanket collective digital licensing (say streaming only) would solve many of the industry's problems; such licenses would be subject to the Copyright Tribunal (and thus fair) and all creators (i.e. all the indies, and artist owner creators), rather than 4 (soon to be 3) multinational media conglomerates would ALL benefit. The major labels however do not want to do this, because then they will not be able to control the media that we consume.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 8:11PM
Now that was one of the most genuinely fascinating, intelligent, balanced and thought-provoking articles I've read for a long time.
Thank you
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 8:13PM
Sorry to buck the trend, but I disagree with the principle that the internet and copyright are incompatible.
Although I believe that the "fair use" doctrine should be extremely broad (and should cover everything from copyrighted music contained in a home video to reproduction for personal use) I still believe that content creators should have the right to protect their property. I say this, realising how grossly over-paid so many film and music executives are....
In terms of film, I think that it would benefit the consumer, and increase the development and diversity of content, if we would re-examine distribution and provide films directly through streaming sites with a percentage of the funds going directly to the producer of the content. Film is not music - there is always an argument that a recording of music is actually a calling card for an artist's real source of revenue, which is performing. But people are going to cinemas less and less and the reality of the matter is that the budget of a film is paid for by distribution revenues. Although there may be a lot of "free" alternatives - quirky YouTube videos and the like - there is still a place for well crafted narrative films. They won't get made if the people who want to make them can't get paid for their efforts.
Although the US led laws are certainly not the answer, neither is the position that the internet should not be regulated or that the principles of copyright are incompatible with the computer age.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 8:18PM
My sister is a vocalist, you won’t have heard of her, but the lowest rate she’ll accept is £80 for an hour (this is actually 3 hours when you factor in some variables), her higher rates are much higher. She makes a good living out of it; people pay to hear a sing. In the past she released CDs but now only performs selectively for a few charities (so the £80) and good gigs, the point is you can’t recreate the performance via piracy and so people are forced to pay. She puts some of her stuff on You Tube, but that is simply marketing and is free to the consumer.
I’ve never asked her what she makes net, but given her lifestyle it isn’t to be sniffed at, as I am currently unemployed she sometimes asks me to play ‘roadie’, now I know it’s my sister, but she gives me (gifts me tax man) £100 for usually less than 3 hours work. All I have to do is set up the equipment and do the sound check (when it is a festival a professional does the sound check so I have even less to do).
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 8:21PM
@0800
Just to be clear Jimmy Wales was referring to Megaupload as "assholes" - not media companies. His point is that Megaupload, for all its many faults, was providing a service that he believes should have been provided by the media companies.
As he says:
It was people who lived outside the US who said they would have bought such and such but they don't sell it here," he says. "If there's some great show that they are not showing over here, they are very tempted. We can morally disapprove, but that's the way people are.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 8:23PM
"Look at the success of that Joseph Kony video. This is just the beginning." Ah, yes, a good example, indeed. The Kony video. A ten year old film used today without consent of those starring to stirr stupid people worldwide into a hype against a war that is thankfully more or less over. The Kony movie is a fake, Mr. Strikler, it's bad journalism, bad politics, but probably a good money making excercise for a few. But this is probably the future, yes. If we look at what happened to the financial markets in the past couple of years (havoc created by swarm "intelligence"), if we look at what happens in Western politics (tea party in US, Pirates in Germany and elsewhere, so equally "intelligent" swarm phenomenons), and if we look at what happens in journalism and news media in the US and the UK, it's volatility that we face. And it's not less McDonald's sponsoring we'll see, but more. Cause somebody will have to pay. People are not paying for content on the internet. I don't, and why should I.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 8:23PM
@unholyhuman
That's extremely kind of you and has quite made my day. X
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 8:28PM
This is a key point, the old pre internet models created an opportunity for large production and publishing companies to control the market. The advent of mass internet use, allows and demands for new models to develop. If the large media companies can't fit within these new models and still be profitable then they will naturally fail.
This is 100% on-the-mark. The Kickstarter approach is only one of several interesting new ways of funding large projects, and it is vastly superior to the model that permitted (and required) an industry around 'content provision'.
One of the major aspects of the recording and film industries is the ability to take risks in funding large projects. This was absolutely necessary when music and film production required not only significant amounts of money to originally produce, but also to distribute. Amortising risk across many projects is necessary when the costs are high and sales unpredicable - and let's face it - many films and albums are effectively a 'standalone' work with unknowable sales performance.
