No, Silly, Piracy is Theft(devtopics.com)
devtopics.com
No, Silly, Piracy is Theft
http://www.devtopics.com/no-silly-piracy-is-theft/
102 comments
I would say "A mistake" rather than "The mistake."
Another mistake in this analogy is that between criminal and civil law. Theft, in most if not all countries, is a criminal offense.
Piracy, formally known as copyright infringement (or copyright violation), is a criminal offense when done for financial gain, civil offense otherwise in countries which recognize software copyright. The vast majority of occurrences of copyright violation we see in the media are for personal use, not financial gain, thereby a largely civil legal matter, than a criminal one. Hence theft as a comparison is inaccurate.
Another mistake in this analogy is that between criminal and civil law. Theft, in most if not all countries, is a criminal offense.
Piracy, formally known as copyright infringement (or copyright violation), is a criminal offense when done for financial gain, civil offense otherwise in countries which recognize software copyright. The vast majority of occurrences of copyright violation we see in the media are for personal use, not financial gain, thereby a largely civil legal matter, than a criminal one. Hence theft as a comparison is inaccurate.
That's what annoys me about this endless argument. The entire reason it's endless is because it confuses and mingles legal and moral aspects:
- Yes, it's illegal. I don't think anyone actually argues it's not, but somehow it still keeps popping up as an argument to support that it's theft.
- Legally, as far as I know, theft and copyright infringement have very different meanings. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm willing to bet that neither are any of the people arguing piracy=theft. Anyway, I don't really see how arguing and personal opinions can come into this. The law is what it is.
- Morally, it's hard to argue that it's right, but at least this is the only part where you CAN actually have any kind of debate.
People arguing about different things without realizing it = recipe for endless, unproductive argument.
- Yes, it's illegal. I don't think anyone actually argues it's not, but somehow it still keeps popping up as an argument to support that it's theft.
- Legally, as far as I know, theft and copyright infringement have very different meanings. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm willing to bet that neither are any of the people arguing piracy=theft. Anyway, I don't really see how arguing and personal opinions can come into this. The law is what it is.
- Morally, it's hard to argue that it's right, but at least this is the only part where you CAN actually have any kind of debate.
People arguing about different things without realizing it = recipe for endless, unproductive argument.
> Yes, it's illegal. I don't think anyone actually argues it's not
It depends on where you are. In Spain it's not illegal to make private copies of music and movies, and share it with friends. P2P is slightly different, and a legal void here because, although maybe not completely legal, its prohibition would be unenforceable due to privacy laws.
In fact, the right to make these copies justifies the "canon", a compensation that goes to "spanish RIAA" charging recording media, formerly CD/DVD and recently expanded to hard disks, memory sticks and even phones.
>- Morally, it's hard to argue that it's right
Not so hard, I've seen very convincent reasons. Excuse me if I don't share them, but, as you say, this is often an endless and unproductive argument.
It depends on where you are. In Spain it's not illegal to make private copies of music and movies, and share it with friends. P2P is slightly different, and a legal void here because, although maybe not completely legal, its prohibition would be unenforceable due to privacy laws.
In fact, the right to make these copies justifies the "canon", a compensation that goes to "spanish RIAA" charging recording media, formerly CD/DVD and recently expanded to hard disks, memory sticks and even phones.
>- Morally, it's hard to argue that it's right
Not so hard, I've seen very convincent reasons. Excuse me if I don't share them, but, as you say, this is often an endless and unproductive argument.
I totally agree. This stupid argument comes about for one reason, and one reason only: the law has not yet caught up with technology.
No, it's not stealing. Yes it is wrong - if you don't pay for creative content, content creators won't create, which is a bad outcome for society (and no, don't give me any crap about people creating for free - sure, some might, but I certainly wouldn't be spending my weekends and nights writing an application if I didn't think I'd get some money for it, and I doubt that I'm rare!).
This is where governments are supposed to do their jobs - create laws to encourage desirable behaviour. For example, they could start passing laws to make it illegal to publicly share copyright-protected works. They could also make it illegal to facilitate the sharing of copyright-protected works, putting operations such as TPB under pressure.
Better than just making it a law, make it one of the conditions of membership in the WTO - it's a logical activity for the WTO anyhow, seeing as an increasing percentage of world trade is IP. That way, there is a powerful tool available to force compliance at an international level.
No, it's not stealing. Yes it is wrong - if you don't pay for creative content, content creators won't create, which is a bad outcome for society (and no, don't give me any crap about people creating for free - sure, some might, but I certainly wouldn't be spending my weekends and nights writing an application if I didn't think I'd get some money for it, and I doubt that I'm rare!).
This is where governments are supposed to do their jobs - create laws to encourage desirable behaviour. For example, they could start passing laws to make it illegal to publicly share copyright-protected works. They could also make it illegal to facilitate the sharing of copyright-protected works, putting operations such as TPB under pressure.
Better than just making it a law, make it one of the conditions of membership in the WTO - it's a logical activity for the WTO anyhow, seeing as an increasing percentage of world trade is IP. That way, there is a powerful tool available to force compliance at an international level.
>I certainly wouldn't be spending my weekends and nights writing an application if I didn't think I'd get some money for it, and I doubt that I'm rare
http://www.gnu.org/
http://www.linux.org/
http://www.freebsd.org/
http://www.apache.org/
http://www.mysql.com/
http://www.mozilla.org/
And Python, Perl and PHP...
I think enough people who spend their lives working for free to make it worthwhile!
http://www.gnu.org/
http://www.linux.org/
http://www.freebsd.org/
http://www.apache.org/
http://www.mysql.com/
http://www.mozilla.org/
And Python, Perl and PHP...
I think enough people who spend their lives working for free to make it worthwhile!
Indeed, money is but one potential reward. Social recognition is another.
Though I think most of free software is written for the 'finally this thing does what I want it to do' reward.
Though I think most of free software is written for the 'finally this thing does what I want it to do' reward.
I'm curious - do you actually think that there are people reading Hacker news that don't know about these projects?
Obviously I, and everyone else here, is aware of them, which should have clued you in that you had misread me. I didn't say that no-one will develop software for free, I said that I don't do it, and that I suspect that I'm far from unique.
Besides, if you look, you'll discover that many of the developers on those projects are getting paid for it, one way or another.
