Internet Piracy

[FreakyLocz14]

What is your opinion on it?

I don't believe that internet piracy is stealing. Here's why:

In this example, Jack and Jill (I know, cliche names) are both looking to obtain music for free. Jack goes to a local store and walks out with a CD without paying for it. Jill downloads the song off a file sharing site.

The RIAA claims that the reason file sharing is wrong is because it costs the musician and record labels money. Let's explore that concept.

Since it costs money to manufacture CDs and distribute them to retail stores, Jack clearly cost the industry (as well as the retail store) money.

Let's look at Jill's situation. Jill downloaded a file that someone likely ripped from a CD that was purchased legally and had duplicate files made (btw, ripping CDs is not illegal) Even if we assume that the original was not obtained in that; however, the industry still loses no money. It cost the industry nothing for that file to be copied and distributed through the file sharing site.

The best thing the RIAA can claim is that the industry lost potential money. Well, that would require a big assumption: That Jill would have paid for the CD in the first place had there not been a pirated version available. That assumption might have seemed logical before the age of the internet. Now Jill has a whole host of alternative ways to obtain the music she's after. One of these includes the way people used to "pirate" music before the internet age: Waiting for the song to come on the radio and recording it to a cassette.

So, you see, without unsure assumptions being made, there is no way to demonstrate that internet piracy is stealing.

 

[Spinor]

I'll admit, I've pirated and used cracks before, but that's because I do not have the money to pay for some software. Adobe come to mind? Not worth it, but sometimes necessary for a once-in-a-while work.

However, if I had a stable income and good amounts of money, then of course I'd pay for my stuff. Even better, I take advantage of student licenses offered to me, which potentially allow me to use software for free, such as Autodesk programs and Visual Studio.


But, there is no point in piracy if you can pay for the software. Piracy should be something done in strict moderation and should also be counteracted as soon as possible by buying from the company once you have the money.

Of course, not all people are willing to be moderate in their piracy acts. This is why more and more people are preferring to program open-source. You don't have to worry about income. Pirating open-source and public domain would be like stealing free samples.


On to the example of music. Thing is, the company loses potential money, but potential money is a subset of money, so if a company loses potential money, then that company is also losing money. Which, as I said, should be counteracted as soon as possible. For example, half my DragonForce songs where pirated, but once I had a good amount of money and Apple store credit, I bought the songs I owned illegally. So far, I only own E.P.M. illegally, but that's because it's only available in Japan and I can't exactly import yet.

I do disagree with you, however. Piracy is a form of stealing, a complicated form of stealing full of gray areas and moral mixtures. Physically, all our data and software should be near-worthless, but the way we engineered the means of communication and display of data allows for value and price tags to be placed.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I'll admit, I've pirated and used cracks before, but that's because I do not have the money to pay for some software. Adobe come to mind? Not worth it, but sometimes necessary for a once-in-a-while work.

However, if I had a stable income and good amounts of money, then of course I'd pay for my stuff. Even better, I take advantage of student licenses offered to me, which potentially allow me to use software for free, such as Autodesk programs and Visual Studio.


But, there is no point in piracy if you can pay for the software. Piracy should be something done in strict moderation and should also be counteracted as soon as possible by buying from the company once you have the money.

Of course, not all people are willing to be moderate in their piracy acts. This is why more and more people are preferring to program open-source. You don't have to worry about income. Pirating open-source and public domain would be like stealing free samples.


On to the example of music. Thing is, the company loses potential money, but potential money is a subset of money, so if a company loses potential money, then that company is also losing money. Which, as I said, should be counteracted as soon as possible. For example, half my DragonForce songs where pirated, but once I had a good amount of money and Apple store credit, I bought the songs I owned illegally. So far, I only own E.P.M. illegally, but that's because it's only available in Japan and I can't exactly import yet.

I do disagree with you, however. Piracy is a form of stealing, a complicated form of stealing full of gray areas and moral mixtures. Physically, all our data and software should be near-worthless, but the way we engineered the means of communication and display of data allows for value and price tags to be placed.

You can't lose potential money that wouldn't have came in the first place. While you would have and eventually did pay, plenty of people would not pay for it because perhaps they can't afford it or they don't want the music badly enough to pay for it.

 

[Steven]

The only time I have ever pirated is when I needed a software that I needed to pay for, but I knew I only would need it then and never again. Not worth paying for it.

