Thank You Pirates! The Real Lesson in Virtual World Content Theft

There's been a renewed outcry in the Second Life creative community about unauthorized duplication of virtual goods. Although I understand the frustration, vigilant enforcement of IP rights is at best a stop-gap measure that will neither mitigate the inherent vulnerability of digital content, nor put more money into creators' pockets. Although creators may derive some personal satisfaction from going after individual culprits, such an approach mimics the losing strategy of the music and movie industries which failed even with a seven year salt-the-earth campaign. The relentless, high-profile lobbying and law suits of the MPAA and RIAA were unable able to stop or even slow down unauthorized music and video sharing.

Today, those industry dinosaurs are finally moving from a DRM and litigation-focused approach to grudging participation in new business models adapted to the realities of a networked digital ecosystem. Companies like Pandora, NetFlix, YouTube, Hulu and Amazon's new cloud-based service are breaking new ground. They are transcending the outmoded paradigms of digital content distribution that were based on physical media rather than network file transfer and streaming. These pathfinders are seeking new revenue opportunities rather than clinging to the dead-end approaches of the past.

Unfortunately, the virtual world content creation community seems to be mired in the same type of thinking that led the music and video industries into years of wasted effort and lost opportunity. Pirates are are actually doing us a favor by pointing out that our business models are behind the times and not serving consumers. The future won't be won by chasing after offenders, but through new approaches that better meet consumer needs. The cost of piracy is a drop in the bucket compared to the opportunity cost of the current DRM-hobbled stove-piped system.

Instead of wringing hands over unauthorized copies of virtual goods moving from Second Life to other grids, we should support the creation of transworld marketplaces that make it easy for consumers to purchase goods and use them in the worlds they choose. Instead of obsessing over the fear of theft, we should be thinking creatively about opportunities for new revenue channels and business models such as subscription-based and cross-platform licensing. I can share music, videos and applications I purchase through iTunes on five computers plus mobile devices. Why shouldn't I be able to use my virtual goods in the same manner across platforms?

The Moral Roots Behind Our Positions on Copybots and Other Essential VW Questions

It's easy to demonize those who disagree with us or to perceive them as immoral. Researchers have found that the differences between conservative and liberal positions on issues actually stem from a different balance of moral priorities:

• Harm/care
• Fairness/reciprocity
• Ingroup/loyalty
• Authority/respect
• Purity/sanctity

This lecture by researcher Jonathan Haidt is a good introduction to the finding of research in this area and is great food for thought.

You can test your own priorities at the research site and then think about how they relate to the question of copybots and virtual property. Here are my results:

Copybot as Revolutionary Part 3: Legal and ethical questions

I really appreciate the great comments on the first two articles in this series. They included posts from content creators, content consumers and the distributor of (SL) Copybot. I think we all agree that distributing copies of digital works to other people without the consent of the intellectual property owner is wrong. Our disagreement is about what rights an IP owner has to dictate personal use of digital goods.

The legal aspects of virtual property are complex and and will have to play out in the courts. For instance Bragg v. Linden Lab is questioning whether unfair TOS clauses are legally enforceable. The music industry is still trying to claim that it is illegal to rip music from a CD to a hard drive. When you add the complicating factors of international transactions, I suspect it will be a long time before there is a definitive legal answer.

It seems to me there are reasonable ethical arguments against either extreme position. Until there is a technological solution for a "middle way" it might make sense to just agree to disagree. IP owners will continue to develop DRM technology to restrict use. Consumers will let their conscience be their guide as they figure out how to circumvent restrictions they believe are unfair.

I plan to conclude this series in Part 4 which will return to the initial question of the relationship between DRM and the power balance between Linden Lab and Second Life residents.