The government is having a hard time controlling the amount of 'free' and 'illegal' downloads of copyrighted content that consumers have access to. One of the main problems is that there is virtually no regulatory system that is used to control what people upload and download while online. The government having access and information on how we are using our networks would be, to most people, a violation of privacy. So what are we do to when almost all the students in our class raised their hands for downloading music illegally? Should the government have more access to our personal computers to decide who should be punished for their illegal actions. I myself download music illegally, but only stream movies or TV shows--which could also be considered illegal. I would not want the government to have access to how I am using my internet. There are three things I would propose that would discourage these types of downloads.
1. Stricter punishments for smaller downloads. Many users get WARNING messages from their internet providers if it is clear that they have been downloading a lot of illegal content. The WARNING serves as just that, a warning. There are no punishments involved. If the first WARNING message came with a 30 dollar fine-- that would definitely prevent people from even considering downloading in the first place. Of course there would have to be a court system where people could appeal the charge and prove that they weren't downloading anything illegally.
2. There should be stricter privacy settings on CD's, DVDs, and even on itunes, where purchased files cannot leave their original folder, and no copies can be made. I know on many DVD's this security system is set in place but it is not very strong, and CDs and itunes have almost no security, allowing you to copy music on to many different computers. Stricter security on the original hardware of the technology will discourage those from trying to extract all the files information.
3. There recently was an Ad campaign out there that tried to guilt those who downloaded music or movies by saying-- "You wouldn't steal a car" This did not have the effect that the campaign was supposed to, because there was some backlash to the Ad and it became more of a joke (see youtube video below). There should be a new campaign that shows insight to who the consumer is taking money from when they download music. If consumers could see how they are affecting struggling artists, they may pay the 15 dollars for a CD.
Judith, I agree about your idea for a more effective, less dramatic ad campaign. If you check out my blog, all my ideas were about possible advertising campaigns. This reminds me of how sometimes ads about drinking and driving are so exaggerated and dramatic that nobody can really imagine the consequences happening to them. (p.s. I want to watch your video but I'm in the library right now and I don't want to disturb people around me!)
ReplyDeleteI also agree about the realistic warnings. One of my friends downloads music a lot, and his internet provider gave him some ridiculous warning about charging him $60,000 or some wild number like that. For downloading a CD.
Nobody believes that, I've never heard of anyone actually being punished. But like you said, if it were a more realistic fee (and for smaller downloads, like one CD not a whole library of music) people would see the benefit in spending $10 for an album instead of $30 for downloading it for free. I wonder if it's possible for the illegally downloaded music to be deleted without the downloader's permission? Maybe if your free music was deleted too, you would want to avoid the total $40 you would pay for your fine AND re-obtaining the music by actually buying it.
I like how you included a video about your topic. I agree with your idea that there should be a small fine that comes with the warning about illegally downloading music. Money is more influential than someone asking if you would steal a car.
ReplyDelete