Despite all the evidence to the contrary rights holders are able to convince governments around the world that piracy is a problem best faced with legislation rather than outright competition. It’s been shown time and time again that access to a reasonably priced legitimate service results in drastic reductions in the rates of piracy and, funnily enough, increased revenue for the businesses that adopt this new strategy. Australia had been somewhat immune to the rights lobby’s ploys for a while, with several high court rulings not finding in their favour. However our current government (and, unfortunately, the opposition) seems more than happy to bend to the whims of this group with their most recent bow coming in the form of a website blocking bill.
The bill itself clocks in at a mere 9 pages with the explanatory notes not going much further. Simply put it provides a legislative avenue for rights holders to compel ISPs to block access to sites that hold infringing material through the use of a court injunction. How that blocking should be done isn’t mentioned at all, nor is there any mention of recourse activities that a site can undertake to have themselves unblocked should they find themselves a target of an injunction. Probably the only diamond in this pile of horseshit of legislation is the protection that ISPs get from costs born out of this process, but only if they choose not to fight any injunction that may be placed upon them. However all of that is moot when compared to the real issue at hand here.
It’s just not going to fucking work.
As I wrote last year when Brandis and co were soliciting ideas for this exact legislation no matter what kind of blocking the ISPs employ (which, let’s be honest here, will be the lowest and most painless form of blocking they can get away with) it will be circumvented instantly by anyone and everyone. The Australian government isn’t the first government to engage in wholesale blocking of sites and so solutions to get around them are plentiful, many of them completely free to access. Hell with a very healthy amount of VPN usage in Australia already most people already have a method by which to cut the ISPs completely out of the picture, rendering any action they take completely moot.
The big problem that I, and many others, have with legislation like this is that it sets a bad precedent that could be used to justify further site blocking policies down the line. It doesn’t take much effort to take this bill, rework it to target other objectionable content and then have that pushed through parliament. Sure, we can hope that the process means that such policies won’t make it through due to the obvious chilling effects that it might have, however this legislation faced no opposition from either of the major parties so it follows that future ones could see just as slim opposition. Worst still there’s almost no chance that it will ever be repealed as no government ever wants to give up power it’s granted itself.
In the end this is just another piece of evidence to show that our current government has a fundamental lack of understanding of technology and its implications. The bill is worthless, a bit of pandering to the rights lobbyists who will wield it with reckless abandon which will fail it achieve its goals from day one. Already there are numerous sites telling users how to circumvent it and there is absolutely no amount of legislation that can be passed to stop them. All we can hope for now is that this doesn’t prove to be the first step on a slippery slope towards larger scale censorship as the Great Firewall of Australia begins to smoulder.
For us Australians the reasons behind our high rates of piracy are clear: we want the same things that people are able to get access to overseas at the same prices that they receive them for yet we are unable to get them. Our situation has been steadily improving over the past couple years with many notable international services now being available on our shores however we’re still the last on the list for many things, fuelling further piracy. Of course this has prompted all sorts of reactions from rights holder groups hoping to stem the tide of piracy in the misguided hope that it will somehow translate into sales. The latest volley comes in the form of the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) 2015 which, yet again, attempts to address the issue in the dumbest way possible.
Essentially the amendment would empower rights holders to get an injunction against Carriage Service Providers (a broader term that encompasses all telecommunications providers) to block access to a site that either infringes on copyright or enables infringement. The amendment starts out by saying it’s prescriptive however the language used in it is anything but, often painting broad strokes which could conceivably be construed as being applicable to a wide range of sites and services, even VPNs in some cases. Whilst there are provisions in there that are supposed to prevent misuse and abuse much of it is left up to the discretion of the court with very little recourse for sites that find themselves blocked as part of it.
To be clear the legislation targets foreign sites only but makes no strict provisions for the site being targeted to be notified that they are facing an injunction. That’s left to the party seeking the injunction to do, something which I’m sure no rights holders will attempt to do. Whilst the law does say that this law isn’t meant to target sites that are mostly based on user generated content however it’s clear that the intention is to go after index sites, many of which are primarily based on user submissions. This puts the legislation at odds with the current safe harbor provisions which could see a site blocked due to a number of users submitting things which put it in the realms of “aiding infringement”.
Of course whatever blocking method is used will be readily circumvented, as it has always been in the past.
The rhetoric that’s surrounding this amendment is worse still, with the CEO of ARIA saying things like “We’ve made the content available at a reasonable price [but] piracy hasn’t diminished”. Funnily enough that’s a pretty easy thing to verify (or rebuke, as the case is) and last year Spotify did just that and found that music piracy, in Australia specifically, has been on the downward trend ever since the music streaming services came to our shores. Strangely enough Australians aren’t a bunch of nasty pirates who will repeatedly pillage the rights holder’s pockets, we’re just seeking a legitimate service that’s priced appropriately. If the rights holders spent as much money on deploying those services here in Australia as they did lobbying for copyright reform they might find their efforts better rewarded, both monetarily and in the form of good will.
Hopefully this amendment gets shot down before it becomes reality as it would do nothing to help the rights holder’s situation and would just be another burden on the Australian court system. It’s been shown time and time again that providing Australians with the same services that are available overseas will reduce piracy rates significantly and that draconian ideas like this do nothing to stem the tide of illegitimate content. The companies that are realising this are the ones that are killing the old media giants and things like this are just the last death throes of an outdated business model that is no longer relevant in today’s digital economy.
Copyright law in Australia isn’t as cut and dry as many believe it to be. Whilst some of our laws are in line with what the general public thinks they are (I.E. United States based) there’s a lot of things that are more draconian, like the lack of safe harbor provisions, and others that are a lot more lax like the lack of any formal infringement notification systems. This has often been cited as one of the main reasons why piracy is so rampant in Australia although that’s really only a minor part of the equation. Still this hasn’t stopped rights holders from lobbying members of our parliament into getting the laws changed and a recently leaked discussion paper, from the offices of Senator Brandis and Minister Turnbull, showcases a rather disturbing future for Australian copyright.
The discussion paper reads as a wish list of measures that rights holders would like to see implemented that would be used to curb copyright infringement behaviour within Australia, taking inspiration from similar schemes overseas. The proposed measures will be familiar to anyone who’s been involved in the copyright debate ranging from requiring ISPs to take “reasonable action” against infringing users (something our High Court has ruled against in the past), blocking websites that facilitate infringement and the measures required to support those processes. There are some potential positive questions for discussion in there, like the expansion of safe harbor provisions, but the rest of them will only cause more headaches than they will solve.
The first discussion point around ISP’s taking “reasonable steps” towards discouraging users from engaging in copyright infringement is a blatant attempt to skirt around the high court’s previous ruling that there are no such steps that an ISP can take. Essentially it comes down to a question of liability as increasing the exposure that the ISPs have make them a better target for litigation than the thousands of individuals beneath them do. The worst thing about this is that it will most certainly lead to increased costs for consumers with no benefits for anyone but the rights holders themselves. Honestly this smacks of the “mandatory voluntary” system that Conroy proposed, and then swiftly abandoned, all those years ago. If it didn’t work then I fail to see how it could work now.
The second point revolves around blocking some sites outright which they’re proposing to do at the ISP level. Now the paper doesn’t go into details about how the site would be blocked, just that injunctions could be granted, however we know that whatever method they use will end up being ineffectual. DNS blacklisting, IP blocks and all other methods that other countries have used in the past simply do not work in an environment with users with a modicum of technical experience. Heck there are dozens of browser extensions which help with this and there’s already a healthy number of Australians completely circumventing any ISP level blocking through the use of VPNs. So realistically the discussion point about what matters should be considered in granting an injunction are moot as it won’t stop the site from being available.
The last 3 points dig into what the impacts will be (both in terms of reducing infringement and the cost to business) as well as asking if there are any alternative measures that can be taken. Honestly I feel these are the points that should be front and center rather than the previous two I mentioned as this is the real crux of the copyright issue in Australia. In terms of the discussion paper though they feel like afterthoughts, each given a brief paragraph with a one liner question following them. It really looks like the other points are, essentially, already agreed to and these are just there to placate those who feel that they need to have their voice heard.
What this discussion paper completely misses is the real issue here: the lack of content systems that are on the same level available overseas. The Australian tax is no longer just catch cry, it’s a fact, and the residents of this country have voted with their wallets. Indeed the high use of Netflix within Australia shows that we’re ready, willing and able to pay for the services should rights holders be willing to provide them but instead this paper wants to focus on the stick rather than the carrot.
If Brandis and Turnbull are serious about copyright reform in Australia they should be looking into what they can do to encourage those services to come Australia rather than attempt to dissuade people from pirating their content. History has shown that the latter can never be prevented, no matter what legislation you put in or DRM you attempt to ram down the customer’s throats. The latter has a tried and true history of being successful and I have no doubts that rights holders would see similar success in Australia should they choose to bring their services here. For now though it seems like they’re still stuck in the past, trying to protect business models that are failing in the new Internet powered economy. They’ll have to come around eventually, it’s just a question of whether they do it before someone else does.
Oh wait they already are. Time to wake the fuck up.
It’s no secret that the digital age has brought on a lot of headaches for content producers and rights holders alike. Where once their traditional business models served them well they have struggled to migrate them to a world where the traditional barriers no longer existed and customers began demanding more from them. Where this demand wasn’t met by legitimate means many turned towards other methods, many of which provided a better service and higher quality product than they’d otherwise have access to. In all honesty it should have come as no surprise to us as this trend has been going on for some 100 years with the rights holders always being brought kicking and screaming into the modern age. However there are signs that they might finally be starting to get it, even if that isn’t directly translating into the product they’re willing to offer us.
There’s been a few examples of executives from some high end content producers, like HBO for example, who’ve gone on record saying that piracy isn’t a big concern for them anymore. Indeed many of them are now starting to see piracy as an ancillary marketing tool and indeed there’s been a couple studies that have shown the biggest pirates are among the ones who spend the most on the products they pirate. Unfortunately whilst they might have a positive outlook on what piracy does to them they don’t seem to be warming to the idea of addressing it directly such as providing a service that out-competes the pirates. This is especially true for countries like Australia which are bereft of good, legitimate options which, unsurprisingly, leads to us being some of the filthiest content pirates in the world.
It does seem that this sentiment from some content executives isn’t just hollow rhetoric either as there seems to be tangible flow on effects that I honestly didn’t expect. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the primary body responsible for pursuing litigation against users who’ve infringed on their member’s copyrights, has recently reported a huge downfall in revenue. Primarily this comes from a decline in membership fees which is a direct result of rights holders no longer wanting to continue their membership with them. Much of their spend has decreased as well with their legal budget declining sharply over the past couple years. I haven’t seen anything stating similar outcomes for the other content associations but I’d assume it’s a very similar picture which is good news for both legitimate and illegitimate consumers of content.
The next step that the rights holders take from here though is what will ultimately determine whether or not they will be able to compete in today’s market. It’s one thing to stop wasting your money on pursuing small cases of copyright infringement here or there and another thing completely to revamp your business model in order to compete against those who are peddling your product illegitimately. For now that second piece of the puzzle is still missing and until the rights holders take a page out of Valve’s book their piracy problems aren’t going to go anywhere. They might not care so much about it now but it won’t take long until some little upstart comes and eats their lunch.
Coding a location based service introduced me to a lot of interesting concepts. The biggest of which was geocoding, an imprecise science of transcribing a user’s IP address into a real world location. I say imprecise because there’s really no good way of doing it and most of the geocoding and reverse-geocoding services out there rely on long lists that match an IP to its location. These lists aren’t entirely accurate so the location you get back from them is usually only good as an initial estimate and you’re better off using something like the HTML5 location framework or just simply asking the user where the hell they are in the world. Unfortunately those inaccurate lists drive a whole lot of current services, most of them with the intent of limiting said service to a certain geographical location.
I’ve written about this practice before and how it’s something of a hangover from the times of DVDs and region locking. From a technology standpoint it makes little sense to block access to certain countries (whether they block you is another matter) as all you’re doing is limiting your market. From a business and legal standpoint the waters are a little murkier as most of the geo-restricted services, the ones of note anyway, are done simply because it’s either not in their business interests to do so (although I believe that’s short sighted) or there’s a lot of legal wrangling to be done in order for it to be made available globally.
A clucky New Zealand ISP, FYX, was attempting to solve this problem of geoblocking and whilst they have withdrawn the service from the market (but are looking to bring it back) I still want to talk about their approach and why its inherently flawed.
FYX is offering what they call “Global Mode” for their Internet Services which apparently makes their users appear as if they’re not from any particular country at all. Their thinking is that once you’re a global user services that were once blocked because of your region will suddenly be available to you, undoing the damage to the free Internet that those inaccurate translations lists can cause. However the idea that no location = geoblocking services ineffective is severely flawed which would be apparent to anyone who’s even had a passing encounter with these services.
For starters most sites with geoblocking enabled do so by using a whitelist meaning that only people of specific countries will be able to access those services. For things like Hulu and netflix they are hard coded to IPs residing within the USA boundaries and anything that’s not on those lists will automatically get blocked. Of course there’s some in-browser trickery that you can do to get around this (although that’s not at the ISP layer) but the only guaranteed solution is to access them through a connection that appears to originate from an IP they trust. Simply not updating the location on those lists won’t do the trick so you’d need to do something more. It’s entirely possible that they’re doing something more fancy than this but the solution I can think of wouldn’t be very scalable, nor particularly proftiable.
It also seems that they might’ve got the attention of some rights holders groups who put pressure on their parent company to do away with the service. Legally there didn’t seem to be anything wrong with the idea (apart from the fact that it probably wouldn’t work as well as advertised) but that wouldn’t stop media companies from threatening to take them to court if such a service was continued to be offered. It really shows how scared such organisations are of new technology if a small time ISP with a not-so-special service can be a big enough blip on the radar to warrant such action. I’ll be interested to see how FYX progresses with this, especially if they detail some more info on just how they go about enabling their Global Mode.
The reality of the situation is that we’re trending to a much more connected world, one where the traditional barriers to the free flow of information are no longer present. Companies that made their fortunes in the past need to adapt to the present and not attempt to litigate their way to profitability. Eventually that won’t be an option for them (think BlockBuster vs Netflix) and I really can’t wait for the day that geoblocking is just a silly memory of when companies thought that their decades old business models still worked in an ever changing world.
For over 100 years rights holders have resisted any changes to their business models brought about by changes in technology. From a business perspective its hard to blame them, I mean who wouldn’t do everything in their power to ensure you could keep making money, but history has shown that no matter how hard they fight it they will eventually lose out. Realistically the world has moved on and instead of attempting to keep the status quo rights holders should be looking for ways to exploit these new technologies to their advantage, not ignore them or try to legislate them away. Indeed if other industries followed suit you’d have laws preventing you from developing automated transport to save the buggy whip industry.
The copyright system that the USA employs is a great example of where legislation can go too far at the request of an industry failing to embrace change. At its inception the copyrights were much like patents: time limited exclusivity deals that enabled a creator to profit from their endeavours for a set period of time after which they would enter the public domain. This meant that as time went on there would be an ever growing collection of public knowledge that would benefit everyone and not just those who held the patent. However unlike the patent system copyrights in the USA have seen massive reform in the past, enough so that works that would have come into the public domain will probably never do so.
Thankfully, whilst the copyright system might be the product of an arms race between innovators and rights holders, that hasn’t stop innovation in the areas where the two meet. Most of this can be traced back to provisions made in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that granted safe harbour to any site that relied on user generated content. In essence it put the burden of work on the rights holders themselves, requiring them to notify a site about infringing works. The site was then fully protected from legal action should they comply with the request, even if they restore the offending material after receiving a counter claim from the alleged offender. Many sites rely on this safe harbour in order to continue running on the web because the reverse, them policing copyright themselves, is both technically challenging and resource intensive.
However just like all the technologies and provisions that have been made for the rights holder industry previously those safe harbour provisions, which enabled many of the world’s top websites to flourish, are seen as a threat to their business models. Rights holders associations have said that the DMCA as it stands right now is too lenient and have lobbied for changes that would better support their business. This has come in the form of 2 recent bills that have dropped in both houses: the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the house of reps. Both of these bills have attracted heavy criticism from the technology and investment sectors and it’s easy to see why.
At their core the bills are essentially the same. Both of them look to strengthen the powers that rights holders have in pursuing copyright infringers whilst at the same time weakening the safe harbour provisions that were created under the DMCA. Additionally many of the mechanisms described in the bill are at odds with the way that the Internet is designed to work, breaking many of the ideals that were set out in order to ensure ubiquitous access. There’s also many civil liberty issues at stake here and whilst bill supporters have assured everyone that they don’t impact on them in any way the wording of the bill is vague enough to support both interpretations.
The main issue I and many others take with these bills is the shifting of the burden of proof (and thus responsibility) away from the rights holders and onto the web site owners. The changes SOPA advocates mean that web site administrators will be responsible for identifying copyrighted material and then removing it from their website, lest they fall prey to having their domain seized. Whilst this more than likely won’t be the downfall of the sites that made their fame inside the safe harbours of the DMCA it would have a chilling effect on start-ups looking to innovate in an area that would have anything to do with a rights holder group. Indeed it would be the sites that have limited resources that would be hit the hardest as patrolling for copyright infringement isn’t a fully automated process yet and the burden could be enough to drive them under.
It’s also evident that SOPA was put together rather haphazardly when some of the most known copyrights infringement sites, like The Pirate Bay, are actually immune to it. Indeed many sites that rights holders complain about aren’t covered by SOPA (just by the current laws which, from what I can tell, means they’re not going anywhere) and thus the bill will have little impact on their activities.
You might be wondering why I, an Australian who’s only ever been to the USA once, would care about something like SOPA. Disregarding for the moment the principle argument and the fact that I don’t want to see the USA technology sector die (I could justify my point easily with either) the unfortunate reality is that Australia has a rather liberal free trade agreement with the USA. What this means is that not only do we trade with them free of tariffs and duties but we’re also obliged to comply with their laws which affect trade. SOPA is one such bill and should it pass it’s highly likely that we’d be compelled to either implement a similar law ourselves or simply enforce theirs. Don’t think that would happen? A leaked letter from the American ambassador to Spain warned them that not passing a SOPA like bill would see them put on a trade blacklist effectively ending trade between the two countries. This is just another reason as to why everyone, not just Americans, should oppose SOPA in its current form.
The worst part of all of this is the potential for my site, the one I’ve been blogging on for over 3 years, to come under fire. I link to a whole bunch of different places and simply doing so could open me up to domain seizure, even if it wasn’t me putting the link there. I already have limited time to spend on here and the additional task of playing copyright police would surely have an impact on how often I could post and comment. I don’t want to stop writing and I don’t want people to stop commenting but SOPA has the very real potential to make both those activities untenable.
So what can be done about SOPA and its potential chilling effects on our Internet ecosystem? For starters if you’re an American citizen write your representative and tell them to oppose SOPA. If you’re not then the best you can do is help to raise awareness of this issue, as whilst it’s a big issue in the tech circles, even some of the most versed political pundits were unaware of SOPA’s existence until recently. Past that we just have to hope we’ve made enough of an impression on the USA congress critters so that the bill doesn’t pass, at least in its current form. The hard work of many people has made this a very public issue, but only continued pressure will make it so it won’t damage the Internet and the industries it now supports.
EDIT: It appears that the strong opposition has caused the American congress to shelve SOPA indefinitely. Count that as a win for sanity.
I often wonder what goes into formulating some of the laws that end up getting passed in various governments around the world. Some are done with truly altruistic intentions such as Obama’s universal health care plan for all Americans (taking note that 62% of bankruptcy filings are due to medical bills) whilst others seem to be based on the need to appease the lobbyists. It would seem that for some reason that the legislators of Europe have been watching far too much baseball whilst being pestered by copyright holders the world over:
In the EU, the amendment, which would protect against 3-strikes laws by requiring due judicial process to occur before any sanction (such as cutting off Internet access), has been substantially watered down. Meanwhile, in France the Constitutional Court has ruled in favor of a slightly modified version of HADOPI – their legislation which includes a 3-strikes sanction.
On Tuesday, the Parliament gave up on Amendment 138, which had been voted on twice by the assembly, gaining a majority both times. The amendment was supposed to protect the rights of citizens from being treated as guilty upon the accusations of an industry group, and punished based on the same. It read;
Applying the principle that no restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, save when public security is threatened in which case the ruling may be subsequent.
Instead, they are now considering a version which does not guarantee the right to an effective and timely judicial review.
When I first heard about the “three strikes” rule that some governments were considering I didn’t think it was a great idea to begin with. Whilst I’m not a rabid anti-copyright supporter (I believe there is a place for it however it needs to be reworked for today’s world) the idea of a copyright holder being able to submit complaints against an Internet user and have them disconnected without any fair process is something I couldn’t support. It had been voted down several times in the past and I had hoped that it was dead in the water. However it appears that whoever is behind driving this legislation home is not going to give up that easily. Truly it would seem that we might be shifting from the war on drugs to the war on copyright infringement (and we all know how effective these wars are, don’t we?).
No politician would want to be seen as weak on people deemed to be criminals so resistance to the three strikes idea has been weak. Sure there’s the usual suspects in the Pirate Party and the socialist parties (oh no the communists are back!) but there was one small ray of opposition that went almost completely unnoticed. Sure it wasn’t directly targeted at the three strikes rule, but it nullifies it all the same:
Finland’s Ministry of Transport and Communications has made 1-megabit broadband Web access a legal right, YLE, the country’s national broadcasting company, reported on Wednesday.
According to the report, every person in Finland (a little over 5 million people, according to a 2009 estimate) will have the right of access to a 1Mb broadband connection starting in July. And they may ultimately gain the right to a 100Mb broadband connection.
Just more than a year ago, Finland said it would make a 100Mb broadband connection a legal right by the end of 2015. Wednesday’s announcement is considered an intermediate step.
Finland isn’t a large country by any standards but they are still very technologically progressive nation. Their broadband penetration is the 12th highest in the world smashing Australia and New Zealand (who even have a higher GDP than Finland!). It makes sense then that such a nation would take a stance on such idiocratic laws by making Internet a human right, since no one will argue with them doing this (what’s the point with trying to strong arm a small nation like that?) and they can serve as a spearhead for other countries to follow suit. I’m rightly impressed with Finland on this one and I hope the other members of the European Union take notice.
Let’s not forget that our little brother across the Tasman tried this kind of shenanigans just over 6 months ago. The legislation was shot down in a blaze of glory but that didn’t stop them from trying to work it into another form to get it passed. I fail to see the motivation for bringing the policy into New Zealand (I hesitate to point fingers at the minister for commerce Simon Power trying to appease the copyright industry) but the reformed policy did address many of the issued raised. Still it lacked a coherent due process and much of the responsibility remained with the ISP. In essence they were creating more work for the ISPs whilst adding no value, angering their customers all to attempt to stop people from infringing on other’s copyrights.
The problem really isn’t the medium that the people are using to infringe on copyright as it was happening long before the Internet was commonplace. Ever make a mix tape of your favourite tracks for your friends? Infringement. Ever record a TV show off using your Betamax recorder? Infringement. What the rights holders are afraid of now is that the ability to infringe is easy, promiscuous and socially acceptable. I’m not going to lie and say that it isn’t a threat to their business models because it is, since anyone who’s inclined can get their product for practically nothing. However, their defending of their rights is the wrong way to go about getting these people back as paying customers.
For the most part many people will get their music and movies via nefarious means because its easy. I can’t count the number of times I’ve struggled for hours with various licensing systems of products to try and get them to work properly. It’s all too easy to hit up your favourite torrent engine and just find a crack for it to fix the problem whilst I wait several weeks for the vendor to get back to me. Right now the value perceived in the product and the risk associated with infringement is so low that paying for the product doesn’t seem worth it. If the rights holders want to weather this storm they need to come up with ways of making the legitimate products more attractive to users than their pirated counterparts, something I’ve blogged about before.
There’s also the problem with copyright holders abusing the court system in order to try and make examples of people who they believe have infringed on their rights. The Internet is a dynamic beast and the methods used to identify people have thus far proved to be highly inaccurate. Companies like MediaSentry have been used in the past to try and identify copyright infringers with highly controversial results. Indeed such companies have shown their dislike for anyone using the technology, even legitimately, by employing such tactics as automated DDOS attacks in order to appease their corporate overlords. It is then much easier for the rights holders to lobby for such policy such as the three strikes rule, since they can then circumvent that whole messy process of gathering evidence.
Policy like this is a band aid solution to a much wider problem that the copyright holders are trying ignore in the hopes that they can cling to business models that no longer work with technological revolutions. This is not a new phenomenon either and for over 100 years they’ve fought tooth and nail against anything that threatens to change the status quo. Its no wonder that once it became easy and low risk that people started infringing en mass, we’ve had 100 years of being stifled by these companies and now people are starting to talk with their wallets. Hopefully the rights holders will bleed enough to make innovation instead of litigation seem like best path for profit.