Loaded language.

[reddragdiva]

Is it acceptable to pirate software? Is it acceptable to pirate media? Is it acceptable to pirate books?

If not, why? If yes or sometimes, then when and why?

Is copying data morally equivalent to stealing it on CD? Why?

(courtesy mstevens)

Edit: C'mon, there are published musicians and authors reading this! Don't tell me you don't have an opinion ...

Comments

[squiddity.livejournal.com]

Is it acceptable to pirate ships?
Or wenches?

[reddragdiva]

Magic 8-Ball says: IT IS CERTAIN.

[mstevens.livejournal.com]

s/pirate/violate licence agreement/ or whatever neutral phrasing you like.

My inspiration for the poll was arguing with someone on the macosx community who thought it was perfectly acceptable to get a hacked serial for Quicktime because they felt the price was unreasonably high and that full-screen video should be free, damnit.

[ladykathryn.livejournal.com]

...
VLC?
That's the lamest excuse ever.

[kineticfactory.livejournal.com]

Copying data is not equivalent to stealing physical objects because it does not deprive the original holder of the data of use of it. It has been argued that it deprives the owner of the data of a sale, though (a) the "1 pirated copy = 1 lost sale" equivalence is dubious at best (would each user of a pirated copy of Photoshop buy one if they couldn't copy it?), and (b) for some media at least, copying generates more sales through more exposure to their works (as Cory Doctorow said, the greatest threat to most artists is not piracy but obscurity).

If one takes the point of view of corporations, which cannot appreciate music or art, then intellectual property is currency, something whose value is inherently connected to its scarcity, and copying it is morally equivalent to currency counterfeiting, which is recognised as an act of war. The scifi author K.W. Jeter put forward an argument for why we may see copyright piracy become a capital crime (it's too easy to effectively police, and so the penalties must become exponentially more severe to act as a deterrent). Of course, from your point of view or mine, this is insanity, but we don't buy the laws, do we?

[medakse.livejournal.com]

(b) for some media at least, copying generates more sales through more exposure to their works (as Cory Doctorow said, the greatest threat to most artists is not piracy but obscurity).

*applauds*
Amen. The record companies kept arguing that the advent of Napster brought their sales down 30%, and had the data to prove it.
What they failed to mention was that was also the year they stopped selling CD singles which comprised of, you ready for it? 30% of their sales.

I think "pirating" software, music, books, etc. is a bad thing. Stealing is bad. But when I think "pirating," I think taking copies and selling them to other people. Downloading music, books, etc. has introduced many people to more artists and authors, particularly for people who live in small towns, remote areas, etc.

When Napster was free, before it was "bad," I found more bands than I ever had before, because I experimented. And I bought the things I liked. Always. Most people I know are the same way.

And honestly? If I was promised that 50% or more of the proceeds would go to the artists, then I would be a happy camper. But outside of Tool, does any other band have that contract?

[phelyan.livejournal.com]

Is it acceptable to pay 250% more for music and movies than is strictly neccessary to make sure artists and manufacturers get their fair share?

Besides, especially when you talk about pirating media:

"Pirating" (that's better) includes breaking DRM, which I am a great believer in. If I buy a song from iTunes I would want to play it on my media machine in the lounge, on my Pocket PC when I commute and upstairs on the other PC when I'm in the bath, and maybe even at work. With DRM I can't.

[mstevens.livejournal.com]

Is it acceptable to pay 250% more for music and movies than is strictly neccessary to make sure artists and manufacturers get their fair share?


Yes, this is what we call capitalism. If we are unhappy, we take our custom elsewhere or start making music at lower prices.

[sciamachy.livejournal.com]

I think it should be up to the individual artist/writer/etc. I don't hold with the idea that the RIAA should be some kind of hired thug to go round beating up anyone who copies material produced by artists signed to any of its hundreds of record labels. Personally if I was a professional writer or artist, I'd make a fair few items creative commons attributed licensed. This allows for remixes and mashups, as long as you let people know you've got it from me originally. My flickr photostream is licensed in this way, but with the non-derivatives option also, so you're not allowed to photoshop my friends and loved ones into porn fakes for example.

