網絡版權難破僵局：多數年輕人已形成盜版習慣

Youth shaping future of online TV, movies, music
February 19, 2012

By MARTHA IRVINE,

CHICAGO (AP) — Young people want their music, TV and movies now — even if it means they get these things illegally.

A recent Columbia University survey found, in fact, that 70 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds said they had bought, copied or downloaded unauthorized music, TV shows or movies, compared with 46 percent of all adults who'd done the same.

With such an entrenched attitude, what can be done about widespread online piracy?

Certainly law enforcement has gone after scofflaws like these, hitting them with fines and, in some cases, even jail time. Congress is considering controversial anti-piracy bills that would, among other things, forbid search engines from linking to foreign websites accused of copyright infringement. And there are lawsuits pitting media heavyweights against Internet firms — notably Viacom's billion-dollar litigation against YouTube.

But here's a radical notion to consider: What if young people who steal content weren't viewed as the problem?

What if they and advocates for maximum online access could persuade the entertainment industry to loosen its tight grip on its coveted, copyrighted material — quite the opposite of what the industry is trying to do right now?

"The real problem is not pirates downloading illegally, but a failure to innovate on the part of the content providers," says Steven Budd, a law student at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

Like it or not, that's how a lot of people of his generation view the situation. And some experts think they're gaining clout, as they insist on easy access to music and other content while the Internet world loudly protests anti-piracy legislation that it says unfairly puts the responsibility of policing piracy sites on search engines and other sites.

"We've seen the emergence of a real social movement around these issues," says Joe Karaganis, vice president of The American Assembly, a public policy institute at Columbia University, which oversaw the recent survey, funded by a grant from Google.

He's talking, in part, about "blackouts" staged by popular Internet sites that included Wikipedia, the user-generated online encyclopedia, and Reddit, the social news website. With support from Google, Facebook and Twitter, they were protesting the proposed federal anti-piracy bills.

But here's the surprising part — a lot of young people don't necessarily expect to get movies, TV shows and music for free.

"I do think people would pay for this content if it's reasonably priced and it's available when they want to watch it," says Srikant Mikkilineni, a law student at Drake University in Des Moines.

Not wanting to mar his law school record, Mikkilineni pays for the songs, movies and TV shows he downloads. But he does so grudgingly. "Right now, they want us to pay multiple times for the same content," he says, complaining that that's not reasonable.

If he buys a DVD, for instance, it's $15. He can watch it on his laptop — but it's illegal for him to copy it in order to watch it on his iPod or smart phone.

Many young people point to Apple's iTunes service as a model that could be replicated by other entertainment companies.

"iTunes changed the landscape for music because it made it far too convenient and much easier than downloading music through alternative methods (even illegal ones)," says Matt Gardner, an information technology student at Rochester Institute of Technology in New York.

But even more than convenience, a recent study at Duke University found that cost was the major factor that drives college students to copy entertainment content illegally. Researchers there found that the lower the students' income, including their parents' income, the more likely they were to search for free, illegal options.

To address the issue of cost, the study's authors suggested that universities consider making licensing agreements with services that sell entertainment content so that students could get a discount.

Cornell University is one institution that has experimented with this. From 2004 to 2006, an anonymous donor paid for two years' worth of Napster service for Cornell students, but students ultimately declined to have their student activity fees raised to continue the service because the music couldn't be played on all devices, according to the Duke study.


There are those who doubt that students would pay for content they can pirate, especially when the habit has become so ingrained.

"Nobody's going to pay you for something they can get for free," says Glenn MacDonald, an economics professor at the Olin School of Business at Washington University in St. Louis.

So he asks: What if you gave music and movies to consumers for free, or asked them to pay what they thought the content was worth?

Some bands such as Radiohead are already doing that — in essence, using their songs to build a following and entice people to pay to see them in concert and, once there, to buy their merchandise.

