by: Mohammed Eldali

Am I a thief or in some way morally wrong for pirating a song or movie? Or is the company that is attempting to charge me 2$ for each song or 30$ for a movie the real thief?

I have torrented almost everything—movies, music, video games. You put a name on it and I have probably illegally downloaded it at one point or another. And despite all this, I in no way think I am in the wrong for doing this, nor do I think harshly of others who do it.

If you have ever watched a DVD, you have probably seen the “” anti-piracy announcement that plays at the beginning of a movie, which is meant to connect online piracy to being just as bad as grand theft auto (; ). I won’t deny that online piracy is technically illegal, but at least when I buy a car it’s going to last me upwards of 10 years. I’m not going to watch the same movie for 10 years. I’m going to buy more and more throughout the year, and when each DVD costs at least 20$, then yeah, I might resort to stealing. There is no denying it, digital entertainment is expensive, and prices are still on the rise (). An alternative is needed.

Picture a young university student, who needs to pay for school, rent and the other costs of living. This type of person cannot afford to spend 2$ on every single song, or 80$ for a new game. Digital entertainment is such a big part of many people’s life’s in a first world society, and the reality is that a lot of people cannot afford to pay for the new songs that come out, or the new Blu-ray version of the movie they liked. These types of entertainment shouldn’t be free, but they should be affordable, and right now they are not, and that’s why so many people resort to pirating their music, movies and games.

We should probably move past this stigma that only “bad” people or “thieves” illegally download, because online piracy is much more common than you would think. There are about 150 million people torrenting on an average day, and almost 25% of international Internet traffic comes from illegal downloading or streaming (). Since 1999, when online downloading kicked off, music sales in the United States have dropped 47% (). Clearly, I am not the only one who finds digital entertainment prices to be too high and resorts to piracy as a result.

Now, let’s look at platforms like Netflix and Spotify. These applications and their subscription-based business models are what’s called piracy killers, with online piracy decreasing since their and similar platforms rise in popularity (; ). It turns out that paying 10$ a month for a Netflix subscription is much more valuable than multiple 20$ purchases for the Blu-ray version of your movie or television show. Spotify’s model was meant to deter piracy, and it’s been working. What we should be taking from this is that online piracy is what gave us Netflix, Spotify, and others like them, and for that we should be grateful.

These subscription entertainment models are what we should be moving towards. They are affordable for the consumer, profitable for the operator, and are a means to reduced piracy rates. These are words coming from someone who used to live by online piracy. Because of these platforms, I no longer resort to piracy to get my digital entertainment because I have found the perfect middle ground. Netflix and Spotify may lack a lot of content, but they are a start in the right direction.

It is impossible to stop online piracy. The people who resort to piracy are not criminals, they simply want to experience what the digital entertainment industries have to offer and need an affordable way to do so. Subscription entertainment platforms are the key to helping the consumers and combatting piracy they don’t have everything, but they have enough. Consumers speak with their wallets and this can have noticeable effects. Online piracy and its effect on the entertainment industry is proof of that.

Work Cited

Arditi, D. (2017). Digital subscriptions: The unending consumption of music in the digital era. Popular Music and Society. Retrieved from

Bershidsky, L. (2017). Why Netflix Is Winning the Online Piracy Wars. Bloomberg View. Retrieved from

Harris, S. (2017). Netflix’s anti-piracy team aims to make stealing content uncool. CBC.      Retrieved from

Helbig, K. (2014). 11 numbers that show how prolific illegal downloading is right now. PRI.         Retrieved from

Wesley, D. (2016). How Much The Average American Spends on Entertainment. Creditloan.        Retrieved from

The post [Millennials’ Voices] Is Streaming killing Pirating? appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

by: Rahib Ahmad 

Copyright crusaders and the media industry are fighting a battle that simply cannot be won. It has been proving more difficult for content creators to enforce their copyrights in an age marked by digital openness and the overwhelming presence of online piracy. We’ve all see these websites and done the dirty deed of downloading free movies or music. It is a sad reality for those fighting to protect their original works, as copyright infringement has become an all too familiar occurrence for creators.

, which represents a wide array of lobby groups and Hollywood interests, have been consistent in advocating for stronger copyright protections for creators. This is an appropriate response for an industry losing billions every year because of copyright infringement. The unfortunate truth for owners of copyright material is this attempt is inevitably futile. The lobby has been largely ineffective, and with each passing day a solution to stop piracy seems all the more unlikely.

Reform advocates, like the CEO of NEWS , would be quick to point out a solution to enforcing copyright that begins and ends with Internet Service Providers (ISPs). In 2012, when speaking at the Australian International Movie Convention on the Gold Coast, Williams opined that Australia’s national broadband network needed to take more steps to combat piracy. This would include ISPs taking stronger action against unlawful activity occurring on their networks.

Yet ISPs are just that—service ±č°ů´Ç±ąľ±»ĺ±đ°ů˛ő—nothing more and nothing less. In Canada, ISPs are required to send letters to customers whose IP address is believed to have been used for illegal downloading. The requires ISPs to send these letters of copyright infringement as they are the trusted gatekeepers of our personal information.

, founder of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic was interviewed by VICE Canada on this. He explains how Canada’s “notice-and-notice system works in practice to illustrate how copyright is virtually unenforceable with this law,

These notices attempt to convince the customer to pay a settlement fee for alleged copyright infringement, but there is no legal obligation to pay said settlement, or even remove the content.

wants the Canadian Government to reform how ISPs deliver these copyright notices. They want the Government to reform legislation to reflect the US notice-and-takedown model, where this would be the North American standard. But this is unlikely to work in Canada, or any other country using a notice-and-notice model for this matter.

The notice-and-notice model already forces ISPs to send out these letters. There are thousands sent out daily, and the ISPs are forced to foot the costs of putting together and delivering all these letters. The notice-takedown model would inevitably lead to more resources spent on taking down content posted on the networks of the ISPs.

The lobby in the US has been relentless in pressing Canada to adopt these changes. Yet even those with basic understanding of the issue can see why Canadian ISPs are less than enthusiastic to accept the proposed changes.

The recent NAFTA negotiations represent a window of opportunity for change. However, our own service ±č°ů´Ç±ąľ±»ĺ±đ°ů˛ő—who represent an immense lobby in Canada—insist carriers remain neutral. The old adage of not shooting the messenger guides Canada toward unwillingness to change its copyright laws to satisfy our neighbours down south. No one ever said governing the Internet would be easy.

With the Internet blurring the lines between producer and distributor, duplicable data that infringes on copyright is more accessible than ever. The copyright lobby, however, was actually an early advocate of having the content of the creators they represent being accessible on the Internet and other converging media spaces. The irony of the whole situation is certainly delicious.

For years the media industry has been pushing for convergence in media platforms, for both creation and circulation of their media content. And, it’s not as if piracy is a new phenomenon. BitTorrent has been available since 2001 and Napster (in different incarnations) since 1999. Thus peer-to-peer file sharing has existed alongside modern networks since the original Dot-com bubble.

Increased user agency provided by the Internet means easier access to original works within the fair-use remedy of the Copyright Act. At the same time the ability to access reproduced content is still present.

in an Internet activist and founder of the now defunct file hosting service Megaupload. Charged with criminal copyright infringement and currently in a series of resultant legal battles, Kim Dotcom commented on the inevitable losses incurred by media organizations, and the dilemma they currently face,

A business model encouraging digital access to user content is going to have piracy as a mainstay, especially if copyright enthusiasts are the ones pushing this agenda. These associations have the most to gain from the Internet as a platform but have incurred huge losses in the digital era. Piracy is simply an externality of Internet decentralization and the convergence of media spaces. Or perhaps the Internet and copyright infringement are better seen as intimately tied with one another, like cookies and milk. The unfortunate reality is not so sweet for copyright holders.

The post [Millennials’ Voices] Copyright Wars in the Internet Age: Taking the Good with the Bad in Stride appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

by: Omer Jamshaid

When we see other people who are less fortunate, whether it is their lack of access to food, education, or safety, naturally we are heartbroken and desire to help. This leads some to join activist groups, raise money, and speak up on social media to raise awareness. But have we ever thought that—just maybe—well off countries are the reason why these less fortunate countries are the way they are?

No, this is not a conspiracy piece. However, if there is a possible link between authorities and an ongoing problem in the world, shouldn’t it be fair that we entertain this idea, for the sake of searching for solutions to the world’s problems?

was an American computer programmer, political organizer, and Internet hacktivist. He is considered a legend in the Internet piracy world. At the age of 24 this young man was on a mission to achieve something that would greatly benefit global society. The issue was that while considered a hero by some for his actions, the authorities deemed them criminal.

Students enrolled at universities are given the privilege of access to exclusive academic journal databases that contain very valuable knowledge for those wanting to excel in their studies and make breakthrough discoveries. When Swartz was a research fellow at Harvard he was provided with an account to JSTOR, a large digital library of such databases. In his “”, Swartz avowed a “moral imperative” to share scholarship privileged to only those with access through their learning intuition or for a pricey subscription. Seeing as he now had this privilege, he had made to make a move.

Over the course of several weeks from late 2010 to early 2011, Swartz used a digital repository, a special library that can store all kinds of digital content, to download a large number of academic journal articles through MIT’s computer network. While he did not attend MIT, he was authorized to access JSTOR as a visitor through MIT’s “open campus”.

He did this by using an unlocked controlled-access wiring closest in MIT to connect a laptop to a networking switch. This allowed him to download many of the academic journal articles on Once authorities noticed that this computer was not on their record, they placed a video camera in the closet and left the computer untouched. Once Swartz was caught on camera, the whole operation was aborted. Swartz was arrested on January 6, 2011 and was arraigned in Cambridge District Court on two state charges of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony.

Swartz went through so much trouble to allow equal access to these academic articles. Even though he failed in his mission, he left a legacy in the eyes of many. called him “an online icon” who “helped to make a virtual mountain of information freely available to the public”. Authorities eventually charged him with 13 federal crimes and offered to recommend six months in prison if he pled guilty, or face 50 years and $1 million in fines in a trial. Swartz rejected their plea deal, and two days after his counter-offer was also rejected, he was found dead in his apartment of suicide, January 11, 2013. He was 26.

We must really think to ourselves, if he has been successful in his mission, how would the world have changed? Those who do not have the money to attend university would have had access to these documents, presenting them the same opportunities provided by this coveted knowledge. Without these monetary obstacles they could have used that knowledge to better the world and make a name for themselves.

Let’s think back to those in less fortunate countries that we always feel sorry for. If they had access to this knowledge, how would their conditions change? They wouldn’t have to keep sending students to universities in different countries to gain knowledge. Those who don’t even have the money to study abroad would have no obstacle in their way to gaining knowledge. With this knowledge they could educate their people and possibly change the unfortunate conditions they are living in.

Why is JSTOR preventing these less privileged people from access coveted knowledge? Do they have a share in the blame for the lack of development in third world countries? I’m not saying that JSTOR is pure evil and intends to keep poorer segments of global society in their place, but these are questions we should seriously consider.

The post [Millennials’ Voices] Copyright in the Academy: Aaron Swartz’s Martyrdom and Obstacles to Progress in the Developing World appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.