DIGITAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT

Our research team, Free Mickey, chose to uncover digital copyright infringement and the limited social stigma attached to the topic of the new media environment. Our online space proved to be a beneficial home to our research as we structured our project in the subsequent manner: We devised three main arguments to support our research question- Why is there a limited social stigma attached to copyright infringement of new media? The arguments state that 1) Digital platforms make acquiring and moving new media extremely easy. This ease of acquisition and movement of digital media has resulted in tremendous popularity of copyright infringement. Additionally, basic social interaction and crowd theory explain that due to the popularity of copyright infringement, it has become so widespread that though such actions are illegal, it is not perceived by society as wrong. 2) The physical presence of others has a great affect on an individual’s decision to infringe upon online digital copyright. Not being seen in an online space (anonymous to a physical person) makes one believe they are not being watched (and insusceptible to penalty), and thus a limited social stigma of infringement results. 3) Market forces tend to convince us that music is overpriced, and as the record industry is price gouging because of their monopoly, people feel less guilty stealing their works. The medium for delivery of online goods has changed; our perception of music and digital products has changed significantly, resulting in a limited social stigma of copyright infringement.

Accompanying each argument is a series of comments that are equally integral towards our assignment and overall claim. They should be read with the same care and thought as the original blog posts. We hope you find our arguments and comments intriguing; much thought and research has been devoted towards making our claims concise and applicable to the new media environment.

New Platforms, Ease of Use, and Popularity

The desire of individuals and companies to protect the expression of their ideas, has lead to the formation of copyright laws. Due to the increasing access to data and information in today’s world, largely due to the World Wide Web, it has become increasingly difficult to enforce copyright laws (Albanese, 2006). Albanese goes so far as to suggest that the twenty-first century will likely be characterized by fraud and piracy. Fraud is defined as purposefully taking the property of another through deception or secrecy. If copyright infringement is clearly a form of fraud, then why has it grown so popular? Additionally, why has a greater social stigma not become apparent? In this post, I intend to answer the questions stated above, and expand upon digital copyright infringement in the new media environment.

Today, there are platforms which make the acquisition and movement of new media extremely easy (Albanese, 2006). In years past, copyright, fraud, and theft laws were targeted at those who stole physical goods or inefficiently (by today’s standards) reproduced goods. Today, those involved and the platforms that people use have greatly changed; the distinctions between a unique work and a copied work have been blurred by the ever-changing new media environment. This fuzzy line has resulted in greater ambiguity about what is legal and what is not. Furthermore, history suggests that there is typically a lag between the law and law makers, and the techniques and ideas of law offenders. Albanese gives the example of a street light to prove this point. In a town, street lights are frequently added after there have been a number of robberies in an area. To date, the same is true of copyright infringement. Millions of people infringe, yet the law has not caught up with the techniques used by these offenders to successfully stop this mass fraud. The social stigma of an action directly coincides with this lag.

Devices such as the VCR, audio recorders, TiVO, and scanners have lowered the barrier to commit copyright violation. In turn, this has allowed the everyday person to infringe. These platforms have greatly reduced the difficulty to acquire media. Today's killer application, which has allowed offenders to move and download media easier than ever, is peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing. P2P started in 1991 with IRC Channels, and eventually rose to prominence and success of services like Napster, Morpheus, Kazza, and BitTorrent.

These new platforms, which have alerted the perception of copyright law, has made the movement and acquisition of new media tremendously easy. Professor Tracy Mitrano from Cornell University states that “the ease of downloading songs, the micro-mastery of utilizing the file-share programs, and the flexibility of accessing single songs…render file-sharing nearly irresistible… (Mitrano, 2003).” Those who partake in the DCI Debate (Digital Copyright Infringement Debate), point to a “lack of real penalties and convenience, and no other choice” as reasons why people infringe on copyright.

This ease of use, brought upon by new platforms, has lead to tremendous popularity of copyright infringement. Every year, millions of internet users illegally download music, movies, televisions shows, books, etc. Due to the vast number of people participating on these networks, individuals feel detached from social/ethical obligations of obeying copyright laws; this ‘diffusion of responsibility’ makes others believe that since everyone else is not going to oblige, why should they? Offenders believe others won’t oblige because of there is only a limited social stigma. Similarly, the bandwagon effect suggests that people act or think a certain way strictly because many others act or think that way. This directly applies to the popularity of copyright infringement. So many people download music, movies, etc, that a bandwagon effect has occurred. Additionally, there is a third person effect at play. With such popularity, people feel as though another person, but never themselves, is likely to get in trouble. This “it will never happen to me” mindset is very adolescent, yet very prevalent throughout infringement literature.

