Thread: Researcher Calls Seeders “Robin Hoods of the Digital Age”

Joe Cox, an economist at the University of Portsmouth Business School, says that many file-sharers are “altruistic” and don’t think sharing files is illegal since they’re not profiting from the practice, and thinks the only way to solve the problem is to declare creative works a “public good” and support them through some sort of taxation.

Joe Cox, an economist at the University of Portsmouth Business School, is suggesting a dramatic rethink of how copyright holders tackle piracy after discovering that there are a number of file-sharers who don’t believe that what they’re doing is morally wrong.

Cox used a Finnish national survey of 6,103 people in Finland which detailed the file-sharing habits, socio-economic status, and attitudes of the respondents towards legal and illegal file sharing. Ninety-five per cent of the respondents were male and the average age was 28.

“Some file sharers see themselves as masked philanthropists – the Robin Hoods of the digital age,” he says. “They believe their activities shouldn’t be considered illegal, which means finding the most appropriate form of deterrence and punishment is extremely difficult.”

He divides file-sharers into two categories – leechers and seeders – and characterizes the latter as having an obvious “altruistic” streak since they make content available without benefit of financial gain.

“My research shows they are motivated by feelings of altruism, community spirit and are seeking recognition among other members of the file sharing community. I think it’s likely some benefit is also derived from a feeling of ‘getting one over on the system’ too,” adds Cox.

“Seeders seem to consider the expected cost of punishment to be minimal, which is largely due to the low perceived likelihood of detection. It’s as if they believe the peer esteem they’ll generate from their infamy will outweigh any of the costs associated with their activities.”

It’s distinguishing between the motivations of the two groups that has fascinated Cox, and important, he says, for determining what approach copyright holders should take to fight piracy.

“The survey data suggested there was a deep-seated belief that this type of activity shouldn’t be illegal, that there was no criminal act involved,” he continued in an interview with PCPro.

“That makes it very hard to deter with advertising to suggest that you’re funding piracy, that you’re a cheap knock-off merchant, because they believe what they’re doing is morally right. And it’s these guys that record labels and movie studios are most interested in getting to. They’re the source.”

Entertainment companies have long been trying to equate physical piracy with digital piracy, particularly of late with the “Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act” which proponents claim will help “protect consumers.” Prosecuting those who distribute cultural works without financial incentive is helps only businesses and not consumers.

Cox think the survey suggests the need for a “radical rethink” in how content is funded, and thinks public funding is the solution.

“The phenomena of the record label and the movie studio pretty much come into their own in the 20th century and I think they are a 20th century phenomena,” he says. “Before that opera, ballet, and music were funded on a system of patronage.”

Where it gets really interesting is where Cox compares music and movies to “public goods” that you “can’t exclude people from using.” The Internet has made it possible to share “perfect reproductions” with limitless people and there’s really no way to stop it. This is why they become a “public good.” If the free market becomes unable to properly sustain the production of creative works then society becomes obligated to step in and support it.

“With street lighting or national defence, these are things that government funds through taxation,” he continues. “It would probably be a bit radical to say the government should fund the creative industries through taxation, but there are creative ways knocking around at the moment.”

Broadband connection taxes, the so-called “iPod tax,” and other ideas have all made the rounds over the years, but most have been met with vocal criticism by those who think it simply rewards those copyright holders like the music and movie industries that continually refuse to adapt to the new digital reality. Nobody wants to reward ignorance.

In any event, Cox believes that file-sharing is a “significant threat in terms of loss of employment and revenues,” and merely hopes that his research will lead to an honest discussion about the problem so that stakeholders can develop more realistic solutions.

See the interview

Source: Researcher Calls Seeders

This article is very interesting.

Broadband connection taxes, the so-called “iPod tax,”

First time I've heard about this xD

Yeah, why not tell seeders as "Robin Hood"

Interesting. I'm not sure I completely agree with him though on a few points. This just sounds like one of many other antiquated perspectives looking in on the file sharing phenomenon.

One 2 words for this: totally pointless.