Why do people care about piracy?

[JesterRaiin]

I don't quite understand what the point is.

Fear us. Obey us. We are omnipotent. Fear us. We have skills, lawyers, resources and urge to enslave you. By the way : FEAR US.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Its about money and property that they own and that some steals. Would you work for nothing? Would you write a book or make a movie or music album and be happy that people steal it from you? No different to some one stealing stuff from your home. The property belongs to who owns it and making a copy of that is stealing. We are not talking about make a copy of a cd from a friend, but putting it online for thousands of people to download or selling copies of a movie or cd for profit.

Thing that annoys me is that people that buy pirate stuff dont accept they are thieves and say "im stealing some one elses property without paying, i dont give a shit", no, they come out with all this bullshit like they are only making a copy. Like if i bought a picture, and someone photocopies it, i still have the original picture. You know what every single copy of every movie, music or book is all from an original master copy. So that would mean you are stealing, because by your opinion i can walk into a store a steal a book as thats also a copy of an original.

 

[Signa]

I'd love to see how people would survive if they did it all purely for arts sake.

Which they actually would.

People created art in terms of music and pictures SEVERAL THOUSAND YEARS before they could even turn a modern sense of "profit" out of it. It didn't help their survival in the slightest (which was a big issue back then since survival was pretty much all there was to do for the man of the stone age), but STILL archeological finds have revealed, primitive man-made musical instruments and cave wall paintings.

And the same thing would happen today. Even if piracy was to make the music industry crash and burn and make it financially impossible to actually turn a profit as an artist from making music, you'd still have these "morons" (quotationmarks intended to display sarcasm) making, recording and distributing music anyway.

"But why?" says the gullible liberal/capitalist robot of modern society. "Why would anyone do something that doesn't earn them some of that allmight dollar!? Does not compute! Syntax Error!"

Well because IT'S HUMAN NATURE! This capitalist, trade-based, globalist society of today has only been a norm for a fraction of mankinds total existence. This concept of "I should try to make MONEY off of my daily activities" is just that: a concept. It's not a defining trait of our nature. Our nature is more in line of being social creatures, but who tend to get bored with just meaningless existence. So we find/invent excuses for keeping ourselves busy in ways we think are aesthetically pleasing in some way (making music and listening to other people making it being one of them). This behaviour existed before freemarket capitalism did.

WHich is why I find it so incredibly stupid when some people on the escapist messageboards (the same messageboards who pretty much declared themselves the last "sane" and "intelligent" place on the internet), rant about how piracy will bring down the videogame industry, along with pretty much every other artistic industry that exists because "those poor, poor artist won't want to make art if they don't get paid for it! boohoo!" while they all happily jump on the corporate bandwagon, defending DRM's and make snide remarks towards innocent people being charged with ridiculous and uncalled for fines by satanic megacorporations who get their kicks out of destroying people's lives.

Fact: neither videogames, music, movies, books or whatever will just "vanish" because piracy is active and flourishing. Someone, somewhere, somehow will ALWAYS spend some of their freetime creating these pieces of art for the sheer sense of self-satisfaction that it brings. The only people who are really threatened by piracy are pretty much money-grubbing middlemen with no real artistic talent at all (record lable companies, publishers etc.) but who REALLY DO spoonge and cling to people with artistic talent with parasitic intentions.

Why the hell would people who claim to LIKE games/movies/music actually defend these parasites who do NOTHING to further the industry or it's creative people what so ever? It's completely beyond my comperhension.

Yet it happens on these messageboards for some reason. Ain't it wierd?

Holy. Fucking. Shit. This. So fucking this.

And after all that, you forgot to mention how people are still willing to pay some one for their good work. A musician who makes music for the art can then perform in a concert and still make money if they have enough fans. This is the age of the internet. If some one likes something, more than just a few people are going to hear about it. An artist CAN survive through self-promotion and concerts.

