Can the "thieves" of copyright be intimidated?
“Copyright” is a new term which familiars
the 21st century’s people very much. People’s awareness towards “intellectual
property” has been greatly raised. Since the eighteen century, the idea of
property rights has been developed. The rapid development of technologies leads
to more high-tech crimes, including illegal download of different copyrighted
things. In this post, one of the five common tactics that corporations and
their legal representatives use to inhibit and counter public outrage: intimidation
versus resistance would be further discussed.
Technologies could bring people many
advantages but also many disadvantages. Taking legal action is undoubtedly an
effective way to prevent the crimes from happening, especially in this
civilized society. However, with the help of technology, downloading music,
movies and books from the Internet becomes much easier than before. Piracy is
becoming an easy thing to do. And the police would find it even more difficult
to target these high-tech criminals, as they exist in the boundless world
virtually. Even the industries and the government would like to take legal
action and intimidate the pirates; it could be a hard job to do. In 2005, a
Hong Kong netizen has been successfully prosecuted by the Hong Kong Customs,
for illegally share three movies on the BitTorrent indexing site. This case did
trigger a heated debate in the world, as it was also the first case that involved
jailing. I do agree that this could really intimidate the individuals who
involve in illegal file-sharing. According to Martin, Moore and Salter (2010), “Most
individuals are frightened when they are taken to court by a large company.”
Individuals are always the weaker one when compared with the large
corporations, especially in terms of money. Thus, the case could really be a
warning signal to the perpetrators.
Photo sourced: http://trinities.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/go-to-jail.jpg
Yet, Martin, Moore and Salter (2010)
pointed out another important argument that “When hundreds of thousands of
people are sharing files, how fair is it for any single person to have to fight
a court battle or pay a huge fine?” A group of individuals could form big
power. In the virtual world, it is very difficult for the authority to find the
exact person who shares the files illegally. The police can only chase the Internet
Protocol (IP) addresses of the related netizens. And the authority has to
investigate the illegal sharing with the help of the Internet providers. Due to
the privacy problem, the companies can reject the request of providing their
clients’ information. These make the investigation even more difficult.
Moreover, I think that people are more familiar with the copyright law now. Some
years ago, these high-tech criminals may be afraid of the law since there were
related cases which have successfully brought to the court. As time flies and
the technologies are continuously developing, they would try to find another
way out to share the files. It would be even more difficult for the authority
to stop the individuals from illegally sharing files. The effectiveness of intimidation
would be far more reduced too. Self-discipline may be the only way to stop the
criminal behavior; otherwise, the world still has to do much to protect the
intellectual property.
Photo sourced: http://globalvoicesonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ge13-protest-375x276.jpg
References
Martin, B, Moore, C and Salter, C 2010, Sharing
music files: tactics of a challenge to the industry, First Monday, vol.
15, no. 12, retrieved 10 August 2013, <http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2986/2680>
Hey there,
回覆刪除I enjoyed reading your discussion on intimidation versus resistance. In particular your point about how suing an individual will intimidate others into illegally downloading music, but at the same time this action isn't fair and could cause the digital community to rise together. I think that this is a lot easier now as it is very hard to find the exact individual who distributed the product and tracking IP addresses has become increasingly harder.
Look forward to reading more
Your post on intimidation versus resistance was a clear, well presented and thought provoking read. I was engaged in what you were saying from the beginning to the end as you explained where the world stands with file sharing. You addressed the issue head on and for the first time I considered how difficult it must be for law enforcement to successfully police this issue. By recapping on the past and looking at the present stance, the reader was able to visualise the future of file sharing. I also liked how you ended the post by humanising the problem and handing the solution back over to us, the internet users. It's our self-discipline that can protect our intellectual property. Great post.
回覆刪除Your post this week has made me consider the difficulty authorities face in deterring copyright behaviour. You are right in stating that it is hard to intimidate 'netizens' when they are hard to trace and effectively punish, thus online illegal activity is often perceived as a minor crime that most can get away with scott free. Your point that the burden of responsibility is dispersed due to the number of online users is also a valid point. How could police possibly punish the millions of people who illegally download music and movies?! Some great points to consider in a globalised, mediated world.
回覆刪除Hi Carol!
回覆刪除Good post this week! I do agree that people have heightened awareness towards copyrights. It would be good if you could some examples that illegal downloading is prevalent (E.g. TV programme, movies, songs, software), and from what source they are being downloaded.
You have made an excellent point on discussing intimidation versus resistance. You have additionally explored the difficulty to enforce law on deterring copyright infringement behaviours. It would be even better if you could elaborate on why people are more familiar with the copyright laws, such as the flourishing of online communities, serving as “thinktanks” to hide illegal sharers escaping from copyright inspections.