[mstevens.livejournal.com]

I do like artists who make stuff available under open licenses.

[steer.livejournal.com]

Perfectly acceptable to me. You are not depriving anyone of anything if you would not have bought the product anyway. I would say it is unacceptable if and only if you would have purchased the software (or some equivalent bit of software) from a company small enough to actually need your money.

If the company in question is someone like microsoft it's damn near a moral duty to keep your money out of their hands. :-)

[themadcatlady.livejournal.com]

Jsut my sentiments too. It´s not theft because nothing is MISSING exactly! ;)

[themadcatlady.livejournal.com]

Is it acceptable to pirate Johnny Depp? *drools* ;)

[mstevens.livejournal.com]

I'll have to watch the film again to check.

[shamus9999.livejournal.com]

Is it acceptable to spend we taxpayer's dollars to enact and enforce laws that only benefit a few megacorporations rather than the general citizenry at large?

Stealing is wrong. Thieves are detrimental to society as a whole. Therefore it's OK to spend public monies to apprehend, prosecute and imprison them. I think most will agree with this.

I fail to see how "pirating" is detrimental to anyone but the copyright owner of that which is being pirated or those that are in league with him, such as retailers. Therefore that copyright owner should pursue the issue at his own expense via a civil suit rather than public-funded law enforcement doing so via criminal laws, in my opinion.

[lnr]

For minor personal copyright breaches I'm definitely with you on that last paragraph.

[rosefox]

By "pirate" I assume you mean "make use of without paying for in a way that does not deprive another end user of the product" (that being the difference between copying an mp3 and stealing a CD). Is that more or less accurate? I don't want to hazard an answer until I know we're using the same vocabulary.

[reddragdiva]

Do please answer for each reasonable (to someone) definition, at as much length as you feel like.

[lnr]

It's not theft, but I prefer not to do it anyway. If I don't want something enough to pay for it obviously I didn't want it that much anyway.

Slight exceptions on increasingly dodgy moral ground, though definitely all breaking copyright law:

• I will happily make electronic copies for my own use of things I also own a legit copy of on CD.
• If the thing is otherwise unavailable (eg out of print) I'll accept an electronic copy - though if a real copy came my way later I'd feel like I ought to buy it.
• I will accept compilation CDs from friends, although I don't put these on my portable media player. If there's a track I really like I'll go out and buy an album with it on. This one feels most weaselly.

[mstevens.livejournal.com]

For me at least, I tend to think 'fair use' of a CD I've bought is to use it in whatever format I like, and I thought you got at least some right to do that.

[disastrid.livejournal.com]

rant incoming.

in my opinion, it is not up to the consumer to police the marketplace. the market changes? then you'd better get busy adapting or get busy bankrupting. a lack of vision on your part does not entail a crime on my part. giant companies whining about pirating is like a grocery store whining about losses when they decide that customers can make their own change - "understand the wants and needs of your target market" is a fundamental concept that a lot of media CEOs fail to recognize.

where music is concerned ... if major labels did not treat their signed artists like slaves and released GOOD product that i wanted with stuff that i could not get elsewhere for free, i would be more than happy to pay for it. the consumer now demanding something more for money - when the internet keeps the price of the music alone steady at FREE - is a call to adapt to the changing marketplace and systems of media distribution, not to point fingers at the consumers (who, hilariously, are doing exactly like any corporation would do in that position, which is get your resources from a cheaper source. the irony, oh, it burns.) i have no sympathy for precious money-soaked record labels who want to point the blame at the consumer for their lack of initiative and lack of vision. do like the rest of the business world and change your models or die; consumers have no responsibility to save your company because you suddenly can't do business the way you have since 1950.

software: if you want to become the industry standard, you have to accept a certain level of piracy. windows would not be half of what it is today if it was not the industry standard, and it got there through piracy. same with photoshop. same with final cut pro. if you want to be a standard, recognized consumer product, consumers have to recognize and be able to use whatever the fuck you're selling. piracy, in this sense, is excellent marketing. cry me a fucking river, millionaires.

books are unique in that their method of distribution - ie, paper books - have a much longer-standing presence in media consciousness than music or software, so there is some sort of historical cultural hold they have on the basis of being books. i, for example, HATE reading books online. i would always rather go to a bookstore and buy whatever it is that i'm after, because the way i use books is to take them around with me, read them wherever, and i like the intimacy of reading a book, i like the feeling in my hands, and i just like books. if you don't give a rat's ass where you read it, however, then read everything you want online; if free or very cheap access to books bankrupted publishing companies, then libraries and used book stores and mega stores where you can read whatever you want without pressure to buy anything would have been the subjects of lawsuits long ago. the fact is - they don't. to think that every person who reads a book in a library is a "lost sale", to use a music industry bullshit theory, is ridiculous. i have noticed, however, that in recent years books as objects are getting more and more interesting, in terms of cover design, paper used, and conception as an object; that's an effort at adaptability, that's some effort toward giving the consumer something more. take note, RIAA!

[deathboy.livejournal.com]

I tried a "book" once :D 'couldn't find where the batteries went, and the backlight was rubbish!

[arkady.livejournal.com]

If I either have it on CD presently or have previously owned a legitimately-purchased version on tape or vinyl, I have no qualms about downloading an MP3 of a track.

If it's an artist I'm unfamiliar with, I have no qualms about using Soulseek or similar to download a few MP3s. Often if I decide I like the artist enough, I'll actually go and buy the album, so by virtue of having had tracks pirated the artist in question will actually have made a sale.

As far as software is concerned, I use the Open Source or freeware/shareware equivalent unless there really is no other option. If that only option is a Microsoft product then I'll quite happily diddle Bill gates out of a few more quid that he won't notice anyway.

Do people actually pirate books? Why on earth would anyone bother with one when you can go and read it for free at the library?

Copying data is not equivalent to stealing a CD; stealing the CD deprives someone else of the opportunity to purchase it, but copying data does not remove the original data from circulation - it just widens the circle of people who are able to enjoy and make use of it, some of whom might otherwise not have been able to.

[jeshyr]

Do people actually pirate books? Why on earth would anyone bother with one when you can go and read it for free at the library?

I know that I am not a "typical" consumer, but I can't get to the library, or hold the physical book... presumably not even all able bodied people live near a library.

I have more thoughts about this, particularly re those who have no way to afford to buy the item, and 3rd/2nd world people who have net access but much stuff is not locally available for them.

Actually, don't get me started on not locally available... talking books from Amazon/etc + postage =OUCH, and the range here is pathetic :(

r wishing could type more

[deathboy.livejournal.com]

I like to think that I'm a responsible pirate.

Theft, as mentioned above, involves depriving someone of something. Though not mentioned above, that doesn't just mean depriving them of the original article, it can mean depriving them of the revenue they would have expected for selling such, BUT that would mean they would have otherwise got that sale from you. Rarely the case.

If I (on a whim) copy something I fully intended to buy, then never buy it, or give someone a free copy of something they would happily have bought, I'm depriving someone of some revenue. I avoid this.

The same industries that sell us the same product again and again and again via new formats, shinee boxee versions with 1.2 minutes extra footage, etc, mis-sell Digital TV as high-quality, mis-sold CDs as indestructible, mis-sell DVDs as ultra-high-quality and, from time to time, violate the paying consumer's rights via licensing swindles and DRM deserves little sympathy. "Rights" are a moving set of goalposts. One year we're told home-taping is killing the music industry, the next we're encouraged to rebuy it all on CD. The next we grab it on mp3s. The next, we find our CDs don't play anymore because we've all migrated to GreenFist! players that only accept DRM content.

It can either be a war of attrition or a push-pull of compromise. Agile businesses are proving that new technology means opportunities for profit, not certain doom, while the dinosaur monopolists do their thing and try to retain the monopoly.