I'm too lazy to find it right now, but there was a professional violin player in a subway just performing for the sake of performing, and he was making $20 an hour. That's twice what I get and I have a legitimate 9-5 job. Up until the 20th century, being a multi-millionaire artist was unheard of and probably impossible. There's no reason why things can't return to those days.

 

[AperioContra]

I'd love to see how people would survive if they did it all purely for arts sake.

Which they actually would.

I'm not going to quote the entire thing, because I don't think it's prudent, I'm also going to play the devils advocate here because, well, you're not entirely correct. You see, you notice the ambiguous period of time you labeled as several thousands of years, most art was often religious? That's not because god was so big back then (well... kind of) You see, the only people willing to pay for art were nobles, or more than likely the church. And... well dudes gotta eat. So often times you would spend most of your artistic career trying to paint the right amount of gut on a noble so he doesn't behead you, or painting the same depicted religious scenes over and over again.

My point is, before commercial art, the only money to be gained was often at a sacrifice to the very spirit and creativity of the artist. While this era did create some classics (Jesu, Joy of Man's Desire, The Sistine Chapel) it wasn't until the rennaisance where more people were appreciating and affording art that it most artforms came into it's own, and even then it wasn't until the mid 1800s , when the general man was helping in this matter to buy painting or donate to music halls that was started getting the really good stuff.

I will say you are right, what we aren't facing is an extinction, but, speaking as an artist, we're facing something worse, the very crushing of our artistic spirit, because the only way we can eat is to make something popular enough that more people will buy it instead of stealing it. I will point out what people are guaranteed to like that much is something that is familiar. If you notice in the last couple years the majority of songs often sound the same. You either have the Metal bands that all sound like Nickleback, or pseudogrunge bands that all sound like Nirvana, in Pop everyone has a partytune with an autotuner and in Rap everyone still is talking about ballin and being a gangsta. Why, this sells, and you sell what's safe.

I guess what I'm beating around the bush about like an overzealous landscaper is that when you back the people who sign our checks against the wall so they only buy things that sell, well we're going to make things that sell. Because... Well, dude's got to eat.

a little more on topic, even with this diatribe, I still think 645 thousand is a little excessive.

 

[b3nn3tt]

You know what every single copy of every movie, music or book is all from an original master copy. So that would mean you are stealing, because by your opinion i can walk into a store a steal a book as thats also a copy of an original.

That is one of the best analogies I've ever heard as to why piracy equates to theft. I'd never even thought of that, but it actually makes it make complete sense. Seriously, thank you for that, I may use it in future.

 

[SoulSalmon]

Words

It's dangerous to go alone, take this:

Spoiler: Image

There's an old ad I think most people are familiar with "You wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a handbag" etc.
There's a GOOD reason people poked fun at that ad.
Lets face it people, if I stole your car, you'd be pissed off, if I made a copy of your car and drove THAT, you're far less likely to be mad, there IS a difference, stop calling piracy theft.

Edit:

You know what every single copy of every movie, music or book is all from an original master copy. So that would mean you are stealing, because by your opinion i can walk into a store a steal a book as thats also a copy of an original.

That is one of the best analogies I've ever heard as to why piracy equates to theft. I'd never even thought of that, but it actually makes it make complete sense. Seriously, thank you for that, I may use it in future.

That's a TERRIBLE analogy o.0
When a book is printed, there are (for example) 1000 copies made and given to a store.
If someone STOLE a book, there would only be 999 left in the store.
Piracy would be if someone bought a book, then scanned it, printed ANOTHER COPY off and gave it away, in the end the store still sold all 1000, rather the only selling 999 because one was stolen.


The above is STILL a pretty bad explanation because I myself suck at explaining things, the fact of the matter is simple that piracy in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM takes anything tangible or irreplacable, it is something that has been copied. Copied illegally mind you, but copied none-the-less.

 

[vxicepickxv]

You mean this little add thing that doesn't work.

I've realized a few things in life.
1. People WILL pirate your stuff, no matter how much you think you crack down on it
2. You cannot stop them. They will find a way around anything
3. Make it worth their time to buy it, and more of them will.

