Poll: Piracy is legal

[Esotera]

Hell yes, it's not piracy if it's legal. As long as there's some sort of tax on blank media/computers that goes directly back to content creators, then unrestricted sharing is way preferable to our current system, because of all the free culture & research that would be openly available.

That seems wildly unfeasible, though. Like, it seems like a major clusterhump just to attempt.

I'd still rather buy my media, though.

Piracy is widespread and can't really be effectively enforced, so we should at least try and compensate content creators. A tax on blank media or computers is really easy to implement and gives both sides something. You could even have a system where it's illegal to download unlicensed copies but no prosecution is allowed (sort of the same system we currently have).

Hell yes, it's not piracy if it's legal. As long as there's some sort of tax on blank media/computers that goes directly back to content creators, then unrestricted sharing is way preferable to our current system, because of all the free culture & research that would be openly available.

That's a nice idea, the only problem with it is that it would be inherently biased in favor of established media, and stun innovation by giving a conservative authority the power to decide what art gets supported.

If we would have had such a system a few decades ago, the government paying artists every time their movie is watched, or novel is borrowed from a library, then Pong and Pac-Man and Donkey Kong wouldn't fallen under that, as practically no one would have recognized them as "culture", or even as media. And then, the industry wouldn't have had it's roots.

There are new art forms being invented even now, and some of them will catch on. While I agree that unrestricted sharing is the way, but it must still have some sort of capitalistic model around it, that allows for surprise growth.

Yeah that's a fair point, I'd probably be against the law if the BFI and others were the ones in charge of distributing money. Although there could be ways of distributing it without bias (like counting a number of downloads and matching that to a percentage of whatever came out of the tax).

 

[ZLAY]

"Pirating is stealing! Herp Derp."

You really, really need to be a simple minded individual to think this way...
World is probably black & white in your eyes, good for you.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

I don't see how the legality of piracy ever really mattered to anyone, who apart from a few providers was actually was at risk of being caught and punished?

With the publicized court cases generally being sparse and getting a lot of flak, legality doesn't seem to be much of an issue for the little guys. I'm glad to buy the games I buy; nowadays I research them a lot before buying and I haven't made too many choices I regret. I hope the companies take the profits and continue to turn out good product.

 

[Spitfire]

That wouldn't really change my opinion at all. I'm part of an artistic community (chainmail) so I've seen how upset people can become when their work is stolen. It often doesn't matter if the thief is making money from the material or not--what matters is that someone put a lot of time and effort into creating something, only to find another person acting like they own it. That other person is a jackass, no question.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but how exactly does one steal a chainmail (a physical piece of work) through a digital medium?

 

[Dr. Cakey]

So I'm working on being a writer, and in the future I'll probably be making games. Which is why...I have no problem with piracy. The only things I have a problem with are 1) selling a pirated product and 2) passing off someone else's work as your own.

Theft is predicated not on the thief gaining something, but on the target of theft losing something. That's why if a thief steals a car and immediately crashes it, he still gets charged. The loss due to piracy can only be measured by "lost sales". It's not concrete, but that at least might be fair.

But how does that differ from a critic giving a movie a bad review? No, seriously. There are people who were going to see, I dunno, Expendables 2, but didn't because MovieBob didn't like it. There's probably physical evidence of people saying "I was going to see Expendables 2 but now I won't because I saw this review". Discuss the immorality of giving products bad reviews?

Besides, I thought the Internet had reached a consensus that 'piracy = ok' a while ago. Arguably, the whole question was solved in the US a few years back. In 1984 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_shifting#History_in_the_United_States], actually.

If I were to copy your profile image and use it for some forum that you had never heard of, then my action would not be effecting you in any way. You would never even find out. What's more, the people on that forum would admire the artwork and more people would be made happier from it, so why would you want to stop me? Why would you care?

You're right: if I never found out, I wouldn't care. Similarly if someone insulted you behind your back and you never found out, you wouldn't care. That doesn't mean you have to think it's okay for people to do that.

Thoughts?

EDIT: I suppose I should end by saying I've pretty much never pirated anything. There are actually several anime I'm waiting on watching because there isn't a legal way to stream them right now. I might even pick up the DVDs =O.

 

[zehydra]

Piracy is theft. It really is as simple as that.

No, piracy is not theft. It has never been theft. It never will be theft.

Whether or not piracy is immoral has nothing to do with theft.

 

[Fuzzed]

John Locke's philosophy was based around the idea of human rights and these included the right to property. Surely he of all people thought that the creator of a work should get his due from said work.

Dude, I hear what you're saying. If John Locke was alive today, piracy would be on total John Lockedown!

 

[GAunderrated]

I voted other because I honestly hate when people ask about morals since it forces you into a black and white thinking. Things have to be either bad or good. No one wants to actually talk about things rationally without praising or demonizing it.

Which is sad that intelligent discussion takes 2nd place to the more popular moral pissing contest everyone loves to engage in.

