Now The Pirate Bay is outlawed in the Netherlands - although this ban has yet to be tested in Dutch courts - the copyright industry and its tame lobbyists face a difficult choice: should they take their customers to court or not?
This question is crucial to the survival of the lobby groups. Since the cost of fighting downloading is much higher than income, large entertainment companies constantly need convincing that all these indirect lobby costs will at least produce results in the longer term. Nobody wants to think that the funding of lobby groups is ineffective, even if those organisations claim hundreds of site removals annually.
The entrenching of the battle lines is probably good for providers of innovative services such as proxies that can run your Internet traffic through other countries. There are also more complex and smarter things that experienced Internet users can do to avoid detection. Like the process of downloading itself, these will become cheaper and more user-friendly in future, so that eventually everybody can use them.
Furthermore, any attempt to tighten online control will make offline sharing more attractive. With terabyte hard disks and 32-gigabyte microSD cards, the bandwidth in your pocket is probably higher than a cable or DSL connection. Technically not much can be done to stop people sharing bits, and the odious behaviour of the industry itself causes any moral objections to evaporate faster than the Greenland ice sheet.
Individuals are now threatened with prosecutions along the lines of the German model (with a 2000 euro fine). But how many of these cases can the already-overworked Prosecution Service realistically process in a year (thanks to other nonsensical bans on certain recreational pharmaceuticals)? Even making a grossly-inflated estimate of 1000 prosecutions a month, that still only results in 24 million euros' worth of fines per annum – and obviously that's only if they win every case, which is highly unlikely.
If the companies in the copyright industry actually take this step and go to legal war with their customers, it will not take long for someone to set up an online cultural solidarity fund. By becoming a contributor to that fund for a couple of euros per month, individuals can rely on specialist legal advice if they become one of the the unfortunate 0.2-0.4% to be sued in any given year. With 1 million members contributing even 2 euros each month, you would quickly have a well-endowed war chest behind you, should you end up in court. Let's make the copyright lawyers work harder for their putative 24 million.
As the case against Ziggo and XS4ALL demonstrated, copyright lawyers don't have nearly as much fun if their opponents fight back with a competent legal team. To gamble untold millions on legal costs to gain a paltry 24 million per annum is a risky strategy. Each lost case costs them money, and when you win you gain more members (and thus a larger fund) to take to the next fight. Eventually it would be quite possible that any money remaining in such a fund could be used to create and promote culture. These works would naturally be released under a Creative Commons licence. Of course, the "Bits-Of-Freedom-XS4ALL-Ziggo” Solidarity Fund for Culture and Creativity (just thinking out loud here!) would not allow the creation of more cultural works to be milked through classical copyright.
If such a fund existed to support cultural initiatives transparently and fairly, I would personally like to pay a bit more than 2 euros per month (say 10 euros). Especially when the de facto result is that I can make unlimited downloads - without having to worry that some copyright lawyers in the Netherlands apparently don't know the difference between copyright infringement and theft (and yet are still employed as lawyers!).
Unlimited, risk-free digital culture for a tenner a month would be enough even for Maecenas - true wealth!
The iPod is successful because it does not restrict me from playing a relatively open (and widely available) format such as MP3, downloaded or ripped from CD's I owned. Apple TV on the other hand comes with all kind of restrictions built in. While I could buy (or rent) movies from Apple and watch them on my TV through the Apple TV device this is a big limitation compared to being able to choose the source of media myself, choose to payment level and method myself and then do with the file as I please (transfer it to a non-Apple device for instance). While the Apple TV has a nice Interface to control it from the couch so do various other devices at a lower cost. These also do not restrict me in my sources of media like Apple TV. So why would I buy a 300 euro Apple device that ties me down to the Apple media store when I can get a better device for under 200 that does not?