 

[Klepa]

Piracy is not stealing or theft. Please can people stop saying that it is.

Anything to prove that, 'side from "Stop expressing an idea I don't like"?

I think the point here is that it's literally not "theft". He's not saying "Piracy isn't wrong", atleast not in that post, but stating that a more correct analogy would be getting a free ride on a bus, instead of stealing the cash register.

There's a slight difference, how big that difference is, is arguable. An argument I'm not getting into.

 

[The Code]

Direct quote from Blackstones Criminal Practice 2011 relating to what is property under s. 4 Theft Act 1986:

'Other intangible property' includes patents (Patents Act 1977, s. 30), copyright (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s. 1) and design rights (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s. 213), although a mere breach of copyright is not theft.

I could find more if you think you know the law better than the author of the leading practitioners text on criminal law.

If you take something you're supposed to pay for without paying for it, it is theft. Its not a matter of "law" (LAAAWWW!), its a matter of morality.

Despite the fact that it says that taking 'intangible properties' doesn't qualify as theft?

I'm in an odd boat here. While I can see why people get up in arms over what piracy is and does, one also has to look at what piracy has done. Some products have been struck with bolstered sales because of pirated copies. The people downloading the games have friends. The friends might say "Hey, that's a cool game. I want to play that too." Now, said friend will go and buy a fresh copy from the store. This is a good thing. It also helps point out things that people don't like, such as the infamous DRM issues that Spore had. It was a good game, but the DRM was horrible. People downloaded copies of the game with the DRM stripped, and the company that put the DRM in place learned something from that.

In all honesty, I pirate games. Specifically, I pirate older games, the likes of which you may find hosted at Good Ol' Games. I enjoy the older games like Deus Ex, Morrowind, Metal Fatigue, and Warzone 2100. The problem I face is that the games I prefer aren't made anymore and the fact that local retailers don't carry the copies already made. Granted, I could use the grand invention known as the Internet and purchase a copy on Ebay, but I don't have a credit card. I hate them, and that's an argument for another day. The point I'm trying to make is one that Extra Credits touched on once. If it's an older game that can't normally be found anywhere else, why not? Many of the companies that made them in the first place aren't around anymore and won't see a lick of pain or profit anyway, so there's really no one to piss off if you download it. In fact, someone might look at the stats of the downloaded file and think "Wow, people still like this game. I'll keep that in mind for something later on." Like I said: If it's an old game, go for it. If you DO manage to find a hard copy of an older game,buy it, keep it safe and clean, and cherish that piece of gaming history as you play to your heart's content.

tl;dr - The morality of piracy depends on what you're pirating, I think.

 

[Smooth Operator]

The world has many shades of gray you see, the truth is what everyone really wants is their work to be appreciated, and not just with a measly thank you we want the whole world to stand in awe of the stuff we can do... that's the sort of shit that will make you die happy.

But the current world order is all about the money, every moment of every day we self perpetuate the idea that everyone is only ever worth their wallet size, your work is worthless until is makes bank, and so we end up striving for the dosh above everything that really matters.

So in the current world piracy is the ultimate evil, several thousand years from now... who knows.

 

[CrazyJew]

The retardation is how they charge one person with the overall estimated losses. I mean, if I walk into the store and steal that music disc, I gotta pay a small fine + the disc cost. Charging a single person for the total estimated losses is just a move to scare others out. A retard move.

 

[Klepa]

Its about money and property that they own and that some steals. Would you work for nothing? Would you write a book or make a movie or music album and be happy that people steal it from you?

People aren't motivated by money, the game industry is an extremely good example of this. Working as a programmer for Cisco or Microsoft will earn you a lot more money, than most companies in the interactive entertainment industry can offer you. Yet still people make games. They're not looking to make half a million per year, they want to make games, that is the reward.
Same deal with musicians. The world is filled with 50-year-old coots, who've never managed to make a living with their music, but still carry on playing, even if making money out of it is hopeless, and financially it'd be wiser to serve coffee at Starbucks.

tl;dr, yes, I do write songs and record them, at a noticeable loss, in fact. Recording equipment is expensive.

