Copyright infringement has been around since the beginning of recordable media. People have produced bootlegs of music and video, and the phenomenon particularly rose in popularity in recent times with the introduction of the Internet. Sharing files, whether they be music, movies, television shows, books, articles, software, games, or whatever, is easier than ever with little to no consequences. This process involves free content and commercial content, with the latter attracting trade groups and corporations to sue and hassle downloaders and distributors of illegally obtained media. The Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America are notorious for their legal action against alleged pirates. Lawsuits have reached millions of dollars and have outraged much of the tech industry and the Internet.

Obviously there are two sides to the argument. In one view, pirating seems reasonable. Movie tickets reach up to fifteen dollars in certain regions, and CDs and DVDs are released sometimes at twenty and thirty dollars, respectively. It’s commonly agreed that these costs are ridiculous; if Nine Inch Nails can offer a 36-track album in a lossless format for five dollars, why should someone buy the physical album? Luckily some of the industries realized their tactics aren’t working so well, and there are efforts to combat the problem in a different manner, such as NBC Universal and Fox’s Hulu or Gonzo’s deal with three streaming video providers. Some might say with the changing culture and society, companies must adapt to new business models for revenue.

On the other hand, downloading commercial content is still illegal. It is work that was released to be sold and not to be distributed freely. If there is a free, equivalent alternative that is easily accessible, (most) people will pursue that route to save money. In some situations it is perfectly fine; open-source software is a great example of something free. But for commercial products, it is wrong, but if it leaves a wad of cash in people’s pockets, it’s acceptable for them.

So why do people feel entitled to this content for free? When these consumers have no actual right to obtain this content, they constantly download the latest hit songs, blockbuster movies, anticipated games, and recent television show episodes, never satisfied with the seemingly endless stream of content. It’s as if simply because something is created it is required to be public domain. That definitely isn’t true, but access to this vast network of information and data tweaked people’s minds into thinking that they should be allowed to obtain content for free, despite the hard work the providers or authors may have done. It’s only right for them to charge for the services and materials presented.

But the world doesn’t seem to work that way anymore. After all, pirating will increase awareness of a product or work and theoretically could also increase the amount of people that will purchase it legitimately. Trent Reznor grossed $1.6 million in one week even when he himself uploaded a “preview” version of Ghosts I-IV onto torrent sites. Fans and music industry critics raved about these results, but many overlooked the fact that Nine Inch Nails is a band with an enormous fanbase; the band has been around for nearly twenty years and Reznor has the potential to rake in that much money. Singers, bands, and rappers without notable successes behind them won’t necessarily be able to take advantage of this business model very well; some ten thousand friends on MySpace can only do so much. It’s also more than likely only a handful of those “friends” will purchase the albums released by the artists.

Companies don’t deserve profits for setting high costs for media or even simply access to or authorization for usage of the media or product. However, this doesn’t mean people are now permitted to acquire that content freely. Just… don’t buy it. Although copyright infringement is wrong (in most cases), it’s much more satsifying to receive content at my convenience. There may be “good” and “bad” reasons for getting this content too; whether it’s to protest Bandai Visual’s absurd true tears pricing or it’s simply to “preview” a music album. Taking illegal actions, unfortunately, doesn’t justify good, honest intent in the end.

This post is tagged bandai visual, free content, piracy, RIAA