Music, video, and other forms of piracy

[jks9199]

It's popped up -- and it's worthwhile discussion.

What is piracy, in this sense? For the moment, let's ignore counterfeit goods like fake Rolex watches -- though there's a lot of overlap. Let's stick with electronic piracy, covering things like peer-to-peer file sharing, knowingly purchasing pirated DVDs or CDs, and the like. And let's remember that actually doing any of this on Martial Talk is generally prohibited (see Section 7 in the Rules), since it's often illegal. Here is some information from the RIAA.

What are the arguments defending the various forms of piracy? What about arguments against?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The most common argument for piracy of such media is that it takes nothing from the victim; that is, their warehouse does not have one fewer copy of the song, video, or software in question after the theft, so they have not been damaged.

The most common argument against piracy of this type is that although the victim has not lost physical possession, they have lost control over something they own, which is the 'right to sell' the item. In the philosophical sense, they have been robbed of their property rights, because copyright is property just like the physical disk is property, and in the case of music, video and software, the value is in the content, not the disk itself.

All other arguments for or against piracy seem to be based on concepts such as the relative wealth, power, and alleged greed of the industries that control songs, video, and software, and the relative merits of the people to appropriate such things for their own use as they wish, so long as they do not sell it for a profit themselves.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

My comments from 1995-1996
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Re: About the CGW sex ads whiners 1995
Software Pirates are cool 1995
Re: Software Etc. inflates game prices (i.e. MW2)? 1995
More comments on the piracy topic 1995
Another Piracy Opinion 1995
Re: holier-than-thou-I'd-never-pirate tight-wads 1996[/FONT]

(Copied intact, bad spelling and all.)

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]No, in my case if a friend asks to borrow a book, software, etc I
usually loan it to him. However, if he likes it I expect him to buy
his own copy, and not simply photocopy/duplicate/copy the loaned
version. It's a simple concept. Piracy IS! theft. PERIOD![/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you borrow a CD, and make a tape for yourself that is THEFT, and
you are a THIEF.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you borrow a BOOK/MAGAZINE from the library and COPY THE WHOLE
ITEM, then you are a thief. (Not to mention kinda stupid as
photocopying it is usually more expensive and more un-manageable than
simply buying it.)[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you borrow/rent a VIDEO TAPE and then copy it you are a THIEF. I
do believe the same holds true if you tape it off of PAY PER VIEW or
whatever. (There are some "fair-use" and "permissible-use" clauses in
effect to cover time-recording, and photocopying PARTS of
book/magazine articles)[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]AND.....[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you make a copy of a COMPUTER PROGRAM (game, utility, etc) when you
do not HAVE THE RIGHT TO (ie: you don't own it) then you are a THIEF.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In other words, the UNAUTHORIZED DUPLICATION OF A COPYWRITEN WORK IS
THEFT. Period. End of Discussion.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you DISTRIBUTE the UNAUTHORIZED DUPLICATE then you are a PIRATE. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Basically the "well I'm only 10 years old.....OR...Well I really can't
afford it...OR...Well it really sucked.....etc..etc...etc" excuses are
just that. If you don't have the money for that burger, well then you
don't get the burger. If it sucks then why do you have it (and the
other 1,0000000 programs that "suck" on your hard drive, or on
archive's? And the "gee I'm so young" excuse is really lame. So
you're young. Big Deal. Just cuz you don't have $30,000 for a car
doesn't give you the right to go and take one, and just cuz you don't
have the $10-$100 it costs to purchase a program doesn't give you the
right to STEAL IT! [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Face Facts People. Theft is Theft. It doesn't matter how you explain
it, excuse it or ignore it. If you can't afford it, then like
everything else in life that you can't afford, you DO WITHOUT IT until
you can afford it. Save your allowence, get a job, sell your old
games, collect pop cans, whatever.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you have a bootleg and it's SOMETHING THAT YOU USE ALOT, then go
buy an original copy and support the guys who wrote it so that they
will write more stuff for you to enjoy. Yeah, I know some of these
cost a bit. You can wait a little while and get them from the bargin
bins, or a used software shop. We picked up Panzer General for $20
NEW, Allied General for $25 NEW and Perfect General II (with senario
editor, etc) for $29 NEW. Picked up Duke 3D for $30 NEW. Look around
and bargin shop. There's no excuse to justify bootlegs, except these
2:[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]a: You're a thief. Admit it to yourself, and be the low-life you are[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]OR[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]b: You are EVALUATING a possible future purchase. Limit yourself to
no more than 10-15 hours of game play, or 15 days, or something fair
(not 6 months folks) And then, if it is something you do like, go buy
it. If it's not, then DELETE IT![/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]End of Lecture.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Bob Hubbard - Centarius Software Company[/FONT][/FONT]