There must be a reason why there is a limited social stigma attached to the illegal act of copyright infringement. I believe the answer is due to the fact that platforms make acquiring and moving new media extremely easy. This ease of acquisition and movement has resulted in tremendous popularity of copyright infringement. From there, basic social theory explains that due to the popularity of copyright infringement, it has become so widespread that though it is illegal, it is not perceived by society as wrong (or it is perceived as wrong, but not at any cognitive level) and thus has only a limited social stigma.

PRIVACY AND THE PRESENCE OF OTHERS

One major issue surrounding Digital Copyright Infringement is privacy. The new media environment has shifted towards a spectrum that encourages efficiency and convenience, which are two reasons why consumers are constantly engrained with the Internet. In this space, though, individuals are obligated to be responsible for how they act online because their actions have an affect on the perception of downloading/uploading material. I plan to outline why people in a private online space, think less about taking another’s content (committing copyright infringement), compared to those who participate in face-to-face interactions and bare such a burdon.

Browsing the Internet in the convenience of one’s own home is a major luxury of personal computers and the World Wide Web. This type of privacy is very different from being in the public view of others who may have an impact on certain actions you take. Psychology literature credits Robert Zajonc for documenting the “Mere Presence Effect,” which states that the mere presence of others in a surrounding area will stimulate arousal - arousal being defined as anything that produces a specific response (Zajonc, 1968). In relation to digital copyright, I believe that an individual will be less likely to infringe upon copyright laws and illegally download another’s property, if they are being watched or observed by others. Specifically, the “mere presence of others” will trigger a personal response to an individual that their actions are illegal and go against laws set forth by our government. In an online environment, individuals lack the physical presence of others to influence their actions or thoughts regarding digital copyright. Thus, people feel less obligated to abide by copyright law because they believe that since nobody is physically watching them, they have free license to file sharing. While their online activity can be traced and documented, many individuals turn a blind eye to this.

Further psychology literature credits Cottrell (1972) with proposing the Evaluation Apprehension Theory. This theory states that performance will be enhanced or impaired only in the presence of persons who can approve/disapprove of the performance. The topic of privacy in the Digital Copyright Infringement debate relates to this theory, in that an individual’s actions (illegally downloading or not) will depend on whether another person commends or condemns the original action. Due to the possibility that others are not physically present online while someone may be illegally downloading, an individual may think less about their unjust actions. Further, being watched (and having someone disapprove of someone’s actions) while doing something illegal, may have a great affect on that individual changing his or her illegal habit. From this, it can be seen that the physical presence of others either approving or disapproving of online actions can have a major affect on whether an individual will continue his or her activity.

Janneke Joly, researcher at the Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences at the University of Groningen, makes the following proclamation: “It would appear to be self-evident that people’s behaviour is influenced by generally accepted social norms, yet this is not the case.” This statement is supported by her research which concluded that awareness of social norms is increased in ‘humanized contexts’ (Speekman, 2008). This means that individuals are “prompted by others to attach importance to a particular norm at a particular moment,” and this happens in one of three major ways: physical presence. Joly states that surrounding individuals can prompt us to comply with social norms, such that the presence of others in on non-online environment can influence an individual to stop infringing upon copyright (because it is illegal). She presents the following situations to ameliorate her argument: ‘We are more likely to be reminded of the norm ‘eat with a knife and fork’ if other people are present or we sense that people are present.’ Additionally, ‘The norm [of] ‘be[ing] quiet in the library’ […] becomes more important due to the physical presence of others.’ It is evident from Joly’s research, that the presence of others has a great affect on an individual performing a specific action. Thus, it can be derived that copyright infringement is less likely to take place if a person is in close proximity with another who can influence his or her actions. Performing illegal actions online increases privacy, but decreases the amount of care/caution one has about taking another’s content because other individuals are not there to have an affect on the infringer.

