

Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft" - timwiseman
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/obama-administration-piracy-is-flat-unadulterated-theft.ars

======
byoung2
I hate it when people equate piracy with theft...it's copyright infringement,
not theft. If someone breaks into my car and steals my iPod, that's theft. I,
the original owner, no longer possess the item.

If instead the "thief" breaks into my car and copies all of the music from my
iPod (let's say that all of the songs are recordings of my band to make things
simple) and posts it on several torrent trackers, that's piracy (copyright
infringement). I still have the originals, so no harm, no foul. In fact, I
might be glad that someone is doing some free marketing for my band (or I
might choose to cry about the billions in lost sales).

I'd argue that piracy has done more to help the music industry than it has to
hurt it. Back when people bought music on $17 CD's, they only bought a handful
per year. And once you lost a CD or it got scratched, you stopped listening to
it. You could also only carry 6 at a time in your CD changer. With illegal MP3
downloads (and later, legal ones), people could suddenly carry thousands of
songs in their pockets, and they never get lost or scratched.

Back in college, since music was now "free", my friends and I expanded our
musical tastes beyond gangsta rap to include rock, country, trance, techno,
classical, and jazz. With a new world of music open to us, we started going to
local jazz clubs, raves, and concerts (which put more money in the record
labels' pockets than CD sales ever did). I went to 2 Rage Against the Machine
concerts in one weekend, even though I've never paid for one of their albums.

Just the other day I listened to the first MP3 I ever downloaded (August,
1998, Eagle-Eye Cherry - Save Tonight). I backed up all of my old MP3's on
CD-R back in the day, and they've been passed from desktop to laptop to XBox
to iPod to phone ever since.

Since all of these songs are always instantly available to me, these artists
are still within reach, even the one-hit-wonders from yesteryear. If I hadn't
downloaded Fastball's "Outta My Head" back in 1998, I would never have gone to
see them perform at the Viper Room in 2008 (it was the illegal download of a
B-side that made me appreciate them more than hearing "The Way" on the radio).

~~~
AlexC04
| Since all of these songs are always instantly available | to me, these
artists are still within reach, even the | one-hit-wonders from yesteryear. If
I hadn't downloaded | Fastball's "Outta My Head" back in 1998, I would never |
have gone to see them perform at the Viper Room in 2008 | (it was the illegal
download of a B-side that made me | appreciate them more than hearing "The
Way" on the | radio).

While that may be true that the piracy had an unintended benefit for the band.
I think you're making an appeal to the fallacy "the ends justify the means".

In this case, the record label and by extension the employees of the record
label lost out on their share of the $1 you should arguably have spent on the
track. (assuming an itunes download at approximately market price).

So that works out to say $0.80 cents not paid to the workers at the store, the
marketing department etc...

In the end, the band might have benefitted on balance, but in an alternative
scenario, you _PAID_ for that song, liked it and still went to see the band at
the Viper room.

I'm fully aware that there are a number of people who violently disagree with
me on this. In my own opinion, the question of whether it's "better for the
music industry overall" or not is irrelevant. The people who own the rights to
the music, own the right to decide whether it's OK to get the song for free or
not. If that costs them a customer at the viper room in 2008, it's their
choice.

"Theft plain and simple" is probably an overstatement - but (again, in my
opinion) - there is definitely some moral ambiguity to this.

Let's imagine that for some reason at YC11 a band shows up. In their pitch
meeting PG and team feel suitably Rocked and Rolled so he decides to throw in
the seed money for their studio time. The terms are that YC gets to keep 80%
of the money from record sales (come to think of it, this happened on an
episode of Dragon's Den UK).

You download the song. Go to the concert. What happens to the share owned by
YC? Do they make money? Do they deserve money?

I do understand where you're coming from... but I also disagree.