Obviously I, and everyone else here, is aware of them, which should have clued you in that you had misread me. I didn't say that no-one will develop software for free, I said that I don't do it, and that I suspect that I'm far from unique.
Besides, if you look, you'll discover that many of the developers on those projects are getting paid for it, one way or another.
I don't disagree that copyright infringement is bad for those in our business who rely on sales of software or media licenses. And sure there are negative residuals like trickle down economics of the media and software publishers. But it is not cut and dried/black and white. What about fair use? What about abandonware? The law is what it is only now. We (as a society) change the law as we use it. The new round of IP laws, such as the DMCA, are new and the full effects not yet known.
Arguing about this is good because it fosters thinking and may prompt people to actually DO something to improve our current situation.
Arguing about this is good because it fosters thinking and may prompt people to actually DO something to improve our current situation.
I think the problem was with bad arguing.
One person arguing the legality. Another, the morality. A third steps in with semantics. Since they all use the same words they think hey are talking about the same thing. But they are not. If you replaced the words they used with the words they mean they'd sound like a pack of hyenas.
One person arguing the legality. Another, the morality. A third steps in with semantics. Since they all use the same words they think hey are talking about the same thing. But they are not. If you replaced the words they used with the words they mean they'd sound like a pack of hyenas.
To take it one step further the problem is that everyone keeps talking around the fact that the entire argument is centered on "money" not "piracy". Before the internet and before personal computers artists had mechanical control of who had access to their products. That just isn't true anymore and what it means is that artists need to find some new business models. Once they do that the whole issue is going to go away. And that's a good thing, because I've been debating it since the internet was born and that's more than 15 years and I'm getting tired of going round and round and round on the same old arguments. Time to move on.
Exactly. I always get frustrated that gets left out of the debate. The issue is not money. The issue is control. Control is ownership (or a close cousin).
That's why internet music taxes & whatnot are ridiculous. That doesn't restore ownership. Just money.
That's why internet music taxes & whatnot are ridiculous. That doesn't restore ownership. Just money.
If I hire a financial planner and he gave me bad advice, he could be liable (depending on the laws of the state, exclusions on the contract and so on). So bad analogy there.
No good analogy. Giving bad advice professionally can be illegal (so is piracy). But it's still not theft.
"Causing someone not to get income they might otherwise have gotten is not theft."
If it were, Blizzard would lose the biggest class-action lawsuit in the world! I mean, if all the time I spent playing Starcraft were spent doing something productive...
If it were, Blizzard would lose the biggest class-action lawsuit in the world! I mean, if all the time I spent playing Starcraft were spent doing something productive...
People need to stop thinking of piracy as theft or not theft. It's a digitally reproducible item which makes traditional concepts of property obsolete and it's about time the law and the record industry started coming up with terms which match this status.
Piracy does not take money away from sellers. It reduces how much they get. This is not the same thing.
The best example I heard was this: say you're a baker and you sell bread. One day it starts raining bread, and people pick up their bread from the street rather than pay for yours. It sucks for you that you aren't getting money from your bread, but how can you blame people for what they're doing?
Price is dictated by supply and demand, and there's now a supply which is infinite and therefore, by traditional economics, surely it should be free?
I don't agree that you should be able to get stuff from artists etc for free. I make a point of paying for the albums I download if I like them, and I pay for movies and TV I like. But it's not a question of ethics, it's a question of what exactly it is you're paying or not paying for.
Why exactly do so many newspapers publish content for free? Surely it's the same idea - they're publishers after all…?
Piracy does not take money away from sellers. It reduces how much they get. This is not the same thing.
The best example I heard was this: say you're a baker and you sell bread. One day it starts raining bread, and people pick up their bread from the street rather than pay for yours. It sucks for you that you aren't getting money from your bread, but how can you blame people for what they're doing?
Price is dictated by supply and demand, and there's now a supply which is infinite and therefore, by traditional economics, surely it should be free?
I don't agree that you should be able to get stuff from artists etc for free. I make a point of paying for the albums I download if I like them, and I pay for movies and TV I like. But it's not a question of ethics, it's a question of what exactly it is you're paying or not paying for.
Why exactly do so many newspapers publish content for free? Surely it's the same idea - they're publishers after all…?
"The best example I heard was this: say you're a baker and you sell bread. One day it starts raining bread, and people pick up their bread from the street rather than pay for yours. It sucks for you that you aren't getting money from your bread, but how can you blame people for what they're doing?"
Inaccurate analogy. The baker played no part in making it rain bread. Software developers and other producers of content invest their time, money, and life into creating the product that gets disseminated. If they see that the product of their labor will get pirated, they will be less inclined to innovate and produce more in the future.
"Price is dictated by supply and demand, and there's now a supply which is infinite and therefore, by traditional economics, surely it should be free?"
No. You are committing the fallacy of confusing descriptive economics with normative economics. Saying what will be is not the same as saying what should be. As an example: if I hack into your server, steal your startup's source code, and release it on BitTorrent, your startup's product will become free. That doesn't mean it should be free.
Inaccurate analogy. The baker played no part in making it rain bread. Software developers and other producers of content invest their time, money, and life into creating the product that gets disseminated. If they see that the product of their labor will get pirated, they will be less inclined to innovate and produce more in the future.
"Price is dictated by supply and demand, and there's now a supply which is infinite and therefore, by traditional economics, surely it should be free?"
No. You are committing the fallacy of confusing descriptive economics with normative economics. Saying what will be is not the same as saying what should be. As an example: if I hack into your server, steal your startup's source code, and release it on BitTorrent, your startup's product will become free. That doesn't mean it should be free.
I disagree that it's an inaccurate analogy, but I agree that piracy will reduce innovation in its current state. I'm saying that, as it stands, the fundamental idea of selling something which is free to duplicate is broken.
What if instead of raining from the sky, bread was atom-for-atom replicated from the original baker's product (bakers only input is "design" -- no raw materials). Would eating the clone-bread constitute theft?
[deleted]
That's the worst example I ever heard.
A better example would be a company that invested a huge amount of money into creating the perfect strain of corn that allowed farmers to get 10 times as much corn per acre, solving the shortage caused by ethanol production. They sold this corn to a few farmers, who then grew a lot of it and gave it away for free to others. The original company never recouped their investment, ran out of money since no one would invest, and shut its doors in the middle of inventing a new kind of wheat that would also solve world hunger.