A Kickstarter project simply deals with funding a project in a better way. Not only does it amortize the risk of the project over many people, it immediately provides feedback on 'sales' by virtue of the fact that each contributor is also a customer. Some Kickstarter projects never reach their funding goal, and these are the ones that "fail to make profit". Failure happens sooner, the risk is lower for everyone involved, and there's no need to amortise the cost of failed projects against successful ones.
Lets face it, people are sick and tired of the soupy middle of the road crap thatr these monopolistic giants dish out. It inhibits free expression and fosters an elitist cliche of celebrities
There's a massive coup that any of the current crop of 'content provider' companies could do. By embracing the newer ways of funding projects, and lowering their risk for each individual project, they could - if they wished - continue to make money. By using the new models with their audience helping fund production for additional access, they can ensure that virtually every project they undertake will be at least break even, and any income past the intial production costs (now that digital distribution is exceedingly cheap) is pure profit.
The 'middle of the road crap' is again an aspect of risk minimisation: they can't go and try anything 'very new' because it's simply too risky. The newer models allow for greater risks to be taken, and for "fringe" audiences to indicate directly what kinds of things they are interested in. "Cult classics" that would normally have flopped at the box office, but achieved a substantial following over time, can get their initial audience and pay for production right from the get-go.
I don't think the 'content creation industry' is going to go away, but it will look very very different in 10 years time. Either, some of the current crop of execs will suddenly get the hint and modernise their financing and funding approaches, or they (and their companies) will simply be replaced by emerging organisations that already "get it".
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 8:41PM
Grooveshark
- watch the wheels come off.
Dance around as many pinheads as you like - but theft is theft. Everybody deserves to eat. If you like something, pay for it. It's not like it's expensive these days.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 8:42PM
no amount of of copying of DVDs is going to diminish the desire of audiences to see the work of their favourite directors and artists on the big screen.
Apart possibly from popcorn that has a price-weight ratio on a par with gold.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 8:54PM
I could be well out of order here but can I suggest that whilst crap engineers tend to get found out after just one bridge collapseses... and lose their job, there are probably thousands of really crap authors who can't work out why nobody buys their epics..but sadly just keep trying..... thus the median income is dragged down by the hordes of talentless, but persistent wannabes.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 9:03PM
I very much agree with your comments too...
Either, some of the current crop of execs will suddenly get the hint and modernise their financing and funding approaches, or they (and their companies) will simply be replaced by emerging organisations that already "get it".
This is the way of free enterprise, the danger is that inept and out of touch governments will intervene on behalf of the big boys to cushion their old nests. The digital age has thrown some real curve balls to many existing business models, that's ok as long as we don't screw peoples rights simply to support old businesses that fail to adapt. Anyone who works in the creative industries understands the risks on all levels and there is a wealth of talented content waiting to reach the public's attention. I'm excited about the possibilities for the future and excited to see so many new innovative and creative opportunities ahead. If the money people can't see and adapt to the changes, then they are already part of the past, not the future.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 9:05PM
Just as one example Apple charge around $100 for you to submit an app - and thats one that might not even be accepted ( or potentially ripped off by Apple if the rumours are to be believed)
What 13 year old developer honing his skills has that sort of money to throw at Apple who in the end gain enourmously from having apps that appeal to people.
Its the middle men, it always was and always will be that are doing the majority of the 'ripping off'
Noone should have their access curtailed for what is after all a 40 year cottage indurty of copying created by the absolute greed of Media corporations.
Was anyone in the early 80's threatened with having their Walkman convisgated ansd sent to prison for copying theor mates Duran Duran Album?
of course not = get a grip this isnt new.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 9:09PM
People download movies from the internet because they don't want to pay anyone for it.
When you view all your customers as thieves you don't improve the chances that they feel like giving you their custom.
Some people are inevitably like you say but I don't think it's a majority. There are as many people don't see why they should pay for shitty service with arbitrary restrictions (region encoding, DRM, staggered product launches, successive formats that require you to pay for the same content multiple times etc).
If content was made available as soon as possible, in any location at a decent cost via a practical service, as is entirely possible with the internet, the pirates wouldn't get a head start on the legitimate distributors every time and people might actually feel a shred of benevolence towards the legal distributors, as if they were actually on the side of their customers for a change and trying to offer a competitive service. As it stands there is a lot of contempt for the music and movie industries because of their accumulated decades of offering a shitty deal to their customers.