~~~
byoung2
_In this case, the record label and by extension the employees of the record
label lost out on their share of the $1 you should arguably have spent on the
track. (assuming an itunes download at approximately market price)._

The year was 1998, and there was no iTunes. My only other alternative was to
buy the full CD at $12-17. As a poor college student, I could only afford to
buy maybe 3 CD's a year, and Fastball's album would not have been one of them.
I would therefore never have heard the song (or paid for it) and never would
have gone to the Viper room.

~~~
AlexC04
Then so be it.

You're using a post-hoc justification of the end result to claim that the
piracy was acceptable.

It wasn't.

------
daten
From the article: _Locke then lamented the fate of songwriters. "Recently,
I've had a chance to read letters from award winning writers and artists whose
livelihoods have been destroyed by music piracy. One letter that stuck out for
me was a guy who said the songwriting royalties he had depended on to 'be a
golden parachute to fund his retirement had turned out to be a lead balloon.'
This just isn't right."_

I don't believe the assumption that every download is a lost sale is remotely
true. It's also possible that many downloads led to increased sales or that
the downloader already owned a copy of or access to the media and was just
getting it in digital form for convenience.

If I download the mp3 copy of a CD I own a physical copy of, am I a criminal?
Did I steal from the artist?

~~~
byoung2
_If I download the mp3 copy of a CD I own a physical copy of, am I a criminal?
Did I steal from the artist?_

To the first question, I would say that you are guilty of copyright
infringement. Compare it to buying a bootleg DVD of a DVD that you already own
that was scratched and is now unplayable, or sneaking in to watch the re-
release of Avatar now that you own it on Blu-Ray.

To the second, no you haven't stolen anything from the artist, since the
artist (well, really the record label) still has the original item.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
How could he be guilty of copyright infringement when courts have ruled it is
legal to have a digital backup of your media? If he copied the mp3s from a
friend who ripped the CD as a short-cut, would you still see him as guilty of
piracy?

I'm sorry, but that viewpoint is ludicrous, but I'm sure the RIAA loves that
they've wired people to feel that way. Makes their extortion much easier.

(And, yes, I do believe in paying for the music I listen to.)

~~~
jerf
Because the law believes that bits have colour:
<http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23>

I'm not sure if this exact issue has been litigated, probably because the
copyright holders would really rather not even discuss the issue, and it isn't
the problem anyhow. A strict reading of the laws involved definitely show it's
copyright infringement, but one could reasonably argue the appropriate damages
for the act should be a flat $0. One can reasonably counterargue too, though.
Something along the line of "Well, then they should have bought a second
copy", though the problem with that is then you have to defend how when it is
disadvantageous to the customer for it to be considered a strictly physical
product, we consider it that way, but when it is disadvantageous to the
customer to treat it as an abstract intellectual good, we treat it that way
too. However, that's only a logical contradiction, not a legal one. This is
probably why this has (to the best of my knowledge) never been litigated, even
a victory of the case could set a precedent they wouldn't want. Best for them
to just keep this out of court.

~~~
wildjim
I kind-of agree with the idea of no damages -- where I assume you mean
compensation to the aggrieved party -- and instead a fine (or other
punishment) for illegal activity, collected and kept by the government.

------
btilly
I knew that this was the position the administration would have once chose Joe
Biden as VP. Frankly I'm amazed that they haven't attempted more to date with
copyright enforcement.

See [http://www.betanews.com/article/Where-does-Joe-Biden-
stand-o...](http://www.betanews.com/article/Where-does-Joe-Biden-stand-on-
technology-issues/1219872202) for a quick overview of Biden's background on
copyright issues.

~~~
daten
Biden was one of the few Senators I knew by name before he was VP. I was also
concerned about how his views on copyright would affect the stance of the
current Administration.

Here's more on the history of Biden's pro-copyright campaign.

<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html>

------
forgottenpaswrd
Piracy is not stealing, not a serious crime, it is a different thing, and with
untruth statements like this you are doing a bad favor to the industry.

I'm an author myself,and I see that as "the Prohibition in the United States".
Exaggeration to this problem could backfire.

Copyright has been extended so much that is a flagrant abuse +70years from
authors dead when it was 25 years from creation like a invention patent means
a lot of people could seriously object to it, and win.

Is drawing Mickie Mouse a crime just because the corporations lobbied for it?

95% of the US population do and will pirate in their lives. Criminalization of
piracy and sex means anybody could go to jail(it is so easy to put pirate cds
in your enemy home and call police).

This population vote Obama and they could make him jobless on the blink of an
eye. No matter what Obama says, if 90% of the people think something should be
permitted(like drawing Mickie or copying a Beatles song they have payed four
times) in a democracy, that is Law. If the president oppose, he can go home.

------
Qz
I keep telling myself, this _has_ to be better than if we'd elected McCain --
right?