The other farmers never would pay for the better corn, they already had corn, why pay for the better kind if they could get it for free? Right?
Wrong, the better corn would have eventually forced the other farmers into buying it to be competitive, and the company could have recouped its investment and created better wheat, better apples, etc. Just because something doesn't have a variable cost, doesn't mean it didn't have a fixed cost to start with.
A better example would be a company that invested a huge amount of money into creating the perfect strain of corn that allowed farmers to get 10 times as much corn per acre, solving the shortage caused by ethanol production. They sold this corn to a few farmers, who then grew a lot of it and gave it away for free to others. The original company never recouped their investment, ran out of money since no one would invest, and shut its doors in the middle of inventing a new kind of wheat that would also solve world hunger.
The other farmers never would pay for the better corn, they already had corn, why pay for the better kind if they could get it for free? Right?
Wrong, the better corn would have eventually forced the other farmers into buying it to be competitive, and the company could have recouped its investment and created better wheat, better apples, etc. Just because something doesn't have a variable cost, doesn't mean it didn't have a fixed cost to start with.
Yes, of course giving away the better corn is "wrong," but it's not theft. In violation of multiple laws and probably legal agreements, yes, but the point of the cartoon is that it doesn't fit the accepted (to my knowledge) definition of theft -- unlawful, physical removal another person's property.
But it's not a question of ethics
EXACTLY what someone with an ethical dilemma says.
Situational logic if there ever was any.
EXACTLY what someone with an ethical dilemma says.
Situational logic if there ever was any.
I'm actually more suspicious of people who turn what is basically an engineering question ("How do we design a system that maximizes total utility?") into a moral question.
It can only be described as an ethical dilemma if the underlying assumptions are sound. I don't believe that the way we talk about information actually represents what information is and that is the root of the problem. Pirating music or not is not the question to ask until we work out what it is which is getting pirated.
no, silly, piracy is not theft. piracy is piracy, its not a theft or not theft issue, its a different animal.
the rebuttal makes the assumption that pirates will actually pay for the item if they can't get it for free. 90% (i made this number up) of pirates would not pay for the item that they're pirating. hypothetically, if i were unable to pirate photoshop, i'd use gimp instead. i wouldn't go buy photoshop.
so, piracy does not steal income.
the rebuttal makes the assumption that pirates will actually pay for the item if they can't get it for free. 90% (i made this number up) of pirates would not pay for the item that they're pirating. hypothetically, if i were unable to pirate photoshop, i'd use gimp instead. i wouldn't go buy photoshop.
so, piracy does not steal income.
OK, accepting your made-up figure of 90%, what about the other 10% who would pay for the item they're pirating?
The simple fact that you can divide the users downloading copyrighted material into multiple groups would mean that the term 'piracy' is a broader term.
it's like piracy is the main subject and theft or non-theft piracy would be the stubs.
it's like piracy is the main subject and theft or non-theft piracy would be the stubs.
PIRACY
/ \
LOST REVENUE NO LOST REVENUE
| |
THEFT NOT THEFT
You're inappropriately focusing on revenue and not access. Suppose I had a goose that laid golden eggs /ad infinitum/. I have infinite net worth, but if you take one of my eggs, you now have access to value which you otherwise wouldn't have had. Just because your theft didn't impact my revenue it doesn't follow that you didn't steal.
IP is actually quite similar. Suppose I wrote a book (.pdf) that contains important business information about the future of the oil market. I obtained this information at great personal cost. Your accessing that information doesn't remove that information from me, but it's still stealing access to information you otherwise wouldn't have had.
Saying, "But I wasn't going to buy your crappy business book anyway!" doesn't change the fact that you've still taken information that doesn't belong to you.
IP is actually quite similar. Suppose I wrote a book (.pdf) that contains important business information about the future of the oil market. I obtained this information at great personal cost. Your accessing that information doesn't remove that information from me, but it's still stealing access to information you otherwise wouldn't have had.
Saying, "But I wasn't going to buy your crappy business book anyway!" doesn't change the fact that you've still taken information that doesn't belong to you.
So you think that the definition of theft requires lost revenue?
Would you accept that in end cases?
Say you steal a toy from a child that has piles of em? They don't even notice. Not theft?
Would you accept that in end cases?
Say you steal a toy from a child that has piles of em? They don't even notice. Not theft?
i'm not sitting here defending anything. the other 10% doesn't factor into any valuation judgment or right/wrong analysis, since i didn't make one. i'm just pointing out facts and pointing out that the concept of digital piracy does not directly equate to the legal definition of theft. maybe they're in the same order or family, but they're not the same genus or species.
and i'm also, apparently, making up statistics.
and i'm also, apparently, making up statistics.
I'm challenging your assertion that "piracy does not steal income".
The 10% is not spread across every item of the whole. 90% of the time, there is no lost income because there was never any potential to begin with.
Piracy steals income infrequently at best.
Piracy steals income infrequently at best.
I think you guys are going down the wrong path here.
It doesn't matter (to the status of piracy) whether or not piracy is harmful or any other consequences. If 90% of shoplifters get hit with a sudden case of Dostoevsky & slip envelopes under doors resulting in 120% ... It would still be theft. Just like assault is still assault if they sober up & buy you an icecream.
I'm not saying piracy is theft. It is different enough to warrant its own word (& its own treatment). 'Preventing revenue' is not a reasonable explanation. Standing outside a store and yelling like a madman scaring away customers is also preventing (stealing?) revenue.
In some cases, I think that piracy is helpful to companies (photoshop might be an example) in others it's harmful. But that's besides the point. You can invoke that in a wider discussion of how laws should be made or you may be making a moral assertion that rights & such aren't important, only consequences. But that's not really our system (or most people's understanding).
Anyway this discussion is 90% semantics. It's only important to propaganda campaigns (saying stealing is more effective then saying violating copyright).
It doesn't matter (to the status of piracy) whether or not piracy is harmful or any other consequences. If 90% of shoplifters get hit with a sudden case of Dostoevsky & slip envelopes under doors resulting in 120% ... It would still be theft. Just like assault is still assault if they sober up & buy you an icecream.
I'm not saying piracy is theft. It is different enough to warrant its own word (& its own treatment). 'Preventing revenue' is not a reasonable explanation. Standing outside a store and yelling like a madman scaring away customers is also preventing (stealing?) revenue.
