Balancing+Proprietary+and+Consumer+Interests

The issue of file sharing has escalated in recent years as arguments crystalize over the issue of intellectual property. Moore (2011) defined intellectual property as “a non physical property that is the product of original thought,” and that our laws protect “rights to produce and control physical instantiations of those ideas” (p. 1). Proponents in favour of strict digital copyright legislation have launched anti-piracy campaigns in an attempt to “advance innovative consumer choices, while protecting the rights of all who make something of value with their minds, their passion and their unique creative vision” (Why We Care About Copyright, para. 1). Opposition to digital copyright legislation has been argued in various forms, from violations of rights and freedoms to a notion that all intellectual property is the culmination of collective thought. Ingram and Hinduja (2008) argued against music file sharing in accordance with current United States copyright laws “as non-owners must have explicit permission to reproduce or duplicate protected works, whether for profit or merely for personal listening pleasure” (p. 336). File sharing is unlawful “because an exact copy of that sound recording has been reproduced onto another computer system” (p. 336). This argument values the rights of a proprietor to profit from an idea and its physical manifestation as audio or visual content. The New York City government launched a public awareness campaign echoing these proprietary sentiments. The authors asserted, “content theft has already cost our country 140,000 jobs” (What Is It? para. 1). While the estimate is not particularly well-defined, the message is clear. This anti-piracy campaign is concerned with “lost revenue for the film, TV, music and fashion industries” and that “watching a pirated movie or downloading free copies of bands’ albums is not a victimless crime” (What Can I Do About it? para. 1). While the voice of the corporate stakeholders has been well publicized on the issue of copyright, the ensuing backlash from users has also garnered attention. Moore (2011) argued in favour of file sharing, claiming, “it is not clear that we own our feelings, character traits, and experiences” (p. 7). In addition, “individuals should not have exclusive and perpetual ownership of the works that they create because these works are built upon the shared knowledge of society” (p. 12). Proponents of this view see content as a product of the collective in that all ideas are borrowed, inspired by, and generated from the work of someone else. They reject proprietary attempts to block open access to what they consider as the contributions of a collective. The debate over who owns intellectual property is a heated one. Those in favour of strict copyright legislation demand to be compensated for the content they produce. Users, on the other hand, argue that content is a product of collective thought and reject ownership of intellectual property. How then do we balance the proprietary demands of producers with consumer demand for flexibility, sharing and open access?


 * Moore, A. (2011). Intellectual property. The Stanford Encyclopedia of**
 * Philosophy. P. 1-15.**
 * Ingram, J.R. & Hinduja, S. (2008). Neutralizing music piracy: an empirical**
 * examination. Deviant Behavior 29(4). P 334-366. doi:10.1080/01639620701588131.**