No different to some one stealing stuff from your home.

I think it is different from someone stealing stuff from my home. I lose whatever they steal. If they steal my washing machine, I'll have to wash my dishes by hand. This would be a massive inconvenience for me, and would piss me off. If they copy it, it doesn't inconvenience me in any way.

The property belongs to who owns it and making a copy of that is stealing. We are not talking about make a copy of a cd from a friend, but putting it online for thousands of people to download or selling copies of a movie or cd for profit.

But how is that different in the end? Giving a copy to your friend makes the company lose one theoretical sale, say 20 euros. Putting it up on the internet makes the company lose, say, 20,000 theoretical euros. If copying a CD is wrong, is it not wrong, no matter the scale?

So that would mean you are stealing, because by your opinion i can walk into a store a steal a book as thats also a copy of an original.

It's not quite the same, I don't think. You can't just magically copy things in the real world, unlike in the virtual world. It doesn't cost anyone anything to copy a file from a hard drive, to another hard drive. Books cost something to make, and books are not infinite. The retailer has paid for the book, and by stealing it from the shop, the retailer loses something very real and concrete.

Anyways, I don't really want to make it look like I'm trying to start a fight, and not trying to advocate piracy either. My main points are, it's not 100% comparable to stealing, and people aren't motivated by money, which is almost completely off-topic by now.

Back to the money thing..
Money's just a means to an end. If you can't get a job doing what you like, you're going to get a job doing something you don't like. And when that job isn't rewarding in itself, you're going to want compensation. That compensation is money. You'll then use the money on something that IS rewarding. Money's not the ultimate reward, it's just an extremely practical way of getting it.

But if you DO happen to get a job that you love doing, and is rewarding, what do you need the money for? If you love race cars, and drive race cars for a living, you don't need loads of money to buy race cars, so that you can finally drive race cars.

This has become an extremely tired rant about something, that is possibly completely irrelevant to anything that has ever been posted on this forum.

I am sorry.

 

[b3nn3tt]

It's not quite the same, I don't think. You can't just magically copy things in the real world, unlike in the virtual world. It doesn't cost anyone anything to copy a file from a hard drive, to another hard drive. Books cost something to make, and books are not infinite. The retailer has paid for the book, and by stealing it from the shop, the retailer loses something very real and concrete.

What about digital downloads? To use a non-gaming example, you can buy a digital album from Amazon. If someone finds a way to download that album without paying for it, Amazon haven't lost anything concrete, but they're still out one sale. Or what about an e-book? That's not something conrete either, but it's still theft.

I think people get far too hung up about this to be honest. Arguing about the definition of theft tends to steer the argument away from the actual act of pirating something. I think it's just as bad as those people that come in with 'Well, piracy is an act that takes place on the high seas.' That's not what we're discussing and everyone knows it, arguing about semantics derails the argument.

And yes, I do realise that I've just posted a comment entirely about semantics. So to add to it, I think we should put aside that argument and focus on the overarching issue of piracy, and whether it's right or wrong. I am against it, but I do question many of the arguments put forth by companies about why it's wrong, such as lost sales and such.

 

[LaughingAtlas]

I'd say it isn't "theft," but is really inconvenient for the guys who could be making money from you but aren't because what you wanted exists for free in a technically infinite supply. If they raised no fuss at all, wouldn't everyone just download and never pay for stuff? (As opposed to those who don't download illegally, but don't buy either because they aren't that interested anyway? I'm sure it's not just me.)

It makes me think of the Endermen in Minecraft, only with the roles a little mixed up. Imagine the player is a record company, the endermen are pirates, the blocks they pick up are data, the player is the one who goes into a rage when he/she looks at them directly, and the infinite blocks he/she has access to at all times (in creative mode) are the internet. I could go blitzkrieg from the air with a diamond sword of impossible reach because they pick up blocks and move them without compensating me, or I could disregard the dirt and sand they move because I might never have touched it anyway. Even if they take a block or two from one of my buildings, I can replace it, but it's slightly inconvenient.

