It is independent content creators that are hurt economically by heavyhanded enforcement. They depend on publishing works that can be freely distributed (within restrictions governed by the included license). Meanwhile, many consumers have been told so many times that "copying copyrighted material is illegal" (what the "FBI Warning" says on so many of the DVDs I own) that they believe it. (The wording in that warning is wrong on so many levels - it ignores fair use for starters.)
I have often suspected that the *real* target of draconian RIAA and MPAA copyright enforcement efforts is not the consumer (they don't want to alienate more than a few of them), but independent musicians and movie creators. They want to create a climate of fear that inhibits "viral marketing".
I notice that marketing firms now also often depend on free distribution of their works. Witness the current crop of viral auto commercials (most quite entertaining).
I am able to educate a handful of people on the bus and other venues by talking about looking for included licenses (and Creative Commons does a great job of standardizing these) to know when redistributing is perfectly legal. (Most people with an income, and that includes the poor on welfare, have no desire to get in trouble by "pirating" anything .)
I would go further (than my previous comment), and say that counterfeiting, rather that "piracy" is the overwhelming economic harm to even mainstream content producers. I've talked to many people very happy about the "great deal" they got on mainstream movies while on vacation in South America, for instance. They were a little disappointed in the quality, but the price was fantastic.
Of course, it was obvious to me that these movies were "pirated" and resold. But the DVD covers were very professionally done, shrink wrap, trademarks and all, and looked like the legit article. These consumers would never have knowingly purchased a "pirated" work (or at least they wouldn't be bragging about it in public). So the key problem is with the counterfeited branding and trademarks - without which the "pirated" content would have a much smaller market.
(One college age girl said that she felt the cheap movies were "sketchy" - too good to be true.)
Authored Comments
It is independent content creators that are hurt economically by heavyhanded enforcement. They depend on publishing works that can be freely distributed (within restrictions governed by the included license). Meanwhile, many consumers have been told so many times that "copying copyrighted material is illegal" (what the "FBI Warning" says on so many of the DVDs I own) that they believe it. (The wording in that warning is wrong on so many levels - it ignores fair use for starters.)
I have often suspected that the *real* target of draconian RIAA and MPAA copyright enforcement efforts is not the consumer (they don't want to alienate more than a few of them), but independent musicians and movie creators. They want to create a climate of fear that inhibits "viral marketing".
I notice that marketing firms now also often depend on free distribution of their works. Witness the current crop of viral auto commercials (most quite entertaining).
I am able to educate a handful of people on the bus and other venues by talking about looking for included licenses (and Creative Commons does a great job of standardizing these) to know when redistributing is perfectly legal. (Most people with an income, and that includes the poor on welfare, have no desire to get in trouble by "pirating" anything .)
I would go further (than my previous comment), and say that counterfeiting, rather that "piracy" is the overwhelming economic harm to even mainstream content producers. I've talked to many people very happy about the "great deal" they got on mainstream movies while on vacation in South America, for instance. They were a little disappointed in the quality, but the price was fantastic.
Of course, it was obvious to me that these movies were "pirated" and resold. But the DVD covers were very professionally done, shrink wrap, trademarks and all, and looked like the legit article. These consumers would never have knowingly purchased a "pirated" work (or at least they wouldn't be bragging about it in public). So the key problem is with the counterfeited branding and trademarks - without which the "pirated" content would have a much smaller market.
(One college age girl said that she felt the cheap movies were "sketchy" - too good to be true.)