I found the above picture on Digg, originally posted only as http://i28.tinypic.com/2m7xd85.jpg
Someone, obviously has some strong feelings about being called a thief. But is making a copy of something you didn’t pay for better? Or maybe it’s even worse!? At least if you steal something, there is still only one copy, right?
Piracy in the gaming, software, music, and well.. pretty much any media has been a constant issue for several years. With so many outlets on the internet, it’s hard to combat each network. I’m not an expert in the area, but I’d also be lying if I said I’ve never downloaded something for free.
My opinion: If it was free in the first place, then share away (i.e. demos, samplers, etc.) If someone originally paid for it, then shared it on the internet, I think it’s the original poster’s responsibility, and not the end users who are downloading it. If it’s available for download, then someone must have put it there in the first place. Not to mention there are numerous examples that “got big” because of file sharing.
So when does file “sharing” become piracy or become stealing? Or is it all the same, and users make up new names for it, so it doesn’t sound as bad?
August 27th, 2008 at 6:53 am
If someone puts up a movie/music for download, and it was obviously done illegally, then the downloader (who finds it) is just as responsible for copyright infringement.
The good thing for people like us is that there are ways around most of this LOL.
For example, Youtube. People HOST things they shouldn’t all the time—like movie clips or full movies. If the uploader gets caught, obviously none of the viewers are going to get in trouble, because they did no downloading.
Which is why hosted movies are the way to go if you can do it that way. Find them hosted in video boxes like they do on Youtube, and you’re not responsible AS LONG as you don’t download it.
For music, social networking sites like imeem.com or lastfm are great, because you can listen to any music someone has uploaded (that they OWN), and the only way YOU can download it is to buy it—but you can stream songs as much as you want for free on the website.
August 27th, 2008 at 6:57 am
And I don’t know if there’s that big of a difference between stealing and piracy. Piracy isn’t necessarily making a copy … it’s taking things you shouldn’t illegally. For instance, someone might upload something, making various “copies,” if you will … but you’re still stealing/pirating that song. It’s still theft. ;;shrug;; I guess.
EDIT: Dictionary.com defines one definition of piracy as “the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc.”
Making copies or stealing.
August 27th, 2008 at 7:17 am
There’s a few things going on here. First, there *IS* a legal difference (review the pic you posted). Theft involves cost-of-replacement. Piracy does not.
Then there’s copyright infringement. *To my understanding* it’s copyright infringement to share stuff, not to download it.
Then there’s all the different categories of piracy.
There’s the guy who makes copies of a DVD and sells them on the street. He’s among the worst.
There’s the guy who has 8 million mp3’s (usually on a campus somewhere, or at least that’s the historic stereotype) and has them all set up to share via the network (i.e. campus).
Then there’s people at home who simply don’t want to pay for movies/music/games.
Finally, there’s the “pirate as free rental” crowd. I know a lot of people who do this with movies and games. Most (obviously not all) of those people also embrace “pride of ownership” as well.
Games, I think, are the closest thing to being “morally okay” to pirate, if you’re doing it as a “free rental.” How many times do we have to pay 50 dollars for crap like Masters of Orion 3 or Haze or Diakatana (ha!) before people become sympathetic to the idea of “I’m not paying 50 bucks until I am CERTAIN that I want to own it.”
The gaming industry insists on having things that cost 50/60 dollars that you can’t rent (on PC) and often can’t demo. Not that I’m outright *blaming* the PC Gaming industry, but that’s a horrible industry model.
It’s a complex issue, and I am just trying to present all points-of-view that I’m aware of.
For myself, I’ll say this: I enjoy owning a game. I feel ripped off when I buy a low-quality game or a game that has a grand total of diddly squat in the box other than a cd is a paper sleeve (we all remember those days which are, thankfully, pretty much over). And I’m still bitter about certain games that I’ve shelled out many hours of pay for.
If the gaming industry were to adopt Stardock’s model (no copy-protection that only serves to hurt paying customers… kind and friendly customer service… the option to digitally download the game and then have them mail you the box and manual and stuff…) then I’m certain gaming piracy would go down. It’d still be around, of course, but I think it wouldn’t be as rampant.
Stardock’s sales figures back up my theory.
August 27th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Good points. I feel like streaming is kind of in a gray area. I mean, sure you can’t keep a copy, but you don’t really need one if it’s there all the time.