I pay for all my CDs (I like having hard copies of my music), movies, software (although, I use Ubuntu and rarely Windows so 99.99% of my software is open source [free])

 

[Eliminator Jr.]

I pirate music for a number of reasons:

1. I have a vinyl collection of various LP and 7" records. As most people would know, this means although I've got a physical version of the music, I can't transfer this across to the computer. Rather than spend my money on purchasing the same music twice, I'll download the album. I also don't want to spend my money on something I may or may not like, so I'll download first to have a few listens. I don't buy CDs, mainly because I think they're going to be as popular as cassette tapes are soon. It's a dying medium; we're now in an age where people can transfer files wirelessly over the internet - people will begin to switch to that and more or less abandon CDs. That's the main reason I get vinyl, but there are others (eg. slight difference in sound quality, the culture that goes with it).
   
2. Albums are way too overpriced. I don't feel guilty downloading music. If I really like an album and I have the money I'll fork out the $40 to go and get the record on vinyl, but otherwise I'm completely satisfied with downloading illegally. Like, if I had the money I'd buy the albums, but the thing is I don't have a spare $20000 to get all of my music library in physical form, and with something as beautiful as music you shouldn't have to be a millionaire to afford it.
   
3. The artists themselves only get a small slice of the money generated from music sales. I don't like the band Big Black, but one of the members of that band, Steve Albini (well known music producer who's worked on albums like Sonic Youth's Dirty and Nirvana's Nevermind), wrote something about the music industry which really struck a chord with me. His band had just recorded an album that had made over two million sales, and they had been touring for years. Out of hundreds of millions of dollars in concert tickets and CD sales, the band members only got $4000 each. Meanwhile, the record company made millions. If I remember rightly, this band was under a contract to do another two records with this label, meaning they were forced to live like this for another two years. The record label had the power to choose the release dates of the albums as well, meaning if they so chose they could have prevented the band from releasing music for years. All the money went to studio technicians, the executives of the record company, the record's legal team (in case they got sued)... it's just wrong.
   
   Many artists are actually in support of music being downloaded illegally. People can't afford to spend so much money on music, and why should they when they can get the same thing for free online?

tl;dr I buy band t-shirts and go to concerts to support bands, so don't say I'm ruining their future buy not buying their CDs. If I have the money on me I'll occasionally get vinyl records. Many artists are happy just to have their music heard and don't care if people download illegally (some actually support it), it's mainly the record labels kicking up a fuss about loss of income.

 

[Bluerang1]

I've sunk many an internet ship in my day and I don't feel guilty about it. I don't have the money is why. When I'm older and rich, I will buy some stuff because considering the prices of some of these things, no. I do fancy being in the entertainment business and I see that they need funding from us, but since I'm still young, I'll do what I want :P

 

[Steven]

I pirate music for a number of reasons:

1. I have a vinyl collection of various LP and 7" records. As most people would know, this means although I've got a physical version of the music, I can't transfer this across to the computer. Rather than spend my money on purchasing the same music twice, I'll download the album. I also don't want to spend my money on something I may or may not like, so I'll download first to have a few listens. I don't buy CDs, mainly because I think they're going to be as popular as cassette tapes are soon. It's a dying medium; we're now in an age where people can transfer files wirelessly over the internet - people will begin to switch to that and more or less abandon CDs. That's the main reason I get vinyl, but there are others (eg. slight difference in sound quality, the culture that goes with it).
   
2. Albums are way too overpriced. I don't feel guilty downloading music. If I really like an album and I have the money I'll fork out the $40 to go and get the record on vinyl, but otherwise I'm completely satisfied with downloading illegally. Like, if I had the money I'd buy the albums, but the thing is I don't have a spare $20000 to get all of my music library in physical form, and with something as beautiful as music you shouldn't have to be a millionaire to afford it.
   
3. The artists themselves only get a small slice of the money generated from music sales. I don't like the band Big Black, but one of the members of that band, Steve Albini (well known music producer who's worked on albums like Sonic Youth's Dirty and Nirvana's Nevermind), wrote something about the music industry which really struck a chord with me. His band had just recorded an album that had made over two million sales, and they had been touring for years. Out of hundreds of millions of dollars in concert tickets and CD sales, the band members only got $4000 each. Meanwhile, the record company made millions. If I remember rightly, this band was under a contract to do another two records with this label, meaning they were forced to live like this for another two years. The record label had the power to choose the release dates of the albums as well, meaning if they so chose they could have prevented the band from releasing music for years. All the money went to studio technicians, the executives of the record company, the record's legal team (in case they got sued)... it's just wrong.
   
   Many artists are actually in support of music being downloaded illegally. People can't afford to spend so much money on music, and why should they when they can get the same thing for free online?

tl;dr I buy band t-shirts and go to concerts to support bands, so don't say I'm ruining their future buy not buying their CDs. If I have the money on me I'll occasionally get vinyl records. Many artists are happy just to have their music heard and don't care if people download illegally (some actually support it), it's mainly the record labels kicking up a fuss about loss of income.

I've never seen an album cost more than 20 bucks. And it's legal to download music as long as you already bought it.

 

[Mr Cat Dog]

I've never seen an album cost more than 20 bucks. And it's legal to download music as long as you already bought it.

It really, really, really isn't.

In legal speak, when you buy music/films/games/anything involving copyrighted material you don't obtain a physical copy (or a proprietary right), but you get a licence, which the copyright holder can use to restrict your access to the material if he so desires. Apple were notorious for this in the dawn of the iTunes store with its DRM technology, and it was only with the onslaught of open source groups that iTunes became DRM free.

So, in the example mentioned in the quote, if you've already bought some music on a CD or a download or whatever, you can only listen to the music in that form. Despite its prevalence to the contrary, it's illegal to copy it onto your hard drive, it's illegal to make copies for your friends, and it's especially illegal to re-download the material for free. The entertainment industries have begrudgingly accepted the first two actions as common practice, but still judge the third as a 'grave interference with their property'.

As for whether I 'pirate' stuff: the answer is yes, but only to certain things, television being the big one. I don't, for the most part, pirate films unless they're prohibitively expensive in my own country or just not available; music, I don't have as much of an interest in, so it feels gratifying when I pay for about 5 albums per year. I only do television because I feel less guilty about doing so due to the economics and business models inherent in the industry.

 

[Eliminator Jr.]

I've never seen an album cost more than 20 bucks. And it's legal to download music as long as you already bought it.

These are the CD prices at Sanity (not that I would buy from there, they don't sell much music I like, but just to give an example of most pricing in Australia). Even so, let's just assume every album/EP/7" I have in my music library cost only $15, that's $3675. I can barely afford that on an under-18 wage, let alone in the future when I'm working properly and paying taxes/insurance etc. This also isn't taking into account all the albums I've had and ended up deleting off the computer because I didn't end up liking it, or that I used to like and deleted because my music taste has changed. This is a rough estimate, but if you take into account all the music that I have had since I first really started listening to music properly at 12 then it'd be almost $20,000 I would have had to have spent. In my entire life I've spent/earned less than a quarter of that. My point is there shouldn't be such a high price on something so beautiful in music - it should be accessible to as many people as possible.

Mr. Cat Dog responded to the second sentence so I won't repeat that.

 

[Blaze The Hedgehog]

I belive artists gain their money through royalty fees, however it's not the only way that they earn money. I suppose Gigs and Radio plays are in there somewhere.

I don't believe that downloading a song from the web illegally is hurting anyone, so much as they're not making money.

 

[Spherical Ice]

This video sums up my thoughts on the matter.

maaz baaz

 

[Zet]

Piracy only applies to software with keygens and cracks.

I only copy legit files.

 

[twocows]

It really, really, really isn't.

In legal speak, when you buy music/films/games/anything involving copyrighted material you don't obtain a physical copy (or a proprietary right), but you get a licence, which the copyright holder can use to restrict your access to the material if he so desires.

This practice itself is of questionable legality. There is precedent regarding books that says you cannot just license purchases.

Piracy only applies to software with keygens and cracks.

I only copy legit files.

I lol'd.

 

[Mr Cat Dog]

This practice itself is of questionable legality. There is precedent regarding books that says you cannot just license purchases.

What I meant in regards to the post I quoted from was that you do not 'own' the intellectual property rights in stuff that you have bought. You have limited rights which are pre-determined by the copyright holder upon the condition of sale. With regards to specific examples of IP, I'm not entirely familiar with the individual nuances; for example, what precedent are you referring to about the licensing of books? (I'm studying IP law at university at the moment, albeit from a British legal perspective, given that I'm British and go to a British university.)

