Justification of copyright infringement

The MPAA estimated the global cost of the unauthorized copying of films in 2002 was $3.5 billion., in 2005 was $18.2 billion. Although not every download of a film directly represents one fewer movie ticket or DVD being purchased, in reality many people would prefer the free option over the paid option if the quality the two options are near identical. Whether the authors of the works are compensated is not the prioritized concern of people who download copyrighted works. It may be because of the Prisoner's dilemma effect where self-interest often prevails over the interest of others (in this case contain creators and authors). While popular works may more likely to be damaged in acts of copyright infringement, less known works such as independent and cult films, are more likely to benefit from the it because of the exposure it brings.

In general, there are a number of rationales used by some copyright infringement advocates to justify their actions. Those claims are often controversial as copyright advocates and many others generally find the validity of those claims questionable.
*Non-profit distribution does not affect legitimate sale Some copyright infringement advocates believe that if a work is published, apart from the legitimate copies that are available for purchase, others should also have right to distribute non-profit copies for free, such as using p2p file sharing. In short term this may seem beneficial to the general public because people could obtains and use published works free of charge. In long term, however, since most people would opt for the free copies instead of the paid copies (assuming the free and paid copies are near identical), authors are less likely to receive compensation for their efforts and consequently lose incentive to produce further works. Under this free distribution culture, high quality, professional works, particularly those require substantial investment of time and effort will be less likely to be produced and available to the society.
*As a form of boycott Copyright infringement is sometimes claimed as a form of "boycott". For example, selective copying of music published by major record labels can be used to protest the low percentage of total record sales that is paid back to artists.
*Unable to afford Some choose to download only those products which they would otherwise be unable to afford, reasoning that in so doing they do not damage any company's profits.
*Unavailability Many legal products are unavailable in parts of the world, as they are often too expensive for most of the local population to afford In much of the third world, even people who could normally afford to buy legitimate products can't do so, as unauthorised versions are the only versions available.
*Help authors to receive exposure The free spread of media stimulates the industry both by creating new authors and exposing new people to current authors.
*Authors/performers could receive compensation in performance, so publication should be free Copyright infringement advocates argue that, in music industry, musicians tend to make substantial profits from concerts, and royalties from sales of music publication is relatively low. So it is reasonable to assume that musicians would relinquish the profit from publication in exchange of exposure.

Copyright advocates point to an economic argument called the free rider problem to explain the moral downside to copyright infringement. This argument is usually used by economists to describe the disadvantage of collective action because even when use of a product has no cost to the companies associated with its production as theft does, it is claimed that the lack of financial contribution from the person infringing the copyright reduces the company's incentive to continue development.

Reference

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu