I would btw also argue that piracy is to some extent a result of a radical change in the dynamics between supply and demand that new technology has brought.
There are many reasons for this.
Back when music and films were still mainly distributed in either broadcast (TV and radio) or physical form (VHS, DVD, LP, CD), the amount of products currently available was very limited. Even the largest music stores had something like a hundred thousand records available (and that was rare). Compared to what digital platforms offer today, those were laughable numbers. I had a pretty varying taste, and yet I could basicly buy all my CD's from one store that was about the size of a kiosk. A shop that size could have a competitive catalog in comparison to other stores, as long as they were carefully selective. Now they couldn't compete with a well-stocked iPod.
Basicly what you used to have was a few evergreens (Doors, Beatlets, Zappa etc) and what ever else the record companies were kind enough to put out. Basicly contempary stuff. Music that was just a few years old was often simply not available, and the amount of music offered to you was expanding slowly.
There was also a lot less music and films made. I've read that these days there's more music coming out every year than it did in the all of eighties. I'm not sure if this is true, but in any case the numbers of new artists are staggering. There is something like 8 million artists on MySpace now. Even if they all had just one song there, that alone is huge pool of music to choose from. (But who uses MySpace anymore?)
So previously new music had to compete with only a few other artists, essentially maybe about a hundred albums that were even remotely comparable, more propably something like a dozen that the customer wouldn't have. Now they essentially have to face a market that is saturated with more music than anyone could possibly consume, and more piling in every year with nothing ever leaving the marketplace. And all that is available without leaving home.
Plus, physical recordings didn't last. People bought their favourite LP:s several times due to them being worn out, bought the same thing on a cassette possibly and then again on CD. Now when you have it, you can make as many backups as you feel like. (Not that you would need them due to the internet, but...)
In addition, video games have come in and taken a much bigger portion of our time and teenagers now have their own TV's and their own computers. Thus the active audience is actually propably smaller than before.
I would guess that the number of somewhat interesting products easily available for most customers (those not living next to some megasized record store) is up something like a factor of 100 from what it was twenty years ago.
A radical change in the ratio of supply and demand inevitably means that the perceived value of a product plummets. Essentially we are in a situation were most music has no monetary value to most customers, even if they like it. And If something has no monetary value in your eyes, you will not see copying it as stealing.
(Note that I'm not saying it's okay. I'm just saying what I think is a notable factor in the question of perceived morality of piracy.)
And of course, since piracy also affects the world around it by making even more music even more easily and cheaply available, it lowers the perceived value of music even more.
Thus we are now in a situation where artists pretty much need to be thankful that anyone is listening, and they are increasingly ready to spread their music around for free. Which again lowers the perceived monetary value of music. It's pretty common these days that having a quality band that puts out pretty good records every now and then is a hobby for all involved. Basicly, artists are paying for their music to be out there. This stops the marketplace from "correcting" itself.
|