The arguments delivered above, correlate to the relationship between physical presence of others and online privacy. This is a multifaceted issue that has several theoretical roots in psychology literature, as well as ‘humanized contexts.’ Provided with this information, one can make and support the argument that the physical presence of others has a great affect on an individual’s decision to infringe upon online digital copyright. Lastly, it is important to note that this issue of privacy does indeed relate to the limited social stigma attached to infringing upon digital copyright. Not being seen by others while in the convenience of your own home, allows people to have minimal influence from outside sources; this allows for a lack of care/limited negative stigma to develop regarding this issue (because nobody is available to monitor another individual’s actions).

Music as an Information Good

There are many reasons why there is a limited social stigma towards copyright infringement, specifically with regards to downloading/filesharing music. My contention is that market forces tend to convince us that music is overpriced. As the record industry partakes in price gouging, people feel less guilty stealing another’s work. I believe this is due to the fact that the medium for delivery has changed. Additionally, our perception of the music product has changed, as well. I plan to show that as a result of these changes, there is a limited social stigma accompanying copyright infringement.

One key aspect of music that has changed over the years is its delivery mechanism. While changing over from records, to cassettes, to CDs and even to DVDs has been somewhat of a seamless process, the changeover to digital files has been revolutionary. Regarding all of the previous formats, the idea behind each product was fairly simple; an individual would go to a store, pay a certain amount of money and then leave with a physical product. The perception here is that a person is leaving with a tangible item because funds were exchanged for an object that actually cost money to produce. The key difference between this and a simple file is that a file doesn’t have the tangible quality that a product has; it is not anything you can touch or feel. Rather, there are merely a few 1’s and 0’s stored on a hard drive that enable a media player to produce a sound.

When music is stored as a digital file it is no longer an ordinary good, it has become an Information Good. Information Goods have interesting properties. For example, information is costly to produce but costs nothing to reproduce. All of the cost is incurred in making the first copy. Economically speaking, there is a high fixed cost (and sunk once you have created the first copy), but zero marginal cost (Shapiro 1999). In a perfectly competitive environment (where the internet is unregulated), competition drives prices down to the marginal cost of production. (Krugman 2005) The problem now resides where the marginal cost equals zero. Hence, economic forces drive the price to zero.

When viewing the economics behind the current state of the music industry, it seems almost impractical for people to pay for music. There are minimal costs in creating a copy of a song for an additional user. Additionally, packaging, design, or other costs are not incurred by the music industry to deliver the product to the consumer. There can be an unlimited number of copies made for free, so when a copy is stolen, that user does not reduce the availability of the song to other consumers. Public goods are non-rival and non-excludable, which means that consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce the amount of the good available for consumption by others (Krugman 2005). Because music is available online and consumption of a copy does not reduce the number of copies available, music fits the definition of a public good. Interestingly enough, the music industry is facing the same problems that public goods usually face, the ‘free rider problem.’ The free rider problem consists of consumers taking advantage of public goods without contributing sufficiently to fund their creation (Krugman 2005). Whereas private organizations do not reap all the benefits of a public good which they have produced, this results in fewer incentives to produce that good voluntarily.

As the space for music delivery has changed, the costs have changed drastically. As a result, many people feel as though music costs nothing to produce and thus consuming a copy does not hurt any other person who would like to consume a copy. Because society feels that music is overpriced, people do not feel guilty stealing from music corporations. Thus, the current and limited social stigma associated with copyright infringement remains.

REFERENCES

Albanese, Jay S. Combating Piracy: Intellectual Property Theft and Fraud. Piscataway: Transaction, 2006.

Benkler, Yochai. "Freedom in the Commons: Towards a Political Economy of Information" (2003)

Campbell, Dennis, and Susan Cotter. Copyright Infringement. London: Kluwer Law International, 1998.

Cottrell, N.B. (1972). Social Facilitation. In C. McClintock (ed.), Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 185-236). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Krugman and Wells. Introductory Microeconomics First Edition edition
Worth Publishers 2005

Lessig, Lawrence. "What Things Regulate" in Code, and Other Laws of Cyberspace (1999)

Logsdon, Jeanne M., Judith K. Thompson, and Richard A. Reid. "Software Piracy: is It Related To." Journal of Business Ethics 13 (1994): 849-857.

Shapiro, Carl and Varian, Hal R. Information Rules. 1999, Harvard Business School Press

Siegfried, Robert M. "Student Attitudes on Software Piracy and Related Issues of Computer Ethics." Ethics and Information Technology 6 (2004): 215-222.

Speekman, Joe (2008, March 25). Consideration for others stimulates positive behaviour. Retrieved May 7, 2008, from Innovations Report Web site: http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/social_sciences/report-106033.html

Zajonc, R. B. (1968) Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 2, 1-27.

