
Piracy is Not Theft: Problems of a Nonsense Metaphor - Garbage
http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-is-not-theft-111104/
======
RyanMcGreal
Piracy and copying seem to have more to do with the accessibility/usability of
a product than its cost per se. In that sense, piracy is the market attempting
to provide what people want when the copyright owners are unwilling to do so.

Here's an example (I deliberately picked an issue that seems trivial): I
deeply resent DVDs that force me to stare at the FBI/INTERPOL warning for
several seconds before I can advance to the menu - which also frequently takes
a long time to load - or, God forbid, the actual movie. (Again, this is not
even to raise the issue of DVD Regions, different release dates for different
areas, and all that nonsense.)

These things are steady, low-grade reminders that the heavy-handed UI wrapped
around the movie exists to accommodate someone else's interests, not mine. If
a DVD is really egregious - and that seems increasingly to be the case - I'll
rip the movie, strip out the menus, warnings and other crap, and re-burn it or
just watch it on my computer. Yet I can't help but notice that it's easier
simply to download the torrent of a movie than it is to rip it from a DVD.

Now consider that in Canada, where I live, a planned update to our federal
copyright legislation would make it a _criminal offence_ to make a personal
copy of a DVD I legally purchased for my own use - with no exception for "fair
use", which doesn't exist in Canadian copyright law (we have "fair dealing",
which is weaker and more limited in scope than "fair use"). It would be
illegal because DVDs are nominally protected by DRM - even though the
encryption was broken 12 years ago - and it is a criminal offence to break a
'digital lock' for any reason.

~~~
twainer
I'm not sure why you'd pick a trivial issue on purpose because - no offense -
it doesn't make for a very compelling argument. In your specific case, the
effort to rip a movie to avoid watching the FBI warning etc is a bad deal for
you: it takes far longer to rip and burn than to just do something else for
the ten seconds until the movie loads.

Piracy advocates/apologists can make a case that piracy is about convenience
but there is no whitewashing that it is as much about paying. I deal with this
all the time with artists I work with. Here's one email I received just this
morning:

"I'm very tired and down right now. I'm getting sick of being contacted by
companies pretending to help me, then asking for thousands upon thousands of
dollars for everything. There are so many people feeding from struggling indie
artists. Things are so bad right now in music. I actually don't think it's
possible to do all this on your own but I'm really trying.

The biggest thing that need to change is the general public's attitude towards
new music right now. They expect it for free and don't have any respect
towards the amount of work you do and how much it costs to make it. They still
think 'signed' artists are 'real' and we are just beggars on the street in
comparision."

This is an indie artist who has 1,000s of fans, is high on the internet-radio
charts in his area, etc. He has spent tens of thousands of dollars to put a
good product out and he spends literally 60-80 hours a week on fan contact
etc.

I'm sorry: piracy sucks. People can crow about the labels etc all they want
but they have changed their business model: they sign 360-deals with artists
because recorded music sales are a loss-leader; then they promote acts like
Justin Bieber because they know 13-yr-olds are more likely to a) pay for music
and b) much more importantly, buy all the associated merchandise that feeds
back into their 360 deal. So if you think they are 'dinosaurs' you're wrong;
they've already changed to service the market that exists - leaving lots and
lots of independent musicians with no pipeline into wider exposure. And if one
thinks being on the internet is 'wider exposure' I have a bridge to sell you;)

As much research into human value strategies has shown - the truth is that
people dislike for paying for things increases dramatically when they think
others aren't paying; that is, when there isn't fairness going on. It's not
talked about enough - that piracy 'poisons the well' by leaving people who
would pay for things feeling like rubes for doing so.

This particular artist has 1000s of fans who listen to his work several times
a week; he sells a digital download version of his album for $3 - yes the same
$3 that will get you a half-hamburger at McDonalds - and he has sold zero -
literally ZERO. Before any debate about the quality of his work or fans or
exposure - all of which are well above-average for indies I have worked with -
the ugly truth is that people don't pay when they can get around it - it
doesn't matter what the amount.

So, with respect to all, complaints about "inconveniences" are not compelling
at all when I know how much blood, sweat, and tears artists are putting into
their work. Pro-pirates like to tout how 'free' makes things more accessible -
but they are totally blind to the fact that 'free' keeps as much content
inaccessible as it leaves legacy content accessible. At best, it's a zero-sum
game, a choice - and as such it's no point of support for why one way is
better than another.

As I have said many, many times - I'd much prefer a world with things worth
buying than one where everything is for free.

------
mbyrne
Question for the article author: Could you explain why "piracy" is not _also_
a nonsense metaphor?

Piracy is an act of robbery and/or criminal violence at sea.

It feels like 99% of arguments are between people who haven't clearly defined
the meaning of words they are arguing over.

~~~
MichaelGG
I believe nowadays "piracy" isn't being used as a metaphor at all, it's just a
re-purposing of a word. No one is conflating the act of sea robbery with
copyright infringement. No one is saying "Our navies need more funding because
of these pirates." With "theft", there's no metaphor being used. It's trying
to set things up to use theft as a synonym for copyright infringement.

------
epo
Depriving others of revenue IS theft. If the terms of use for a service or
product require payment then any use without payment is, in effect, theft.
These juvenile justifications are how 13-year olds comfort themeselves about
their behaviour. Don't want to pay? Don't use it.

~~~
MichaelGG
"Depriving others of revenue IS theft." - No, it is not. This is a much more
complex scenario, and reducing it to simple lines like that doesn't further
the discussion at all. (Not to mention there's a million ways to "deprive
others of revenue". What if I slander you, so that people stop buying your
service? Do you really want to call that theft?)

Take the example of a DVD you've already purchased for personal use. If I rip
that to play on my unlicensed OS, is it theft? What if I rip the DVD so I can
email a link to my brother, instead of shipping him the DVD? Calling this
theft is pointless, unless the point is to unfairly frame the debate.

~~~
frobozz
> "what if I slander you"...

An even more important example - What if I open up a competing business with
better advertising and greater value for money? That deprives others of
revenue, but is neither criminally nor civilly illegal, and only in certain
cases could it even be considered immoral.

------
technoslut
>...Paulo Coelho made a Russian translation of The Alchemist available without
permission from his publisher. As a result the sales in Russia skyrocketed
from 1,000 books a year to over 1,000,000.

I feel uncomfortable with this example because it was the author who chose to
give his book away.

I'm of a mixed mind about piracy in regards to media content. I don't agree
with it but it's the only thing that manages to force content owners to
rethink their business model. If it wasn't for Napster and the like, there
wouldn't be an iTunes or Spotify. If it was up to them we would still be
paying $20 for a CD. The same is happening with TV and movies and I'm sure
they will be facing the same situation as broadband gets faster.

I don't include the print industry in this because they are more lost than any
other because it's so poorly run.

------
chrisbennet
I think theft can be simply defined as: "Taking something that isn't yours
without permission."

On the plus side, the various rationalizations people come up with to justify
theft of creative works shows that they have at least some bit of conscience
left.

Teacher: "Billy I gave you an 'F' on your paper because Bobby already passed
in that exact same paper."

Billy: "But I wrote the paper! Bobby must have stolen/copied it and passed it
in first!"

Teacher: "But Billy, you still have your original paper so how is that theft?"

------
jamesgeck0
"Bootlegging" always seemed like a more appropriate term to me. Although
perhaps that has the connotation attached that the illegal distributor is
profiting from the materials in question.

------
im3w1l
Copyright is just a dirty hack to make capitalism work with information, a
domain capitalism not at all good at dealing with.

------
bradharper
"There is no loss when something is copied, or the loss is radically different
from losing something like your bike..."

The question is not about tangible loss, it's about property rights, and the
forceful encroachment thereof.

Being semantically picky about the concept doesn't alter the fact that the
property of one individual is interacted with apart from their prerogative,
i.e., their right to property is being violated - by force.

There is a loss when something is copied by force, the loss of one's right to
private property. Call it theft or not, the legal repercussions should be the
same.

~~~
MichaelGG
A lot of the issue is about how the debate is being framed. There's no value
in a discussion to shift terms around to confuse the issue. Copyright
infringement is well defined; there's no need to use "theft".

"Call it theft or not, the legal repercussions should be the same."

You are aware there's a difference between uploading a file, and breaking into
your house to steal a physical DVD? Why on earth should a license violation be
considered a _criminal_ offense?

~~~
rick888
Identity theft is still called theft, even though there's no actual stealing
going on. You still have your identity, it's just copied.

