While the article is clearly one-sided, I can't help but agree with most of the points in it. I think most of the focus should be on taking down the sites who host exclusively illegal or copyright infringed material instead of going after the individuals who use the sites. It'd be far more efficient and easier to do overall. Looking at a site, like youtube, that is fairly particular about what gets posted and whether any material in a given video is copyrighted, shows just how the internet might be should something like this pass. Information might not be entirely accurate since certain aspects of it can't be discussed without permission from the original source and it might inhibit how fast news can spread. While I agree that overuse of material can occur (downloading full discographies or TV shows, for example), much of the time this so-called "copyrighted" material is being presented for criticism or discussion, and very rarely is something being used for monetary gain.
That being said, I understand where the opposition is coming from. When looking at any number of struggling bands or TV shows, it's easy to see how they're predicament might become permanent if the majority of their fanbase is consuming their work via illegal downloads. I think the attitude of a lot of people who use illegal means to watch TV or download music is that they are one of few; certainly the rest of the fandom is buying and supporting said band or TV show. But if that's not the truth, then their favorite TV show might get cancelled. Better awareness of why a person should purchase something is crucial to the success of any given medium.
I am admittedly guilty of perusing watchseries.eu for easy-to-watch episodes when they can't be found for free on Hulu or Netflix. It's simple and seemingly harmless, but I justify my actions by pointing out that if I really enjoy a show, nine times out of ten I will end up buying the DVDs just so I can have them for rainy days and TV marathons with friends. Streaming also becomes a temptation when shows, like BBC's Sherlock, don't air in the U.S. until months after they air in Britain. Making TV more accessible might curb people's incessant desire to have TV here and now.
Well spoken, Lauren. I like how you raised some good points and elaborated on them personally and broadly. I liked your point about going after the websites instead of the people.
ReplyDelete