Yesterday in this space I wrote that calling the unauthorized posting of copyrighted material on the internet “piracy” did not help solve the problem (Argh Is Not the Answer).
As the late Murray Edelman wrote, “The critical element in the political maneuver for advantage is the creation of meaning.” Language creates that meaning. Words define allies and opponents, options and outcomes.
Calling copyright violations piracy and those who do it pirates constructs a debate in which college and high school students (some of the most egregious violators) are swashbuckling, maiden chasing Johnny Depps. It also make the solution plank walking or stranding on a deserted island, both of which the Supreme Court is likely to take issue with.
Combating the unauthorized posting of copyrighted material on the web requires a new metaphor, a word or phrase that is less clunky than “unauthorized posting of copyrighted material” and less romantic than “piracy.”
If not piracy, then what?
Answering that question is a two-step process.
First, advocates need to agree on the outcomes they want. The answer to this seems fairly easy – no piracy (realistically less piracy). But here it is important to recognize that the outcome is no piracy. Laws can help, changing social norms can help, filtering technology can help, other things may help as well. Critically, the goal is not a law, court ruling, or software: it is less stuff being posted and viewed without the owner’s permission (of the two, viewing is the bigger problem – posting only matters in that people then view the material). Keeping a focus on the final goal can help prevent chasing down alleys that, at best, lead to partial solutions.
Second, advocates need to better understand both what and how those doing the bulk of the posting and viewing think about copyright on the web. Good focus groups with those who are doing the violating can help copyright holders concerned with the issue understand how those who illegally post view their actions. As Edelman and others have noted, it is far easier to persuade people of things they already believe to be true than it is to get them to think something new. If people think pirates are cool and don't think of themselves as pirates, don't try to get them to see themselves as committing piracy and that it's bad. It would be much easier to find something they already think is bad to which online copyright violations could be associated.
Those who want to protect copyright need to understand how those doing the violating view the issue. From their perspective, what are they doing? Who is being hurt and how? What arguments for not violating copyright make sense? Who are the victim, vanquished and victor? Larger public opinion research can then help test and hone the messages learned in the focus groups.
Armed with this understanding of how those who need to be persuaded think about copyright and the internet advocates can construct a campaign to protect it.
(In the interest of full disclosure, Milo Public Affairs represents Vin Di Bona Productions whose show “America’s Funniest Home Videos” is routinely posted online without permission and Milo’s Principal, Peter Loge, sits on the Board of the Copyright Alliance. The views here do not necessarily reflect those of Milo’s clients or the Copyright Alliance.)