Zeisel, Hans. "The Limits of the Law." Vanderbilt Law Review 35 (1982): 527-540.

Digital Rights Management

DRM TECHNOLOGIES

Basics of DRM:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6337781.stm

Description of Different DRM Technologies:
Stamp, Mark. "Digital Rights Management: The Technology Behind the Hype." Journal of Electronic Commerce Research VOL 4. NO 3. 2003. 102-112. 31 March 2008 .

Features of Microsoft DRM Technology:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/drm/features.aspx

Architecture of DRM:
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june01/iannella/06iannella.html

DRM In-depth:
Roseblatt, William; Trippe, William; Mooney, Stephen. Digital Rights Management: Business and Technology. Indianapolis, IN: Hungry Minds, Inc., 2001

Comprehensive Resource on Everything DRM:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/ict/policy/doc/drm.pdf

RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (RIAA) SCARE TACTICS

P2P Sabotage Tactics
Kowalski, HM. "Peer-to-peer File Sharing & Technological Sabotage Tactics: No Legislation Required." Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review. Vol. 8, 2004, p. 297.
http://linkresolver.library.cornell.edu:4550/showres?url=http%3A%2F%2Fencompass.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2FcheckIP.cgi%3Faccess%3Dgateway_standard%2526url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.heinonline.org%2FHOL%2FIndex%3Findex%3Djournals%2Fmarq%26collection%3Djournals&linkid=244597

Consequences of Illegal Downloading
Mitrano, Tracy. "'Settlement Letters' and 'Preservation Notices' from the RIAA: Letter to All Students." Cornell University Office of Information Technologies. May 2007. Cornell University. 1 Apr 2008 .
http://www.cit.cornell.edu/policy/memos/riaa.html

RIAA Court Case
http://p2pnet.net/story/7942

Copyright Law

Rimmer, Matthew. Digital Copyright and the Consumer Revolution: Hands Off My Ipod. Edward Elgar, 2007.

Gillespie, Tarleton. Wired Shut: Copyright and the Shape of Digital Culture. Cambridge: MIT P, 2007.

Samuelson, Pamela. "DRM {AND, OR, VS.} THE LAW." Communications of the ACM 46 (2003): 41-45.

Revising Copyright Law for the Information Age: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdlitman/papers/revising.htm#star

Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998

The law: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appb.pdf

Digital Millennium Lawsuit against Universal Music Publishing, Interview with lead attorney: http://tcattorney.typepad.com/digital_millennium_copyri/2007/08/post.html
Digital Millennium Act on Trial: http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/01/33716

The Copyright Act of 1976
The Law: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appa.pdf

The Copyright Act of 1790
The Law: http://www.copyright.gov/history/1790act.pdf

Keyword Map

The image seen here is a visualization of the most common keywords found in our searches/appearance within resources. The size of each keyword depicts the degree of perceived importance and frequency within resources, with our project topic in mind (larger text = more important/frequent). We did not create a coding mechanism for keywords, but merely discussed each keyword and came to a group decision, thus it could be said that this map is not scientific derived.

Technology Behind "Anti-Piracy Technologies"

A Taxonomy of Methods for Software Piracy Prevention

http://www.croninsolutions.com/writing/piracytaxonomy.pdf

Protecting and Managing Electronic Content with a Digital Battery. Budd, T. (August 2001). IEEE Computer.

RIAA, MPAA Target File Swapping on Internet2

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,120425-page,1/article.html

A functional taxonomy for software watermarking

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=563801.563822

Discouraging Software Piracy Using Software Aging

Revised Papers from theACM CCS-8 Workshop on Security and Privacy in Digital Rights Management 2002

Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture ... .Lawrence Lessig, Penguin Publishing, 2004.

Properties of Digital Media

Economical aspects of software piracy

http://nemrava.gasttour.cz/publikace/hp911-nemrava.pdf

Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Carl Shapiro and Hal Varian, Harvard Business School Press, 1999. “InfoRules”

Information as an Economic Good: A Reevaluation of Theoretical Approaches
BJ Bates - Mediation, Information, and Communication, 1990 - books.google.com

Mediation, Communication and Information: Information and Behavior. Brent D. Ruben and Leah A. Lievrouw, Transaction Publishers, 1985.

Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models

S Taylor, PA Todd - Information Systems Research, 1995 - misq.org