August 27th, 2008 at 7:56 am
I think copying movies is fine if you are renting them, so you had to pay for them to a degree. Music…well i purchase most of my music or copy it from someone who originally bought it. I like supporting the musicians I enjoy, especially the smaller ones.
Essentially, copying is stealing, but I guess I don’t have such a big problem with that. Companies should come to expect that now and lower their prices if they want to realistically reduce the “copying.”
August 27th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Nice picture, but it skipped a key detail. It’s not actually a copy: it’s replacing a bought original. In the end, it’s a copy that won’t be taken from a store and will die being profitless. In a way, it’s like having been stolen from the store, as they initially had it, a customer now owns it, but the store owner hasn’t received a penny.
That said, I must admit I’m not completely against piracy. As an artist and wannabe game developer, I reject people taking your work for free (and even defending it’s actually free!) and you not seeing a small reward for it, of course. However, I also reject certainly the abusive sale prices that publishers often put to their products. Objectively seen, with the exception of uber productions like MGS4, the creation cost isn’t high, the creators do most of the work, and then receive only a small percentage of the profits. Every new day I’m more supportive to the self-publishing and the fair sale prices. I’m not eager to pay a high price for a production like Odin Sphere (totally painted by hand, a development team of 20- people…) as I recognise there’s a lot of effort there. But paying 70€ for another DMC which is just better technology than its predecessor is abusive IMHO.
Just my two cents
August 27th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Haha, don’t let the copyright police hear you say that, Kannaya.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Developers need to spend less time on protection schemes that will always fail (Pirates will ALWAYS break the latest schemes, no sweat) and more time working to make their product quality.
If you look at Stardock and their offerings, such as Sins of a Solar Empire, they put NO copy protection in the games. Yet, because 1.) People respect that and 2.) The game is GREAT they actually have far fewer copies of the product pirated in the end- in fact, the Pirates actually have a code of sorts, if you look for pirated patches or versions of Stardock products you won’t find them for several weeks normally- the Pirates want to make sure anyone who would have paid for the product already had a chance to do so.
As a former developer (albeit not of games) I understand how it would feel to see people taking your hard work away for free… but at the same time, my opinion is that if you have provided a great product and have other reasons to promote being a paying, subscribed customer, then most of the people who pirated will eventually come around and buy the products.
I know in my case I’ve had to resort to pirating quite a few games in the past five years, since I’ve been so lengthily unemployed due to my anxiety disorder- I simply had no other choice (unless you consider staring at a brick wall all day another choice!) But, I also know which games were worth the $50 or $60 bucks and which would have suckered me out of my money- and I will be buying those games when I next get the chance.
The industry just needs to learn- there’s no way to defeat the Pirates… they are ALWAYS going to overcome your schemes. You’re just wasting money.
Unless, of course, the industry starts using Ninjas. Because when it comes down to Pirates vs. Ninjas, you just never know.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Developers need to spend less time on protection schemes that will always fail (Pirates will ALWAYS break the latest schemes, no sweat) and more time working to make their product quality.
If you look at Stardock and their offerings, such as Sins of a Solar Empire, they put NO copy protection in the games. Yet, because 1.) People respect that and 2.) The game is GREAT they actually have far fewer copies of the product pirated in the end- in fact, the Pirates actually have a code of sorts, if you look for pirated patches or versions of Stardock products you won’t find them for several weeks normally- the Pirates want to make sure anyone who would have paid for the product already had a chance to do so.
As a former developer (albeit not of games) I understand how it would feel to see people taking your hard work away for free… but at the same time, my opinion is that if you have provided a great product and have other reasons to promote being a paying, subscribed customer, then most of the people who pirated will eventually come around and buy the products.
I know in my case I’ve had to resort to pirating quite a few games in the past five years (though to be as “fair” as possible, I don’t keep the games on disc or anything permanent- play then delete) since I’ve been so lengthily unemployed due to my anxiety disorder- I simply had no other choice (unless you consider staring at a brick wall all day another choice!) But, I also know which games were worth the $50 or $60 bucks and which would have suckered me out of my money- and I will be buying those games when I next get the chance.
The industry just needs to learn- there’s no way to defeat the Pirates… they are ALWAYS going to overcome your schemes. You’re just wasting money.