I'm waiting for another GNU license violation story to come out, because when
a company uses source code in a proprietary app and doesn't follow the
license, people here throw around the word "theft" even though there's no
actual stealing going on. A good example is the Thesis Theme.

~~~
frobozz
The trouble with the term identity theft is that there typically _is_ actual
stealing going on, but that it's not actually your identity that is being
stolen.

Identity thieves don't normally just go around introducing themselves to
strangers with the stolen identity. Were that the case, it would rarely be a
problem. They apply for loans with no intention to repay, and buy goods with
the goal of landing the bill with the real owner of the identity.

~~~
technoslut
It's curious that you mention this because I had my identity stolen when I
went to college. A Chinese student was currently using my SS# at a school. The
same school. I had to go out of my way to prove I was the correct owner of the
number.

He is charging loans on my account. Is that not a form of theft?

~~~
frobozz
This is why I used the words "typically" and "rarely" above, but I'd still
argue that your identity wasn't the thing that was stolen from you, rather
that they used your identity to steal something, either from you or someone
else.

Not being from the same country as you, I don't really understand what it
means to have someone else use your social security number, but as I said
above, it is theft, not of your identity, but of the money being lent to the
false "you".

Basically, the term "identity theft" could be likened to "knife crime" or "gun
deaths". "Knife crime" rarely refers to the theft of a knife, but to crime
(robbery, assault, murder) committed using a knife.

~~~
rick888
So using your reasoning, we can still call piracy "theft"?

~~~
frobozz
If you can show that something is being stolen, then yes. If, on the other
hand, no stealing is going on, then no.

The problem I have with the "piracy is theft" thing is that I think its use
makes it harder to convince people who counter with arguments saying that the
original owner still has the "stolen" item.

For one thing, it's an extra step one needn't take. First you have to convince
them that it is actually theft, then you have to convince them that they
should do something about it.

If you start with the simple position of "this thing normally costs money, and
you haven't paid for it", then you can get straight to the heart of the
matter.

Note that I say "convince" and not "be more right than". People indulge in all
sorts of self-justification and moral balancing, particularly if they can
convince themselves that it's a victimless crime.

------
DrJokepu
I think the argument whether a copy is theft is irrelevant. In my view,
hacking into a bank's database and adding a few thousand dollars to your bank
balance would be theft as well even if you didn't modify any other accounts or
data. The point is that you steal money from the copyright owners when you
copy their work without their permission because you owe them money you and
you didn't pay.

~~~
rwmj
Adding a thousand dollars to your bank balance _does_ deprive others. It's
hard to take anything else you say seriously when you make such a basic
mistake.

~~~
DrJokepu
But that's exactly my point. In my view, you also deprive the interested
parties in copyright when you don't pay for the content you use or
redistribute.

There's no need for ad hominem attacks, we're all civil, nice people on Hacker
News.

------
rick888
It's not theft. It's worse. Theft of something like a television means just
that physical physical is stolen. It's the cost of doing business.

Over time, if piracy is not stopped, users will get the idea that your
software is free and will be unwilling to pay for it in the future. This has
the potential to destroy the profits for your entire product. Big companies
like Microsoft and Adobe can handle this, but it's devastating to a smaller
company.

Companies also lose money through support calls from people that haven't
purchased the product (this happens more than you think).

Think about the newspaper industry: It's dying because you can get news
stories anywhere, for free. Why would it be any different for the software
industry?

Torrentfreak is a pro-piracy site. They want to change the word "theft" to
something positive so piracy is accepted as a positive thing. It's not
positive.

Piracy is the equivalent of a big company farming their work out to China:
they don't want to pay the big prices here (software that's expensive) or
worry about restrictions (drm/copy protection), so they go somewhere else
where it's cheaper (piracy sites/bittorrent).

~~~
MichaelGG
You realise that some of your arguments could be applied equally to open
source software?

~~~
rick888
I'm not sure why I got down voted. I made my points and wasn't a troll about
it. I suppose down voting = difference of opinion on HN these days.......

yes, and they stand for open source software too. Open source is devaluing
developers in the long run. With all of the free open source software being
released, many companies don't need software engineers because all of the hard
work is already completed. Many only really need software mechanics, which
tinker with the already existing code and add features. As more and more
owners realize this, salaries for developers will slowly drop.

I've already seen this at a few companies. Instead of hiring a team of
developers to work on something, the company hired one developer and used an
open source app. You don't really need a college education for this type of
work.

~~~
MichaelGG
Just quick: I downvoted because you made a silly argument. You dismissed
physical theft because "it's the cost of doing business" (ignoring physical
harm). Then you went on a generic complaint about the decline of industries.