In some cases, I think that piracy is helpful to companies (photoshop might be an example) in others it's harmful. But that's besides the point. You can invoke that in a wider discussion of how laws should be made or you may be making a moral assertion that rights & such aren't important, only consequences. But that's not really our system (or most people's understanding).
Anyway this discussion is 90% semantics. It's only important to propaganda campaigns (saying stealing is more effective then saying violating copyright).
90% of the time, there is no lost income because there was never any potential to begin with.
You seem to be making an argument about how rates of piracy are distributed across different products. How does this make the effects of piracy any less harmful?
You seem to be making an argument about how rates of piracy are distributed across different products. How does this make the effects of piracy any less harmful?
thats fine, its a valid challenge, depending on how you read what i wrote. so, they may or may not lose up to 10% of potential income.
what if i made the assertion that, in addition, 10% of people who pirated something will also legally purchase the item they pirated?
what if i made the assertion that, in addition, 10% of people who pirated something will also legally purchase the item they pirated?
they may or may not lose up to 10% of potential income
I want to remind readers that this 10% (or <=10%, as you just phrased it) is a made-up figure.
what if i made the assertion that, in addition, 10% of people who pirated something will also legally purchase the item they pirated?
If you backed up that assertion with hard evidence, and demonstrated that this effect outweighs the loss companies sustain from piracy, I'd take you more seriously.
Are you claiming that these companies overall make more money because of piracy? Software and media companies are diverting hundreds of millions of dollars of their budgets into anti-piracy measures. If piracy didn't drain their profits by at least the aforementioned hundreds of millions of dollars, why on earth would they throw away so much money into something that reduces their bottom line (and annoys me and other consumers, therefore making us less likely to buy their products)? These companies might be capitalistic, greedy and [insert adjective here], but they're not dumb. Follow the money.
I want to remind readers that this 10% (or <=10%, as you just phrased it) is a made-up figure.
what if i made the assertion that, in addition, 10% of people who pirated something will also legally purchase the item they pirated?
If you backed up that assertion with hard evidence, and demonstrated that this effect outweighs the loss companies sustain from piracy, I'd take you more seriously.
Are you claiming that these companies overall make more money because of piracy? Software and media companies are diverting hundreds of millions of dollars of their budgets into anti-piracy measures. If piracy didn't drain their profits by at least the aforementioned hundreds of millions of dollars, why on earth would they throw away so much money into something that reduces their bottom line (and annoys me and other consumers, therefore making us less likely to buy their products)? These companies might be capitalistic, greedy and [insert adjective here], but they're not dumb. Follow the money.
i think the claim i'm making is that piracy is a wash. some people who otherwise would purchase something now won't, and some people who otherwise wouldn't have now will.
canadian governmental study on music piracy:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/pubs/music_industry/tdm_e.cfm
When assessing the P2P downloading population, there was a strong positive relationship between P2P file sharing and CD purchasing. That is, among Canadians actually engaged in it, P2P file sharing increases CD purchases. The study estimates that one additional P2P download per month increases music purchasing by 0.44 CDs per year.
When viewed in the aggreggate (ie. the entire Canadian population), there is no direct relationship between P2P file sharing and CD purchases in Canada. According to the study authors, the analysis of the entire Canadian population does not uncover either a positive or negative relationship between the number of files downloaded from P2P networks and CDs purchased. That is, we find no direct evidence to suggest that the net effect of P2P file sharing on CD purchasing is either positive or negative for Canada as a whole.
canadian governmental study on music piracy:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/pubs/music_industry/tdm_e.cfm
When assessing the P2P downloading population, there was a strong positive relationship between P2P file sharing and CD purchasing. That is, among Canadians actually engaged in it, P2P file sharing increases CD purchases. The study estimates that one additional P2P download per month increases music purchasing by 0.44 CDs per year.
When viewed in the aggreggate (ie. the entire Canadian population), there is no direct relationship between P2P file sharing and CD purchases in Canada. According to the study authors, the analysis of the entire Canadian population does not uncover either a positive or negative relationship between the number of files downloaded from P2P networks and CDs purchased. That is, we find no direct evidence to suggest that the net effect of P2P file sharing on CD purchasing is either positive or negative for Canada as a whole.
I'll read that paper when I have a chance.
And adding to that, the piracy can become a very valuable form of marketing, where the kids pirate it for school and buy it for business, thus possibly increasing your net income.
I downloaded The Man From Earth and liked it so much I recommended it to a lot of people who had never heard of it. They mostly bought or rented the DVD.
Get a new business model. Trying to 'sell' software is like trying to hug water.
This is exactly the reason any software I develop in my spare time I'd release as an open source project.
I think open source also has a more attractive price tag too, but maybe I might consider selling support somewhere down the line...
I think open source also has a more attractive price tag too, but maybe I might consider selling support somewhere down the line...
Piracy most certainly steals income, it's just not 100%. If 10% of people who pirated a song would have purchased it for $1, then each pirate is effectively stealing 10 cents. Just because it's not 1:1 doesn't mean it isn't a loss of revenue.
Do you have some evidence for that claim?
Because in Canada here we allow downloading music as part of fair use like listening to the radio. The artist gains exposure from music downloads which could increase your sales.
So what if this 'stealing' was causes 10% of the users to not buy the music, but 20% of the user to buy the music they would have been otherwise unaware of.
Because in Canada here we allow downloading music as part of fair use like listening to the radio. The artist gains exposure from music downloads which could increase your sales.
So what if this 'stealing' was causes 10% of the users to not buy the music, but 20% of the user to buy the music they would have been otherwise unaware of.
You pay 'royalties' on anything that can record music in Canada, which is about a BAJILLION times worse than what the RIAA is doing here. In Canada, the fee on mp3 players (or audio cassette tapes) affects everyone, even if I didn't want 'free' access to music in the first place.
It's also illegal in Canada to upload or share music if you don't have the rights to do so , so at least theoretically you're downloading that music because the artist/label wants you to.
(( http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308,39118537,0... ))
It's also illegal in Canada to upload or share music if you don't have the rights to do so , so at least theoretically you're downloading that music because the artist/label wants you to.
(( http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308,39118537,0... ))
Good point here. In case of Adobe and Microsoft piracy actually creates income.