Unless, of course, the industry starts using Ninjas. Because when it comes down to Pirates vs. Ninjas, you just never know.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Here’s where things become a sticky wicket in my opinion. If I have a VCR (or Tivo if you’re all modern and fancy!) and I’m going to miss my favorite show, I can set it up to record said show, and have a copy of it for as long as I want. They don’t seem to have a problem with that, mainly because you’re also recording the commercials. However it’s easy enough to fast forward through the ads, and nicer VCRs can even tell where the ads start and stop and skip through them for you. Similarly you can hack your Tivo to skip forward in 30 second chunks, so you hit the button a half dozen times and you’re back to your show. BUT! if you download that same show via a Bit Torrent site it’s suddenly illegal and a big deal. You’re getting it commercial free, but if you recorded it yourself you’d be skipping the ads anyways (most likely). If I’m already paying for Cable and get that channel that has the show I’m recording or downloading, what’s really the difference? The only difference is the commercials, and we’ve already got ways around that. So….what’s the big deal? Why is it so much worse to have downloaded the show, instead of recording it yourself? And how can you really blame the consumer for this? I mean given the choice of watching the same show with or without commercials, who’s really going to choose to watch all the ads? And if someone is going to record the show and share it on the web, why bother recording it yourself? The lure of the simplicity is hard to deny, especially when you the viewer just want to see the show that you missed. Whether or not you downloaded it or recorded it yourself, it’s the same show and that’s really all that matters to the viewer, even if that’s not the case for the MPAA.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:41 am
The problem is what one group views as a private group, the other views as a public good.
Also, there’s so much ill-will against the RIAA, but people think it’s more ethical to not give them any money. ESA hired some RIAA folks, so it’s going in that direction.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:41 am
group= good in the last post.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Testing- (sorry, if this appears it can be deleted, it’s not taking my comment on this post for some reason!)
August 27th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
DB- Sometimes the long comments get spammed out for some reason, I found it though, it’s there now!
August 27th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Thanks Mandy!
August 27th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
When I was a young lad. My friends and I would give each other cassette tapes. For example, if my friend got the new album from so and so. I’d say, oooh make me a copy and he would and then I wouldn’t buy the album. Is that stealing or not?
Now that same kind of trading is going on, but in a massive scale. But is it stealing? In the sameway cassette tape recordings never sounded as good as the album. CD & DVD copies never look and sound as good as the actual purchased product. You also rarely get the extras that come with a purchased CD & DVD. Also, what if you own the product and then download it?
August 27th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
The Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) makes things rather interesting on this topic, as far as music is concerned anyway. The AHRA was enacted in 1992 and ammends the Copyright Act of 1976, adding a chapter that specifically addresses digital audio recording devices and media.
The part probably of most interest is:
—————-
“1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.”
—————-
Which basically is saying it’s ok to make digital copies as long as you use a ‘digital recording device’ as defined by the act (analog is ok all around) and only use that copy for private, non-commercial use. Those digital copies are allowed because the manufacturers of said recording devices supposedly pay a royalty specifically designed to compensate the music industry for the copies made. What I’m not clear on is whether software on a computer falls within the definition of a ‘digital recording device.’ This act, after all, was thinking in terms of DAT and minidisc devices (betamax anyone?) and the internet so new I doubt even MIDI was being shared yet :-p
It’s an interesting read (for a legal document anyway)
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap10.html
What’s also interesting is it’s apparently almost never reviewed for infringement cases. Which seems very very odd to me.
Anyway, it seems like it’s ok to make copies of music as long the source of the copy in someway payed the music industry (either in the form of direct purchase or a royalty). It’s all about the industry at least feeling like they got paid. You can copy that song off the radio a thousand times, but as soon as you make a copy of the copy, you’re breaking the law. Isn’t law fun?!?!
August 28th, 2008 at 8:00 am
This whole issue is a result of poorly considered copyright/patent/intellectual property laws and a lack of consideration that manufacturing technology would eventually be so widely available.
The issue of fair use is a blurry one, and some situations definetely warrant the person on the one end having a right to use what they’ve bought as they see fit, and that unfortunately includes making copies. Technically as the law stands making an MP3 to put on your IPod of a CD you bought is considered piracy, at least in some areas. Even if you’re just using it yourself. Morally there is No issue, but technically, and legally it’s considered wrong (At least in some areas)
Clearly intellectual property/copyright laws need serious rethinking in light of 21st century technology.
The fundamental concept is that government wants you to support the artists who produce the work by giving them cash, but there are legitimate concerns about consumer rights when it comes to how intellectual properties are handled.