That bit from Jimmy Wales above sums it up for me: "If the media industry addressed the needs of its audience, there would be less piracy." None of the big labels etc. have even tried coming up with a system that acknowledges the reality of the internet and how it has completely changed the market by removing the need for a physical distribution medium. All they have is these ill-informed, draconian proposals that it would be generous to describe as using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 9:19PM
I create "content" - photographs and video - for a living. Copyright used to generate some income for me in the form of syndication - now my pictures and video are ripped off with no payment - cheers for that.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 9:28PM
That bit from Jimmy Wales above sums it up for me: "If the media industry addressed the needs of its audience, there would be less piracy."
This is hogwash. Piracy = theft. Particularly in the case of music and films, piracy is given a nod-through by governments because it is a major opiate of the masses - if folks couldn't get their hands / ears / eyes of the latest track / film they'd be all the more p$$ed off with the lack of money they had, with obvious ramifications for governments.
Governments could stop piracy overnight if they had the will- but instead they allow it to go on, and the artists and creators get rogered.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 9:28PM
Unfortunately yet another article on copyright that does not mention the ultimate price of strictly enforcing the laws.
The price we as a society pay is not the financial worries of content creators, but the fact that ordinary users like me switch to more and more secure data transfers. It will end with downloaders being completely secure. If governments can't even listen in on Skype, then how are they supposed to tap into downloaders using REAL security like VPN?
In the days of Kazaa everything was traceable from whoever uploaded a file to the servers that redistribute the information all the way down to downloaders. The weakness of bittorrent has been so far that people still have to offer the torrent files, which have to be uploaded to some central server. By enabling encryption, though, downloaders are good, as long as the set up their software right. It is the uploaders that are now getting caught, plus insecure downloaders.
Since about the start of this year, however, Bittorrent is being replaced by a very similar thing called MagnetLink. It does not have these weaknesses : nobody can trace whoever uploaded a file and encryption is enabled by default. Nobody hosts copyrighted material so nobody can be charged. There will be no Pirate Bay to shut down, because nobody needs it anymore.
What is to stop me from offering terrorist material or otherwise undesirable content if I can safely upload anything?
Ultimately downloaders might be forced into banking-quality security. That is no big deal at all for the user, but makes it impossible to crack (in realtime). Yes impossible. There are no known vulnerabilities to modern encryption.
Government worried about Skype? They haven't seen anything yet!
No matter how much sympathy i feel for content providers being robbed, the alternative is your average user getting savvy enough to be truly anonymous. Think about the consequences, please policy makers if you want any chance of listening in on people.
In short : criminals : use skype (but not on your mobile) and VPN, downloaders/uploaders : use Magnetlink and enable encryption in you client. Then you are safe.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 9:39PM
I will not subscribe to a 1/2 complete effort where artists and labels pull tracks from Spotify.
If I understand what you're saying here...
- the reason artists and labels pull stuff from Spotify is because Spotify take the pi$$. Their payment per stream figure is a joke - when / if you finally get paid.
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 9:56PM
If bands are any good theyll play live....films any good ill watch at the cinema.... Paid enough out for shit over the years thanks...
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 9:57PM
I would try and counter what you said, but you accused me of hogwash before offering a peculiar, illogical conspiracy theory that I would be hard-pressed to find a more apt word for than 'hogwash', so I'm not hopeful on the odds of engaging in a productive conversation with you.
What's your stake in all this?
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 10:03PM
Goodbye Universal and EMI Hello Google and Apple
and the capital investors are happier than ever and creative talent is poorly represented in the debate and artists continue to be exploited for every bad contract with a label or publishing company from 1950-2010 there are now bad contracts with Apple, Spotify, Audiodraft and the rest and artists continue to be badly advised by vested interests and the media continue to promote their pay masters and the new media are ad funded plus ca change
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 10:08PM
@Topspy
Maybe that is all it is worth. When I bought my first DVD firewire burner in 2000 (or thereabouts) it cost me I think in the region of around £400 - now you can get them on Ebay for a £fiver. Music has only traditionally been as expensive as it is because of monopoly of control. Perhaps albums should be £1 to download? 50p? If so, maybe people would buy 5-10 of them a week, rather than the national average spend on music of $22 per capita per year in the UK (IFPI 2012 figures).
Link to this comment:
18 April 2012 10:26PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
Comments on this page are now closed.
