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?

[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.

[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?

[reddragdiva]

Magic 8-Ball says: IT IS CERTAIN.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

[themadcatlady.livejournal.com]

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

[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.

[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.

[lnr]

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

[h-i-p-p-y.livejournal.com]

I agree with that too. And I am sure that Mr Bill Gates doesn't need that extra gold-plated disposable tissue...

[themadcatlady.livejournal.com]

As our friend T´ealc would so famously say....

Indeed. ;)

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

That's what I meant and tried a few times to say before giving up.

[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!

[shamus9999.livejournal.com]

All right, I'll compromise. If we're talking about copying things with intent to sell them, we can make that a criminal offense: a misdemeanor for up to a certain level of illicit production, a felony beyond that. Copying something for one's personal use should be a civil tort rather than a crime, merely allowing the perp to be sued.

[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.

[ladykathryn.livejournal.com]

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

[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.

[deathboy.livejournal.com]

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

[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.

[deathboy.livejournal.com]

If you're looking to save money on your computing experience, buying a mac's suicide :)

-stir stir-