There are situations where consumers/fans rights/feelings are steamrolled, stomped and otherwise abused all in the name of protecting the creator, which simply is not acceptable from a consumer/fan standpoint. It’s arguable that price fixing occurs and that products are rereleased over and over again with an eye to bilking the consumer out of money (and this often leads to people feeling cheated by an unfair system).
As things currently stand, the consumer recieves little protection from abusive practices on the part of producers, and worse, corporate conglomerates having such a large control over the ability to produce can essentially dictate too much of what’s available for people to enjoy.
Consumers also are left completely in the dark about how the cost is arrived at that for their product and often feel cheated (sometimes even when they’re getting a bargain). Factors such as preserving the material are not considered, nor are costs related to marketing, development etc - the consumer is often left feeling dirty in many situations, and taken advatange of (when a business simply priced a product because of it’s costs associated with it). There would be a HUGE impact if consumers knew how pricing worked and felt they’d been treated fairly with how products are priced.
Worse copyright laws as they currently stand are hurting both small producers, and consumers because of how contracts are developed and how the law deals with corporations dealing with intellectual property.
A revision in the way products are marketed, priced, and how consumers are informed about product pricing, the rationale behind it etc, would make a huge difference. As it currently stands many consumers feel manhandled at the hands of profiteers exploiting licences for the sake of it. Which doesn’t help give credibility to copyright legislation in its current form.
Artists need protection for sure, but so do individuals vs large corporations, and there needs to be a balance between laws which favor mainstream large scale production and an understanding of what is fair common proper courtesy to the consumer and to small independents.
I for one am happy to pay for any content which I enjoy, as long as I as a consumer feel my rights are being respected too (and as long as people are willing to wait a little while because i”m not made of money :P) I see my money as a token of support to the producer, encouraging them to continue producing similar products, and to preserve what they’ve created already, and have no problem with that. I also have no problem with their being a reasonable amount of profit being made by the artists (as long as they’re responsible to themselves and respectful to the consumers that supported them).
I don’t appreciate being gouged though, or being manhandled (esp by legal flimflammery about how I can use something I’ve actually paid for), that nonsense isn’t acceptable. Artists have rights, as do the companies that produce their work, but so do consumers. The laws NEED to reflect all 3 facets to be fair. Currently they only really reflect company interests (as small independents are often hung out to dry)
All the above aside, a major factor contributing to problems in some cases is availability. There are certain sectors of the marketplace that are hungry for content that they cant find at an affordable price, or let alone find at all. The anime industry suffers from that particular effect because many retailers are unaware of consumer interest in those products, and therefore never stock enough of them. Or similarly consumers are unaware those products are available until its too late. Delays due to copyright laws and postproduction remastering of the voice work hurt the bottom line of that industry as well.
The entertainment industry as a whole needs to reevaluate how it’s dealing with consumers, product development etc in the 21st century. The fans are out there. They want to support those artists in the industry but it will take a change in approach, a conscious understanding of mutual respect from both parties, and some serious changes to legilslation and corporate practices (both in how corporations deal with fans/consumers, their own artistic developers, and how their corporate structure functions).
If it ever actually happens, the sharp decline in production costs and a stabilization of sales will occur, and everyone will wind up happy. it’ll take some time, and some smart ideas but it can happen.
A big problem though is that some corporations seem to have forgotten basic small business concepts in customer relations. A happy customer is a repeat customer.
Sorry I just really hate the draconian intellectual property laws. As both an artist myself and a loyal fan of the enterainment industry, I’m not impressed At All by how shortsighted, limited and open to abuse, those laws are. Nor how some licences/products/artists are mercilessly exploited.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Ps I buy games, and music, and movies and merchandise, and comics. I try my best to respect the companies and the artists who put all their work into producing this stuff but also expect my dollar and support to be respected too
I think that’s fair
August 28th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Our current copyright laws need serious reform. They’re not doing the industry any good, they’re not fair to consumers, and they’re not fair to artists.
Totally time they got updated.
Gotta get the respect back in balance
August 28th, 2008 at 8:57 am
you know I don’t think anyone even mentioned the size issue at all in this whole thread
A lot of stuff takes up too much space physically. Some people make digital copies and throw away the originals to save on space. It’s rare but it does happen.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:01 am
^ That’s okay though, right? I mean, making a copy for personal use isn’t really the legal issue. If you bought an original copy, I don’t think they’re going to come after you if you copied that CD onto your hard drive. If you then made 20 copies for your friends, and uploaded it to Soulseek, then…. that’s where the legal issue starts.