(Centarius no longer exists)

 

[Bruno@MT]

What's with the exclamation marks and the shouting, Bob?
A couple of properly written paragraphs are more likely to influence people's opinions than the above rant.

As for piracy, I generally believe in 'fair use' as defined by your own common sense, and not as defined by the RIAA lawyers. If I buy a cd, I fully expect that noone will hassle me by listening to the music from my mp3 player. or my laptop.

In the case of obscure martial arts movies: in many cases, the publisher is defunct, noone is using the rights anymore and it is impossible to get a legit copy no matter how much you want to pay. In those cases, buying a pirated movie is not costing anyone loss of revenue.

I am not a pirate and even my software licensing is in order. However, I do insist on fair use of the things I buy. Besides, it's not like the RIAA and sony are trying to bend you over and give you some rough love from behind. The rootkit fiasco of a couple of years ago comes to mind.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Well, I wrote those all about 14-15 years ago, on USENET as part of a few ongoing debates. My views haven't changed much though over the years.

Also, I don't buy SONY stuff....won't touch their PC's, etc. The Rootkit thing.

 

[Muawijhe]

Another avenue I think is interesting, especially from an ethical standpoint, is besides the actual theft of the property (digital, intellectual, or otherwise), what about using it?

Hmm...how to word this...

Say my roommate downloads a digital copy (illegally) of a movie. It's on his hard drive. He doesn't watch it. Now I come home, and am browsing his hard drive for something to watch, find said illegally downloaded movie, and watch it.

He made the effort to steal the movie, but did not watch it. I watched it, (and a difference can be made for knowing or unkowing of it being stolen). What then?

Just as a reference, I am against theft of any type. I have a lot of friends who utilize their imagination to produce music, movies, games, books, and whatever else. Not all of them require the proceeds from the sale of those ideas to secure their livelyhoods, but they do require some return on investment if they ever wish to produce more of their ideas through different mediums. For me, it made me realize: "If you like something, why would you financially castrate the makers from ever making more things you'd like?"

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Another avenue I think is interesting, especially from an ethical standpoint, is besides the actual theft of the property (digital, intellectual, or otherwise), what about using it?

I would compare that to visiting a bar or restaurant where they are showing a Pay-per-view show or sporting event to their patrons. This is generally not legal for the venue to do without paying a licensing fee, and if they get caught, they get fined or sued.

Are the patrons guilty? No, in my opinion. It's not their problem or their fault, especially if they don't know about the illegality of the venue's display.

This is also true of bars and restaurants that have juke boxes in them. Did you know that BMI and ASCAP have field agents that go from place to place and verify that places with jukeboxes are paying royalties on the music in them? What about patrons who listen to music on the jukebox and the owner isn't paying royalties?

Ever listen to pirate radio? Same deal.

And how about music streaming? Until recently, the companies that stream music over the net were on terra infirma with regard to the legality of streaming music; unlike radio stations, they didn't pay royalties...

I try to go with what is least complicated. I don't intentionally take what is not allowed for me to take. If I buy something like software or music, I am not really going to worry about what format I use it on; if I make a copy of my own music CD to listen to on another format, oh well. I won't give it away to people or sell it, but I'm not going to buy it twice.

