Piracy, what can we do to fight it?

[AltF4]

I'm coming to this party late, but I specifically and unconditionally endorse the violation of copyright law as it stands in the US today. And patent law, too. At least software patents.

And so do all of you. Don't think for a second that you, MLG, or anyone on the internet doesn't break copyright law on a daily basis. It's an integral part of how the internet and computers work.

And furthermore, (and more to the OP's point) there is nothing you can do to prevent piracy. Nothing. DRM doesn't work, I personally see toward that end. (And it's provably impossible to work, too. But that's a longer story)

You have two choices:

1) Sue your own customers and fans, alienating them, and giving them the impetus to continue copying bits. Meanwhile not making any money from lawsuits, and continuing on a dying business model.

2) Adapt and learn. Embrace the 21st century instead of trying to move us back 50 years. There are plenty of ways to make money, if you'd only try.


More information can be found at:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=214870
http://www.pirate-party.us/news.php
http://creativecommons.org/
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/war-on-sharing-riaa-lawsuits

and way more places than I can remember right now

 

[Crimson King]

Alt, you are missing the point though. You may be all for the creators maintaining their rights over their stuff and making money off it, but read 10******'s posts. He is FOR giving the internet over to the government, which will be the end of the internet as it's used today, the end of large bandwidths, and the end of unregulated internet.

Furthermore, the more people pirate, the more you will create a situation similar to Atlas Shrugged where creators just say "Well, not really worth it to work for years on something and not gain much because people are fighting the system." I'd rather pay exorbant fees and preserve the arts and entertainment than give them up for a while for the sake of forced adaptation.

 

[AltF4]

Read who's posts? It should come as no surprise that I am not for "handing the Internet over to the government".

Though if you think that the US government doesn't already control the Internet in a substantial way, then you're deluding yourself. US owns ICANN and lots else. It's already been revealed that the FBI strong-armed all the major TLS certificate authorities to give them their private keys so they can spy on "secure" web traffic.

Also, try watching this video:
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/866

In short, it's about how the fashion industry has 0 (zero) copyright. None. And yet it thrives, and is in fact a bigger industry than the music, film, and tv industries combined.

 

[Professor :3]

If your caught pirating once in the US, its a fine and/or jail
thats why I dont pirate...

You are seriously dumb.

 

[Untrust Us]

In short, it's about how the fashion industry has 0 (zero) copyright. None. And yet it thrives, and is in fact a bigger industry than the music, film, and tv industries combined.

Woah. Glad I don't work in that industry.

 

[Crimson King]

Read who's posts? It should come as no surprise that I am not for "handing the Internet over to the government".

Though if you think that the US government doesn't already control the Internet in a substantial way, then you're deluding yourself. US owns ICANN and lots else. It's already been revealed that the FBI strong-armed all the major TLS certificate authorities to give them their private keys so they can spy on "secure" web traffic.

Also, try watching this video:
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/866

In short, it's about how the fashion industry has 0 (zero) copyright. None. And yet it thrives, and is in fact a bigger industry than the music, film, and tv industries combined.

Influences/monitors =/= run. The government, while capable of monitoring your habits, would do a HORRIBLE job if they actually ran the internet. I can't see it ever happening, but the point remains it'd be worse than it is now.

 

[AltF4]

[Getting way off topic]

I would argue that monitoring in the 21st century is tantamount to control. Especially when the same organization which is doing the monitoring is judge, jury, and executioner in meatspace.

If you anger the FBI, they'll lock you in jail for years and not even charge you with a crime. (See: Kevin Mitnick)

Plus, when the NSA can strong-arm AT&T into illegally wiretapping the entire Internet, or when the FBI pressures the private keys out of certificate authorities, or when antivirus companies intentionally ignore FBI trojans and keyloggers, you have to wonder just how much "control" we're not even seeing.

[back on topic]

EDIT: I read through (skimmed, tbh) this thread and am rather flattered to have been invoked so early and so often. I'm glad to see that people actually read and engage in what I wrote. (And that I've got a few converts, apparently)


If I have but one wish, it's to impress these points upon the debate: (Some which have been stated previously but not as direct and explicit)


1) File sharing is not theft. It's just factually, objectively not.

