Why online piracy isn't theft

Roger Hicks said:
I just get a bit short with those who say that we should abandon the old system when (a) it doesn't directly affect them, or rather, when they can see the advantages if stealing but not the advantages of paying the creators, and (b) there's nothing better in its place.
Click to expand...

You certainly didn't stop to verify (a) before getting a bit short with some of us. I'm a published author myself and member of VG Wort, the German equivalent of the ACLS. (because of a folly of my youth when my first entry in an encyclopaedia was published in 2002). Personally I honestly believe that private copying of written material is not an end-of-the-world problem. Maybe this is because my background, unlike yours, is in scientific publishing where you earn next to no money from what you write, but you're happy if people read and cite you. So if an undergrad copies my article and uses it to build his view of his subject, so much the better. I do get paid, but it's not M9 territory, more on the level of "a decent meal with friends once a year". You have every right in the world to have a different worldview.

In Germany there is an equivalent for pictures, too (VG Bild-Kunst) that represents photographers. However, I sometimes publish pictures in places like Wikipedia under licenses that allow free redistribution under certain conditions; VG Bild-Kunst membership is not compatible with that, because of a quirk in German author's rights laws by which VG Bild-Kunst reserves the right to collect royalties also on works that you've given away for free. Since being able to give my work away for free so that it stays free is more important to me than collecting royalties on the few works that I've published commercially, I've decided not to be represented by that.
 
rxmd said:
You certainly didn't stop to verify (a) before getting a bit short with some of us. I'm a published author myself and member of VG Wort, the German equivalent of the ACLS. (because of a folly of my youth when my first entry in an encyclopaedia was published in 2002). Personally I honestly believe that private copying of written material is not an end-of-the-world problem. Maybe this is because my background, unlike yours, is in scientific publishing where you earn next to no money from what you write, but you're happy if people read and cite you. So if an undergrad copies my article and uses it to build his view of his subject, so much the better. I do get paid, but it's not M9 territory, more on the level of "a decent meal with friends once a year". You have every right in the world to have a different worldview.

In Germany there is an equivalent for pictures, too (VG Bild-Kunst) that represents photographers. However, I sometimes publish pictures in places like Wikipedia under licenses that allow free redistribution under certain conditions; VG Bild-Kunst membership is not compatible with that, because of a quirk in German author's rights laws by which VG Bild-Kunst reserves the right to collect royalties also on works that you've given away for free. Since being able to give my work away for free so that it stays free is more important to me than collecting royalties on the few works that I've published commercially, I've decided not to be represented by that.
Click to expand...
So it doesn't really affect you...

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
So it doesn't really affect you...

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Ah, there's nothing quite like seeing other people being generous with your money.

Worth pointing out, as well, that we people in the publishing industry - which in the UK is the last great manufacturing industry - subsidise those in academia. There's a beautiful irony in the fact they think we should give our work away.
 
Surely public domain ala the internet is much the same as a public library, you can view or listen etc but its a limited time thing. It is easy for someone who does not need the income from their art etc to say that intellectual property is an outmoded thing. I could put forward a good argument as to why land ownership is a form of theft, how would they like a bunch of homeless to set up camp on their front lawn or in their lounge? If you take the music of some upcoming band or print out someones photograph you may well be taking their next meal away or if enough do it then you could make them homeless. It would however be divinely ironic if they set up camp in your kitchen.
 
In exchanges here and elsewhere, I'm trying to listen and learn and be pragmatic. Nobody here is going to change anybody's mind on this stuff.

There are many ways to justify taking what you want on the internet. The people who do it don't see their actions as theft. There's a reasonably coherent set of beliefs and values at work. Here's my I'm-quite-sure rather imperfect distillation of what I've heard expressed by sharers. I'm going to put words in a hypothetical someone's mouth. This is not me talking. This is me listening.