If we didn't have pirated MS Office and Adobe Creative Suite folks would improve openoffice.org and the GIMP/Scribus/Inkscape instead and these monopolies would die and lose everything.
Piracy actually helps software monopolies to be de facto standards and kills all alternatives (or keeps alternatives unusable).
Thus software piracy "steals" only our own freedom.
If we didn't have pirated MS Office and Adobe Creative Suite folks would improve openoffice.org and the GIMP/Scribus/Inkscape instead and these monopolies would die and lose everything.
Piracy actually helps software monopolies to be de facto standards and kills all alternatives (or keeps alternatives unusable).
Thus software piracy "steals" only our own freedom.
I think we all know piracy is not theft. It's robbery and murder at sea. Infringement is not theft either as best I can tell. But ask a lawyer if the question pertains to your specific situation.
I just recently went to a RMS talk, and this is what he said too. (I paraphrase)
Piracy is people in boats killing other people and stealing their stuff. What about software piracy? As far as I know, pirates use guns and boats, not software.
What people are talking about when they say "software piracy" is "sharing".
Piracy is people in boats killing other people and stealing their stuff. What about software piracy? As far as I know, pirates use guns and boats, not software.
What people are talking about when they say "software piracy" is "sharing".
Surely the robbery part is theft. :)
Another lame argument I hear is that all IP is essentially some number, and since you can't copyright a number, there is no such thing as IP.
Representation is arbitrary. IP laws identify "intellectual property" by representation. IP laws are not adapting, and they aren't able to adapt. The situation is hopeless and unenforceable: encrypt a DVD-rip or music file and then ask someone to identify it as such. It's impossible. We have to move beyond believing in copyright and IP laws because they are not enforceable.
Why is this true? Why do you think DVD copy protection is doomed to fail? Smart tech people who think this are usually falling into the trap of assuming DVD copy protection has to be perfect. It doesn't; it just has to make large-scale copying and distribution economically irrational.
So far, the BD+ scheme on Blu-Ray disks has had to be bypassed title by title, with Slysoft's breaks being corrected by Macrovision and Slysoft averaging 2.5 weeks on each of the refreshes. Nobody has come up with a scheme that completely defeats BD+. And BD+ is the first system of its kind; subsequent systems will be even more of a bitch to deal with. Add to that the fact that Slysoft has a really smart team that does almost nothing but this.
Take another example: DirecTV. The current DTV smartcards are unbroken, despite a ~7 year track record of breaks leading up to them.
Take another example: iTMS FairPlay. Last time I checked, there still isn't an equivalent break to JHymn, which does a direct decryption of audio files.
Take still another example, of protected media pathways on Windows kernels; currently shipping Intel hardware has chipset-enforceable RSA/SHA/AES locks on kernel integrity, which is something you want anyways, because without it you can't trust your kernel against malware.
And of course, all of this assumes that the goal is to keep people from copying at all. The industry could also solve the revocation problem, so that when copies are detected, players are shut off, accounts are closed, or people are sued. Ed Felten beat early watermarking attempts, but come on, do we really think watermarking is an intractable problem? It's the covert channel problem turned around to favor the defender; the media companies will win it.
I'm not making a moral stand here (although I really think that if you don't want to pay for DRM'd Miley Cyrus tracks, or pay for Miley Cyrus at all, you simply shouldn't give your money to Warner Music Group). But I object to the knee-jerk dogma that copy protection can't work. I think it can.
So far, the BD+ scheme on Blu-Ray disks has had to be bypassed title by title, with Slysoft's breaks being corrected by Macrovision and Slysoft averaging 2.5 weeks on each of the refreshes. Nobody has come up with a scheme that completely defeats BD+. And BD+ is the first system of its kind; subsequent systems will be even more of a bitch to deal with. Add to that the fact that Slysoft has a really smart team that does almost nothing but this.
Take another example: DirecTV. The current DTV smartcards are unbroken, despite a ~7 year track record of breaks leading up to them.
Take another example: iTMS FairPlay. Last time I checked, there still isn't an equivalent break to JHymn, which does a direct decryption of audio files.
Take still another example, of protected media pathways on Windows kernels; currently shipping Intel hardware has chipset-enforceable RSA/SHA/AES locks on kernel integrity, which is something you want anyways, because without it you can't trust your kernel against malware.
And of course, all of this assumes that the goal is to keep people from copying at all. The industry could also solve the revocation problem, so that when copies are detected, players are shut off, accounts are closed, or people are sued. Ed Felten beat early watermarking attempts, but come on, do we really think watermarking is an intractable problem? It's the covert channel problem turned around to favor the defender; the media companies will win it.
I'm not making a moral stand here (although I really think that if you don't want to pay for DRM'd Miley Cyrus tracks, or pay for Miley Cyrus at all, you simply shouldn't give your money to Warner Music Group). But I object to the knee-jerk dogma that copy protection can't work. I think it can.
You're concentrating on the wrong side of technology. In order to prevent copying, one has to do so on _every_ computing/playback device, not only the content producer blessed ones.
As long as we've got private communications, it will become ever easier to share media over the internet. It only takes one "Pirate_0" to break the copy protection (even if it requires digitizing LCD signals). And if breaking the protection requires substantial capital, the market will oblige.
As long as we've got private communications, it will become ever easier to share media over the internet. It only takes one "Pirate_0" to break the copy protection (even if it requires digitizing LCD signals). And if breaking the protection requires substantial capital, the market will oblige.
You didn't read the second-to-last graf of my comment. Even if they can't universally stop copying, and a small number of people can still introduce high-fidelity copies, they can use technology to create deterrents to distributing them.
Two simple examples:
If a license or physical player is needed to create a high-fidelity copy (for instance, by capturing raw video streams from a player), and the output video is watermarked, content providers can revoke the player. Now "free" copies cost players.
If the same technology creates a trail of evidence leading back to "pirate 0", people will start getting sued. Not everyone the RIAA sued was innocent, and there's nothing to say that the DVD legal teams will create the same PR firestorm the RIAA did by abusing the system. Just as importantly, if it takes a huge amount of effort to create a supply chain of unlawful copies, the court case is much more damaging.
Content protection is not really a practice focus for us (though anticheating and kernel protection are), so my thoughts on this are not an exhaustive summary of the space of solutions content providers have. I'm just saying, the content providers aren't always on the wrong side of computer science.