 

[Popbangwoo]

As far as I can see it, I think piracy should just be legal everywhere. Hell, its been there since the dawn of technology - e.g The telephone. Yes, If I make something and someone takes it from the web I would probably be annoyed, but thats just the nature of the internet. How many people can say they check that all the images they get off google were copyright free? How many people can say that they check their MP3 download sites to see if they are copyright free? I think that it is just a lot easier to be able to download all this stuff now. I personally download tons of games and music, but to be honest I think I have either have already had the item or went on to purchase these items. And if I download something thats good then 9/10 times i will buy it. I went to see The Hobbit a few days back and loved it so much I went and saw it again. I then went on to download a DVD copy online.Problem? I think that there are two kinds of piracy - personal use and personal gain. The people that have 4 friends and 20 computers, set up burning DVD's and games 24 hours a day should be dealt with, but if its just for you to play/listen too then i don't see a problem with it.

Example: Metallica release their new album and it is according to millions of people their best album yet. You are a lifelong fan of Metallica, but go to purchase the album seeing as it is £25. Do you A) Buy the album their and then when you dont really have the money. B) Download the album online. C)Download the album online and then buy the album when it becomes more affordable to you.

 

[Carlos Storm]

Same thing goes with used stuff.
Buying used is fine, unless you want to see the squeal.

/Southern Hick accent: C'mon Skeeter! Mak'em Squeal!!!

That aside there are some very valid arguements on both sides of the issue and I'm going to continue reading.

 

[Fuzzed]

Wait...piracy isn't already legal?

 

[Antari]

If piracy is theft then so is releasing an unfinished product or pre-ordering. If creators want a better deal out of gaming. The first thing they can do is take back all the control they gave to the publisher. Not try and take it from the customer.

 

[BrassButtons]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but how exactly does one steal a chainmail (a physical piece of work) through a digital medium?

The physical work isn't stolen; the image is (and yes, I realize calling it "stealing" is playing fast and loose with the language, but I think you can understand what I mean). Thing is, you can't really separate the image from the piece in the image--that picture would not exist had the piece not been made, which means that the effort that went into making that piece is also part of what went into making the picture. Additionally, often when people do that (copy an image of someone else's chainmail and put it on their own site without attribution) the effect is to make it seem as though the copycat actually made the piece. When someone puts hours of effort into making something, and then puts additional effort into taking a good photograph of it (my avatar picture is actually a bad example of that part--but really good chainmail photography involves a lot more than just pointing and shooting) it's more than a little aggravating to see other people just copy the image onto their own site without bothering to even say "please". Which, in most cases, is all that would be required.

If I were to copy your profile image and use it for some forum that you had never heard of, then my action would not be effecting you in any way. You would never even find out. What's more, the people on that forum would admire the artwork and more people would be made happier from it, so why would you want to stop me? Why would you care?

You're right: if I never found out, I wouldn't care. Similarly if someone insulted you behind your back and you never found out, you wouldn't care. That doesn't mean you have to think it's okay for people to do that.

Thoughts?

This specific instance doesn't bother me, for a few reasons. First, you deliberately got my attention so that I would know you were doing it--which isn't quite the same as asking permission beforehand, but it's close enough. Second, anyone looking at your post can tell that the image is mine and that you copied it.

Now, if I were just browsing the Escapist one day and saw that you had my image as your avatar, and you had never attempted to talk to me about it, and you didn't have anything anywhere showing that I had created the image, then I would probably be PMing a mod right now.

It's not the "people using other people's work" thing that bothers me. It's the sense of entitlement. Asking permission to use something is not a Herculean task, and I don't think it's unreasonable to be upset when people refuse to put forth even that amount of effort. Especially when you consider the amount of effort I had to put forth to get the same picture.

But how does that differ from a critic giving a movie a bad review? No, seriously. There are people who were going to see, I dunno, Expendables 2, but didn't because MovieBob didn't like it. There's probably physical evidence of people saying "I was going to see Expendables 2 but now I won't because I saw this review". Discuss the immorality of giving products bad reviews?

If movie producers had a deal with critics where critics would get copies of the movie, BUT they had to give good reviews, then the situation would be more analogous because "give a good review" would be part of the criteria for getting access to the movie--just as "pay our asking price" might be part of the criteria for getting a game from a developer. I say "part of" because they may have other criteria as well, such as agreeing not to resell the game, or not to lend it to people.

This also hilites the problem with using lazy language to discuss piracy (and I am 100% in a glass house here, as pretty much all of my posts in this thread will show). If you think the issue is solely one of money lost or opportunity lost, then it's hard to see a problem with a lot of piracy. But that's not really the issue--copyright is. Who should be allowed to make decisions regarding how works are copied? From my (admittedly biased) perspective it seems like the two main views are "the content creator, because they made it" and "me, because I want it."

 

[AnarchistFish]

Anyone who decides the morality of something based on the law, whether they agree with it or not, needs to become more of an independent thinker.

Piracy can be moral or immoral depending on the circumstances. It's legality makes no difference to me.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Piracy is theft. It really is as simple as that.