 

[crushing]

Also, I don't buy SONY stuff....won't touch their PC's, etc. The Rootkit thing.

Same here. Just hit the five year anniversary of Sony BMG's rootkit:

http://www.networkworld.com/news/20...rm.html?source=NWWNLE_nlt_daily_am_2010-11-02

 

[Carol]

What is piracy?

If I decide that downloading a song from (a site the RIAA doesn't like) is easier than ripping MP3s from a CD I legally own, is that piracy?

If I buy a CD from a retailer, but that CD becomes unplayable due to damage, loss, etc. and I then download that same CD from (a site the RIAA doesn't like), is that piracy?

If I download several songs from a given artist from (a site the RIAA doesn't like) only to find that I only like one or two of their songs, and then I choose to buy those MP3s that I like from (say) Amazon.com, is that piracy?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

What is piracy?

Taking what does not belong to you.

If I decide that downloading a song from (a site the RIAA doesn't like) is easier than ripping MP3s from a CD I legally own, is that piracy?

I would say no, but that's just my opinion, and I'm not a lawyer. I note that several movie studios have begun allowing people who buy a DVD or Blu-Ray movie to download a digital copy of it from their website for free. Seems they're starting to catch on that in the digital domain, a copy is a copy.

If I buy a CD from a retailer, but that CD becomes unplayable due to damage, loss, etc. and I then download that same CD from (a site the RIAA doesn't like), is that piracy?

Again, I would say no. You paid for the right to listen to the music.

If I download several songs from a given artist from (a site the RIAA doesn't like) only to find that I only like one or two of their songs, and then I choose to buy those MP3s that I like from (say) Amazon.com, is that piracy?

Some argue that piracy encourages legal consumption for that very reason. However, I'd say that this is still piracy; you may 'get legal' after the fact, but until you do, you still haven't paid for the music you're listening to, whether you enjoyed it or not. If you listen to music on a radio station, they have to pay royalties on all the songs they play, even if you don't like some of the songs.

 

[crushing]

I try to go with what is least complicated. I don't intentionally take what is not allowed for me to take. If I buy something like software or music, I am not really going to worry about what format I use it on; if I make a copy of my own music CD to listen to on another format, oh well. I won't give it away to people or sell it, but I'm not going to buy it twice.

"Taking what does not belong to you."

I think piracy is a huge problem. But the biggest pirates are in the music industry. You buy a CD and the music industry says you are bound by the licensing agreement that you never signed. So their claim is that you licensed the music for your enjoyment and you don't really own anything. That's fine, because should something happen, like the CD breaks or gets a big scratch, you can easily pull down a nice digital copy of the music you licensed at very little cost, right? NO! You must purchase a brand new license for the same music for which you already licensed.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think piracy is a huge problem. But the biggest pirates are in the music industry. You buy a CD and the music industry says you are bound by the licensing agreement that you never signed. So their claim is that you licensed the music for your enjoyment and you don't really own anything. That's fine, because should something happen, like the CD breaks or gets a big scratch, you can easily pull down a nice digital copy of the music you licensed at very little cost, right? NO! You must purchase a brand new license for the same music for which you already licensed.

I agree with you, but many people use this as their moral justification for being pirates themselves. It's the 'bigger crook' theory. Well, if I rob a bank, should I be let go because bankers are bigger crooks than I am? After all, I'm robbing from the robbers, right? If I cheat on my taxes, is it OK because the IRS are thugs and bullies? You get the idea.

Yes, the music (and movie, and software) industries are greedy, full of themselves, and often attempt to enforce draconian policies that ensure the consumer gets ripped off. Absolutely true. That is a separate issue from MY behavior, though.

A long time ago, I used to have one of these posters on the wall of my bedroom:

"HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC - AND IT'S ABOUT TIME"

But that doesn't mean I stole music. I just made mix tapes of music I had paid for, and didn't pay attention to complaints by the music industry that I was a crook for doing so. However, things were different in those days; it wasn't really possible to make perfect bit-for-bit copies of music. Tape-swapping and bootlegs were usually pretty crappy and generally not worth it. I could make decent copies of LP records onto my own cassette tapes, but a copy of a cassette was generally poor quality. Now you can make a copy hundreds of generations without a single error.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

You are legally (in the US) allowed to make -1- backup copy of your software. If you sell the software, you must also transfer or destroy the backup.