The song becomes the ad, MacDonald says. Or a movie on the small screen becomes the driving force for a line of merchandise or drives the wish to see it again on a big screen in 3-D or at a special theater event. A free clip from a TV show seen online draws viewers to the show.

"It's like a bar. They give you the peanuts so you buy the beer," MacDonald says.

He notes that music companies already take a cut of money made from concerts, merchandise and endorsements. So he thinks that should, at the very least, offset the cost of the recorded music to consumers, who've been increasingly willing to pay big prices to see artists live.

"Music companies would be better served by increasing their focus on how to make artists' music, and especially their concerts, even better," MacDonald says.

Nice thought, but not realistic, says Thomas Carpenter, general counsel for legislative affairs for the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, a union that represents people working in the entertainment industry.

As it stands, he says 90 percent of the earnings that a musician currently makes under a recording contract is tied directly to royalties from sales, including lawful downloads. For actors, he says, it's about 50 percent.

"There's a lot at stake — much more than most people realize," Carpenter says.

And he adds, "You have to be paid in order to be good. You have to use the funds from your projects to fund your future creativity."

Still even some people who've spent their careers defending copyrights say it's time to find some middle ground.

"It really is a failure to come up with practical, reasonable models for sales and distribution," says Michael R. Graham, a Chicago attorney who specializes in trademark and copyright law. "There's a real disconnect."

Like many, he thinks iTunes has set the standard for the future.

Another possible approach: licensing agreements — with online services, for instance, paying a fee to content creators so they can provide it to consumers for free or for a monthly subscription fee.

Popular options, so far, include online music streaming services such as Spotify and Pandora. Others point to movie and TV services such as Netflix, though some complain that content on Netflix's online streaming service is still too limited. Hundreds of thousands of people also quit Netflix last year after it started charging more to those who wanted both the streaming service and DVDs sent to them in the mail — another indication of just how much impact the public can have in these matters.

A major lawsuit now before a federal appeals court has put a spotlight on these issues.

Viacom Inc. is appealing a lower court ruling that found YouTube, Google Inc.'s popular video sharing service, is protected from copyright infringement claims. Viacom claims that YouTube is making millions when people post copyrighted videos —including some shows Viacom owns. YouTube says it forces people to remove the content when discovered, as the law allows.

During October proceedings before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, Judge Roger Miner asked, "How in the world can damages be computed here?"

"The number could be quite large," said Viacom attorney Paul Smith.

Miner responded: "Maybe what you're really looking for is a license agreement."

Smith said that was possible — an outcome that some would consider a win for those who want greater access to content on the Internet.

Whatever happens, college student Omar Ahmad says the entertainment industry has to realize that people his age aren't likely to change their piracy habits, even with the threat of more serious punishments that Congress is considering.

"They're going to continue doing it — that's the truth," says Ahmad, a senior at Seton Hall University who's also manager of the New Jersey school's radio station.

Karaganis at Columbia agrees that young people and the Internet community in general have proven they can influence the entertainment industry, whether it likes it or not.

"Change is inevitable," he says. "The question is how quickly will it happen — and how much of a fortress will be built around intellectual property in the meantime.

"Now, I think all bets are off."

___

Martha Irvine can be reached at mirvine(at)ap.org or via http://twitter.com/irvineap

+++++++++++
網絡版權難破僵局：多數年輕人已形成盜版習慣

　　導語：雖然娛樂行業仍在努力打擊網絡盜版，但隨著盜版在年輕人中逐漸流行，他們將會推動娛樂行業的變革，改變現有模式。


　　盜版觀念

　　現在的年輕人都渴望得到音樂和影視內容——即使是通過非法途徑。哥倫比亞大學的調查發現，在18至29歲的美國年輕人中，有70%承認曾經購買、復制或下載過未經授權的音樂或影視內容，所有成年人的這一比例僅為46%。