File sharing may be illegal, but is not theft. It is copyright infringement. This is not splitting hairs, this is a big difference. Theft implies ownership, something which does not exist in the world of ideas.

If someone took your child from you, they are not later charged with theft. They are charged with kidnapping. This is because your children are not your property in the same way that your car is your property. You may possess some exclusive rights over your children, but you do not own them.

Spoiler

(And unlike copyright, your powers over your children expire)

2) Keep distinct moral arguments from practical ones. (Otherwise known as normative versus positive)

Economics and morality are separate issues. The fact that something causes economic harm does not make it immoral.

For example, I always encourage all of my friends to refuse to listen to Metallica due to their stance against Napster. (They were highly influential in getting it shut down back in the day) This causes Metallica to lose sales, albeit a minor amount. Is giving poor reviews immoral? No.

So do not connect two unrelated arguments, like:
- File sharing causes economic harm. (An unsubstantiated claim anyway. One which has even been refuted by the US government.)
- Therefore file sharing is immoral.

This does not follow

 

[Seed of Sorrow]

1) File sharing is not theft. It's just factually, objectively not.

File sharing may be illegal, but is not theft. It is copyright infringement. This is not splitting hairs, this is a big difference. Theft implies ownership, something which does not exist in the world of ideas.

I disagree with that because I think that file sharing falls under a broader definition theft.
For example:

Theft: the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/theft

stealing: the act of taking something from someone unlawfully

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=stealing

Now here I'm sure you can argue what "something" or "property" is.

Dictionary.com defines it as

property: ownership; right of possession, enjoyment, or disposal of anything, esp. of something tangible

while merriam webster is:

property: something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate. The exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing

Which makes this a dead end argument of what the "official" definition of "property" is.

Spoiler

Personally I think that you can possess your ideas, and this is how: Imagine if you and I were in a room, and I was thinking to myself. You wouldn't be able to know what I was thinking, but I would. Therefore I would technically have something you didn't, I would possess my own ideas. This ISN'T part of my argument, this is just a personal aside.

If someone took your child from you, they are not later charged with theft. They are charged with kidnapping. This is because your children are not your property in the same way that your car is your property. You may possess some exclusive rights over your children, but you do not own them.

This isn't a good argument to point out any differences. Consider this: pets are property and here is an example of a legal ruling: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2005581&page=1
In and of themselves, pets are no different than people, or in this case children. The only difference would be that we value our own sentience. Why is it, "you stole my dog?" and "you kidnapped my child" when in essence the exact same thing is happening in both instances. If pets are property, why aren't children? I'm not arguing that children should be considered property, but that kidnapping would also be under a broad definition of theft.

Keep distinct moral arguments from practical ones. (Otherwise known as normative versus positive)

Economics and morality are separate issues. The fact that something causes economic harm does not make it immoral.

Most definitely agreed.

- File sharing causes economic harm. (An unsubstantiated claim anyway. One which has even been refuted by the US government.)

You can't make the claim that US government has refuted that piracy causes harm with that source. All throughout the report this line:

Quantifying the economic impact of counterfeit and pirated goods on the U.S. economy is challenging primarily because of the lack of available data on the extent and value of counterfeit trade.....Since there is an absence of data concerning these potential effects, the net effect cannot be determined with any certainty.

is written at least two times per page. On top of that, there is only about two or three paragraphs total (out of roughly 12 pages) that discuss any "positive" effects of piracy. The only legitimate ones being

Some consumers may knowingly purchase a counterfeit or pirated product because it is less expensive than the genuine good or because the genuine good is unavailable, and they may experience positive effects from such purchases.

Some authors have argued that companies that experience revenue losses in one line of business—such as movies—may also increase revenues in related or complementary businesses due to increased brand awareness.