Two simple examples:
If a license or physical player is needed to create a high-fidelity copy (for instance, by capturing raw video streams from a player), and the output video is watermarked, content providers can revoke the player. Now "free" copies cost players.
If the same technology creates a trail of evidence leading back to "pirate 0", people will start getting sued. Not everyone the RIAA sued was innocent, and there's nothing to say that the DVD legal teams will create the same PR firestorm the RIAA did by abusing the system. Just as importantly, if it takes a huge amount of effort to create a supply chain of unlawful copies, the court case is much more damaging.
Content protection is not really a practice focus for us (though anticheating and kernel protection are), so my thoughts on this are not an exhaustive summary of the space of solutions content providers have. I'm just saying, the content providers aren't always on the wrong side of computer science.
To render watermarking useless, pirate_0 only needs to periodically buy a new player+LCD with cash. Any scarcity created by discouraging amateurs from being pirate_0 will only encourage professionals to move into the sector.
Even if it costs $1k to get each movie release out of protected form, it's cheap for a (dubious) advertiser wishing to get a message out to a huge audience.
And further down the road, I suspect there will be an anonymous market for such content. $1k is only a penny from 100k people.
Even if it costs $1k to get each movie release out of protected form, it's cheap for a (dubious) advertiser wishing to get a message out to a huge audience.
And further down the road, I suspect there will be an anonymous market for such content. $1k is only a penny from 100k people.
The sector is already dominated by professionals. The dynamics of satellite TV were similar, and though it was a painful process to revoke not only malicious players but the entire population of defective players that broke the protected path from DTV to the S-Video port, they eventually succeeded.
My point is, "useless" is too strong a word. It isn't silver-bullet simple, but it is a tool that can be made to work. Content providers are already costing Slysoft money; now they just have to figure out how to increase that cost fast enough to push them out of business.
My point is, "useless" is too strong a word. It isn't silver-bullet simple, but it is a tool that can be made to work. Content providers are already costing Slysoft money; now they just have to figure out how to increase that cost fast enough to push them out of business.
Both satellite piracy and creating DVD decryption software require cracking the decryption process in a sustainable way.
But for getting one-time copies out, there will always be an analog output at the end of the chain. Watermarking allows the distributor to pinpoint the device used, but the only thing they can do with this information is shut down the device. I don't see how this can be an economic threat when player prices must be kept low for consumers, but there are millions of people wanting pirated content (which is easily distributed after extraction).
But for getting one-time copies out, there will always be an analog output at the end of the chain. Watermarking allows the distributor to pinpoint the device used, but the only thing they can do with this information is shut down the device. I don't see how this can be an economic threat when player prices must be kept low for consumers, but there are millions of people wanting pirated content (which is easily distributed after extraction).
There are two things they can do with the watermark: revoke the device, and sue the person who bought it. You can't get an AT&T SIM card or a DTV smart card without a contract. The only difference between those and a DVD player is the form factor.
Given a budget of $10k, I'm pretty sure I could obtain either one of those anonymously.
How hard is it to forge the required identification or bribe a store clerk to not check identification?
If someone's house is broken into, are they going to be liable for piracy through their stolen media player? (Assuming there's a several hours before it can be disabled)
How hard is it to forge the required identification or bribe a store clerk to not check identification?
If someone's house is broken into, are they going to be liable for piracy through their stolen media player? (Assuming there's a several hours before it can be disabled)
I don't know. Where's the thriving and accessible black market for AT&T SIM cards and DTV cards?
And, with regards to "are they going to be liable", I direct your attention to the track record of the RIAA.
And, with regards to "are they going to be liable", I direct your attention to the track record of the RIAA.
The value of an anonymously acquired media player would be a lot higher than either of those two things. There's no market because nobody is willing to pay $1k for an anonymous cell phone when they can just get a prepaid one. But if one absolutely needed an AT&T SIM card, with that budget I'm sure they could forge all the required identification.
Of course it's hard to speculate the difficulty of such forging in the future. But I would think that $10k would be enough to break some human link in the chain.
Of course it's hard to speculate the difficulty of such forging in the future. But I would think that $10k would be enough to break some human link in the chain.
To make copy protection work, consumers have to be coerced/convinced into using locked-down systems. If we use systems that we have total control over, then copy protection will never succeed. There still is the analog hole, as well.
> coerced, convinced--or without mainstream alternatives:
"Starting in 2006, many new laptop computers have been sold with a Trusted Platform Module chip built-in... Intel is planning to integrate the TPM capabilities into the southbridge chipset in 2008..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module
Or simply unaware, and with little chance of ever finding out:
http://isis.poly.edu/csaw/embedded (and assorted talks at HOPE, Defcon, Shmoocon, etc. on hardware and firmware covert channels)
"Starting in 2006, many new laptop computers have been sold with a Trusted Platform Module chip built-in... Intel is planning to integrate the TPM capabilities into the southbridge chipset in 2008..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module
Or simply unaware, and with little chance of ever finding out:
http://isis.poly.edu/csaw/embedded (and assorted talks at HOPE, Defcon, Shmoocon, etc. on hardware and firmware covert channels)
Consumers don't care about locked-down systems; if they did, the dominant portable MP3 player would run Linux. It doesn't; it's the iPod.
The analog gap isn't an unsolveable CS problem. Yes, you can't encrypt photons. But you can watermark and trace them. Preventing copies is CS-hard. Preventing covert channels is also CS-hard. Watermarks are a defensive application of covert channels.
Watermarks -> revocation -> economic disincentive to copying transactions.
Watermarks -> evidence -> lawsuit -> economic disincentive to copying at all.
Also, none of these things has to work perfectly. The industry's goal isn't to stop copying. It's to capture the maximum amount of revenue per title.
The analog gap isn't an unsolveable CS problem. Yes, you can't encrypt photons. But you can watermark and trace them. Preventing copies is CS-hard. Preventing covert channels is also CS-hard. Watermarks are a defensive application of covert channels.
Watermarks -> revocation -> economic disincentive to copying transactions.
Watermarks -> evidence -> lawsuit -> economic disincentive to copying at all.
Also, none of these things has to work perfectly. The industry's goal isn't to stop copying. It's to capture the maximum amount of revenue per title.
I like the information entropy argument. Always makes me chuckle.
