I must first make this very clear: I do not condone illegally copying copyrighted material. I believe that artists, whether musicians, writers, actors, painters, photographers, etc. . ., should receive their just rewards for the work they do. If a consumer enjoys a work enough to use that work, then they should abide by the rules regulating the distribution of such works.

BUT I am sick and tired of the way that the record and movie industries continually treat their customers as mindless criminals who somehow owe them something for merely existing. Produce good works that people are willing to buy. That’s how the free market system works. If I produce crap, I should not expect anyone to ever compensate me for that crap.

What makes matters worse is when the industries treat the court system as their own little collection agency. Recently, the Pirate Bay founders were found guilty on dubious charges of copyright infringement. Now I am quick to admit that I am not a lawyer and do not fully understand copyright laws in every country. Although many countries abide by international copyright treaties and honour the copyrights of other countries, the specifics of the laws can vary between different countries.

What bothers me is that the judge for the case against the Pirate Bay appears to have links to copyright lobbyists. Although he claims not to be biased, I cannot trust his decision in the case. Everyone has bias. It’s merely a part of human nature. Bias abounds universally. That’s why peer reviewed journals are peer reviewed. That’s why different newspapers can have different slants represented in their articles about the same incidents. Bias exists.

To claim that one is not biased while being a member of copyright lobby groups and presiding over a case about copyright infringement is ludicrous and insults the intelligence of the public. We might be sheep, but we are not stupid. The judge in the case should be reprimanded, the case sent back to trial and a new judge found that can demonstrate neutrality towards the case.

Now, I will say that the Pirate Bay has clearly provided a service that helped significantly in the distribution of pirated works. To say otherwise is to ignore the fact that the vast majority of the linked items are copyrighted material for which such distribution is illegal. It is also not unreasonable to believe that the founders were well aware of the way in which their system had been used and they clearly did not do much to remedy the situation. Further, safe harbour clauses in many countries will protect an intermediary such as an ISP in such cases as they are not generally considered responsible for the content carried on their network.

In this particular case, I do not know the specifics of Sweden’s safe harbour provisions. I do not know if what the Pirate Bay has done actually violates Swedish law regardless of the outcome of the case. I would tend to think that they are on shaky ground, but that is merely my personal opinion. Hey, this is my blog and I can show this bias if I want. You are free to believe what you want based upon your own research.

I do believe that the actions of this judge are unconscionable. To not have disqualified himself from the case in light of his ties to the copyright lobby is wrong. He should be ashamed of himself. I say he should publicly appologize for his actions and declare that he feels that his judgement should be nullified. I don’t believe that the case should be thrown out because of his position, but that the case should be retried. Whatever the verdict from a neutral judge, the outcome of this case is important for copyrights globally.

The Internet has provided a means by which previously scarce goods become apparent infinite goods without regard to the effort involved in producing those goods in the first place. The creation of the original content is clearly not infinite. It takes time, effort, money and creativity to produce a movie, album, book or application. Although they can be freely transmitted via electronic means without depreciation of the original good, without remuneration of those that have created the good, there is little incentive to continue creating. But what is remuneration?

For different people, remuneration for creation of a good can mean different things. Some people create for money, some for fame, some for the mere love of creating a work. In some way, each provides a form of remuneration. But lets face facts. If it costs money to produce a good, the producer would generally like to have that cost recouped. Not everyone is a philanthropist. Not everyone has money coming out of their arse ready to invest into a creation without hope of compensation.

If an artist knows that it will cost more to produce a good than they will be able to recoup, then they will be less likely to produce that good. That’s just common sense. I’ve heard the copyright abolishionists state that producers must change their business models in order to take advantage of the new medium of the Internet. I’ve not heard a lot of suggestions as to what they should do, but we’ve entered a whole new era and we need to rethink how we all do business. Times change.

Times certainly change. I’m sure that buggy makers were downright pissed when the newfangled, horseless carriage came into existance. I’m pretty sure, though, that they did not sue everyone that chose to buy a Ford merely because they were losing business. Instead, they changed their business model to adapt to the new reality or they went under. That’s how the free market system works. If you don’t adapt, then you fade away.

