Recently, I spoke at BIL 2010 in Long Beach about the Web 3.0, and got some interesting questions from the audience. One of them was: “How do you deal with copyrights in the Web 3.0 and protect people who pour more energies into creating high value content from being pirated?”

This question touches one of the most exciting aspects of a web in that everyone becomes a media entrepreneur. To better understand it, we first have to get a clearer picture of the copyright problem in general. This problem is based on a simple perception: if you have something valuable, and sell it, people can steal it. And then you cannot sell it anymore. With content, it’s even worse than with physical goods, because simply looking at something is enough to “steal” it. Technically, a copyright violation starts even if you allow too many people to watch your DVD. Based on this perception, the traditional media industry has created a major effort to hunt down the violators – only to find out that they have to basically hunt down everybody, including their kids, spouses and themselves.  

Which leads us to an interesting question: is honoring copyrights a civilizational meme comparable to, let’s say, honoring physical property that only takes some time to diffuse through our social conscience – or is it fundamentally inoperative?   The problem is that stealing content doesn’t even match the definition of stealing: you are not taking anything away. The other one still has it. The damage you do is highly virtual: it is the hypothetical opportunity cost of not buying the content because you already have it.  

I think the ethical debate is pretty useless, because it’s simply not a pragmatic step to solve the problem. Instead, I propose to think a little bit out-of the box. Content is different from physical goods, and it doesn’t make sense to think in the wrong reference system. If you have created a piece of content, you don’t want to protect it from copyright violations – you want to monetize it as much as possible. The monetization of content requires marketing and monetary transaction. Utilizing parts of your content for free distribution actually increases your traffic and the awareness for your stuff, so it’s a good thing. On the other hand, if everyone can access the whole thing for free, you don’t earn money except for some advertising dimes. My experience is that the online content business is much more about convenience than it is about criminal or non-criminal intent. People want to view your content, they are willing to pay for it if they trust it’s good, but if it is too easy to get it for free or it is too expensive to buy, then they go for piracy. In the end, it is about figuring out the balance between freebies, the protection of your core content products by practical means (e.G., print the buyers name on the document), and maintaining a personal and friendly relationship with your community. Two things are definitely the wrong thing to do: hiring a lawyer to go after copyright violators, and not allowing anyone to see anything before they pay. Because they won’t.  

There is no simple solution – but there are solutions. Go with the flow, avoid major disruptions of your viewers experience, and elegantly intertwine premium content with a free flow of sniplets that engage, entertain and intrigue.  

That’s at least how I do it, and it works so far :)

Don’t forget to join the discussion at my Web 3.0 group!

This article is part of Web 3.0 – the book by Johannes Bhakdi, available on sophotec.com