You can make -1- backup copy of your VHS/BETA tapes. Same rules as software.

You can make -1- backup copy of your 8track, cassettes and albums. Same rules as software. CD's are a gray area.

I go by the 'I bought it, I'll listen to it' policy, meaning I can and will rip my cd's, and albums so that I can listen to them on the computer or ipod. This seems to be legally allowed especially since iTunes has the 'rip cd' feature built in.

When it comes to DVDs and BluRay, you run into a conflict. You can make a backup copy, however you may not circumvent any copy protection to do so. At one point, even publishing information on this would get you visited by cheep suits.

Oh, and if you even mentioned decss you got headaches. Major ones.
Google it.

I've got backups of my entire music library, and most of my software library. In the case of videos, as of late I'm finding them gathering dust and I'm streaming them via Netflix...so I expect the issue of video bootlegs to shortly go away as more people switch to streaming on-demand services.

 

[Muawijhe]

What is piracy?

Cpt. Jack Sparrow's exploits?

If I decide that downloading a song from (a site the RIAA doesn't like) is easier than ripping MP3s from a CD I legally own, is that piracy?

Legally, I cannot say. But is going to the store and stealing a Granny Smith apple because it is easier than driving home to get the one just like it I own piracy/theft?

If I buy a CD from a retailer, but that CD becomes unplayable due to damage, loss, etc. and I then download that same CD from (a site the RIAA doesn't like), is that piracy?

If I buy a car from a dealership, but that car becomes undrivable due to damage, loss, etc. and I then take the same model/make from the dealership piracy/theft?

If I download several songs from a given artist from (a site the RIAA doesn't like) only to find that I only like one or two of their songs, and then I choose to buy those MP3s that I like from (say) Amazon.com, is that piracy?

What'd you do with the old songs? Or to go with my rediculous analogies, if I am at the grocery store and I eat a few Granny Smith apples and only find one or two to my liking and pay for those, is that piracy/theft?

The questions are not aimed at you, Ms. Carol, but are in response to your thought provoking questions. I just wanted to put them in a new light. =)

 

[Muawijhe]

"Taking what does not belong to you."

I think piracy is a huge problem. But the biggest pirates are in the music industry. You buy a CD and the music industry says you are bound by the licensing agreement that you never signed. So their claim is that you licensed the music for your enjoyment and you don't really own anything. That's fine, because should something happen, like the CD breaks or gets a big scratch, you can easily pull down a nice digital copy of the music you licensed at very little cost, right? NO! You must purchase a brand new license for the same music for which you already licensed.

Well, same could be said for any product. See my response to Carol's post above. I bought that copy, for my enjoyment. Should something happen to it, be it a CD, a movie, a car, what have you, does not entitle me to just go take another one like it because I bought that one. I bought the CD/movie/game whatever. I didn't buy total exclusive rights to that item.

Make sense? Companies/banks/whatever are not pirates/thieves. They may have shrewd business practices, or charge rediculous fees for their product, but ultimately, you chose to pay your money for that product, and are thus bound by their rules, imo.

 

[crushing]

Well, same could be said for any product. See my response to Carol's post above. I bought that copy, for my enjoyment. Should something happen to it, be it a CD, a movie, a car, what have you, does not entitle me to just go take another one like it because I bought that one. I bought the CD/movie/game whatever. I didn't buy total exclusive rights to that item.

Make sense? Companies/banks/whatever are not pirates/thieves. They may have shrewd business practices, or charge rediculous fees for their product, but ultimately, you chose to pay your money for that product, and are thus bound by their rules, imo.

What you are saying about applying this to any product, such as a car, doesn't make sense at all to me.