~~~
leviathant
Back in 1999, there were a lot of people who took the position of "Doesn't
matter if it's Gore or Bush, they're both just as bad." I'm pretty sure no one
who had that sentiment before still holds that notion.

It's a lot better than if we elected McCain/Palin, yes.

~~~
jambo
While I'm no fan of George W. Bush, it's hard to hypothesize about a past that
never happened. So while not many people have that sentiment today, that's
only because we picked one and didn't get to see what the other would've done.

~~~
leviathant
While sometimes it's hard to hypothesize, there are other times when you've
done enough research on the topic to make a very astute guess.

I imagine that, by now, you've read The Onion's absurdly prescient "Bush: 'Our
Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'" from January
17, 2001 -- [http://www.theonion.com/articles/bush-our-long-national-
nigh...](http://www.theonion.com/articles/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-
peace-and-pros,464/)

Maybe I have different ideals than the original poster that I replied to, but
I feel confident in saying that yes, we are better off not having elected
McCain/Palin.

------
petercooper
I've seen citations that the common law requires the property to be "tangible"
for theft or larceny to have occurred. In the legal, British definition,
however, this is not required.

Calling piracy "theft" doesn't require considering whether piracy results in
lost sales. Instead, does piracy involve dishonest appropriation of someone
else's property (virtual or otherwise)? Yes, usually. But, importantly, does
piracy involve _permanently depriving_ that person of that same property? If
merely taking a photo, recording sound, or copying some files, clearly not.

To me it seems that if theft were legally defined as merely the dishonest
appropriation of someone else's property without their consent, piracy is
theft. If as is typical, though, theft requires depriving the owner of that
same property, piracy is clearly not theft.

I'm no lawyer, so what's the legal definition of theft in the US? In the UK,
"permanent deprivation" is required and so piracy is certainly not "theft."

------
kyro
I fully agree, and have yet to hear a solid argument in support of music
piracy. Expanding your musical tastes and/or free marketing for the band are
typically two very weak arguments, with the latter always unsubstantiated. If
I copy your product and disseminate it to those clearly interested in it, I've
definitely taken away some of your potential profits. You can argue that there
are those whose interest didn't really compel them to purchase the product in
the first place, so you're getting free marketing there in the hopes that
they'll purchase future products, but let's be very realistic here, most
pirates aren't spending more money on music because of their free access to
music; they'll just occasionally donate to their favorite band. Of course,
that's also a very unsubstantiated claim, but being human tells me that if I
can get something for free with relative ease and little to no consequence,
there's no reason to pay for it.

~~~
wildjim
I have yet to hear a solid argument for 75-year "ownership" of a copyright.

I also view the ability to sell the copyrights themselves (patents, etc, etc)
to a third-party as very distasteful -- as opposed to allowing someone to use
your copyrighted item(s) for compensation -- as it seems very against the
spirit of the law to give up your original right as the author.

------
username3
> _No one walking out of a Walmart with a stack of Richard Marx discs under
> his arm would be subject to such penalties._

Penalties are higher because piracy is easier to get away with?