  • For various reasons, music and movies etc are important to me. I'm not willing to do without them -- Not. Willing. To. Do. Without! -- or to experience delays in having access to them.
  • In the event that I purchase music and movies etc, being restricted to playing them on one device or one kind of device really aggravates me. Digital rights management schemes from Big Media Companies are insults to consumers. I'm buying the content and it should be my choice what I'll do with it.
  • Big Media also won't let me listen to music before deciding to buy it. How dumb is that? How dumb do they think I am? We all know that Big Media makes you buy ten dumb songs to get two good ones. And tries to get you all hyped for a movie sequel that turns out to be a total FAIL. Big Media SO wants to be in control. They just don't get it that today, consumers rule.
  • Fortunately, there's a ton of music and movies and other content out there, free for the taking.
  • Because there's so much of it, and because it's so free, that content has ceased to have monetary value to me. Because it has no monetary value, downloading and sharing it isn't wrong.
  • I'm willing, now and then, when I'm able, to pay for goods related to the music and movies etc that I consume. And similarly for experiences such as concerts and conventions of fellow fans. In fact, musicians can make good money selling T-shirts to people like me! They should realize that writing and performing music is just how they attract my attention. How they interact with me online and on stage is how they build my loyalty. Making me proud to wear their brand is the best way they can get some of my money.
  • The actual music and movies etc do have social value to me. Consuming them is part of an ongoing conversation on a local and global level and I enjoy that social interaction with friends near and far. In the interest of furthering this conversation, I'm likely to share the music and movies etc that I enjoy.
  • I recognize that Big Media Companies and others who copyright their content don't see the world the way I do. But they keep calling me a thief, and as long as they do that, they prove that they don't respect or understand me. I won't listen to people who insist on insulting me! I don't see their arguments or their laws (laws they bought back in the Industrial Age!) as threats to me or reasons to change my behavior. Their arguments are not valid. And the odds of anyone prosecuting me for my sharing are about zero.
  • I have time on my side. As more and more people see the world the way I do, there'll be more and more free content to enjoy and less and less chance of any kind of penalty.
  • I've learned that many good things in life are, in fact, free. For example, all sorts of entrepreneurs and big companies give away GREAT software and manage to make money on it. I don't see why music and movies etc should be any different.
  • It's not like I sell what I download! I'm not in business! I'm not competing with Big Media or trying to pretend I'm them. And all I get for sharing things is the good karma that comes from "share, and share alike."
  • I'm alternately sorry for and amused by people who haven't learned to swim in the internet's ocean of free content. It's like they're living in some time warp of a dial-up modem universe, one where everybody still uses rotary dial telephones and VCRs and cameras that take film!
  • Artists who sign with Big Media Companies are misguided and making a big mistake. Big Media doesn't respect them, Big Media rips them off, Big Media lines its pockets with money that artists are due. It's people like me who show true respect.
  • People who are stuck on copyrighting their work and threatening me with way-out-of-proportion penalties should chill and realize that I'm not their enemy. I don't disrespect their work. I *like* their work and I tell people about it whenever I can. I add value to their work. In fact, I do content creators big favors every day.
  • Music, especially, is like air. We all breathe the same atmosphere, and nobody pays to breathe.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
No its not. That attitude is one that just about double-dog dares someone to sue you for copyright infringement, in which case you'll learn a very costly lesson about what 'public domain' really means.
Click to expand...

Realistically the cost to enforce belittles the law. For every unauthorized use subject to legal remedy there are probably tens of millions not accounted for. We can berate people for immorality all we want, but it rarely works in real world economics. Pursuing legal remedy usually costs the publisher and rights holder far more than any fees they would receive. So, as a law, copyright has become majority unenforceable with digital media.
 
Aristophanes said:
Realistically the cost to enforce belittles the law. For every unauthorized use subject to legal remedy there are probably tens of millions not accounted for. We can berate people for immorality all we want, but it rarely works in real world economics. Pursuing legal remedy usually costs the publisher and rights holder far more than any fees they would receive. So, as a law, copyright has become majority unenforceable with digital media.
Click to expand...