　　面對如此根深蒂固的網絡盜版觀念，我們應當何去何從呢？

　　執法部門顯然對部分人進行了懲處，有的被罰款，有的甚至被關進大牢。美國國會也在考慮備受爭議的反盜版立法，禁止搜索引擎提供被控侵權的國外網站鏈接。現行法律也鼓勵媒體巨頭起訴互聯網公司——最著名的案例就是維亞康姆對YouTube發起的十億美元侵權官司。

　　但還有一個更激進的問題需要考慮：倘若竊取內容的年輕人已經不被視為一個問題，情況將會怎樣？倘若他們以及支持網絡內容廣泛普及的人，能夠說服娛樂行業放松對令人垂涎的版權內容的控制，與當前的行業走上相反的發展方向，情況又會怎樣？

　　“真正的問題不在于非法下載盜版內容，而在于內容提供者的創新乏力。”位于費城的德雷克賽爾大學(Drexel University)法律系學生史蒂文·巴德(Steven Budd)說。

　　無論你是否喜歡，這的確是很多巴德同齡人的看法。部分專家認為，他們的看法正在逐漸獲得認可，一方面是他們堅持通過簡單的方式獲取音樂和其他內容，另一方面，互聯網世界也在抗議反盜版立法，并認為這會導致搜索引擎和其他網站承擔不必要的監管職責。

　　“我們發現，這類問題已經引發了實實在在的社會運動。”哥倫比亞大學The American Assembly公共政策研究所副主席喬·卡拉格尼斯(Joe Karaganis)說。最近的這項調查就是該研究所在谷歌(微博)的支持下展開的。

　　例如，維基百科和社交新聞網站Reddit等網站最近就掀起了臨時關站活動，目的是抗議聯邦反盜版立法提案。這些抗議活動也獲得了谷歌、Facebook和Twitter的支持。

　　關鍵因素

　　但還有一件令人意外的事情——很多年輕人未必希望免費獲得音樂和影視節目。位于得梅因的德雷克大學(Drake University)法律系學生斯里坎特·米基林內尼(Srikant Mikkilineni)說：“如果定價合理，而且能夠及時供給，我相信人們愿意為內容付費。”

　　為了不違反法學院的規定，米基林內尼下載音樂和影視節目時都支付了費用。但他卻很不情愿。“他們現在逼我們為同樣的內容交好幾次錢。”他說，他抱怨這種方式并不合理。例如，如果他花15美元購買了一張DVD，便可以在筆記本電腦上觀看，但如果把內容復制到iPod或智能手機上，便屬于違法。

　　很多年輕人認為，蘋果iTunes正是其他娛樂公司可以效仿的對象。“iTunes已經改變了音樂行業的格局，原因是它很方便，比其他渠道(甚至包括非法渠道在內)更簡單。”位于紐約的羅徹斯特理工學院信息技術系學生馬特·加德納(Matt Gardner)說。

　　但方便并非唯一因素，杜克大學最近的一項研究發現，成本是促使大學生非法復制娛樂內容的重要因素。該校研究人員發現，學生收入(包括父母收入在內)越低，越有可能搜索免費的非法內容。

　　為了解決費用問題，該研究的作者建議高校與相應的服務提供商簽訂授權協議，為學生爭取折扣。康奈爾大學已經展開了這種嘗試。在2004至2006年間，一位匿名人士向該校學生捐贈了兩年的Napster服務。但杜克大學的研究顯示，學生最終拒絕因為要使用這一服務而支付更多的雜費，因為這類音樂無法在所有的設備上播放。

　　廣告模式

　　但仍有人懷疑，既然能夠通過盜版方式獲取，學生就不會為此付費，尤其是當這種觀念已經如此根深蒂固時。圣路易斯華盛頓大學歐林商學院經濟學教授格林·麥克唐納(Glenn MacDonald)說：“沒有人會為能夠免費獲得的東西花錢。”