I find it all quite exciting, truthfully. Plus, I have absolute faith that whatever the dinosaurs do to try to gyp me out of my rights, some 13 year old kid will crack in a few weeks. Always happens.

So, for me, I try to be a conscientious pirate, rent movies from an online DVD place (and nick 'em via torrents), buy music I like either online or offline, recommend people do likewise (rather than recommend they just nick it) and try not to wince if it's my own copyright being infringed on any given day.

hmm, I just thought... If you buy something eventually, can we just call that "timeshifting your purchase"? :)

I remember when it were all coal-burning minidiscs, as far as the eye could see.

[reddragdiva]

Ah, thank you, I was hoping for an actual musician with an album out to comment. Now I need an author ...

[serpentstar.livejournal.com]

As a general rule, it's unacceptable to take someone else's creative material and make copies of it without their permission.

However I will make a special exception for anyone who already bought a copy of Star Wars on DVD and wants a pirate copy of the newly old "Han Shot First" edition soon to be released, given that's what they would have preferred in the first place.

[serpentstar.livejournal.com]

Er, and another special exception for anyone who wants pirate copies of Deathboy's music, obviously. :) Anyone want to email me some mp3s of it? It's not that I can't afford it, or don't want to buy it, it's just that he doesn't seem to mind piracy generally.

[breadlord.livejournal.com]

I'm not entirely sure where I heard this argument, but there is fundamentally no difference, in the context of digital media between numbers, images, sounds, text of compiled programs. They are all represented by binary numbers. By this rationale, I cannot own the "rights" to a digital media file any more than I can own those over the number 8.

A 130mB video file containing an episode of South Park, for instance, is represented by a binary number. It's a very big number, but it's a number nonetheless. Am I in trouble if one of the exeriments I run generates that number? It's unlikely, but is not utterly impossible.

Also, if the way I use the data is different should I be liable? If I were to use that same 128MB file, but my computer uses an 11 bit byte, and it represented something completely different?

In a different vein, I've less money than Elton John, say, I work hard for what I DO get, and I don't get paid for work I did a long time ago. Fuck him, fuck the £200k a year he spazzes on flowers and fuck his nasty gaudy wedding reception. It is the money of consumers that allows the shit to roll uphill. Everything I download and use gets bought later on, if a piece of software isn't worth six hours of my time talking to an arsehole client to pay for it then I refuse to.

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

I'm not entirely sure where I heard this argument, but there is fundamentally no difference, in the context of digital media between numbers, images, sounds, text of compiled programs. They are all represented by binary numbers. By this rationale, I cannot own the "rights" to a digital media file any more than I can own those over the number 8.

A 130mB video file containing an episode of South Park, for instance, is represented by a binary number. It's a very big number, but it's a number nonetheless. Am I in trouble if one of the exeriments I run generates that number? It's unlikely, but is not utterly impossible.

IANAL but...

As far as I know, in theory copyright allows for the concept of independently creating something which just happens to be similar (unlike patents), though proving one way or another may be a different matter.

Though really, the probability of randomly generating a 130MB number equivalent to an episode of South Park (or any copyrighted file) is surely so astonishingly small as to be negligible.

[the_axel]

From each according to their means, to each according to their needs.

[dcarson.livejournal.com]

This made me lol.

From Wikipedia's article on "Caning in Singapore" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore):

Crimes which may result in caning

...
* Piracy (robbery committed at sea): At least twelve strokes (Note: The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material and software piracy is not punishable by caning)
...

[hellsop.livejournal.com]

Nope, pirating software is not acceptable. There are reasonably functional replacements for pretty much everything, that do an entirely adequate job. If a specific application lacks a free replacement, write one or do without.

Similarly, media is available from many, many sources. Music and movies quickly show up in used outlets for a fraction of the price of new, or are available from ebay and Amazon's used and overstock vendors. If paying $15 is too much for a CD, it'll still be as good to listen to in six months when it shows up on the used sites for a third. Additionally, see below.

Books? Are there no lending libraries?