The problem with the license is that it is contradictory and they make money from their customers on both sides of the contradiction. I agree they aren't thieves, because their unethical practices haven't been found to be illegal. Yes, I pay for their product and agree to the terms, but then THEY stop agreeing with the terms. They, the recording industry, are breaking the agreement.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

What you are saying about applying this to any product, such as a car, doesn't make sense at all to me.

The problem with the license is that it is contradictory and they make money from their customers on both sides of the contradiction. I agree they aren't thieves, because their unethical practices haven't been found to be illegal. Yes, I pay for their product and agree to the terms, but then THEY stop agreeing with the terms. They, the recording industry, are breaking the agreement.

Where? When? And making money is kind of the point of the industry, its not a crime to make money. You have show some kind of deception or at least bad faith before citing the money they make as a reason to hold their contract void.

 

[Bruno@MT]

What is piracy?

If I decide that downloading a song from (a site the RIAA doesn't like) is easier than ripping MP3s from a CD I legally own, is that piracy?

True story. I had an MSDN Premium subscription until recently. Under that subscription license, I was entitled to use as many copies of whatever Microsoft had ever released, for development purposes. The Visual Studio 6 release was highly sucessfull, and was in common use 10 years after release (up to 2008).

The problem was that because of a court case with sun, they were no longer allowed to distribute it, even to the people who had a licensing agreement with Microsoft for 'everything and the kitchen sink'.

In their own words (when we asked the question) we were allowed to have it. They were just not allowed to give it to us anymore. But nothing prevented us from burning copies and sending them to each other, as long as we knew for certain that the receiving person was entitled to use it.

 

[crushing]

Where? When? And making money is kind of the point of the industry, its not a crime to make money. You have show some kind of deception or at least bad faith before citing the money they make as a reason to hold their contract void.

It must have been someone else that was claiming it to be a crime to make money.

I agree that they should be able to show bad faith before terminating the agreement with the customer and forcing a new purchase and agreement should that customer want to continue to play that music for their personal enjoyment.

 

[Muawijhe]

What you are saying about applying this to any product, such as a car, doesn't make sense at all to me.

The problem with the license is that it is contradictory and they make money from their customers on both sides of the contradiction. I agree they aren't thieves, because their unethical practices haven't been found to be illegal. Yes, I pay for their product and agree to the terms, but then THEY stop agreeing with the terms. They, the recording industry, are breaking the agreement.

I think I'm just reading your point wrong (not surprising, still too close to Monday for my mental comfort).

Let me see if I can break your original post down some.

1. their claim is that you licensed the music for your enjoyment

- Okay, I licensed the music for my enjoyment. On the medium in which it was presented to me, I'd assume.

2. and you don't really own anything

- Obviously I don't "own" the music, as that is intellectual property owned by the artists, the music company, or something of some such. But I do own the physical CD itself, regardless of what is on it or the state of its condition, yes? They can't come into my house at any time and legally remove the disc from my posession since I paid for it, correct?

3. ...because should something happen...you can easily pull down a nice digital copy of the music you licensed at very little cost, right? NO!

- Not unless digital copy was part of the licensing agreement, like some DVDs being realsed now have (where you can legally download a copy of the movie).

I think the semantic argument here is in the term "license". I really can't believe that I am playing for a license to listen to the music, as I can listen to the music walking down the street (playing from a cafe), on the radio, from a friend's CD in his car, etc.

What I think I'm really paying for is the cost and overhead of the CD and its contents, as they own the license to the media on the CD, they enact certain limitations on the distribution of that media.

Now if I were to buy a digital copy, and something happened to my hard drive and I went to re-download it and they charged me again, I might be a little upset... ("Hey man, costs to maintain our server and bandwidth...").

I don't know the wording of the music companies, but again, I really don't think you are paying for the music directly when you purchase a CD. It's like any other product you buy, if you break it, unless it is insured, you can't just go get another one just like it for free.

But again, it's rather close to Monday, and I could totally be reading your posts incorrectly. If I have, I apologize for my drivel and rant, and perhaps we can work again at clearing things up. Thanks.