That's a good argument
It's lame because the number is irrelevant, so it is not the core of the IP.
The important thing is whether a certain number maps to a mechanism. The mapping is the thing people are really copyrighting when they copyright IP, and that is not a number.
The important thing is whether a certain number maps to a mechanism. The mapping is the thing people are really copyrighting when they copyright IP, and that is not a number.
Has anyone found anything copyrighted in Pi yet? That would be awsome to share at song by saying "the 1e74 + 2 digit of Pi for 6000 digits."
"Piracy" is just as inappropriate and ridiculous as "theft" as a term to describe illegal copying or copyright infringement. Call it what it is, "illegal copying." It fits its own class, not theft of hard goods on land or piracy on the high seas.
"Arggg, what seas you be sailing, matey?"
How did the word "piracy" ever get attributed to this? Just to make it more sensational, more evil?
"Arggg, what seas you be sailing, matey?"
How did the word "piracy" ever get attributed to this? Just to make it more sensational, more evil?
In constructing his analogy the author seems to take it as given that sneaking into a movie theater is theft. I don't consider that theft. I consider it piracy plus trespassing.
> A much better analogy for digital piracy is sneaking into a theater to watch a movie. You are not stealing a copy of that movie, and the theater is free to show the movie to others. But you are stealing revenue that the theater would have earned had you rightfully purchased a ticket.
Last I heard, you don't get sued/fined thousands of dollars for sneaking into a movie theater....
Last I heard, you don't get sued/fined thousands of dollars for sneaking into a movie theater....
You also don't get sued or fined thousands of dollars for stealing a candy bar.
Piracy is a strange beast, but it is definitely NOT theft.
If I download a song - it does not directly negatively impact the artist. They aren't out anything.
The indirect impact on the artist is another matter. They are potentially out of a sale that could have otherwise happened without the piracy. However, they are also potentially gaining a sale from a user who would have not normally purchased their music, but downloaded and decided to buy. Just like listening to a song on the radio isn't theft - yet if you are only listening to the radio and not buying music are you stealing?
It most certainly should not carry harsher penalties than physical theft. Downloading a song should not result in a 1000$ penalty while a physical theft of a CD results in a lesser penalty.
If I download a song - it does not directly negatively impact the artist. They aren't out anything.
The indirect impact on the artist is another matter. They are potentially out of a sale that could have otherwise happened without the piracy. However, they are also potentially gaining a sale from a user who would have not normally purchased their music, but downloaded and decided to buy. Just like listening to a song on the radio isn't theft - yet if you are only listening to the radio and not buying music are you stealing?
It most certainly should not carry harsher penalties than physical theft. Downloading a song should not result in a 1000$ penalty while a physical theft of a CD results in a lesser penalty.
"However, they are also potentially gaining a sale from a user who would have not normally purchased their music, but downloaded and decided to buy."
The analogy breaks down because music and other forms of media are just pure information, so there is no reason to buy it if you already downloaded it, especially as the friction of obtaining an illegal copy is reduced to zero.
The analogy breaks down because music and other forms of media are just pure information, so there is no reason to buy it if you already downloaded it, especially as the friction of obtaining an illegal copy is reduced to zero.
Actually this analog is exactly what drives Baen Free Library. They gave ebooks away free, in a multitude of formats, and found that:
1. Many downloaders ended up buying physical copies because paper books are easier to use.
2. It drove up sales of older catalog items, which had been crowded out of the shelves at physical bookstores.
3. It created new fans of the authors, driving up future book sales.
You can read about it at http://www.baen.com/library/
1. Many downloaders ended up buying physical copies because paper books are easier to use.
2. It drove up sales of older catalog items, which had been crowded out of the shelves at physical bookstores.
3. It created new fans of the authors, driving up future book sales.
You can read about it at http://www.baen.com/library/
I read this: http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ and then purchased the book later on.
Why? Because I found it was a useful book and wanted to support the author and own a physical copy. I also would have never purchased the book if I hadn't been able to go through it first online.
I realize that I wasn't pirating - but the analogy doesn't break down in the manner you suggest.
Why? Because I found it was a useful book and wanted to support the author and own a physical copy. I also would have never purchased the book if I hadn't been able to go through it first online.
I realize that I wasn't pirating - but the analogy doesn't break down in the manner you suggest.
Buying a physical copy of a book is a little different, as it does offer some additional benefit (in terms of portability, different medium, whatever). However, let's say that your argument is that some people will like the author and "buy" a copy of the music they already have, even though that copy offers zero additional benefit to the consumer.
That's a donation, not a purchase.
That's a donation, not a purchase.
Buying a physical copy of music in the form of a CD confers addition benefits over a downloaded MP3 as well, one of which is the higher quality of uncompressed 16 bit audio (or better, if SACD or DVD-Audio versions are available).
You can get flac rips at private music trackers like waffles. The library is comparable to if not better than itunes. There are some 24 bit rips out there but not very many.
I'd like the author of this post to know that to the extent that he persuades people that piracy is bad, and they are thus less likely to share things on peer-to-peer networks, he is forcing me to pay for stuff I'd otherwise download. This is not 'stealing revenue', but it is burdening me with expenses -- and at the bottom line, that's the same thing.
So I'll assume he's consistent in his moral principles once the check clears.
So I'll assume he's consistent in his moral principles once the check clears.
If you're going to get all pedantic about these terms, certainly you must bring up the actual definition of "piracy":
Piracy is a robbery committed at sea, or sometimes on the shore, without a commission from a sovereign nation.
That said, whatever you want to call it, it's hard to deny it's illegal in many places. If you're ok with breaking the law, and you think it's moral to "pirate", then by all means go ahead.
Piracy is a robbery committed at sea, or sometimes on the shore, without a commission from a sovereign nation.
That said, whatever you want to call it, it's hard to deny it's illegal in many places. If you're ok with breaking the law, and you think it's moral to "pirate", then by all means go ahead.
it's hard to deny it's illegal in many places. If you're ok with breaking the law, and you think it's moral to "pirate"
It may be illegal, but that does not mean a pirate is breaking the law. The basis of piracy is to sovereignly act, without blessing from the land oligopoly. A pirate may be attacked by a nation, but the concept of law is absent from such interaction.
It may be illegal, but that does not mean a pirate is breaking the law. The basis of piracy is to sovereignly act, without blessing from the land oligopoly. A pirate may be attacked by a nation, but the concept of law is absent from such interaction.
