A Terabyte of Piracy Ain't Art

[Wintermoot]

1) It's not stealing. Stealing =/= piracy.

2) Pirating programs from the 1970s and 1980s that cannot be bought anymore isn't immoral at all....

it,s still illegal and the N64 is from the 90,s.

 

[Iron Lightning]

Well gee, I was on under the impression that the definition of stealing and therefore theft was the taking of things that don't belong to you without permission of the owner nor the intention of returning them.

Definition of THEFT
1
a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

There is no removal of property involved with digital piracy. Therefore, piracy does not fully constitute theft.

Also I was under the very distinct impression that piracy=stealing. That impression heavily re-enforced by many an Escapist topic regarding the issue.

Merely a common misconception. Piracy is copyright infringement. A thousand ignorant voices crying out that it's theft doesn't, in fact, make it theft.

I think these definitions need to be re-evaluated. I know software companies would have a much easier time persecuting software pirates if they could they could persecute software piracy as theft and not copyright violation.

Yes, because clearly justice is not about fairness. It's about persecuting criminals as easily as possible.

I think we should change the definition of all crimes to "looking funny." Think of how easy it would be to prosecute crooks, the judge would take on look and the case would be shut.

All sarcasm aside, let me ask you a question. Do you believe that the punishment of a crime should be proportional to the harm caused by that crime? If you do believe in that, then why do you think that the nearly harmless crime of piracy should be equated to the very harmful crime of theft? If you don't believe in that, then I suggest you reevaluate your life and subsequently stop being such a cretin.

If you're going to resort to name calling and slander like a 5 yr old then I'm not going to debate with you.
In answer to your question, what I believe is that it is wrong to take things that don't belong to you without permission; which is what has taken place. Whether you want to call that theft or you want to call it something else, it is still wrong!

I think these definitions need to be re-evaluated. I know software companies would have a much easier time persecuting software pirates if they could they could persecute software piracy as theft and not copyright violation.

I also think the definition of theft needs to be re-evaluated. To more clearly express deprival and removal of owned property, that is.
Because that's what stealing is: if I could copy your car atom for atom, there's no way in hell you could accuse me of "stealing" it as long as it was still there and owned by you.
Categorizing the copying and sharing of digital media as theft would open the door to a thousand retarded lawsuits, such as with livestreams and youtube videos. Trust me, we don't want that.

Well you see I would define theft as the taking of things, by copying or otherwise, that don't belong to you without permission of the owner nor the intention of returning them.
I certainly don't want to see the kind of lawsuits that you suggest might occur, but at the same time I don't like seeing this kind of shit either; where a guy has taken a hard drive full of stuff that doesn't rightfully belong to him and put it on display for all to see.

If you paid attention to my first reply you would see that copyright infringement of this type is probably already a criminal offense. The only reason he is getting away with it is because no one cares enough to press charges. Any lawsuits would also be pretty bad PR and thus not worth it.

For the last time, taking a thing (i.e. the transfer of ownership of the thing from one individual or group to another individual or group) is NOT the same as copying a thing (i.e. creating a thing which resembles the copied thing.) Saying they are equally harmful is just plain stupid.

Yeah yeah, I heard(read, whatever) you. But as I was trying to imply, if it was not a matter of persecuting for copyright infringement and rather a matter of persecuting for something a tad more serious it probably wouldn't be such a PR nightmare.

And yeah I read it the first time you posted it, restating it 50 times is not going to make any difference. As I said above, taking things, by copying them or otherwise, that don't belong to you without permission of the owner is still wrong! Whether you want to call that theft you want to invent some other magical word for it, it's still wrong!
And the fact that this guy is able to put together a whole collection of stuff he took without permission and put it on display without anyone doing anything is just a whole heaping load of bullshit.

I never said pirating is not wrong, just that it's not equivalent to theft. Piracy is much less harmful than theft just like assault is much less harmful than murder.

I just don't understand your apparent belief that a crime that is a little harmful deserves the same punishment as a crime that is really harmful. Frankly, I find that belief to be patently ridiculous.

If it's not theft, then I wish people would stop calling it piracy then because when I think of piracy I think of theft. In any case, even if it's not as harmful as theft it is still more harmful than mere copyright violation. So it is in that regard I think the laws are more than a little screwed up. But all of that is beside that point, my main issue in regards to this topic is this this guy is has not only "pirated" a shit load of software, but he's put it on display for all to see and he's facing no consequence for it what-so-ever. That's what bugs me!