Except it isn't as simple as that

at all

 

[Not Lord Atkin]

Depends on the reason why you pirate, I guess. I buy games because I want to, not because I'm afraid of getting arrested. And of course, the vast majority of my library is on steam. Why? Because Steam has become more user-friendly and convenient than piracy.

Funny, huh? They made me want to give them money so I give them money. Isn't it amazing how far a bit of customer service can get you?

That does not mean I would pirate games if it weren't for steam but Steam (and GOG as well) is pretty much the reason why I'm happy with my decision not to do so.

As for the moral standpoint... I'm not sure I want to engage in debates on morality again, they require too much thinking and I'm way too lazy for that right now. Though there's this episode of extra credits on piracy which sort of outlines in which cases they consider piracy to be morally acceptable. Like games that are not and will most likely never be obtainable in your country, games you already own but can't access at the moment... I do agree with that at least, it seems like a reasonable middle ground in this particular debate.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

The way I see it, having a video game isn't some inalienable right, so if you have the ability to purchase a game but lack the funds, or just don't feel like giving money to EA or some other disreputable company, tough titty, save some money or just don't play the game. If you physically cannot get your hands on the game and there is no possible way to purchase it via the internet because you live in China or something, than in that instance and similar instances pirating is ok, I suppose.

 

[Entitled]

If you think the issue is solely one of money lost or opportunity lost, then it's hard to see a problem with a lot of piracy. But that's not really the issue--copyright is. Who should be allowed to make decisions regarding how works are copied? From my (admittedly biased) perspective it seems like the two main views are "the content creator, because they made it" and "me, because I want it."

The problem is exactly that both of these two views are exaggerated craziness, that wouldn't work at all if it would be applied ad absurdum.

If artists would truly have TOTAL control over content that they make, they would have an absurd dominance over free speech, by being able to censor any line that was quoted from a copyrighted book. The heirs of artists, and the publisher companies would control all media that was ever released since 1710. They wouldn't have to tolerate parodies, or critical analyses using their copyrighted characters and settings that belong to them. Thus, established copyright holders they would be able to dictate every element of modern culture. The publisher's control over individual usage would extend to limiting used sales, deciding how many people are allowed to read/view/play a single copy, even if that number is "one", and for how long can that person keep it.

There is no copyright on Earth that would give that much powers to publishers, and not many copyright apologists who would want them to. They are content with artists getting a certain set of monopolies. a Public Domain right after a given number of years, consumer rights to keep their once bought copies, Fair Use rights to make normal discourse about culture possible, etc.

Because IP laws aren't really about giving publishers TOTAL CONTROL, but about giving them reasonable amounts of control in an area where individual freedoms are involved as well.

On the other hand, what most "piracy apologists" say, is also just another method of giving publishers reasonable amounts of control, even they have a separate definition of "reasonable".

You would be hard-pressed to find any pirate in this thread, who would want to legalize outright intentionally misleading plagiarism, or commercial sale of another publisher's content. They are all about "artists being in control" in these areas.

The way I see it, the only difference between the two groups is exactly HOW MUCH artist control, and how much individual control they want, with the most important matter of difference would be the individual's right to download digital copies non-commercially, with some other petty sideline issues, such as how long the copyright length should be, or how liberal Fair Use should be (e.g: should single movie scenes be taken down from youtube or not).

 

[Dr. Cakey]

This also hilites the problem with using lazy language to discuss piracy (and I am 100% in a glass house here, as pretty much all of my posts in this thread will show). If you think the issue is solely one of money lost or opportunity lost, then it's hard to see a problem with a lot of piracy. But that's not really the issue--copyright is. Who should be allowed to make decisions regarding how works are copied? From my (admittedly biased) perspective it seems like the two main views are "the content creator, because they made it" and "me, because I want it."

Well that's an interesting one, because it's applied very inconsistently. Music, for example, is the loosest. It's so deeply expected that people copy music that even Windows Media Player has a 'Rip' button. I can also record anything played on TV. The Supreme Court said so. But I can't copy movies - or, rather, I can't copy a movie I got on DVD, but I can copy a movie if it's playing on TV. Wait...what?

This is why you can't buy software anymore. No, really. Most of the time, you can only purchase a license granting limited use of software. Because it's so easy to copy, corporations outright state that you do not own what you purchase. Ditto with Steam and other digital distribution services, by the way.

My concept of ownership is simple - excessively simple. You give something to someone else, they can do whatever they want with it. Even if it's digital. And that includes uploading that something and letting people download it for free. And now all those people own it (because it was given to them) and can do the same.

Is that a broken system? Er...maybe, but I really don't care. At all.

 

[Olas]

If the fact that piracy is illegal doesn't matter to most people on the internet, who constantly argue about it purely on moral grounds with complete disregard to legality, then why would making it legal suddenly matter? If it was immoral before it's immoral now.

For the record, while I believe that morality and legality are separate things, if you believe in your countries legal system as a whole then you should obey all it's laws, not just the ones you morally agree with. Picking and choosing which laws you'll follow renders the entire system obsolete.

Piracy is theft. It really is as simple as that.

Except it isn't as simple as that

at all

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Perhaps you could go into more detail.