I have a lawyer I've used for several years. She sends a threat letter and they've always paid without going to court. I only involve her after asking the infringer to pay, and having them refuse. Idiots. It would have cost them less if they'd just paid at the beginning because the lawyer tacks on a couple hundred extra in the threat letter to cover her fees. Haven't had to do it often, but it works and has never cost me anything. This is business. Having an attorney to deal with this kind of thing is just part of being in business.
 
dbarnes said:
In exchanges here and elsewhere, I'm trying to listen and learn and be pragmatic.

There are many ways to justify taking what you want on the internet. The people who do it don't see their actions as theft. There's a reasonably coherent set of beliefs and values at work. Here's my I'm-quite-sure rather imperfect distillation of what I've heard expressed by sharers. I'm going to put words in a hypothetical someone's mouth. This is not me talking:
  • For various reasons, music and movies etc are important to me. I'm not willing to do without them, or to experience delays in being able to participate in enjoying them.
  • There's a ton of music and movies and other content out there, free for the taking.
  • Because there's so much of it, and because it's so free, that content has ceased to have monetary value to me. Because it has no monetary value, the taking and sharing of it isn't wrong.
  • I may be willing, now and then, when I'm able, to pay for goods related to the music and movies etc that I consume. And similarly for experiences such as concerts and conventions of fellow fans.
  • The music and movies etc do have social value for me. Consuming them is part of an ongoing conversation on a local and global level. In the interest of furthering this conversation, I'm likely to share the music and movies etc that I enjoy.
  • I recognize that Big Media Companies and others who copyright their content don't see the world the way I do. They keep calling me a thief, and as long as they do that, they prove that they don't understand me at all. I won't listen to people who keep insulting me. I don't see their arguments or the laws they bought back in the Industrial Age as threats to me or reasons to change my behavior. The odds of anyone meaningfully calling me out on my sharing behavior are about zero.
  • I have time on my side. As more and more people see the world the way I do, there'll be more and more free content to enjoy and less and less chance of any kind of penalty.
  • I've learned that many good things in life are, in fact, free. For example, entrepreneurs and big companies give away GREAT software and manage to make money on it. I don't see why music and movies etc should be any different.
  • I'm alternately sorry for and amused by people who haven't learned to swim in the internet's ocean of free content. It's like they're living in a different universe!
  • People who are stuck on copyrighting their work and threatening me with way-out-of-proportion penalties should chill and realize that I'm not their enemy. I *like* their stuff and tell people about it whenever I can. I add value to their work. In fact, I do content creators big favors every day.
  • Music, especially, is like air. We all breathe the same atmosphere, and nobody pays to breathe.
Click to expand...

The US government recently got the government of New Zealand to arrest a NZ citizen who ran a file sharing website and ship him to the USA for trial and prison. Non-Americans here take notice. Now THAT is wrong, in my opinion, because that man is not in my view a violator of US law, seeing how he is not a US citizen or a resident of the USA and has probably never set foot in the USA (prior to his being shipped here in chains). Wrong or not, though, he's in a jail cell.
 
All of this boils down to what we were all taught on the first day of Macroeconomics 101. The issue of online piracy is nothing but an issue of finding an equilibrium price on the supply and demand curves. The issue is that the supply of digital files is as near as makes no difference to infinite. That means that the equilibrium price, which we have nowhere near reached, is very low. How much would piracy be reduced at five cents a song, or even a penny? How about 50 cents to buy a digital copy of a movie, or 10 cents to rent a digital copy? I would wager that piracy would drop precipitously. At that price, the risk versus reward curve for pirating would make such actions untenable for most people. Artificially inflated prices are, imo, at the root of the piracy issue. However, the movie and record companies are doing their damnedest to fight the natural forces of economics through lawsuits, thuggery, and corruption.