In fact, I’m one of those people. I copied all of my CD’s into iTunes, and threw them away. I copied the mp3’s onto a data disc, which I can play in my car. That way, I have 1 CD instead of 30. I’ve never uploaded anything to torrents, soulseek etc. In fact, I don’t even know how.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:17 am
If you throw away the original copy you can’t prove you copied it legitamately (because you can’t prove ownership of the material that was copied since you no longer have it) for personal use which unfortunately poses a problem
And technically it varies by region, some areas are fine with copying for personal use others are not, not even remotely
The legalese mumbojumbo nonsense makes life difficult for average people who just want to know whats OK or not ok when it comes to their rights with media. Unfortunately technalities like I mention above arent usually common knowledge. Fortunately the issue of enforcement is rare so most people dont have problems.
There is a real problem in that a lot of areas have outdated and idiotic very technical laws which make no sense whatsoever in a modern era. They usually get left on the books instead of cleaned up, and sometimes people looking to make a fast buck try to find ways to exploit them.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Well that’s dumb. So technically, if you have the CD, or buy something off iTunes, and then copy it to your iPod.. you’ve now made a copy. Right?
I mean, how else are you supposed to get music on your iPod?
August 28th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Technically under the law in some areas it might be considered piracy to buy something from Itunes. It’s a major flaw in how the laws were written.
Under fair usage it might be considered ok depending on the jurisdiction.
Currently the laws covering these matters are poorly worded, not well thought out, and dont serve business or consumer interests. They need to be updated. Badly.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Under the strictest most narrow interpretation of the law under some jurisdictions downloading music legally purchased from Itunes is technically a crime, as is transfering it to your ipod.
It’s legal technicalities, poor wording that’s open to bad interpretation. Doesnt do Anyone any good. /sigh
August 28th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
@Mandy: I’m betting iPods fall under ‘digital recording devices’. Apple probably pays a royalty fee for manufacture of them. So a song copied But that’s just speculation and as Fred has said, it really is fuzzy and things need an update.
For example if my above thoughts are correct, would it then be legal to go over to your friends and copy songs from their iTunes music collection to your iPod? The songs were paid for, plus the royalty from the iPod itself. By that interpretation, as long as the songs aren’t copied off the iPod to somewhere else, it’s legal. And I think you can argue ethics either way pretty successfully with that case.
Again, that’s all speculation and I’m no lawyer.
@FredOzzel: You keep mentioning ‘different areas’ and ‘jurisdictions’ Are you talking internationally or are there local copyright laws too? I was under the impression Copyright law was at the Federal level. Can states (/counties/cities) make their own provisions along with that? That would REALLY make things messy!
August 28th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Mostly meant international and there are Occassionally sometimes variances state to state/province to province (it depends on the nation) within a country, it’s Mostly federal but there’s different regions, international laws, honestly the laws regarding copyright are a horrible mess.
As I understand it, Hong Kong and a number of asian nations in that region have stayed out of the copyright agreements that most nations are part of, so more than a few illegal commercial releases have come from that region.
But even barring that there are variances within the laws of all jurisdictions, both state, and even city which affect copyright/patents because of parallel/overlapping legislation. Its extremely complicated and dated (early copyrighting/patenting law dates to the early industrial age and some even earlier). (most of it relates to local performance legislation which can overlap in some cases depending on wording).
All in all copyright and patent laws both in the US, Canada, and internationally are a Mess - at least based on my understanding of how they function (I’m not expert but I’ve looked into it a little because of a friend who needed a patent).
Frankly, the fact we havent had as many major problems with copyright prior to the 1990s and the internet is a sheer fluke. (Frankly, law in general is a mess just look at all the goofy laws still on the books)
Artists and companies sponsoring those artists have never had a clear international guideline for protecting their properties properly, and consumers have always been somewhat mystified confused about various nuances of the laws. Simplification and revising is necessary both to protect the large companies who face a large risk of major losses to piracy, for individual artists, And for the end consumer.
The inconsistent international legal nonsense adds unnecessary costs to the distribution of film, music and videogames which hurts companies And consumers alike. It’s a serious issue that’s been left on the back burner for a very long time (the last update was in the 70s/80s and it wasn’t enough). Frankly there’s been too much other stuff going on for the issue to see much attention so..