Admit it, I’m sure everyone has at least once illegally downloaded a movie or music. Despite that illegal downloading and uploading has posed a problem for the entertainment industry virtually since people were able to use the internet for such a purpose, there still isn’t an effective solution. Not for a lack of trying though, as the industry and governments have tried with varying success to put a stop to it (NYtimes, 2011). Why this is largely unsuccessful hinges on three factors. Firstly, there is no supranational legislation that sets a standard. Secondly, privacy legislation differs between countries meaning that in some cases matching IP addresses and identities becomes impossible altogether. Lastly, for some reason consumers don’t seem to consider downloading music or movies as theft. Rather hypocrite, as we can all agree you wouldn’t steal a dvd in a store either. The problem is that we consider downloading to be a victimless crime. As there is no easily identifiable owner or physical product, it is simple to justify that no harm is done. In particular since the product itself did not cost anything to make. For our ease of mind we just assume that all productions costs are covered by those who do actually purchase the product. The question is however how bad this really is. Despite that the entertainment industry itself claims that pirating is the death of it, industry figures indicate that it has done surprisingly well over the previous decade. Both music and movie releases have only been increasing, as has industry profitability, and CEO compensation. In fact, the entertainment industry has outperformed numerous other industries during the financial crisis in the midst of upcoming piracy (Sanchez, 2012). To a certain extent, it seems the primary thing being harmed are the production firms’ profits. These profits could be higher if no-one downloaded, but according to research by Oberholzer-Gee (2010) not so very much. For example, a part of the missed profits is covered by complementary services, such as concert visits. Consumers argue that instead of spending their music budget on buying the music, they would rather spend it on seeing the artist live. As for movies, the long tail comes into play. Whereas most industries start to increasingly rely on a larger diversity of products, movie-studios still rely on a limited number of blockbuster movies that allow them to subsidize the unsuccessful ones. (Sanchez, 2012) These high-grossing movies are also the main victim of pirating, suggesting that pirating is primarily a problem if the product was successful to begin with.

The question for us is for how long we can justify to ourselves that downloading movies and music harms no-one in a world that will only get more digital. Where will you draw the line?

NYTimes, (2011), “Internet piracy and how to stop it” Accessible from: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/opinion/09thu1.html

Oberholzer-Gee, F. & Strumpf, K. (2010), “File Sharing and copyright” Accessible from: https://musicbusinessresearch.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/paper-felix-oberholzer-gee.pdf

Sanchez, J. (2012), “Sopa, Internet regulation, and the economics of piracy” Accessible from: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/internet-regulation-and-the-economics-of-piracy/

Quora, (2016) “How does movie piracy affect the film industry” Accessible from: https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-movie-piracy-affect-the-film-industry

Recent months have once again seen public debate on the extent to which governments are allowed to infringe our privacy. Despite their assurances that civilians have nothing to fear, we are still distrustful of their intentions. Although it is a sensible idea to be somewhat distrustful of governing parties, it is surprising and even somewhat hypocritical that we view governmental institutions as untrustworthy, yet allow companies to collect and sell virtually all kinds of personal information. Recent developments in China have put this approach in perspective. Tencent, game developer with large stakes in numerous games and projects, and Alibaba, one of the world’s largest retailers, have teamed together in the development of what they call “sesame credit”. Although still in the voluntary testing phase, it is expected to become mandatory in China in 2020 (ExtraCredit, 2015). The idea behind Sesame credit is the gamification of society. Based on the information companies are able to gather about you, such as sales patterns, internet behaviour, social networks etc., you get assigned a score. The higher the score, the more perks you are able to get. Think of easier access to housing, a higher likelihood of getting a government job, or the necessary paperwork for foreign travels. Those with a low score on the other hand, are restricted this kind of access and experience negative consequences. (CNBC, 2017). Although the program is build by two private companies, there is most definitely a political incentive. Scores are not assigned based on objective measures, but on the extent to which a civilian shows behaviour which is seen as desirable by the Chinese government. Share a link of how well the Chinese economy is doing, and your score goes up. Comment on political activism or buy an imported product, and your score goes down (BBC, 2015) By implementing a system that uses the exact same methods of reward, punishment, and achievement as highly addictive video games do, Sesame credit enables a population to strictly enforce behaviour. As your score and network-connections mutually influence each other, merely being associated with a low-score individual decreases your own score. This may very well lead alienation of some and the formation of a artificial “caste” system, where your social worth is based on an algorithm rather than genetics.

It is perhaps the most successful, yet undesired, form of governmental control. Don’t enforce your citizens with aggression and force, but have them enforce themselves. Nonetheless, there are upsides to such a system. In a massive country such as China, where personal and credit information is in many cases impossible to acquire, a system such as Sesame Credit can be a solution (BBC. 2015) More information usually is a good thing, but it is worth considering its destructive side as well.

Hatton, C. (2015). China’s social credit: Beijing set up a huge system. Available from: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34592186

Ming, C. (2017). FICO with nice characteristics: nice rewards, but punishing penalties. Available from: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/16/china-social-credit-system-ant-financials-sesame-credit-and-others-give-scores-that-go-beyond-fico.html

Huang, Z. (2017). All Chinese citizens now have a score based on how well we live, and mine sucks. Available from: https://qz.com/519737/all-chinese-citizens-now-have-a-score-based-on-how-well-we-live-and-mine-sucks/

Extracredit, (2015). Animation available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI