Is piracy considered an act of theft?
Wanted to hear your opinions, is piracy good for the music industry? is it good for the economy? or is it just bad in general, i mean if it's really bad then why do they allow people to share movie files and songs and games on the internet?
if car thieves just made a copy of your car and all your belongings in it and drove off into the sunset you would mind none too much...unless they cloned your girlfriend in the process then that would make you feel a bit uncomfortable and maybe strangely hopeful.
I don't think piracy is an act of theft (in terms of Law) however stealing is stealing, by pirating a certain file you're basically stealing it (you're not paying for it are you?) so obviously that's not good for anything. It does make your life a bit easier but it's bad and i don't encourage you or anyone else to do it. if you want something you go out and buy it legally and not download an unauthorized copy of it. I have to admit, i don't own everything i have on my computer i as well download stuff 'illegally' from the internet but i only do it whenever i'm super low on cash and i'm desperately in need for this 'stuff' but most of the time i pay for everything i want to support both the publishers and the shopkeeper;)
This opens a can of worms and you will get opinions on both sides of the isle, but in the end it depends on whether you feel guilty for pirating it.
Taking someones work for free without paying I would classify as stealing and unethical.
| pi·ra·cy ˈpīrəsē noun the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work. plural noun: piracies "software piracy" synonyms: illegal copying, plagiarism, copyright infringement, bootlegging More |
I think in an ideal world, copying of digital data would not be considered piracy as there is no real physical consequences.
However, in our current society, where we rely on the income caused by that digital data, it's a little bit different.
http://www.greenheartgames.com/2013/04/29/what-happens-when-pirates-play-a-game-development-simulator-and-then-go-bankrupt-because-of-piracy/
However, in our current society, where we rely on the income caused by that digital data, it's a little bit different.
http://www.greenheartgames.com/2013/04/29/what-happens-when-pirates-play-a-game-development-simulator-and-then-go-bankrupt-because-of-piracy/
It is one of those things where you have to differentiate between not just "physical" and "digital" but "real" property, too. Do the developers of a game also have the right to distribute? Are you paying for the property, or the right for them to distribute that property at their leisure?
| by pirating a certain file you're basically stealing it (you're not paying for it are you?) so obviously that's not good for anything. |
For example, software. Software is subject to the network effect. That is, The value of a given program grows with the number of users. Why? More users means more people talking about the program, writing about the program, helping each other use the program, reporting bugs in the program, etc. etc. The value of a program with 10 legal users and 20 illegal users is much higher than that of one with 10 legal users and 1 illegal user. A more valuable program is more likely to attract more users, both legal and illegal.
| http://www.greenheartgames.com/2013/04/29/what-happens-when-pirates-play-a-game-development-simulator-and-then-go-bankrupt-because-of-piracy/ |
Completely fictional example (honest!): A guy in his bedroom pirates a very expensive software development tool to help his hobby. Seeing how useful it is, he then goes to his boss to tell him about this wonderful tool he found and how much easier it made his job, upon which the boss orders 20 copies for all the developers.
Copyright and piracy laws are written in terms of physical objects having unique value.
The problem is that an object has more than one measure of value:
- the cost to physically replicate the object (such as a book) -- which includes costs to store data
- the cost to create the object (salary for the author's time and tools, etc)
- the potential of the object to generate future revenue
Today we endeavor to rephrase the original premise (a physical object) in terms of information (or "intellectual property") -- but it is still treated as a distinct physical entity. I think that is an unfortunately simple way to look at it...
So, when you are ready to download something off of the internet, consider: are you cheating someone out of just compensation for their efforts?
The typical arguments against this kind of reasoning all dodge the core moral problem. Are you being just? Even if you were being ripped off, can you really justify taking someone else's time, expense, effort, etc at a lower value than they feel it is worth?
Because that's no different than stealing.
(Wal*mart does that to its suppliers, for example. So I think shopping there makes us guilty of the same. We want suppliers to sell to us at a loss.)
The idea that we are entitled to something for which we have not made just compensation (i.e. that we have not worked for) is fallacious and destructive.
None of this, BTW, justifies companies charging us more than a thing is worth. Our capitalistic market is supposed to be able to manage this with supply-vs-demand, but, obviously, that isn't always enough. Alas, you'd be surprised what current laws do to prevent us from fighting back.
We live in an unjust world. My point is, that doesn't justify our cheating others.
$0.02
The problem is that an object has more than one measure of value:
- the cost to physically replicate the object (such as a book) -- which includes costs to store data
- the cost to create the object (salary for the author's time and tools, etc)
- the potential of the object to generate future revenue
Today we endeavor to rephrase the original premise (a physical object) in terms of information (or "intellectual property") -- but it is still treated as a distinct physical entity. I think that is an unfortunately simple way to look at it...
So, when you are ready to download something off of the internet, consider: are you cheating someone out of just compensation for their efforts?
The typical arguments against this kind of reasoning all dodge the core moral problem. Are you being just? Even if you were being ripped off, can you really justify taking someone else's time, expense, effort, etc at a lower value than they feel it is worth?
Because that's no different than stealing.
(Wal*mart does that to its suppliers, for example. So I think shopping there makes us guilty of the same. We want suppliers to sell to us at a loss.)
The idea that we are entitled to something for which we have not made just compensation (i.e. that we have not worked for) is fallacious and destructive.
None of this, BTW, justifies companies charging us more than a thing is worth. Our capitalistic market is supposed to be able to manage this with supply-vs-demand, but, obviously, that isn't always enough. Alas, you'd be surprised what current laws do to prevent us from fighting back.
We live in an unjust world. My point is, that doesn't justify our cheating others.
$0.02
| Wanted to hear your opinions, is piracy good for the music industry |
As someone who works from time to time in the music industry, I can say the answer to this is a very big and definite 'no'.
Real musicians make their money gigging anyways, and thats how it should be.
Last edited on
| As someone who works from time to time in the music industry, I can say the answer to this is a very big and definite 'no'. |
Then why do they put it for free on youtube? i can easily download it off of youtube (with realplayer downloader) is that still considered stealing?
Piracy is actually great for the music industry, musicians now have to concentrate on selling tickets to good gigs rather than rely on sales, The music industry is pretty much dead from having sold out to death, least this way musicians have to be creative again.
Simon Cowel really killed music theres so much formulated crap out there, this is why I think theres not been a band that has been so good it has had a large enough effect on culture since Nirvana
Simon Cowel really killed music theres so much formulated crap out there, this is why I think theres not been a band that has been so good it has had a large enough effect on culture since Nirvana
| Piracy is actually great for the music industry, musicians now have to concentrate on selling tickets to good gigs rather than rely on sales, The music industry is pretty much dead from having sold out to death, least this way musicians have to be creative again. Simon Cowel really killed music theres so much formulated crap out there, this is why I think theres not been a band that has been so good it has had a large enough effect on culture since Nirvana |
+1
| Simon Cowel really killed music theres so much formulated crap out there, this is why I think theres not been a band that has been so good it has had a large enough effect on culture since Nirvana |
The reason formulaic music is so dominant now is that it's almost impossible to make a living being a professional composer/band these days, because you get basically ZERO money from sales. Fortunately for these massive artists, they can sell out gigs and continue to dominate the industry, whereas an independent band like Nirvana that's trying to get its start in the music industry faces a long time of doing their music alongside another job, so they cannot commit full-time to it, while they create singles and albums that generate them almost no money and use money from gigs to try and upgrade their equipment*. i.e. It's very difficult in this day and age for the independent musician to exist.
It's also very difficult for smaller labels to continue to do business, so the industry has become dominated by a few larger labels that put out pop rubbish and then lots of smaller labels, many trying to release music that is good, many of which quickly go bankrupt.
*Very important!
Last edited on
People always justify their theft with "they made me do it" kinds of rubbish, usually something undervaluing money. They have no clue what kinds of costs go into making music, even for big labels. There is so much piracy that the industry has to invest in things like DRM and formulaic pop just to stay in the black (or try to, anyway).
Then the very "consumers" who are driving the industry to behave this way have the gall to think they are being ripped off.
Just think: when someone downloads music for free, what they are really doing is taking the hard work and investments of a lot of people (including the artist that wrote it) and throwing it away!
Then the very "consumers" who are driving the industry to behave this way have the gall to think they are being ripped off.
Just think: when someone downloads music for free, what they are really doing is taking the hard work and investments of a lot of people (including the artist that wrote it) and throwing it away!
@ OP:
Piracy != Theft
Assault != Battery
Trespassing != Vandalism
Yet all things mentioned are illegal. You would think that a programmer would understand syntax usage a bit better the this. If I try to come up with a universal definition I end up with this.
- Theft: Depriving someone of their legally owned property.
- Piracy: Depriving someone of compensation for works which they legally own exclusive distribution rights to.
The reason why you see the terms used separately is because they refer to separate things.
This is moronic, when the product is on YouTube the distributor gets their revenue from YouTube who gets their money from the ads that are played before the video. When you MAKE A COPY OF IT with real player you are violating the terms of the EULA presented by YouTube and I'm pretty sure you're violating the terms and conditions presented by Real Player as well.
The music industry is straight forward, they either produced their content or they are in a private agreement with the producer so they have the exclusive right to distribute the work. Anyone who circumvents their right to distribute their works is breaking the law. Software production falls under the "Sweat of the Brow" provision of copy right law and so the publisher has the exclusive right to distribute their works.
Intellectually I'd be pissed but my ego would be through the roof.
Piracy != Theft
Assault != Battery
Trespassing != Vandalism
Yet all things mentioned are illegal. You would think that a programmer would understand syntax usage a bit better the this. If I try to come up with a universal definition I end up with this.
- Theft: Depriving someone of their legally owned property.
- Piracy: Depriving someone of compensation for works which they legally own exclusive distribution rights to.
The reason why you see the terms used separately is because they refer to separate things.
| i can easily download it off of youtube (with realplayer downloader) |
This is moronic, when the product is on YouTube the distributor gets their revenue from YouTube who gets their money from the ads that are played before the video. When you MAKE A COPY OF IT with real player you are violating the terms of the EULA presented by YouTube and I'm pretty sure you're violating the terms and conditions presented by Real Player as well.
The music industry is straight forward, they either produced their content or they are in a private agreement with the producer so they have the exclusive right to distribute the work. Anyone who circumvents their right to distribute their works is breaking the law. Software production falls under the "Sweat of the Brow" provision of copy right law and so the publisher has the exclusive right to distribute their works.
| How would you feel if people were pirating your own product? ask yourself that |
Intellectually I'd be pissed but my ego would be through the roof.
Last edited on
Using NoXzema's link as an example, 214 users (6.4%) genuine version, 3104 users(93.6%) have pirated version. One argument I see is the usual, I wouldn't have bought it anyways so the company isn't losing anything. This is a dangerous rationale, explained below.
So let's use Computergeek01's logic:
Say your numbers were like that in the example above. How would you ego be if say you charged $5 for it and found only 214 bought it but was pirated 3104 times (meaning you made $1070 and lost a potential $15,520 in pirated users). A potential $15k you could have put into better assets and hardware for your next program, game, or music album.
The reason I said the above rationale is dangerous is because from a business standpoint, they don't view a potential $15k loss in any good light. To them that is the same as those people stealing $15k from them which results in them asking the programmers to put stricter anti-piracy measures in place or to just drop the product so they don't risk future losses.
As devon and Multimedia showed, the illogical attitude of "if I pirate it will force them to do better in concert". In truth, it will make ticket prices go up, concert merchandise will go up, and concert quality go down. The concerts are paid for by the company according to how well the previous album did in sells (ie the better it sells the more the label will put into the concert to make it better, the less it sells the less the label will allow for the concert). Pirating doesn't force developers to make a better product, it forces the publishers and manufacturers to drop the product rather than risk losing money on a future product or take more countermeasures to curve pirating of the product.
Developers aren't happy about pirating either. A few months back, Jason Rubin went off on a guy for admitting he pirated Crash Bandicoot (the old PSX one that is over 10+ years old) because you couldn't find it anywhere. Rubin wasn't happy about it at all (Rubin is one of the two creators of CB), but keep in mind that Rubin is no longer even in the game industry and is pursuing other endeavours.
So let's use Computergeek01's logic:
| Intellectually I'd be pissed but my ego would be through the roof. |
Say your numbers were like that in the example above. How would you ego be if say you charged $5 for it and found only 214 bought it but was pirated 3104 times (meaning you made $1070 and lost a potential $15,520 in pirated users). A potential $15k you could have put into better assets and hardware for your next program, game, or music album.
The reason I said the above rationale is dangerous is because from a business standpoint, they don't view a potential $15k loss in any good light. To them that is the same as those people stealing $15k from them which results in them asking the programmers to put stricter anti-piracy measures in place or to just drop the product so they don't risk future losses.
As devon and Multimedia showed, the illogical attitude of "if I pirate it will force them to do better in concert". In truth, it will make ticket prices go up, concert merchandise will go up, and concert quality go down. The concerts are paid for by the company according to how well the previous album did in sells (ie the better it sells the more the label will put into the concert to make it better, the less it sells the less the label will allow for the concert). Pirating doesn't force developers to make a better product, it forces the publishers and manufacturers to drop the product rather than risk losing money on a future product or take more countermeasures to curve pirating of the product.
Developers aren't happy about pirating either. A few months back, Jason Rubin went off on a guy for admitting he pirated Crash Bandicoot (the old PSX one that is over 10+ years old) because you couldn't find it anywhere. Rubin wasn't happy about it at all (Rubin is one of the two creators of CB), but keep in mind that Rubin is no longer even in the game industry and is pursuing other endeavours.
Last edited on
@ BHX: You know better then to think that I'm a rational person. So I mean that Intellectually, being screwed out of 15K would send me off the wall in a rage. But the knowledge that my product was worth risking prison for would inflate my ego beyond the impossible point that it exists in now. Come on, the knowledge that you ideas and your product could inspire that kind of risk and effort would ensure that you never stop working at this stuff as well. Hubris is a large part of what keeps us going.