Copy Right or Wrong - The Pirate Bay Case and Mind Games

The Pirate Bay is a Swedish website that tracks BitTorrents. It has to do with sharing files.

A traditional model of file sharing has Mr. X downloading a file from a server. If many people are after the same file, the server must have a bigger capacity.

A BitTorrent is a protocol that makes sharing files faster and lighter, and it works like this:

Mr. X wants a file likeavirgin.mp3. He goes to a website that tracks BitTorrents. He enters "Like a Virgin" in the search box and gets a list of the available torrents. He clicks one of them and starts to download likeavirgin.mp3 simultaneously from numerous individual sources. While downloading the file he automatically starts to share it with other users too.

In The Pirate Bay everyone can upload and download torrent files. In other words, Mr. X can inform the website about a link that leads to his file likeavirgin.mp3. Other people may inform the website about the same file too. Hence, one link (torrent) in The Pirate Bay may lead to many similar files. In a way The Pirate Bay is a directory of links to individual files. The website per se does not produce any files other than the torrents. No copyrighted material exists in the website's server.

Media companies such as Sony and Warner Bros. have sued The Pirate Bay for copyright theft. Or, to be more exact (as the BBC reports) the owners of the website are accused of "promoting other people's infringements of copyright laws" and the movie, music and video games industry are seeking for compensation (10.6 million euros) "in damages and interest for losses incurred from tens of millions of illegal downloads facilitated by the site." The Bay people, on the other hand, say it's like being sued for making cars that can go faster than the speed limit.

The court case seems to be about two ethical issues. The more obvious is about copyright and the other is about responsibility. It seems like both parties agree on the definition of copyright being "a form of intellectual property which gives the creator of an original work exclusive rights for a certain time period in relation to that work, including its publication, distribution and adaptation." No one thinks Mr. X is allowed to upload or download likeavirgin.mp3.

The big question is whether The Pirate Bay is responsible for publishing a directory of links of which some lead to likeavirgin.mp3 in Mr. X's, Y's and Z's personal computers and, thus, to copyrighted material.

Hard to decide?
Let's try mind games.

Imagine a library with some of its clientele photo-copying some books and thus infringing copyright. Then imagine a book publisher suing the library for aiding violation of copyright. Who do you think would win the case? Would you rather recommend the publisher to sue the copyists instead of the library?

If you would still prefer suing the library, let's go further in the mind game.

Imagine a building just like a library but with the exception of there being no books in the building. Imagine Mr. X. going into the building and asking the librarian if he knew where to find Jonathan Zitrain's The Future of the Internet - And How to Stop It. The librarian would take a look at a list and give Mr. X. the address of Mr. Y. who has the book. Then Mr. X. would go to Mr. Y. and photocopy the book - and infringe copyright.

Would you still charge the library?
You would?
OK then.

Imagine the same library without the books and without the librarian. The only thing that the library would contain would be a notice board where people could post their addresses and the titles of text they possess, whether they be self-written poems, theses, shopping-lists, jokes or copyrighted books. Then imagine Mr. X. going to the notice board and finding the address of Mr. Y. with Zitrain's book.

You could still think the library is the one to blame. And that would be perfectly sound. Perhaps a lot of your judgement would depend on the answers to these questions:

• How many of the texts listed in the notice board are copyrighted?
• Is the library aware of the potential copyright infringement enabled by their notice board?
• Is the library making money out of it?
• Is the sole purpose of the library to aid copyright infringement?

Or you could as easily make up different kind of questions leading to the opposite moral judgment. You could ask...

• Is the library itself making copies of copyrighted material?

...and answer no, it is not - and call the case closed.

Eventually copyright is a cultural phenomenon par excellence. It has always been an intriguing ethical issue and the digital age makes it even more so. It seems like the rapid progress of digital technologies makes it very hard for strict copyright to exist. Especially if the counter-sharing technologies and the law-making processes are not able to keep up with the development.

Imagine the year 2050. Will we laugh at the ancient practice of having to pay for likeavirgin.mp3 as all possible public digital data is accessible free by anyone or will the digital pirates be the last outlaws of the world hunted down by the all-seeing media industry/police force complex?

Pic sources: The two modes of file transfer from Bruce’s Journal, the pirate bay symbol from P2P ON!, the library from Southeastern Illinois College, "Captain Copyright" from http://media.canada.com/canwest/143/, Communication from Equalitec.

Video eyeware and the evolution of audiovisual entertainment tech

Tietokone magazine reported on consumer electronics news among which video glasses caught my eye, so to speak. Sony's executive Howard Stinger and Tom Hanks presented the company's new gadgetry, including video eyewear. Tietokone readers pointed out that although the report seems to claim otherwise, Sony isn't really the first one to present such equipment. Video glasses have been around for some years now and are sold online (see e.g. Verkkokauppa store in Finland and Zeiss' page).


Hanks, Stinger and videogoggles (pic source here).

Sony's video goggles got me thinking about the not so fresh innovation of Sony Walkman (released 1979), or the "Ear Patch Stereos" as they were literally called in Finland. What a technocultural innovation they were! Music that you could take with you and listen to just by yourself! One should remember that hundred years ago music was mainly a collective thing to do. Actually, since the beginning of music itself, people have gathered together to do music - sing together around the fire, in working groups, sorrowful mourning parties, or, more lately in history, gathered together to enoy professional live music performance, and so on.

Then came the record player which better enabled the production of music. The song could now be refined, remade, patched together from separate sections to form a piece best reflecting the vision of its maker (singer, player, song-writer, producer). One could enjoy music without knowing how to sing or having someone to sing for them. One could just listen to records or radio at home with closest friends. With headphones one could enjoy the records by the record player just by oneself.

Finally, Sony Walkman was invented and you could take the music with you where ever you went, and be isolated from your surroundings while being mobile....

...and listen to the music a billion dollar industry had meticulously produced to suit your taste and cultural niche.

The evolution of music tech has developed from enhancing group cohesion to individual isolation. It is one of the many common denominators of a group of individuals sharing same sort of cultural, social and esthetic values. Perhaps nowadays one listens to MP3s in isolation but still feeling connected to peers.

Video glasses are another interesting step in the technological evolution. Now that we have appliances like Nintendo Wii or the like, it won't be long when we can enjoy a walk in the park with friends and not get out of the bed or the couch. We can be physically more isolated but virtually more social and collective.

Imagine a bit more distant future, when gadgets like the Walkman (MP3-player) or video goggles become so tiny that they fit inside your eye and ear. Or, to a lot more scifi here, are implanted in your brain. Then virtual would become real (if it isn't already) and physical something as irrelevant as atoms and molecules of a DVD disc of TV screen are today in enjoying a movie.

Pic sources: Sony Walkman from Erlingsi's Flickr page, gramophone from Design Boom, the future eye implant from Übergizmo.