It is also important, imo, to consider the difference between piracy for personal use and piracy for profit. If you post an image on a website, including this one, it is the digital equivalent of standing on a street corner and giving a print away to any random passerby who wants one. That person can set your image as their desktop background perhaps, or just stick it in a folder of images they like, or print it and hang it on their wall. You have absolutely no way of stopping someone from doing these things once you post an image on the internet. However, those things stop short of someone using your image for their personal profit. It is the use of other people's copyrighted material for profit that is/should be the concern, not personal use.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
The US government recently got the government of New Zealand to arrest a NZ citizen who ran a file sharing website and ship him to the USA for trial and prison. Non-Americans here take notice. Now THAT is wrong, in my opinion, because that man is not in my view a violator of US law, seeing how he is not a US citizen or a resident of the USA and has probably never set foot in the USA (prior to his being shipped here in chains). Wrong or not, though, he's in a jail cell.
Click to expand...

No he is not,not in jail,not a citizen.He is on bail and is a resident. The rest is correct .Americans take notice also. Some of your tech companies have just been sued by Australian Government research company for using WIFI tech developed in Australia....😉
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
The US government recently got the government of New Zealand to arrest a NZ citizen who ran a file sharing website and ship him to the USA for trial and prison. Non-Americans here take notice. Now THAT is wrong, in my opinion, because that man is not in my view a violator of US law, seeing how he is not a US citizen or a resident of the USA and has probably never set foot in the USA (prior to his being shipped here in chains). Wrong or not, though, he's in a jail cell.
Click to expand...


Actually Chris, it is completely RIGHT and pursuant to international law that New Zealand signed on to. It's known as the Berne Convention and signatories "recognize the copyright of works of authors from other signatory countries (known as members of the Berne Union) in the same way as it recognizes the copyright of its own nationals." He not having set foot in the US is not at issue, nor is the fact that he or she knew his or her host country signed this agreement. If the law was always forgiving for lack of knowledge, think about how easy that defense would be (and how often it would be invoked). Taking the Megaupload case example, hundreds of millions of dollars of US copyright infringement was being transacted through Megaupload, thus they had every right to extradite imo, and according to the international law NZ and many other countries have agreed by signing. And as stated above, it goes both ways in theory.

However, like much if not all international law, how binding these agreements are varies. China for example does not see this agreement as binding, though signed it (and we all know how much China respects copyright hah).
 
Just wondering when someone will licence walking, breathing or seeing. You still will be allowed this activities, just will have to pay for a funny named corporation.

"Only in December pay 25% less for a 5 year subscription to Walkr" !
 
btgc said:
Just wondering when someone will licence walking, breathing or seeing. You still will be allowed this activities, just will have to pay for a funny named corporation.

"Only in December pay 25% less for a 5 year subscription to Walkr" !
Click to expand...
You shouldn't post things like this! If "they" decide that the idea might actually be "thinkable" they'll start calculating how likely they are to get away with it. None of us might like the results of such calculations.

...Mike
 
btgc said:
Just wondering when someone will licence walking, breathing or seeing.
Click to expand...


When somebody too naive to think that those things have been invented, and/or the patent office is too ignorant to grant a patent and/or trademark on either, some or all of those.

Driving, gun-carrying, law practice, and engineering are also some of the things that are licensed.

If anybody could do anything as they would please, there'd be anarchy. Of course, this could be taken by some black-or-white extremist and use it to promote any form of dictatorship.

Nuances are overrated.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
When somebody too naive to think that those things have been invented, and/or the patent office is too ignorant to grant a patent and/or trademark on either, some or all of those.

Driving, gun-carrying, law practice, and engineering are also some of the things that are licensed.

If anybody could do anything as they would please, there'd be anarchy. Of course, this could be taken by some black-or-white extremist and use it to promote any form of dictatorship.

Nuances are overrated.
Click to expand...


Countries have TV and even Radio Licenses -- my friend in Prague told me it was a very low fee for the radio, and they pretty much gave up collecting it with the advent of small radios and their proliferation. A friend in Paris told me that the tax man sometimes came to the door to collect the TV tax, -- the owner often claimed the TV was broken, and dropped it while showing the guy. TV taxes in France and Britain are much higher than in Czech.

I think nudity should be taxed, and a fee paid any time someone is completely nude, though carrying a wallet might be inconvenient.

The concept of things in the airways not being taxed here has always been interesting, then again, I pay taxes on Cable-- they take it out of the "air" and ---

Regards, John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom