Piracy

Posted by HeroofTime55 on June 19, 2010, 4:01 p.m.

OK, this is an interesting topic, and I think we may get a lively debate going here…

Piracy, where do you stand on it?

Please note that this applies equally to games, movies, music, etc. so if you say "Pirating games is wrong!" because you're a game developer, but then download music, you're a big fat hypocrite.

My stance is that it is freedom of information. I believe that you have a right to access information without having to pay some sort of fee, and this includes forms of entertainment.

But how then, do the producers of information make money?

Simple. Movies make money by showing in theaters. Music artists make money by performing live. Both will also profit by selling merchandise. These are extremely profitable ventures, and indeed, music artists for instance rarely make a dime off of record sales anyway, all of that money goes to the RIAA, unless you're huge like Metallica or something.

Furthermore, some individuals who are not past pirating will buy legitimate copies anyway, because they simply want to have an 'official' copy. I download games, but I buy legitimate copies of Pokemon games because that's my thing. I just want a legit copy for no other reason than wanting a legit copy.

Piracy is not some huge threat to the industries. There will ALWAYS be people available to purchase official copies or merchandise, or go to live viewings and performances. And in the case of small game developers or independent music artists, people are much more likely to shell out the cash as a sign of support for such groups.

Piracy stops with accessing information, however. The freedom to access information does not and should not allow you to profit off of other people's ideas by selling their information as your own. The producers of information still 'own' that information and they own the right to make money off of it.

Comments

DSG 14 years, 5 months ago

I pirate everything, and don't care if people pirate my work; as long as I receive complete credit and own the rights to it.

Acid 14 years, 5 months ago

I believe piracy is okay as long as nobody gets paid for anything they didn't create.

I use piracy as more of a trial than anything else. If I like it a lot, when I get the money, I'll buy it. Why should I pay for something I don't like/won't use?

Zarniwooop 14 years, 5 months ago

I read an article about piracy not long ago, it was sort of interesting. Imagine a man who wants to get a CD of [insert artist here]. He does'nt got the money for it so he downloads it instead. Now is that illegal? The man is very poor so he could never buy it irl. The companies could'nt make any money from him in any case.

HeroofTime55 14 years, 5 months ago

Quote:
"It's legal to make a back up copy of the disc for personal use, though."

That's not always true.
First, with regards to this, such 'shrink wrap licenses' are full of bullshit. There is no law in place which prevents you from doing as you wish with software, or for that matter, anything, which you have purchased and subsequently own (Noted exception in redistributing 'intellectual property' aka information without permission from the authors), and second, the notion that by purchasing software you assent to some contract of which at the time of purchase you do not know it even exists let alone have knowledge of the terms within, is nothing short of absurd, and I strongly doubt any such thing would ever hold up in court.

Even the "By using this software…" sort of shrink wrap licenses are bullshit because you already purchased it, you already have the right to do what you want with it. It's like if I said "By continuing to breathe you agree to the following terms…" The only thing they legally have is if it's an online game they can bind you to legal terms if you access their official servers, but any such terms end one you stop accessing their servers.

As for downloading a copy of something you already own as illegal, that's also bullshit. Especially if they try to push their sale as 'a license to use our product' rather than actually selling you the item (which in most if not all cases is bullshit they can't really do), you have then purchased a license to use the software and it should not matter where you acquire that software from.

Anyway, I'll reassert my views here.

Legally, I believe all humans have a 'right to know,' a right to access information. I view songs, movies, and software as nothing more than information, knowledge, ideas. The idea that you can be legally restricted from absorbing and knowing certain ideas or information unless you pay a fee to some 'gatekeeper' entity is to me nothing short of absurd. Authors of information still retain the exclusive right to acquire monetary profit from their work, in other words you cannot sell their work or items based on their work without first reaching a legal agreement with the author. But you do have a fundamental right to access their ideas and information without being forced to pay some sort of fee.

I believe the sale of physical copies of information is actually just the sale of the medium on which the information exists, with the information as an incentive to purchase the medium on which it exists, and that the authors of information have an exclusive right to use their work in such a manner.

I believe the authors of information are entitled to use non-legal methods to 'protect' their information ("DRM"), but that such practices are morally questionable, economically unsound, and in no cases legally binding, and that individuals have a right to modify information to remove such "DRM" protection.

Morally, the situation I hold is a little different. It would be unfair (from a moral perspective) for the author of a work to not receive appropriate compensation for their work. Laws cannot help here and you must look at each situation separately. I see nothing morally wrong with pirating Microsoft Windows, because Microsoft has and is receiving 'appropriate' compensation for their work. I see huge moral flaws with pirating software from a small, independent developer struggling to put food on his table. I see nothing wrong with pirating music by small bands who signed with the RIAA since it is the RIAA and not the band who profit off the material. I see huge moral problems with pirating from small independent musicians. I also believe that if you regularly enjoy a particular musician's work, particularly and especially if you pirated that work, you have somewhat of a moral obligation to directly support that musician by attending their shows, buying their merchandise, or in some other way financially compensating them.

Wow, that is one wall of text. I really can rant for pages ._.

Polystyrene Man 14 years, 5 months ago

I think I actually agree with most of what you've said, Hero.

I guess I have one exception, though (that I can think of now): You mentioned companies like Microsoft have been properly compensated for the product. Fair enough. But how do you decide when a company or person has reached that point of "proper compensation?" Who makes that decision? I guess you could say the consumer- but there will undoubtedly be disparity in what the consumer believes is "proper compensation" and what the creator believes is "proper compensation."

HeroofTime55 14 years, 5 months ago

That's why it's a moral judgment that the consumer has to make, why it's something that cannot be codified into some sort of law. It's impossible to define the line, but there are many instances which are clearly on one side or the other.

Quietus 14 years, 5 months ago

yeah pretty much what Hero says, since internet removes the need to distribute music via physical means, the concept of paying for music is really just an artifact that the music artists themselves are (understandably) unwilling to evolve from.

as for software+games, while they often take a lot more work and of course would want more compensation, putting a price on your software is still basically crippling your chances of ever catching on.

so it's kind of a, like one of those finger torture puzzle things, for lack of a better metaphor. but it applies to both software and music.

MMOnologueguy 14 years, 5 months ago

I remember reading somewhere that the EULA for a piece of software has never held up in a court of law.

Quote:
eagly: Since you already own Assassin's Creed 2, why not download the cracked version that removes the DRM? When you purchase a game, you are purchasing a license from the company to play that game (A license I would argue is unnecessary given my belief in a fundamental right to access information, but that's a different story). It shouldn't matter where that copy of the game comes from. In fact I'm pretty sure it's 100% legal if you own the game.
That's what I had to do for Bioshock 2. Shit sucks.

blackhole 14 years, 5 months ago

You can only agree to an EULA after you have purchased a product, and therefore it is classified as a "Shrink wrap contract", which are shaky in court at best. The problem is that you already bought the product, so disagreeing to the terms would be idiotic, and it essentially forces the consumer to agree to them without previously being able to review the terms before buying the product.

The entire problem with music is that if people want musical artists to continue making music they need to be fed somehow. You can't just say "Well people should only make music for free" because that doesn't make any sense. How can someone make a living off that? If they can't make a living off of it, why would any of your favorite artists dedicate their lives to making high quality music? Without any sort of compensation you'll end up with music that continues to degrade in quality. There needs to be an alternative payment system - it may not involve listeners, it may be based on ads, I have no idea, but somehow there must be monetary compensation or musical artists won't be able to put food on the table.

Remember that making music isn't free (and is, in fact, very expensive) unless the music artists have to pirate stuff themselves, and when you use a pirated piece of software for monetary gain… things get ugly.