More from Battle for the internet
The Guardian is taking stock of the new battlegrounds for the internet. From states stifling dissent to the new cyberwar front line, we look at the challenges facing the dream of an open internet
Interactive: 18 Oct 2012: Live video chat: Google+ Hangout with Jemima Kiss on who controls the internet
18 Apr 2012: Don't let software patents stop us standing on the shoulders of giants | Jonathan Zittrain
18 Apr 2012: Cispa will give US unprecedented access, internet privacy advocates warn
Battle for the internet index
Turn autoplay off
Turn autoplay on
Please activate cookies in order to turn autoplay off
Edition: UK
About us
Today's paper
Subscribe
As the demise of the Sopa anti-piracy act showed, established arguments for protecting the rights of content creators are almost impossible to apply to a digital world
A casual observer could be forgiven for thinking that major media firms hate technology. They certainly fear it. Since Jack Valenti, the legendary film industry lobbyist, said in 1982 that the VCR was like the Boston Strangler, preparing to murder the innocents of Hollywood, they have viewed such advances as a Godzilla creature rising from the sea to threaten their existence.
In the past 30 years in the US, they have lobbied for 15 pieces of legislation aimed at tightening their grip on their content, as technology has moved ever faster to prise their fingers open.
In this seemingly never-ending battle, 18 January 2012 was a defining date, a day when the internet hit back. Mike Masnick, founder of TechDirt and one of Silicon Valley's most well-connected bloggers, remembers running through the corridors of the Senate in Washington, laptop open, desperately trying to find a Wi-Fi signal.
Around him was chaos. Amid a cacophony of phones, political interns were struggling to keep up with the calls and emails from angry people across the US and the world claiming Hollywood-backed legislation was about to break the internet and end its open culture forever. In an unprecedented day of action, Wikipedia and Reddit, a social news website, had gone offline in a protest organised by their communities of editors, and backed by thousands of other sites, large and small. Google had blacked out its logo in protest. Students around the world were bitching on Twitter that they couldn't get their homework done without Wikipedia. Even Kim Kardashian came out swinging.
One senator's office that Masnick visited calculated they had taken 3,000 calls. Within hours of the unprecedented assault, Sopa, the Stop Online Piracy Act, was dead and a sister act, Pipa, a neat acronym for the tortuously titled Protect IP Act (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act) was sunk too. In Europe, the action buoyed up opponents of Acta, the US-backed international copyright treaty that has sparked protests across the continent. Countries including Bulgaria, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovakia have all refused to sign, arguing that Acta endangers freedom of speech and privacy, and the bill has stalled. But for how long? "The industry has this down cold," Masnick says. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), Valenti's old stomping ground and one of the most powerful lobbying bodies in Washington, has emerged bruised from the battle, but few doubt it will rally.
There is widespread anger among leading media companies about the way the Sopa fight played out. The protest had many voices but there was no doubting whom the media executives blamed – Silicon Valley in general and Google in particular. President Barack Obama had "thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters", according to Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp empire includes the Fox studios. "Piracy leader is Google who streams movies free, sells advts around them," Murdoch wrote on Twitter. "No wonder pouring millions into lobbying."
But trying to blame Google or even to cast this as a battle between Silicon Valley and Hollywood is to misrepresent a major shift in the media landscape, say those pushing for a more open internet.
Elizabeth Stark, a free culture advocate who has been campaigning for a relaxation of copyright law for years, says the Sopa battle will be seen as a landmark in a much wider debate about the open nature of the internet compared with the closed, copyright-protected world from before the digital age.
"This wasn't Google v Hollywood," says Stark, a visiting fellow at the Yale Information Society Project. "This was 15 million internet users v Hollywood. That's what they don't get. I think they think we can just get a few executives and put them in a room and call those people 'the internet'. Well, now they know that's not going to work." That said, Stark doubts that this battle is over. The losing side is rallying its troops. The media giant Viacom, owner of Paramount Pictures and Comedy Network, has reanimated a $1bn (£630m)suit against Google's YouTube, which it accuses of allowing users to use its copyright material from shows such as South Park and The Colbert Report. No legislation in the US is likely before November's election. But as Wikileaks showed, the US has already pushed for Sopa-style legislation in Spain and in the tech community, few doubt that Sopa will be revived.
After the act was shelved, Cary Sherman, chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which represents music labels, wrote a blistering article in the New York Times attacking Wikipedia and Google for spreading misinformation in order to cause a "digital tsunami" that "raised questions about how the democratic process functions in the digital age".
Sherman wrote: "The hyperbolic mistruths, presented on the home pages of some of the world's most popular websites, amounted to an abuse of trust and a misuse of power. When Wikipedia and Google purport to be neutral sources of information, but then exploit their stature to present information that is not only not neutral but affirmatively incomplete and misleading, they are duping their users into accepting as truth what are merely self-serving political declarations." Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales says the RIAA is missing the point. "They are irrelevant at this point. I don't care what they have to say. Someone is so far out of touch with what is going on in Washington, with the public and with their own industry."
For decades, the media industry has tightened its hold on copyright material. There are valid arguments for protecting the rights of content creators, but it is now clear that applying these rules to the digital age isn't going to work – not least because those now affected by copyright rules are not just other companies but ordinary people. "The public think it's gone too far," said Wales. "It's just possible that we may be at a point where we can stop the march forward of this ridiculousness."
The internet has changed the world so much that current legislation is not adequate, said Wales. "Go back 50 years and copyright was an industrial regulation that most people had no contact with," he said. "It was pretty difficult to find yourself in a position where you had committed a felony." Now the US is trying to extradite Richard O'Dwyer, a 23-year-old UK-based computer science student, on copyright infringement charges. "When, 50 years ago, could a kid sitting in his basement in the UK commit a crime in the US? It's disturbing."
What are the legitimate limits to copyright? What's the ethical norm for copying? "None of that is clear yet. It's going to take time to work that out," said Wales. Until 18 January, the debate within legislatures had been about extension and enforcement of the current rules. Now he hopes there may be time for a bigger debate. "We also need to bring back into discussion serious issues about the length of copyright, which has been extended again and again for no good purpose. We need to talk about what constitutes fair use, what kind of copying can the public do without getting into trouble." If, for example, someone uploads a video of their child's birthday party and then finds it has been deleted because a copyrighted song is playing in the background, "that's not piracy. That's how we use our music these days," says Wales. "A lot of what people want to do now is not legal but should be legal. We can say that and still be against full-scale piracy."
Wales said he had never heard of Megaupload, the online file sharing site at the centre of an international criminal investigation, before it was shut down, but had friends who used it. "It was people who lived outside the US who said they would have bought such and such but they don't sell it here," he says. "If there's some great show that they are not showing over here, they are very tempted. We can morally disapprove, but that's the way people are." Megaupload was charging a subscription to people who wanted a lot of content. "Why should you pay these assholes money when you could pay the people who actually made it some money?" said Wales. If the media industry addressed the needs of its audience, there would be less piracy, he believes.
Stark points to a study by Musiksverige (Music Sweden), an industry association, that found music piracy in Sweden fell significantly after the introduction of Spotify, a streaming music service. "It shows what we have said all along: people want to reward artists for their work."
Alexis Ohanian, Reddit's co-founder, agrees. "I'm hopeful right now. These are not soundbite issues, they are complicated. If you look at the work that Reddit's community did investigating Sopa, you can see that there is a lot of thought going into these issues in the community. Like a lot of rights, I think we took our right to a life online for granted until it was challenged. I think we are on guard now."
Media execs are on guard too. Many look to the music industry and fear they may be next. Since the peer-to-peer filesharing site Napster emerged in 1999, music sales in the US have dropped 53%, from $14.6bn to $6.9bn in 2010. The digital world is a lot less lucrative than selling DVDs.
Last year the movie industry made $30bn at the box office worldwide. Ed Epstein, author of The Hollywood Economist, calculates box office revenue accounts for just 10% of a hit movie's money. The rest comes from cable and satellite channels, pay-per-view TV, video rentals, DVD sales and digital downloads. All that extra cash comes from sources that Hollywood once railed against, and pressed Washington to crack down on.
But this time Epstein believes the industry may be right to be worried.
As the music industry has shown, digital sales are worth a fraction of physical sales. There are already signs that the movie industry is changing.
There was a new player in town at the Sundance film festival this year, one who had financed 17 of the movies on show. That player was you. Kickstarter, a three-year-old website that hosts crowdsourced fundraising for creative projects, had funded 17 films at Sundance, about 10% of the total, and had another 33 films at the South by Southwest festival in March. The company is now a significant player in independent film, allowing cinematic hopefuls to take their case right to the people. It's just the beginning of a major change in the industry, says Kickstarter's co-founder Yancey Strickler.
"I think we are at a point where we are asking whether you really need a film industry for a film to be made or a music industry to make music. People can now speak directly to their audiences," he said. "And the demands of an audience are very different to the demands of an industry. An industry wants to know about merchandising tie-ins with McDonalds – that's not necessarily what the audience is looking for, or what the artist is concerned with."
Strickler was at Sundance this year, where a number of Kickstarter-financed films were offered distribution deals. But many people were also rejecting deals they saw as disadvantageous.
"Going straight to the web, or video on demand, or doing a deal with independent cinemas – these are all viable options now," said Strickler. "Look at the success of that Joseph Kony video. This is just the beginning."
• Explore the seven-day special series on the Battle for the internet
