In today’s modernistic society, the advent of new technology- the internet- has created a solid platform for individuals to co-exist in a virtual world without the need of physical interaction. It has ultimately had a revolutionary impact on commerce and culture (Budi, 2013, p1). You could assume the term globalization is the ultimate culprit for the dissemination of this revolutionary advent. Since the United States developed this new founded innovatory technology, the demand for such power had caught on through out the world, causing the majority of societies to be influenced. With such an exciting and influential impact globalization has had on many societies, many neglect the repercussions it dispenses. ‘Until the 1990’s, the music industry played a leading role in the distribution of recorded music’ (Martin et al, 2010, p.1). The innocence of this quote to me is un canning. This all changed until the advent of the Internet and MP3s, enabled individuals to digitally compress music and ultimately opened up new opportunities for the production and consumption of music files (Martin, Moore, Salter 2010, p.1). Is this fair? It would be assumed that the distribution of music files from individuals is of course without the consent of its legitimate producers. This essay will discuss the issues surrounding the counterfeit economy, and whether or not certain fundamental factors may help in liquidating this illicit trade.
The term piracy is described as using, manipulating and distributing a product without the proper recognition of its original creator (Budi, 2013, p1). Sharing music files has somewhat, become a norm in today's society. Going onto websites such as kickasstorrents, or one channel, give people the opportunity to download music, movies, and much more at the click of a button without having to pay a cent. The rights of an organization’s ‘intellectual property’ has ultimately been abused and manipulated through the practice of piracy. The use of the word ‘piracy’ as indicated in the RIAA website for the prevention of file sharing, is stated as being too benign of a term (RIAA, Representing Music 2013). They describe pirates as thief’s, criminals and other terms to really ‘devalue’ these individuals. The term ‘devalue’ will be later discussed. The RIAA works to protect ‘the intellectual property and First Amendment rights of artists and music labels’ (RIAA, Representing Music, 2013). This is important because since the introduction of music piracy on a global platform, it is causing 12.5 billion of economic losses each year as well as ‘71,060 U.S. jobs lost, a loss of $2.7 billion in workers' earnings, and a loss of $422 million in tax revenues, $291 million in personal income tax and $131 million in lost corporate income’ (RIAA, Representing Music, 2013).
Jeoung et all, conceptualize causes of piracy by drawing closely to the sort of behaviors that pirates portray. They developed a theory called ‘perceived risk’ that can be defined as ‘rationalizing a combination of uncertainty plus, seriousness of outcome involved’ (Jeoung et all, 2012, p.91). What this means is that consumers may rationalize their motives for doing something illegally. For example, I am sitting down, with a computer on my lap, the surroundings are safe, I am on kickasstorrents, and a movie I really want to watch is ready for distribution. I know its illegal, but it would be so much cheaper and convenient to just press that download button. But the thought of piracy prosecutors scouting these illegal channels, seeing who is downloading illegally, plays on my conscience. So what do I do? Do I become conscious of the illegality of counterfeit distribution? Or do I become a piracy consumer? I download of course! I am a piracy consumer, and in my opinion, it is not the most flattering representation.
In the article The Economic Impact of Counterfeiting and Piracy the author articulates how ‘Counterfeiters and pirates target products where profit margins are high’ (Immar 2007, p.9). The demand of certain products from potential consumers ignites the counterfeit economy. When demand is high for a certain product, and the price is out of reach for some consumers, that product will be supplied in mass quantities, at a cheap and affordable price and delivered to the demands of that targeted consumer base. Designer products for an affordable price. It sounds amazing doesn’t it? Many commodities around the world get copied and distributed without the recognition of the original supplier of those products. When I think about my trips to China and Florence, I remember markets filled with the latest copy of handbags ranging from Channel, Coach and Burberry. You could purchase designer wallets, perfumes or pens. Anything you wanted it was there, supplied in mass quantities from all the designer labels. Even though I believe that all designer products are ridiculously overpriced and glorified, I do believe that taking a persons idea, without proper recognition of that product, is stealing. The production and distribution of counterfeit goods is a multi-billion dollar global problem that has caused serious economic complications for consumers, businesses and governments. I still remember returning home from Florence with a new counterfeit Coach bag, and having it removed from me when I came through customs in Australia. Many organizations use copyright, which is a legal concept to protect and to accredit the copyright holder of their work. However, those that violate this legal concept are causing immeasurable damage and affecting the sales of many industries legitimate goods and services.