Media companies are no different. The MPAA and RIAA are now in a position that representatives of the buggy makers were in one hundred years ago. They need to embrace the new reality and adapt to it or fade away. That’s life. Unfortunately, it appears that they’ve instead taken the stance that everyone is their enemy and that they should just sue them to generate revenue. It hasn’t been terribly successful for them, but they’ve tried.

They have taken the stance that their customers are evil for chosing not to buy their products, but there’s a problem with this reasoning. It has been shown that CD sales are down. A bit. But that doesn’t mean that music sales are down. People are shifting to new media. Companies like iTunes or Napster have taken a large chunk of sales away from CD vendors and so they should. People choose the means of distribution that suits their needs. It has never been about the producer, but rather the consumer.

People buy the product they want for the price they are willing to pay from the vendor they are willing to support. Again, if I produce crap, charge a large amount for it and make it difficult to purchase, no one in their right mind would purchase it. I would, and should, go out of business. Again, the free market system. The concept of supply-and-demand-based pricing isn’t quite true. People are still willing to pay for something that they otherwise could get free. If not, then iTunes would not exist. After all, why pay for a song when you can download it for free? Because it has perceived value. THAT IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT!

Perception of value for an apparent infinate good isn’t easy to nail down. How much can you charge for something that can be found for free? iTunes seems to have found the formula. So have many others like Netflix. Why pay to stream when you can just use bittorrent? Because the product has perceived value. The new reality is that producers must work to create a perception of value for their products. I don’t have the magic formula. I don’t think anyone does yet, but that does not mean that we must not try to find it. It does not mean that the formula does not exist.

Although the Internet is no longer new, the use of the Internet as a means of distributing media is still in its infancy. Companies come and go at an alarming rate. Some have created problems for their consumers when they have used proprietary DRM (digital rights management) on their products and then have gone under. DRM is not the answer. Just ask Sony.

There is an answer out there and it revolves around the wants, needs and desires of the consumer. It does not lie in the courts. It does not require a copyright Czar. It does not require copyright extensions. It does not require DRM. It does not allow for producers to continually treat the consumer as a vast array of criminals. I does require thought, an open mind and creativity. Oh, hey, aren’t these artists supposed to be known for their creativity? Well then use it.

I create content. I create digital content. I know that my products can be copied fairly easily. That’s a reality. I cannot stress over those losses because the people who copy my products without compensating me for my work would likely never have bought the product in the first place. They also likely do not use my product much at all. After all, to copy it without compensation is to place no value on the product.

I have chosen to concentrate on those that do decided to purchase my products. For them, I have customer service. For them, I will help them when they have an issue. For them, I will update their product when an update is available. For them, I will listen to what they want to see in my products. I do what I can to help increase the perceived value of my products.

I know that I will never stop people from copying my products. That’s life. It will happen. People shoplift. That’s life. What I can do is make my products such that people find value in them such that they pay for the right to use them. If I don’t make money at it, I cannot blame the consumer because clearly I did not produce a product of sufficient perceived value for the consumer to purchase. That is my cue to either go back to design or to change my business.

With that said, I just break even at what I do. I don’t make a living producing digital products for virtual worlds. But I have created a reputation for producing quality products and if I were to choose to do so, I’m sure that I could devote the time necessary to make enough products such that I could make a living. That would be my choice. I know that it can be done, but not by bullying those that would never have purchased my product in the first place. Live and let live. If I want to increase business, I can do so by marketing. I can do so by providing a scarce good (access to quality support, customizations, t-shirts). There are ways to benefit from the new media. It’s my job to figure out how.

I will not treat potential customers like they are criminals. I will treat potential customers as, well, potential customers. I will try to find out why they do not perceive value in my products and if I can remedy that then I will.

The Internet is here to stay. Bandwidth will continue to increase. People will continue to illegally copy goods. Content creators will continue to create content. These are facts which we all must accept. These are facts that must guide our decisions in developing sound business models for the future. These are facts that we can work to our advantage rather than focus on the futile task of eliminating them.

In the end, we must love our current customers, court our potential customers and not hate our customers who do not see value in our products. There will always be those who will never see value in goods created by others. We can’t do anything about that. We can do everything in our power to embrace the new reality.