HOWEVER: limitations on reasonable use or the transferral of media from one form to another for personal use are UNacceptable. If I own an LP, I have no qualms about ripping it to WAV and burning a CD of it. I have no problem making MP3s out of all my purchased CDs and putting copies on CD in my car, and on several computers that I own, and anyplace else that I am responsible for music.

Information wants to be free.

[paula-angela.livejournal.com]

I remember when I first heard the words "intellectual property".
It was at Uni, and I really struggled with the concept.

It took years to come to terms with the concept that some people thought that ideas had "ownership".

My own instinctual understanding, was that human beings are infinately creative. When we first start to string words together, we don't just repeat what we hear, we create. The process starts early, and is endlessly bountiful.

My experience of ideas was that there was never any lack of them. It was natural for ideas/memes to flow between people, along communities, etc.

In fact, it is the ascribing of economic value to ideas, and the subsequent tracking of ownership, that stifles creativity. When it becomes important to establish the value of an idea, we have competition between people about these ideas.

If the ideas were not ascribed economic value, then the competition would be purely amongst the ideas - and this seems right and natural to me. The very thought of argy-bargy between people, to get their ideas valued, is completely sordid to me. People compete with each other, play their little power games, and it is the ideas that suffer, while the people win or lose.


I realise that none of this addresses your questions, but it does explain why I found the whole idea of intellectual property anti-intuitive :)

Re: Information wants to be free.

[kake]

I agree that there doesn't seem to be much of a lack of ideas. The lack is in the implementation of ideas, and this is where the hard work (and the requirement for reward?) comes in.

Well, you asked for it...

[hairyears.livejournal.com]

You're going to see a lot of trollish economic illiteracy - and wilful ignorance - involving the term "intellectual property".

There are people who insist on it being an absolute right of property, record companies among them: it seems that that all pro-IP fundamentalists are compelled to weaken their case by underpaying or blatantly ripping-off he artises (and, in other fields, the scientists) who do the genuinely creative work. Worse, they regard their customers with contempt: would anyone care to speak in favour of region-coding for DVDs? It's all about the abuse of power, and million-dollar lawsuits against teenage track-sharers are consistent with all the other malpractices.

Nevertheless, there is a need for some system of reward for ideas, design, and creative thought. It isn't free! Even bad ideas aren't free. It costs time and money to write software, record music, and develop pharmaceuticals; and, however committed some of you - many of you in tax-funded academic cantonments - may be to socialism and the nationalisation of intellectual endeavour, it is inescapably true that the resources to support the creative people have to come from somewhere. Games production being a case in point: a lot of the anti-IP fundamentalists are academics and amateurs who have never seen or worked in a large software project, and have no conception of the organised effort that is involved, or of the vast amounts of money that are sunk into the product before a single DVD is shrink-wrapped and shipped to the shops. A lot of these projects will never make a profit, and the blockbusters have to subsidise all the development work.

Would any of the anti-IP fundamentalists care to suggest a better alternative?* Anarchic utopians need not apply.

What we have today is a system of patents and copyrights: temporary and limited monopolies that guarantee a financial reward to the creator. There is a caveat: full and free publication for the public good on expiry.

It's an excellent principle, that is often badly practiced. Abused, even. But workable, in a democratic state with functioning institutions of debate, legislation, administration and justice... And some commonsense and enlightened commercial practice. In a state that lacks these things (name one that has them!) ripped-off customers will always rebel: as Napster, or Canadian prescription drug shippers will tell you, there is no way to enforce unfair trade in a free society. And, as i-Tunes demonstrates, there is a great deal of goodwill and a good profit to be made in trading fairly.









*Linux. I will point out, just once, that GNU-Linux was not and is not 'free': it was written by tax-funded academics and by paid programmers working in their spare time. At least, I hope it was their time, not their employers'. Yes, it's a wonderful communal enterprise, and it works better than a lot of corporate bloatware, but what do you think paid the rent for all these people? Fairy dust? Their whole 'Gift Economy' is piggy-backed as a spare-time project onto the commercial enterprise of developing saleable software, and only utopians on medication believe that the whole world can operate that way.