Maybe the "no one would make music or anything without money" people are right, but didn't Yahtzee and Miracle of Sound (who, I acknowledge, make money for what they do now) both start off doing what they do for fun? I don't think anyone paid for Commander Shepard did they? Granted, the stuff people do on their own probably won't be as good as things made with more time and money, comparing web games and mainstream releases. Going to stop now, because I get the feeling this no longer makes sense.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

iTunes has made it easier to buy music than it is to pirate it. That is the correct way to fight piracy. The RIAA showing it's greed is NOT the correct way to fight piracy.

BTW, if some kid making min wage downloads a Metallica song and it costs millionaire Lars Ulrich a penny. I won't object. The music industry has robbed us all blind for many years, it was Napster (pirates) that showed us just how badly they were ripping us off. Today, songs are at most $1.29 each. Remember when they would charge you $5 for a cd single? Charge you $20 for a whole cd with ONE good song on it? The gravy train is over for the music industry and you can thank the pirates for the low price of music today.

That's pretty much what I was thinking. The record companies are so greedy, that they want to hang on with nails dug in to the old technology of CD sales, for which the artist gets SFA for each sold (out of that $15-$30, depending where you are, they get something like 2 cents?)

That's been around almost decades, now we have the information age, and although it's not as accessible around the world as much as we'd like, for places that can download songs easily it would cost almost NOTHING to set up a few servers and a secure payment system. iTunes is on the right track, I just hate all their freaking DRM, but at least they are moving in a direction that does away with the people who are really ripping off the artists.

I swear, if I could donate money straight to the artists after downloading an album, and know that a good portion of it would be going to the artists, I'd probably easily give more than a price of a stupid CD. I know there's nothing wrong with those that like to have the CD in their hand, but there needs to be a way to get more artists out there, Myspace and iTunes not excluded. Coz we'd like to hear something new other than Katy Perry and Justin Bieber once in a while too, right.

 

[BabyRaptor]

My thoughts on the matter are mixed. I fully believe that the artist who made the music, and the people who helped (IE recording studio staff), should be paid for their work.

The RIAA and the money hungry lawyers can go jump off a cliff.

 

[Klepa]

It's not quite the same, I don't think. You can't just magically copy things in the real world, unlike in the virtual world. It doesn't cost anyone anything to copy a file from a hard drive, to another hard drive. Books cost something to make, and books are not infinite. The retailer has paid for the book, and by stealing it from the shop, the retailer loses something very real and concrete.

What about digital downloads? To use a non-gaming example, you can buy a digital album from Amazon. If someone finds a way to download that album without paying for it, Amazon haven't lost anything concrete, but they're still out one sale. Or what about an e-book? That's not something conrete either, but it's still theft.

While pirating an e-book will most likely hurt Amazon indirectly, the main difference between that and stealing a physical book from Amazon, is that Amazon doesn't have to replace the pirated e-book. That is what, in my opinion, makes piracy less "bad" (if only by so much) than stealing.

I am against it, but I do question many of the arguments put forth by companies about why it's wrong, such as lost sales and such.

I'm with you on this one. It's not a black and white issue. One pirated copy definitely doesn't equal one lost sale. I think photoshop is a great example. I know a lot of people who "have" it, but not a single one who would actually pay 1000 euros for it.

To carry on with the e-book thing, and my current living arrangement(I live with 2 roommates). Here are a bunch of questions that I don't know the answer to:
If I buy an e-book, and then copy it to both of my roommate's HDD's, I believe that's piracy?
What if I don't copy the e-book, but let them read it from my screen?
What if I put the book on a shared folder, and they open the book from my HDD,
and read it from their own PC's, without copying the file to their own HDD's?
Is anyone else even allowed to read the book?
If yes, how many people are allowed to read it?
Are many people allowed to read it at the same time?
Are they allowed to read the book where-ever they want to?
Am I even allowed to do that?
What if I lived with 10 roommates?