　　所以他問道：是否可以為消費者免費提供音樂和電影，然后讓他們為自己認為值得的內容付費？

　　Radiohead等樂隊已經開始了這種嘗試——從本質上講，他們是利用歌曲來構建歌迷群體，然后吸引他們花錢觀看演唱會，并在演唱會上購買特許商品。

　　麥克唐納說，歌曲變成了廣告。而通過小屏幕觀看電影也可以成為一種動力，吸引人們購買特許商品，或者在具備3D或特殊音效的影院中再看一遍。通過互聯網免費發布的電視節目片段也可以吸引觀眾觀看完整節目。

　　“這就像是酒吧，他們贈送花生，吸引你購買啤酒。”麥克唐納說。他指出，音樂公司已經能從演唱會、特許商品和授權產品中抽取分成，至少能夠抵消一些音樂錄制成本。歌迷們已經越來越愿意花大價錢觀看現場表演了。

　　麥克唐納說：“通過努力為歌手創作歌曲，尤其是打造更好的演唱會，音樂公司可以獲得更好的回報。”

　　但美國電視與廣播演員聯合會(American Federation of Television and Radio Artists)總法律顧問托馬斯·卡朋特(Thomas Carpenter)卻表示，這個想法不錯，但并不現實。按照現狀來看，音樂人有90%的收益來自與唱片銷量直接相關的版權收益，包括合法的下載活動。他表示，對演員來說，版稅約為50%。

　　“這事關重大，遠超多數人的想象。”卡朋特說。他還補充道：“要創作優秀內容，就要獲得回報，并利用這些項目的收益支持未來的創作”

　　不過，就連版權保護專業人士也認為，是時候尋找一些折中方案了。美國注冊商標和版權法律師邁克爾·格拉漢姆(Michael Graham)說：“的確沒有設計出具有可操作性的合理銷售和分銷模式，脫節很嚴重。”與很多人一樣，他認為iTunes為未來發展樹立了標桿。

　　更多選擇

　　另外一種可能的模式是：與網絡服務提供商簽訂授權協議。例如，由這些企業向內容制作者支付費用，這樣一來，他們就可以免費向用戶提供內容，或是每月收取訂閱費。

　　目前的熱門選擇包括網絡流媒體音樂服務Spotify和Pandora。還有人也認同Netflix等影視服務，盡管有人抱怨Netflix的流媒體服務限制過多。在去年對流媒體視頻和DVD郵寄業務分別收費后，Netflix已經流失了大量用戶——這也再次凸顯出，公眾可能在這些服務中受到的影響。

　　美國聯邦法院受理的一起重大訴訟則將這些問題推到了風口浪尖。雖然初審法院已經裁定YouTube并未侵權，但維亞康姆仍然提起上訴。該公司稱，YouTube憑借用戶發布的盜版視頻賺取了數百萬美元，其中包括部分維亞康姆的內容。YouTube表示，該公司已經按照法律規定，在發現盜版行為后迫使用戶移除內容。

　　在美國曼哈頓第二巡回上訴法院去年10月的審理過程中，羅杰·米納(Roger Miner)法官問：“這些損失到底是怎么算出來的？”

　　“數字很大。”維亞康姆的代理律師保羅·史密斯(Paul Smith)回答道。

　　“或許你們真正想要的是一份授權協議。”米納說。

　　史密斯說有可能。對于那些希望通過互聯網獲取更多內容的人來說，這個結果將是一種勝利。

　　無論事態如何發展，大學生奧馬爾·艾哈邁德(Omar Ahmad)表示，娛樂行業都必須明白，像他這種年紀的人不愿改變盜版行為，即使面臨更加嚴重的懲罰。“他們還會繼續這么做——這是事實。”艾哈邁德說。他是塞頓霍爾大學(Seton Hall University)的大四學生，同時還負責管理學校的廣播站。

　　卡拉格尼斯也認同這一觀點，他認為，年輕人和網民基本已經證明，他們可以影響娛樂行業，無論對方愿意與否。“改變是不可避免的。”他說，“問題是速度有多快——以及圍繞知識產權構建的堡壘有多強大。”

　　“現在，我認為一切都是徒勞。”他說。