With the latter only truly beneficial towards independent/underground companies. If anything, the report harped more on the negative effects of piracy, few of which being:

The federal government also incurs costs to store and destroy counterfeit and pirated goods. . . seizures have increased, the agency’s storage and destruction costs have grown and become increasingly burdensome. CBP reported that it spent about $41.9 million to destroy seized property between fiscal years 2007 and 2009. .....To the extent that counterfeiting and piracy reduce investments in research and development, these companies may hire fewer workers and may contribute less to U.S. economic growth, overall. The U.S. economy may also experience slower growth due to a decline in trade with countries where widespread counterfeiting hinders the activities of U.S. companies operating overseas.

and

In addition to the industry effects, the U.S. economy, as a whole, also may experience effects of losses by consumers and government. An economy’s gross domestic product could be measured as either the total expenditures by households (consumers), or as the total wages paid by the private sector (industry). Hence, the effect of counterfeiting and piracy on industry would affect consumers by reducing their wages, which could reduce consumption of goods and services and the gross domestic product. Finally, the government is also affected by the reduction of economic activity, since fewer taxes are collected.

To further this, I'd like to point out what the report gave as "positive" effects.

...Consumers may use pirated goods to “sample” music, movies, software, or electronic games before purchasing legitimate copies, which may lead to increased sales of legitimate goods.

LOL.

industries with products that are characterized by large “switching costs” may also benefit from piracy due to lock-in effects. ...Consumers after being introduced to the pirated version might get locked into new legitimate software because of large switching costs, such as a steep learning curve, reluctance to switch to new products, and search costs incurred by consumers to identify a new product to use

One expert also observed that some industries may experience an increase in demand for their products because of piracy in other industries. This expert identified Internet infrastructure manufacturers (e.g., companies that make routers) as possible beneficiaries of digital piracy, because of the bandwidth demands related to the transfer of pirated digital content.

The last two aren't entirely positive "effects", because, if piracy didn't exist, related industries and companies would still profit from legitimate sales, and "switching costs" wouldn't be an issue.

Overall, if you "tldr"-ed the repot, it is basically speculation with nothing entirely concluded. However, I think that it reflects more negatively on piracy even though there is no "verifiable data." Consider this, if you were going to steal my things, I wouldn't need to estimate how much detriment it would cause me, I would already know that nothing good would come of it, which is why stealing is a crime



Sorry if this seems erratic, it's late on the east coast.

 

[Heartz♥]

Piracy keeps money in my pocket. You can do what you want 'cause a pirate is free. I. AM. A PIRATE.

It's a matter of worldly ethics, and I have none. Nobody does anything for me.

 

[Crimson King]

See, that is the mentality I abhor. You flat out state you pirate because you don't want to pay for something as if you are owed something.

Manufacturers and producers owe you nothing. If you choose not to by their product, but you still use it out of principle, you will slowly drive a company into the ground.

I pirate stuff that is either ridiculously over priced that I will use once, lacks an open-source alternative, and need on the fly. I do not do it out of some self-deluded notion that they owe anything to me.

 

[Heartz♥]

You've read too much into a post that wasn't even elaborate.

 

[AltF4]

Seed of Sorrow:

I dislike responding in quote-reply format. I feel it tends to degrade debate into many independently irrelevant sub-issues. So I won't, but on to the substance...

There were two remarks I wanted to make in response:

1) Ideas cannot be owned. There is no legal statute allowing you to own an idea, neither can this be done in practice anyway. The term "Intellectual Property" is a propaganda term used to insinuate things which are not true.

Things which are not owned cannot be stolen. This is not to say that all actions are necessarily permissible merely because the subject is not someone's property. But it is very important to keep terminology straight.

The RIAA and MPAA have been for some time waging a (largely successful) campaign to frame this issue in terms of "protecting property rights", just the same as with any other property like land. It is this framing of the debate that I reject. This is not the subject of debate here.

The correct framing of the debate is in terms of proper incentive toward creative works via the "necessary evil" of temporary monopolies. (This makes for a poor bumper sticker, however. Hence it being overly simplified.)

2) The GAO report most certainly does refute industry claims about piracy loss. That's what the whole report does: go case by case trying to enumerate and debunk every single claim that the MPAA and RIAA have ever made about supposed "loss" figures. It goes though every one of those figures and lambastes their methodology and conclusions.