The Counterfeit Economy is estimated to be worth about 8% of the worlds trade and 'and is worth an estimated 475 billion a year (International Anti-counterfeiting Coalition, 2008)' (Michaelidou & Christodoulides, p.977). It is a hard industry to not get sucked into. I mean paying 50 dollars for a 400 dollar bag, that looks the same and feels the same, seems like the way to go. I have bought numerous counterfeit goods, and downloaded music illegally. 'File–sharing, according to the industry, is unfair to recorded artists, because they have intellectual property rights in proprietary recordings’ (Martin, Moore, Salter 2010, p.1). However, many policies have been put to action to try and liquidate the counterfeit economy. Martin, Moore, and Salter discuss the concept 'devaluation and validation'. The Music industry try to devalue those responsible for distributing and downloading music illegally by recognizing them as criminals, and no better than those who raid banks, steal cars, or even kill someone. This of course triggers a conscious reaction due to the stigmatization of these devalued representations. This tactic is there to scare those responsible for file sharing, and risk heavily penalization. I must admit, it is very intimidating, and I always think twice before clicking the download or share button. Especially when you have organizations like the RIAA who market and advertise the disastrous consequences that pirate consumers are subjected to. It is no wonder that I would feel a little uneasy. When you watch a DVD, there is always information regarding how illegal it is to distribute and reproduce that film, and of course the emphasis on the heavy penalties. The RIAA is there to educate the populace about the laws associated with pirating, the repercussions of violating these laws, and ways to persuade the general populace that piracy is a damaging trade. To the delight of many industries during the years 2007-2009 that were being pirated, ‘the percent of Internet users downloading music illegally declined from 19 to 14 percent, while the percentage engaging in legal music downloading grew from 16 to 20 percent’ (RIAA 2013, p1). Even though this sounded prosperous, this of course was short-lived. This is due to the impact of validation. 'File–sharing participants are validated when they are humanized — given faces, motivations and personal details — and shown to be behaving like anyone else, namely not like criminals’ (Martin, Moore, Salter 2010, p.1). Therefore if well respected people are validated, and support file sharing, the cycle of supplying and distributing counterfeit goods and services will continue. This is because it means that people will respect the validated individual and may follow in their footsteps towards the support of file sharing, and the distribution of counterfeit goods and services. Lilly Allen can be considered as a validated individual. Initially, she reprimanded the piracy trade. This is only a rational response, as she is a leading music artist, and the thought of someone distributing and consuming her music without any legal recognition is a reasonable reaction to this trade. However, as she realized how impenetrable this industry was, she later accepted it, whilst admitting to also be apart of this subculture.
The innovation of new technologies paved the introduction of the Internet and has ultimately developed ways for entities to digitally compress music and ultimately opened up new opportunities for the production and consumption of music files and other commodities. This in turn causes an increasing deficit for music industries and artists. ‘Counterfeiters and pirates target products where profit margins are high’ (Immar 2007, p.9). The demand of certain products that are out of reach for potential consumers ignites the counterfeit economy. Therefore the most sought after product in the commodity trade is therefore multiplied and distributed at a cheaper price than its original, to those who cannot afford to pay the initial price. There are many industries that attempt to liquidate the counterfeit economy, however I feel it will be an ongoing process that will keep on expanding due to the affordability and convenience of these sought after counterfeit commodities.
Reference List
Budi, S 2013, ‘Determinants of Consumer Intention to Pirate Digital Products’, International journal of Cultural Studies, Vol.5, no. 3, p.1 retrieved 6th October 2013 http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&sid=8d861e6c-c80f-436d-a6f2-4f4e732706ca%40sessionmgr110&hid=16&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=bth&AN=88382366
Immar ,E 2007 ‘THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF COUNTERFEITING AND PIRACY’ ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, OECD, retreived 7th of october 2013< http://www.oecd.org/industry/ind/38707619.pdf>
p.9.
Keun J, Kexin, Z, Moutaz, K 2012, ‘Consumer Piracy Risk: Conceptualization and Measurement in Music Sharing’, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, vol 16, no. 3, pp. 92. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&sid=8d861e6c-c80f-436d-a6f2-4f4e732706ca%40sessionmgr110&hid=110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl
Martin, B, Moore, C and Salter, C. 2010, ‘Sharing music files: tactics of a challenge to the industry’, First Monday, vol. 15, no. 1
N. Michaelidou, G, Christodoulides, 2011 Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 27, No. 9/10, p. 976