Yes, it's great that people are prepared to devote a part of their time in this way, and remarkable that it works so well - and we need an alternative to Windows - but it's not an alternative economy.

Re: Well, you asked for it...

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Linux isn't meant to be free (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=free) (7), it's meant to be free (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=free) (2).

I pay for Linux, and I've been paid to work on projects related to Linux.

[secretlondon.livejournal.com]

Downloading music to sample it is fine as far as I am concerned. It is the only way I have of exposing myself to interesting music. The music press is a very poor substitute - the NME can hype the most unremarkable crap.

Pirating books isn't cost efficient of course - your photocopying costs would exceed the cost of the book in many cases. It's also a total hassle and would produce a notably inferior product.

I see a fundamental difference between pirating for personal use - and selling pirate copies. There is no moral equivilency between a bittorrent user and someone selling dodgy DVDs. Making money out of it is many times worse.

Downloading a single doesn't seem as bad as stealing it from Woolworths would be. I think this is because I see the CD as the real version and the music file as an intangible, non-real thing. Physically walking off with something you haven't paid for is clearly shop lifting. Downloading a single so you can hear it (as if it was to be played on the radio you'd have to listen to all the shite on the radio) is different.

[(Anonymous)]

From my own personal moral standpoint, I would not feel guilty if I indulged in piracy of media that would not be available to me in any other way, eg getting US telly early (if at all), getting Japanese anime fansubs, etc, as none of these would ordinarily be available for me to purchase, so they are not losing any trade through any putative piracy on my part. I would also have few qualms about pirating things that I have already in some way paid for, ie BBC programmes, or getting games for my mac or various emulators that I bought in a different format, or acquiring mp3s of CDs I once owned and have misplaced, or even movies that I have already paid to see.

All porn should be free, though.

[tintintin.livejournal.com]

Fucksticks, forgot to log in. Apologies!

[mirukux.livejournal.com]

i mainly go by 'try before you buy', although that's much harder when you're skint most of the time. i'd really like to buy more cds/dvds than i have been recently, especially from some of the smaller artists/labels i've been downloading and enjoying the music of, but my sallery sucked until january and have been on an emerency tax code since (god damn it, why don't they tell you the basics of tax law in school!). i think it just feels 'right' to have the authentic product, compared to some random rip, however high the quality.

[sister-stella.livejournal.com]

god damn it, why don't they tell you the basics of tax law in school

That would have saved me so much money and stress if they did!

[siani-hedgehog.livejournal.com]

it's acceptable to pirate for the purposes of testing software, or media, provided that if you are pleased with the product you then purchase it. in this way, the "piracy" is equivalent to having better radio (radio can no longer possibly play all the new music) or TV. and in the case of software, it puts people who are physically or socially isolated in the same position as those who would be able to try the software on a friend's computer. it is always acceptable to pirate software which you cannot buy, because you are not depriving anyone of income.

Graphics Software POV

[sister-stella.livejournal.com]

Pirated software = promoted software.
Students and wannabes use pirated software. We all know this. Would they buy it full price or even discounted if they couldn't get a pirated copy? I'd say in around 80% or more of cases, no they would not. They'd d/l the GIMP or buy something much much cheaper or simply go without.

Once they're accustomed to the way the software works you're very reluctant to change brands. That's because with high-end software like Photoshop and Paintshop Pro it can take years to get a good handle on them. Once you can afford the good, non buggy copy, you'd buy it, or once you're a professional you wouldn't have to because it goes on the company's tab. And we all know that companies get more government welfare and sweeter deals than individual human beings.

This is because our society is organised not by human beings but by nonhuman entities such as corporations, ideas and money.

Corporations can kiss my ass.

Re: Graphics Software POV

[reddragdiva]

http://www.gimp.org/~tml/gimp/win32/pspi.html - run Photoshop plugins in GIMP. (From the same guy who makes the Windows version of GIMP.)