The report concludes that there are even positive effects of piracy, and that the net effect is not clear. If this is not "refuting industry loss claims", then nothing is.



CK:

I don't quite understand you when you say things like "that is the mentality I abhor".

You fully admit to being a constant pirate yourself. (As everyone reading this also is.) It seems like you're saying "It's perfectly okay to be a pirate, so long as you give lip service to how wrong it is, and give excuses why you had no other choice."

I will do no such thing. The law as it stands is clearly wrong. And the arguments for such positions are largely libertarian / conservative as well. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (see my signature) was started by John Gilmore and John Perry Barlow, a described Civil Libertarian and Republican, respectively.

I personally own this T-Shirt. It is a (redacted) example of an illegal number. An illegal number. The mere reproducing of this number is against US federal law. Here, let me break some federal statues for you:

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

There is is. Hit me with a "Copyright Violation" infraction because I just violated the copyright law via the DMCA. How can the Free Speech loving Libertarian inside of you not be revolting at such a concept?

I am not a copyright abolitionist. There are clearly times and places where copyright is entirely appropriate and necessary. These, however, are the exception, not the rule. I want to see Public Domain and freedom being the default position. With copyright being something which must be registered, and governs commercial entities. IE: Not regulating what 13 year old girls in their bed rooms.

 

[Crimson King]

CK:

I don't quite understand you when you say things like "that is the mentality I abhor".

You fully admit to being a constant pirate yourself. (As everyone reading this also is.) It seems like you're saying "It's perfectly okay to be a pirate, so long as you give lip service to how wrong it is, and give excuses why you had no other choice."

I said constant? News to me. I'll pirate stuff I need for a one time use to see if it's worth buying. I make any money from said project, I'll always buy a full license.

I oppose the mentality that we, as consumers, are owed anything. We owe a quality product, but claiming it costs money so it should be pirated is the most moronic argument I have ever heard.

Also, good for the Libertarian and Republican parties. I associate with neither.

I've lost interest in arguing a long time ago. There will never be an agreement.

 

[Heartz♥]

There will never be an agreement.

The story of Planet Earth.

I do not have the mentality that you speak of. I pirate because I'm cheap and I can get away with it. It's not heavily enforced like physical thievery. I'm being honest. That's just the way it is.

This is more about ethics than it is business. Companies are supposed to prepare for things like this. You think companies such as Microsoft and Nintendo didn't think people would pirate their software? People have been pirating their products for decades. Have you heard any declines or bankrupts on their part? I haven't.

Of course, there are companies that aren't as high tier as the aforementioned, but that lies within their skill to do business. Anybody can be as successful as Nintendo if they have a great business model.

My point being is that piracy has little to do with a company declining. As I said before, it's more about ethics.

 

[AltF4]

I would disagree categorically with your framing of the topic in terms of consumerism, CK. The same rules, laws, and norms that apply to standard market forces in physical objects simply do not apply to cyberspace.

And this is exactly the problem that has been haunting much of the entertainment industry. They still are typing to apply industrial age methods and business models to the information age. It is becoming harder, maybe impossible, to package up bits and sell them in discrete units. You can't think of bits like a chair, where you manufacture the chairs and sell them individually. Bits are a different beast altogether.

Piracy is a perfectly natural market force. Price in a free market will tend naturally toward the marginal cost of production. The Internet and file sharing technologies have driven the marginal cost of producing information to zero. Thus if you don't make your work freely available, then someone else will for you.

As Cory Doctorow has said: If you're not making art with the intention of having it copied, you're not making contemporary art.


I also disagree categorically with your implicit framing of this debate in terms of property rights. This is a false framing. If property rights were applicable here, then copyright would not have term limits. What kind of property expires?

If this were a matter of property rights, then I would agree with you. Stealing someone's property is wrong. My argument here is not that stealing is okay. It is that the bits on my computer are nobody's property, and when I do which them what I please, it is not theft.



(As for "not agreeing", you should know as well as anyone else that debates are more for the onlookers than for any of us actually in it. I don't expect for you to make a sudden change-of-heart, but others reading frequently do.)