Well piracy and copyright infringement are the exact same thing. Downloading some pirated software is just making a copy of that software without the consent of the copyright holder. So it makes sense that they are treated the same. Don't read too much into the use of the word "piracy" it was only adopted because it sounds sexier than copyright infringement.

I don't think this art business is much of a problem. In the states piracy is still mostly a civil matter and if no one wants to press charges then so be it. It's not like he's getting away with murdering people to make Bioshock style death art. Still, I can understand how you'd be outraged at this stuff and I can respect your opinion.

 

[Alma Mare]

Yay, another thread where I get to be amazed at the average Escapist member's ability to be wrong. Now with the added bonus of cementing my belief that I'll never read anything inteligent written by Greg Tito. Awesome.

6 pages already littered with possible conclusions and implications of that hard drive, yet so many people willing to defend it can't possibly be an artistic statement. Brilliant.

 

[Bostur]

You know what, I'm gonna shit on a pedestal and sell it for 5 million.

If you can pull it off I'd say it's art. If not it's just shit on a pedestal.

 

[Odbarc]

Artists is another word for intentionally unemployed.

 

[irani_che]

I Just can't keep up with all this insanity...Wait. I just realized something. My buddy has over a terabyte of porn...is that art?

exactly what i thought

 

[fleischwolke]

I think it is art and I like it. It opens up questions about the creation of value: If he put two of those boxes on a pedestal, would it be 10 million? What if one of the boxes was empty, and any spectator could fill that empty box with the data from the full box by flipping a switch - would that spectator have created value? Those were just the first questions I asked myself.

I also admire the artist's courage - someone is going to sue him, even if it's a PR desaster.

 

[EHKOS]

Of course this is art, it speaks volumes. It says look how far technology has come, and then asks if it's a good thing or not.

 

[DonMartin]

I actually like this idea. I dont know why, but it's fascinating. Can't really explain it. I suppose if I went to see it, or just stumbled across it in an art museum, I wouldnt stand there looking at the box, I'd look at the box and then start thinking about why the artist considers this worthwhile to "make". Just how easy it is to access a whole terabyte of data for free, when in actuality it would cost tons of money. However, I wouldnt go and see it now that I know of it and have seen it on pictures. Seeing the harddrive itself probably wouldnt substantially improve the experience for me.

I think it's interesting, you dont have to. (Also, was it really neccessary to make the title "A Terabyte of Piracy Aint Art"? It's okay if OP doesnt think of it as a contemporary Mona Lisa, but some might consider it art, right?)

 

[ardencabbel]

I actually like this idea. I dont know why, but it's fascinating. Can't really explain it. I suppose if I went to see it, or just stumbled across it in an art museum, I wouldnt stand there looking at the box, I'd look at the box and then start thinking about why the artist considers this worthwhile to "make". Just how easy it is to access a whole terabyte of data for free, when in actuality it would cost tons of money. However, I wouldnt go and see it now that I know of it and have seen it on pictures. Seeing the harddrive itself probably wouldnt substantially improve the experience for me.

I think it's interesting, you dont have to. (Also, was it really neccessary to make the title "A Terabyte of Piracy Aint Art"? It's okay if OP doesnt think of it as a contemporary Mona Lisa, but some might consider it art, right?)

I think you hit the nail on the head there. It is in The News Room, so you would expect objectivity. Instead the OP's post is heavily biased. It is an editorial, not a piece of journalism. Which would be fine, if it wasn't presented as news. Since it is presented as news, it just brings some concerns over the integrity of the OP. Fortunately we live in a world where open discussion on such stories is easy and fast. This isn't the 1960s anymore, where a journalist's words were accepted as fact since there wasn't another way to explore the data, save from conversation with your family.

In the digital age, anyone performing the work traditionally of a journalist needs to remember that someone will analyze what was said. It is really difficult to figure out ahead of time what will be controversial with readers and what won't. Just so happens that this topic is.

 

[face_head_mouth]

You know what, I'm gonna shit on a pedestal and sell it for 5 million.

The issue would be to locate a buyer. I didn't see anything related to the topic at hand that suggested that the artist intended to sell the piece for $5,000,000, he just stated what the content of the drive is valued at.

But I believe my pile of shit is worth that amount of money, so I guess all we need is someone willing to pay that much for it.

Also, I was joking.

I know you were just joking, but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_shit

Piero Manzoni beat you by 50 years.

