Everything for nothing on the web?

Posted Feb 2, 2012 By Charles Gordon

If there was a way to sneak into the NHL All-Star Game without paying, some of us would have. Most of us wouldn't.

That's the way we were brought up. If somebody is selling something and you want it, you pay for it. But if someone offered us a pirated version of the all-star game video for nothing over the Internet, a lot more of us would take that. And, of course, that also applies to music, books and movies. A disturbing number of us feel that we are entitled to free, music, books and movies over the Internet.

In recent weeks there has been a huge outcry, mostly in the U.S., over proposed anti-piracy legislation. Millions participated in online protests of one sort or another, to the extent that some American legislators who originally supported the bill are said to be getting cold feet.

Why, exactly, do some people feel entitled to free content over the Internet? Is it because they paid for their computers? You know, they paid for the washing machines. Do they expect free clothes? Is it because they pay for the Internet connection? Is it because they're cheap? Is it because they don't respect the right of artists to be paid for their work.

It's an important question, because the Internet has a good chance to wipe out the music industry and the publishing industry. Companies have been steadily going under for the last few years. Musicians and writers have seen their earning opportunities drastically diminished at the same time as consumers have feasted on free content.

New copyright legislation, both here and in the U.S., is an attempt to right some of those wrongs. Inevitably, there are details that need to be changed, but most of the outcry has nothing to do with details. It has to do with the principle of the thing: that we have a right to everything, for free.

Again, why? Leonard Cohen has a new album out this week. He's worked hard over a long career, provided joy and inspiration to millions of people. Isn't that worth something? Or do we somehow have a right to his music without paying for it. One argument that will be made is that Leonard Cohen doesn't need the money and neither does the big company that records him. But most of the victims of Internet piracy are not the Leonard Cohens, Sonys or Celine Dions of this world. Artists who get rich from their music are in the minority.

Most of the victims of Internet piracy are struggling artists who have financed their own projects and are trying to make an honest dollar from them. This is not taking a quarter from a payphone, it is stealing from the mom-and-pop store down the street. It is interesting to note that among the supporters of the legislation are unions representing both artists and craftspeople employed in the entertainment industry. These are not wealthy entertainers, just working people who realize that their livelihood is at stake. (Disclosure alert: I am a member of the musicians' union, but am not selling CDs.)

One of the targets of the controversial legislation is the big offshore operator who sends pirated material back to North American consumers. There won't be too many defending him. But that guy couldn't exist without his customers and his customers are ordinary people who are not willing to pay for content produced by others. Some recent attempts to punish ordinary people for this have been clumsy and heavy-handed, but that doesn't make what they are doing right.

The debate will move closer to home in the next few years as newspapers, some of which now attack copyright laws as infringements on freedom of speech, begin to charge for the Internet content they have been giving away for free. Will that be you, trying to sneak into the sports section?