 

[Seed of Sorrow]

I dislike responding in quote-reply format. I feel it tends to degrade debate into many independently irrelevant sub-issues. So I won't, but on to the substance...

My bad.

Anyways,

While I submit that you have a better argument that Ideas can't be owned (which I feel is a rather philosophical one), I think that the manifestation of the idea is something that can be. In reference to cyberspace, all the information has a physical counter part, everything is stored somewhere. This means that what artists/companies/anybody creates digitally also has a physical counterpart or manifestation, the space used to store it. If this wasn't true, we wouldn't need hard drives for our computers and servers for the internet. When a person pirates, they are taking something unlawfully, which falls under the umbrella of stealing/theft. Even if something is being copied, it is still being taken from somewhere. Imagine walking into a CD store, opening a CD, and placing it in your laptop. Then, after copying it, replacing it on the shelf and walking out, I would consider that stealing.

Also, I disagree that the GAO report refutes or concludes anything. It argues both sides of the coin and states that there isn't enough evidence for either. Just because there is a lack of evidence that piracy causes detriment, doesn't prove that piracy is beneficial, as the report also says there is a lack of evidence for that. The report gives legitimate positive and negative claims.

Also, for the record, I do pirate products, but I am entirely convinced it falls under the umbrella of theft.

 

[Crimson King]

I would disagree categorically with your framing of the topic in terms of consumerism, CK. The same rules, laws, and norms that apply to standard market forces in physical objects simply do not apply to cyberspace.

And this is exactly the problem that has been haunting much of the entertainment industry. They still are typing to apply industrial age methods and business models to the information age. It is becoming harder, maybe impossible, to package up bits and sell them in discrete units. You can't think of bits like a chair, where you manufacture the chairs and sell them individually. Bits are a different beast altogether.

Piracy is a perfectly natural market force. Price in a free market will tend naturally toward the marginal cost of production. The Internet and file sharing technologies have driven the marginal cost of producing information to zero. Thus if you don't make your work freely available, then someone else will for you.

As Cory Doctorow has said: If you're not making art with the intention of having it copied, you're not making contemporary art.


I also disagree categorically with your implicit framing of this debate in terms of property rights. This is a false framing. If property rights were applicable here, then copyright would not have term limits. What kind of property expires?

If this were a matter of property rights, then I would agree with you. Stealing someone's property is wrong. My argument here is not that stealing is okay. It is that the bits on my computer are nobody's property, and when I do which them what I please, it is not theft.



(As for "not agreeing", you should know as well as anyone else that debates are more for the onlookers than for any of us actually in it. I don't expect for you to make a sudden change-of-heart, but others reading frequently do.)

I have a better understanding of free market economics than I do on data, but I can explain more how your concepts are incorrect. However, I rather do it on AIM since I find my tone is way more harsh than I intend on the boards. You have my name, hit me up.

 

[Pikaville]

Music is just a manipulation of sounds at the end of the day.No one can own sounds and the concept of ownership of music is silly.(IMO)Your just arranging something that already exists freely into a pattern you think works.

If someone bred a new kind of bird that had an amazing sound and charged people to hear it sing,people would find the idea ridiculous.(At least I would)

If I was talking to some one and I uttered some memorable amazing quote and they decided to make t-shirts out of it, do I have a right to what I said in any way?(I don't think so.Although I believe quotes etc that are written are different)

If I made a sculpture out of coke cans and sold it for millions,coke are hardly gonna say "hey we owned them before give us our money"(although I'm probably wrong about this)

These are just my personal opinions.So challenge away.

 

[Teran]

How to fight piracy?

UK's Digital Economy Bill = byebye internets (yes I'm very salty about this and will mention it everywhere)

Do I like piracy?

Well let's just say I've been on a peg leg and a yo ho ho with a bottle of rum since the age of 8.

 

[Livvers]

Also, try watching this video:
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/866

In short, it's about how the fashion industry has 0 (zero) copyright. None. And yet it thrives, and is in fact a bigger industry than the music, film, and tv industries combined.