OP: This is clearly art: it just happens to be conceptual art. Whether it offends you or not doesn't matter.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

It's Art and as Art is meant to make you think about something, why am I not surprised that the internet fails miserably at critiquing it. In that little black box you are looking at the creative endeavor of several industries over a period of twenty-two years, yet what is it worth right now?

A mere $150,000, minus the cost of the storage media.

All that data might have set you back a cool five million dollars but today comparatively the market sees it as largely worthless apart from whatever sales the current industry might lose due to people using yesterday's technology. Well played Manuel Palou, well played indeed!

 

[LilithSlave]

I've got to admit, it makes a great statement about why piracy exists to begin with. A human being could enjoy 1 TB worth of data quickly. But would likely never be able to afford that. That's enough money to feed thousands of starving people for years. And people today consume and desire to consume a lot more media than they can afford. Furthermore, it sure makes a statement about how technology changes the media industry, as others have stated. Whether it is art or not, it is certainly an interesting thing to behold.

 

[Sylveria]

-snip-.

**sigh**

I find it really sad how many people have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to art.

This project is most certainly art, because it makes a comment about today's society. Art is not (just) about looking nice or creativity - it's about chronicling who we are as a people.

At the moment, according to this artist, we're a society that makes it possible to pirate 5 million dollars with comparatively little effort.

The artist isn't putting piracy up on a pedestal - he's CRITICIZING our society due to how easy piracy is. Why list the sources? Perhaps to get those sites shut down? Or perhaps to point out how many of these sites there are, and how no one is doing anything about it.

This piece is a powerful anti-piracy message. If you don't like it, fine, but don't say it isn't art when it very clearly is. People in glass houses arguing that video games are art shouldn't throw "this isn't art" stones when they don't even understand the piece.

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of why this qualifies as art... but then I'm going to turn around and disagree with what it means.

I have a terabyte hard drive too. It's mostly empty because I haven't bothered to fill it with stuff. (although it'll likely fill up with backups if I remember to do them...) That hard drive cost me $100.

What does it say about our society that you can fill a $100 piece of hardware with bits that people claim are worth more money than you're likely to make in your entire life unless your average salary over your life isn't nearly in the top tax bracket? (and that's if you have no living expenses...)

Admittedly, he went for the low-hanging fruit, for the most part: Enterprise software is expensive as hell because corporations can generally afford it, and older software actually faced space constraints now only faced in embedded systems now, so those bits also have a high value density. Still, we have data storage capacity that far outstrips our ability to buy that data. I believe this means something is priced wrong.

You're both right and you're both wrong. I think that this discussion is a pretty good example of how this is indeed art. Two people looking at the same thing and interpreting it in vastly different ways. Now, whether if these points, or if any points at all, are what the artist actually intended the piece to mean is an entirely different question.

 

[shadowstriker86]

i think it is art, in more than just the "picture" sense. its art in the way that not only did he download a bunch of stuff illegally and put it on a hard drive, he got it into a museum, attention from the press, money, and a great example of trolling software security measures

 

[Fetzenfisch]

I usually have trouble with modern art (once I saw a broken snow shovel being displayed), but I actually get this. Doesn't it bring up the idea of how digital data that can be replicated with virtually no cost is assigned a value? A little black box you can buy at any computer store worth $5,000,000 because it's filled with data? And the fact that this is so easy to do?

*tatatadaaaaa*
this one did get it.

art is not only creation of depictions. The title of the exhibit hinted to it. Something that more or less doestn exist and can be reproduced and copied unlimited is entitled with an immense material worth. Its an absurdity if you think about it.

 

[SonicKoala]

It seems as though the OP's inherent dislike towards piracy is blinding him from the fact that this exhibit is actually quite profound, given the numerous layers of meaning it presents. Seriously, I can't remember the last time I was so captivated or intrigued by an art piece. So, no OP, you are completely and utterly wrong. Whatever the intention of the artist himself, the questions this raises about our society and its ever-changing nature as a result of the digital age makes it a prime example of art at its finest.

 

[Kargathia]

You're both right and you're both wrong. I think that this discussion is a pretty good example of how this is indeed art. Two people looking at the same thing and interpreting it in vastly different ways. Now, whether if these points, or if any points at all, are what the artist actually intended the piece to mean is an entirely different question.

A question which raises the question as to whether the first question is actually relevant at all.

Or in normal English: does it matter what the artist intended? He lost control as soon as he displayed it, and from that point onwards everyone was free to think of it whatever they felt like.

The fact that people actually took the opportunity, and are assigning meaning where it wasn't before (he did not offer an explanation beyond the obvious) makes it art.