I was referring to piracy of intellectual property. I should have been more clear.
In his attempt to provide a better analogy, the author's is no better than the "stealing" example:
"A much better analogy for digital piracy is sneaking into a theater to watch a movie. You are not stealing a copy of that movie, and the theater is free to show the movie to others. But you are stealing revenue that the theater would have earned had you rightfully purchased a ticket."
The movie theater has costs associated with the playing of said movie. It pays employees, cashiers, ushers, cleaners, licensing fees, operators... etc etc... These costs are covered by the revenue from said ticket purchase. On the other hand, when a pirated copy is made, there is absolutely no ADDITIONAL cost to the content's creator(s). Actually, people typically use their own resources (time especially) to reproduce these works.
As previously stated, this new medium needs new rules and new ways to participate.
Besides, last time I checked the people complaining the loudest about piracy benefit the most from it.
The movie theater has costs associated with the playing of said movie. It pays employees, cashiers, ushers, cleaners, licensing fees, operators... etc etc... These costs are covered by the revenue from said ticket purchase. On the other hand, when a pirated copy is made, there is absolutely no ADDITIONAL cost to the content's creator(s). Actually, people typically use their own resources (time especially) to reproduce these works.
As previously stated, this new medium needs new rules and new ways to participate.
Besides, last time I checked the people complaining the loudest about piracy benefit the most from it.
I think part of what gets confused in these discussions is that there are (at least) two reasons we might restrict a behavior: 1) because the act itself causes harm; 2) because allowing the act to occur will lead to an undesirable outcome.
Historically, copyright law is type (2) -- specifically, it's a response to the threat that creators will not create without financial incentive. The copying isn't itself undesirable; we're more interested in encouraging a specific outcome.
Where most of the purportedly analogous arguments go wrong is that they describe actions that are type (1).
As an example, lots of people here are suggesting that a better analogy to file sharing is the act of sneaking into a movie theater. But this seems pretty clearly to be a case of an act that is restricted due to (1); that is, it's illegal because it's trespassing, which is undesirable in its own right.
Historically, copyright law is type (2) -- specifically, it's a response to the threat that creators will not create without financial incentive. The copying isn't itself undesirable; we're more interested in encouraging a specific outcome.
Where most of the purportedly analogous arguments go wrong is that they describe actions that are type (1).
As an example, lots of people here are suggesting that a better analogy to file sharing is the act of sneaking into a movie theater. But this seems pretty clearly to be a case of an act that is restricted due to (1); that is, it's illegal because it's trespassing, which is undesirable in its own right.
>A much better analogy for digital piracy is sneaking into a theater to watch a movie. You are not stealing a copy of that movie, and the theater is free to show the movie to others. But you are stealing revenue that the theater would have earned had you rightfully purchased a ticket.
Some cinemas are set up to facilitate sneaking in: having passed the usher to get into one film, you can then stay and watch any number you like.
This is semi-deliberate: it turns out that they gain more money from people who wouldn't otherwise bother, than they lose from people who would otherwise buy two.
Maybe these people are committing "theft", but it's still a mutually beneficial relationship. This doesn't obviously apply to most internet piracy, as in that case nothing is bought at all, but it's worth considering.
Some cinemas are set up to facilitate sneaking in: having passed the usher to get into one film, you can then stay and watch any number you like.
This is semi-deliberate: it turns out that they gain more money from people who wouldn't otherwise bother, than they lose from people who would otherwise buy two.
Maybe these people are committing "theft", but it's still a mutually beneficial relationship. This doesn't obviously apply to most internet piracy, as in that case nothing is bought at all, but it's worth considering.
I'd like to see some evidence or indication that this is deliberate on any level.
I had friends who worked in a local theater and we hung out there quite a bit. The manager was locally famous for instructing employees to turn a blind eye to "lurkers" because "If you stay in a movie theater that long, you're gonna be hungry and thirsty eventually".
Turns out that the rental on the reels was so high that the ticket sales themselves were basically a break even proposition. $7 popcorn and $4 sodas are a completely different story.
Turns out that the rental on the reels was so high that the ticket sales themselves were basically a break even proposition. $7 popcorn and $4 sodas are a completely different story.
Not quite the semi-deliberate situation that the parent referred to, but does an explicitly deliberate occurrence count? I've had a theater manager let me and my two friends in to see a film for free and to thank him, we bought snacks at the snack bar even though we just ate. The theater was mostly empty (the movie was "Jesus Is Magic" in case you were wondering), which was probably his motivation. No, I did not know the manager personally.
Good point; I heard it second-hand, but I think it came from the book How Economics Explains Everything.
Isn't this all just semantics? It all just depends on how you define theft. From what I understand, given the legal definition, it generally (but not always) is not exactly theft.
Leaving aside whether pirates would pay for the item, the idea that someone has a right to future sales is wrong. The guy who opens a competing business "hurts" Best Buy in exactly the same way that a pirate does, but this doesn't mean that he's actually taken anything from them, because they don't own future sales -- they only hope to eventually own them.
[Edit: but, reading down the page, I see that pg already made a similar point more concisely. Oh, well. :) ]
[Edit: but, reading down the page, I see that pg already made a similar point more concisely. Oh, well. :) ]
to understand that it does not steal income, you would need to live in place where authorized copy of MS Office exceeds net month salary of an Engineer. Would you pay one month salary for MS Windows? This is something that Western companies just do not understand when making business in Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam. When they hire guys to work for 300usd a month that's perfectly fine. When they offer software written by Indians for the same price in India as in the US - they consider it normal too? Very interesting logic.
I make over 100usd/hr and I pay for my software. My colleges in developing countries make it in a week and I don't blame them for copying software. Otherwise they would stay forever poor instead of learning stuff.
I make over 100usd/hr and I pay for my software. My colleges in developing countries make it in a week and I don't blame them for copying software. Otherwise they would stay forever poor instead of learning stuff.
Causing someone not to get income they might otherwise have gotten is not theft. If it were, giving someone bad financial advice would also be theft.
Because taking something someone already has is so much more serious than causing them not to get something they hoped to get in the future, we have a specially bad word just for this situation: theft. And the RIAA and MPAA deliberately misuse this word in order to make file sharing seem worse than it actually is.