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I've never seen an album cost more than 20 bucks. And it's legal to download music as long as you already bought it.

Not necessarily. It is legal to make copies of music you purchased a license for legally, but distributing those copies (whether or not you profit from them) is illegal under the law in its current state. Ripping CDs and converting them to MP3s is legal. Creating a custom mixtape for a lover or friend as a gift is technically illegal since the industry assumes the recipient would have bought that music legally had you not gave it to them as a gift; hence, they lost potential money.

 

[Capris]

It's not much of a question. Technically, no they aren't losing anything. Most files we download online are copies that were made at no cost to the company, but it's still something you're supposed to pay for. They made a product and you're stealing it.

The only questionable thing about piracy is morality. In my case, I don't mind pirating something every once in awhile. But I'm not going to fool myself into thinking what I'm doing is okay just to justify doing it.

 

[Legobricks]

hence, they lost potential money.

And just how many pirates would've paid for the product if they had to, anyway?
One might just download something out of interest, think it's crap and remove it from their posession, with nobody gaining or losing anything from the matter. These companies have no right to their potential money or customers and ought to stop being pretentious about it.

I'm not fond of copyright, myself, and can only see piracy as a natural product of it. Of course, I suppose as is a decent entertainment industry, without which there'd be little worth sharing anyway. Doesn't seem like something one could take entirely one way or the other, but let's say if copyright terms expired within maybe 10–20 years, there'd be free flow of nice old things to enjoy that nobody is (or ought to be) still producing or selling anyway, with the newer properties being sold and whatnot still being protected. Ongoing franchises (eg. Pocket Monsters, Final Fantasy) could always have their terms renewed by the time they would run out. Maybe this notion is flawed in some way, though? I'm not the most legal-minded person.

 

[TheAppleFreak]

This is why I only download stuff that is intended to be free. In music, I've moved away completely from RIAA-controlled labels and only listen to independant, free music. For software, I'm going increasingly open-source (or I just ***** off of shoddily-programmed trials coughcoughWinRARcough). For everything else... I try to go free.

 

[twocows]

What I meant in regards to the post I quoted from was that you do not 'own' the intellectual property rights in stuff that you have bought. You have limited rights which are pre-determined by the copyright holder upon the condition of sale. With regards to specific examples of IP, I'm not entirely familiar with the individual nuances; for example, what precedent are you referring to about the licensing of books? (I'm studying IP law at university at the moment, albeit from a British legal perspective, given that I'm British and go to a British university.)

In US copyright law, there are controls on what can and can't be licensed and what things a license can contain, and it's all very confusing. I was specifically referring to resale of licensed books covered in the first sale doctrine. There are tons of seemingly contradictory precedents. Relevant concepts include fair use, originality (scope), and cases regarding clickwrap licenses.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

And just how many pirates would've paid for the product if they had to, anyway?
One might just download something out of interest, think it's crap and remove it from their posession, with nobody gaining or losing anything from the matter. These companies have no right to their potential money or customers and ought to stop being pretentious about it.

I'm not fond of copyright, myself, and can only see piracy as a natural product of it. Of course, I suppose as is a decent entertainment industry, without which there'd be little worth sharing anyway. Doesn't seem like something one could take entirely one way or the other, but let's say if copyright terms expired within maybe 10–20 years, there'd be free flow of nice old things to enjoy that nobody is (or ought to be) still producing or selling anyway, with the newer properties being sold and whatnot still being protected. Ongoing franchises (eg. Pocket Monsters, Final Fantasy) could always have their terms renewed by the time they would run out. Maybe this notion is flawed in some way, though? I'm not the most legal-minded person.

I agree completely. There is no way to predict that "pirates" would have even paid in the first place if piracy wasn't an option. I could go on speculating about all shorts of potential things that could happen in my life; but, guess what: they didn't actually happen nor are they going to happen. The RIAA lacks standing to even sue. Of course, there are corporate interests with a lot of money and a lot of power at play here, so they can manipulate the law to serve their interests, so they end up getting standing.

When people buy software, they are actually given a license agreement to read over and either agree to or reject before they can use said software legally. I've never seen music discs come with such license agreements. In my post that you quoted, I was simply stating what the law is in its current state.