HAHAHAHA WHAT??? Um, fashion industry DOES have copyright. Forever 21 has had multiple lawsuits filed against it for selling clothes that have similar designs or patterns to other clothing brands. Copyright is why in Chinatown you have to go into hidden rooms in a "store" to look at the purses that are made to look exactly like designer brands.

And it thrives because people have to buy clothes. And big names thrive because they play dirty, and people think they are better than others when they wear something that has a tag that says "Chanel" on it.

 

[ranmaru]

How to fight piracy?

UK's Digital Economy Bill = byebye internets (yes I'm very salty about this and will mention it everywhere)

Do I like piracy?

Well let's just say I've been on a peg leg and a yo ho ho with a bottle of rum since the age of 8.

Aww man no more innernette? ;[

Let's see, are there more companies/people who would rather keep the internet than companies/people who want to take it down? ;D

 

[StinkomanFan]

As Weird Al Yankovic once said about piracy:

"I have very mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I’m concerned that the rampant downloading of my copyright-protected material over the Internet is severely eating into my album sales and having a decidedly adverse effect on my career. On the other hand, I can get all the Metallica songs I want for FREE! WOW!!!!!"

 

[ranmaru]

Haha I like his response. : ] I think both feelings cancel each other out. ;D

Wait... don't we live in a capitilistic country? Why oh why are we making less money? I'm sure if we all had secure jobs we wouldn't even have to download songs or applications for free. :/ Not saying that not having enough money is an excuse...

 

[AltF4]

HAHAHAHA WHAT??? Um, fashion industry DOES have copyright. Forever 21 has had multiple lawsuits filed against it for selling clothes that have similar designs or patterns to other clothing brands. Copyright is why in Chinatown you have to go into hidden rooms in a "store" to look at the purses that are made to look exactly like designer brands.

And it thrives because people have to buy clothes. And big names thrive because they play dirty, and people think they are better than others when they wear something that has a tag that says "Chanel" on it.

No, Livvers. You're thinking of Trademark. Not copyright.

Fashion does not have copyright. (Try actually watching linked video.) There are several things which cannot have copyright in the US. Recipes, maps, databases, and clothing are some.

 

[Teran]

people think they are better than others when they wear something that has a tag that says "Chanel" on it.

Don't hustle ME out young lady...

This is CHANEL

 

[Livvers]

No, Livvers. You're thinking of Trademark. Not copyright.

Fashion does not have copyright. (Try actually watching linked video.) There are several things which cannot have copyright in the US. Recipes, maps, databases, and clothing are some.

Ah, I see. Apologies then.

I still see little point in comparing copyright laws of a tangible object to media getting pirated. I can't download a dress from the internet and wear it. Of course, I still haven't watched that link and am not in the mood, so I'm not sure they cover that. After this post I'm not going to be checking this thread anymore because I'm tired of piracy debates on the internet.

While I disagree with piracy, it's going to exist and there isn't going to be any way to stop it. At least on the music end of things, record companies and bands just need to quit fighting it and come up with new ways for people to give them money for their work. Special packaging, access to special things, contest rewards, unique items, etc along with concerts and cool merch are good ways to go. Unfortunately, only bigger fans will actually care about this.

 

[ranmaru]

Ah, I see. Apologies then.

I still see little point in comparing copyright laws of a tangible object to media getting pirated. I can't download a dress from the internet and wear it. Of course, I still haven't watched that link and am not in the mood, so I'm not sure they cover that. After this post I'm not going to be checking this thread anymore because I'm tired of piracy debates on the internet.

While I disagree with piracy, it's going to exist and there isn't going to be any way to stop it. At least on the music end of things, record companies and bands just need to quit fighting it and come up with new ways for people to give them money for their work. Special packaging, access to special things, contest rewards, unique items, etc along with concerts and cool merch are good ways to go. Unfortunately, only bigger fans will actually care about this.

Yeah I only really care about listening to the music, not the merchandise. Merchandise for manga/cartoons/videogames? Sign me up!

: ] Although, I'd deff buy merchandise from people that I really like, and that I would love to support. (or donate)

 

[Oracle Link]

Just dont fight it (or atleast less) because without Videogame Emulation Millions Of Games would be Gone Forrever even most Mario Games