 |
| (Prompt Tech Toons 2008) |
Martin, Moore and Salter suggest that those who oppose file sharing seek to devalue those who engage in ‘peer to peer’ file sharing as
thieves and criminals (2010), however similar devaluation tactics are also used
by those who share files to justify for their actions (Hart 2012). Common reasons
given for digital file sharing include that it only hurts big business, that
digital products are overpriced, and that file sharing allows consumers to access
content not yet released in their country (Hart 2012).
An inquiry into the
price of digital products in Australia conducted by the Parliamentary Standing
Committee has recently provided some validation for the arguments put forward
by those who devalue the ‘legitimate’ digital media industry (Australian Policy
Online 2013). The report titled ‘At
what cost? IT pricing and the Australia tax’ suggests that there is no
justification for the difference in prices of digital technology in Australia
compared to that of other countries, going so far as to encourage consumers to
investigate ways to circumvent geo-blocks to avoid paying higher prices for
digital content than those in other countries (Australian Policy Online 2013).
The
inquiry also represents an attempt by the Australian government to deal with
another major challenge presented by the digital age, the techno-legal time
gap. The techno-legal time gap refers to the inability of legislators to keep
up with changes in technology and the gaps and loopholes in the regulation of
the industry that result from this. The lack of regulation of the distribution
of digital content has meant that those opposed to file sharing have attempted
to make examples of individuals and organisations which engage in the activity
by taking legal action, as occurred in Pirate
Bay court case (Larsson 2013).
However, this response to the problem has just
inflamed the debate about whether file sharing is right or wrong, and has
prompted some in the industry to validate the practice by promoting the merits
of file sharing and endorsing the character of people who share files. It is
clear that in the absence of any clear indication from legislators on the
issue, the debate about file sharing and digital piracy will continue to rage.
Reference List:
Australian Policy Online 2013, ‘At what cost? IT pricing and the
Australia Tax’, retrieved 11 August 2013, <http://apo.org.au/research/what-cost-it-pricing-and-australia-tax>.
Hart, RW 2012, ‘Top 10 Reasons People Use To Justify Pirating
Digital Content (And Why They’re Wrong)’, Lit
Reactor, 31 August, retrieved 11 August 2013, <http://litreactor.com/columns/top-10-reasons-people-use-to-justify-pirating-digital-content-and-why-theyre-wrong>.
Larsson, S 2013, ‘Metaphors, law and digital phenomena: the Swedish
pirate bay court case’, International
Journal of Law and Information Technology, July 2013, retrieved 11 August
2013, <http://ijlit.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/07/19/ijlit.eat009.ful>.
Martin, B, Moore, C and Salter, C 2010, ‘Sharing music files:
Tactics of a challenge to the industry’, First
Monday, vol. 15, no. 12, retrieved 11 August 2013, <http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2986/2680#p4>.
Prompt Tech Toons 2008, 'Piracy: the eternal battle', retrieved 11 August 2013, <http://www.prompt-communications.com/techtoons/2008_04_01_archive.html>.
