Think about libraries and why they exist. Think about the way libraries work. Then compare with modern filesharing. It seems that the only difference is that online, we can trade things so fast that the old guard in big media can't think of a way to keep monetization intact.
Anyone who accepts the value of a library system (i.e., a big building that holds various kinds of "intellectual property" for members to peruse for free and/or a nominal one-time fee) should logically conclude that The Pirate Bay and its ilk are a public service, not a criminal engagement.
However, there's a great example of a modern library where you can find works produced by small and big media alike, and monetization is effortless for the consumer via nominal, one-time fees: Apple's App Store. Yet still people find ways to circumvent the new guard just to avoid paying 99 cents for apps.
Seems to be that rather than pay taxes to buy content for the library, one can just contribute directly to that library.
Public libraries welcome donations of books. And as I mentioned in my parent comment, startups are trying to work within copyright law to allow people to upload their movies/music and loan it out to others with the caveat that the number of simultaneous consumers of the media cannot exceed the number of licensed copies. I'd like to see such services take off, though they face an uphill battle to prove that loaning format shifted media isn't a copyright violation.
The real uphill battle is convincing content creators and distributors to focus on new and interesting ways to persuade people to pay for content, rather than trying to mandate that everyone pay for the content and mandating punishment for those who don't and are caught.
Your example of the app store is actually good, and shows a good monetization path that actually benefits from the inherent properties of the digital medium. You're right that some people still try to pirate 99 cent apps, but in my experience those people aren't part of the audience in the first place, because they don't have the 99 cents to spend, or they wouldn't be wasting hours and days to save themselves a few dollars. The time of anyone with a job is significantly more valuable than that. While there are always going to be a few penny wise and pound foolish irrational actors in the mix, you can't cripple your business based on that kind of rabid obsession. You have to let it go at some point.
It's time to give up the archaic, draconian copyright regime that demands total control of a PC before it allows it to display a movie and reasonably embrace our digitized future, including building monetization models that aren't "sue filesharers".
Src: Eben Moglen
Libraries already often don't pay for everything that they hand out; they welcome and indeed rely upon donations.
It's much more accurate that way.
corrected, that's how the torrent work :p
Am I now stealing from the artists? Are you?
One could argue that even without making the copy I am depriving artists from income. Perhaps one or two of those CDs you would actually have bought yourself had you not received them from me for free.
Follow that line of thought and pretty soon no gifts could ever be exchanged as it could potentially be considered theft.
Now, what if there were a website that you could post something like: "Man, I'd really love to have that latest Rihanna CD. Here's my address." And some do-gooder would be able to send you his copy, since he doesn't want it any longer.
No copies made. No money exchanged hands. Just a gift from one fan to another.
Yet you are still depriving Rihanna her 2cts. Someone is still stealing. I mean, Rihanna is still a few cents short, isn't she?
I don't know, man. This whole thing is too grey. Far too grey to simply say that TPB is depriving income simply by providing a platform for downloading .torrent files that could potentially be used to download copyrighted materials, which could possibly sometimes deprive some artist of some income.
My comment was trying to point out that if we really tried to view digital files as property we get into problematic territory. For example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19842851
A lot of the language around digital rights issues seems to me to be loaded. The use of theft to refer to copyright or even the words Intellectual Property, begs the question of an argument not yet proven. Eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Intellectual_Prope...
It's much more accurate that way.