~~~
tptacek
What does how easy something is to get away with have to do with anything?
Technology makes certain kinds of securities fraud massively easier to get
away with. Should we decriminalize them now?

~~~
paulgb
I can't speak for username3, but the way I read his/her comment suggested the
opposite. If a crime is very easy to get away with (like piracy), the
penalties have to be higher to discourage people from doing it.

------
jrockway
This is what's great about the Internet: Obama's opinion on how people use it
doesn't matter.

"Piracy is bad."

OK, good luck shutting down that warez server in North Korea.

------
ThomPete
It's funny how the word Piracy is used. One has to wonder what kind of pirates
we are talking about.

The "Pirates of the Caribbean" type of pirates did loot ships, but what they
stole where often goods produced by slavery and itself stolen from the
colonies.

Piracy or as I prefer to call it – copying is the result of a disconnect
between price and cost.

When you steal you take something away from others so it's not there anymore,
but copying isn't stealing it's copying by using an internet connection you
pay for yourself, onto a computer you have paid for yourself. In other words
the only one who have any real cost is the one who copies.

There is absolutely nothing that states that it's fair for musicians or other
artist to make millions by mass producing and distributing at almost zero
cost.

And now that we are on the subject of newspeak anyway. If you produce an album
with the purpose of selling it, you aren't really an artist anymore, you are a
businessman and your product is a commodity.

Deal!

~~~
kscaldef
_There is absolutely nothing that states that it's fair for musicians or other
artist to make millions by mass producing and distributing at almost zero
cost._

Is it fair for software developers to make money by mass producing and
distributing at almost zero cost?

~~~
bediger
> Is it fair for software developers to make money by mass producing and
> distributing at almost zero cost?

Well, what about simple Econ 101? In a competitive market, prices tend towards
the marginal cost of production. Wow! Someone just invented a technology that
allows the duplication and distribution of recorded music to happen at almost
zero cost!

Is it fair for the people whose livelihoods are changed by this new tech to
lobby/pay for laws to maintain the price of their good at pre-new-tech levels?
Is if fair for that new technology to be legally limited by highly unpopular,
and un-democratically-created laws? Is it fair for me to be deprived of the
use of that new technology for un-infringing uses?

And yes, I've taken advantage of the new technology to mass produce and
distribute some of my own software are near zero-cost:
<http://www.stratigery.com/acl.html> Have a copy, for free!

------
flash2024
Printing money to give to bankers is also flat, unadulterated theft.

~~~
jbooth
Pop quiz: Which administration passed TARP?

~~~
hga
Bonus question: Which Senator who became a President voted for it?

(Cheet sheet:
[http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c...](http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00213))

~~~
jbooth
Sigh. Lots of senators voted for it, because at that point in time, with
everything falling down around our ears, it was the safest move, flaws and
all. That particular situation was actually bad enough that a majority of
Congress forgot about partisan silliness for a second. Unbelievable, I know.
Last I knew, the overwhelming majority of the money had been paid back.

Anyways, score 1 point for you, you can take that one right on to Fox News.

------
lobo-tuerto
It would be interesting if they mentioned the proportion/amount of money that
goes to songwriters/artists per song.

If they want that lead balloon to be a golden parachute, they can make it,
just rising the percentage of the royalties they pay to the artist.

------
holychiz
ok, yes, but that is not the main point of the debate, though. What are the
proper ways to deter and punish the crime? Up til now, the main weapon
wielding by RIAA is to sue petty theft with gigantic financial penalties,
which most people don't have the means to defend themselves against. It gets
so bad that law firms are now basically blackmail people into submission, eg.
"the Hurt Locker" case. This only infuriates others and aggravate the
problems.

------
davidmurphy
Personally, I agree that piracy is wrong.

Users pirated software at my first startup company. It wasn't cool.

------
Adam503
Too bad Obama is only inclined to look forward as opposed to looking backward.

------
motters
The more draconian they try to get the more people of modest means will have
little option but to adopt Creative Commons media and FOSS.

Home taping is killing music!

------
steveklabnik
Oh well, this is unfortunately expected. I'm not sure we'll ever see
reasonable progress on this issue anytime soon.

