It seems that the owners of intellectual property are on a losing streak when it comes to protecting their investment from piracy. Yesterday the High Court of Australia rejected an appeal to stop file sharing company iiNet allowing it's customers to download movies and TV programmes for free - because doing so infringes copyright.
This comes hard on the heels of a decision to allow customers of a mobile phone company to download sporting coverage with just a few seconds delay, on the basis that it's customers were actually doing the same as when they used a home recorder to capture images for their own entertainment. Once again, it was the principle of copyright that was the loser.
The sticking point is a rejection of the right of whoever owns that copyright to make a profit by asking a fee for it's use. The makers of movies recoup their production costs and make a profit when we pay money to see the film in a movie theatre. The sporting industry gets it's money when spectators fill grandstands to watch sport - and when they auction television and radio replay rights - for a fee.
In more recent times, viewing movies and watching sport has been extended to the Internet and the plethora of innovations - I-Pads, Smart phones - that make mobile viewing possible. Court decisions no longer seem to uphold the right of the copyright owner to charge a fee and govern who will - and who will not - be permitted use of this intellectual property.
These decisions will be applauded by some " free spirit " people, but they will come at a price. If this sort of piracy becomes legal, then the entire sporting/entertainment structure as we know it will come crashing down. We will have removed the " profit incentive " that underpins the entertainment industry.
Making a movie costs big money. It is a risky business. The investors hope for a " hit " that will bring rich rewards, but some fail to even make their production costs. If piracy is allowed to circulate the finished product for free, then finding people to invest in movie production will wither away - and far fewer productions will result.
The entire rationale of all the sporting codes revolves around viewing fees financing competitions. One source of finance is bums on seats in stadiums, but another is the exclusive deal with television networks which return the money to keep top players in the team - and it is these megastars that the viewers pay to watch.
Someone once famously said that " there is no such thing as a free lunch ".
If High court decisions continue to destroy intellectual property rights, then the days when we enjoy movies and watch our favourite team play sport may be numbered.
Once the profit motive is gone - so is the entertainment !.
No comments:
Post a Comment