Why do people care about piracy?

[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.

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.

As I see it, the main difference between what is ok and what isn't, is how many copies of something there is. To me, if there is one copy that can be used by one person at a given time (e.g. lending someone a game) then that's ok. But if more than one person can be using the same copy at the same time, that's not ok, unless otherwise allowed by the company (e.g. Microsoft Office allow three installations).

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?

As I see it:

Yes, that's piracy, because there are three people using a single copy at once.
That's ok, because there is only one version.
That's ok, as long as only one person can access it at a time.
Yes, as long as it's the original copy.
As many as you like, as long as there is only one copy being passed around.
For people reading it at the same time, I would assume that's fine. I see it as having friends round to watch a DVD, that's perfectly fine, so simultaneous reading must be ok too.
Yes, as long as other people who aren't present can't also read it at the same time.
I don't rightly know.
Same rules as above.

I don't know if all of those are how the law actually works, but that's how I see things.

 

[Hitokiri_Gensai]

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

so what is it exactly? Cause im prettttty sure taking someone's work without paying for it, is steaing.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Ask yourself this. If you create something, would you give it for free for anyone to use?

Well if we're talking about, let's say, a car then no I wouldn't since there's only the one car. If I let others use it for free all the time then my own personal access to it will be limited, and I'll also have to pay for the service that the car requires.

If I could copy said car however without it costing a thing, I would copy that car and give away the copies for free to anyone who asked me to.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

so what is it exactly? Cause im prettttty sure taking someone's work without paying for it, is steaing.

Nothing is being "stolen" in the case of piracy, it's being COPIED. The original still remains the same, unaltered and unremoved from it's proper location. It's just that there's an exact duplicate of the original afterwards. Nothing has been stolen at all, and anyone trying to claim that it has is using severely flawed logic.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

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.

Easy.

The recording studio staff make a contract with the artist stating that they are entitled to a set amount of revenue earned by the artist during live performances (which more people will ultimately want to see and pay admission for, the more piracy of said artists music is being spread online) for letting the artist using their studio and helping the artist out with the technical details of recording a song.

Thus said artist go out and do live performances and people seeing those pay for admission. The artist gets paid, and the studio in turn gets paid despite the artists music is being spread completely free and without even having to do the job him/herself (since the internet will pretty much do it for him/her), and everybody's happy.

The only people who DON'T benefit from this flawless and wonderful businessmodel are big record companies and their moneysniffing lawyers on retainer. But there's nothing negative about that since record companies are pretty much useless middlemen leeching of off the talent of artists and they have pretty much played out their role in modern society.

Once upon a time when the recording, copying and distribution of different mediums for songs wasn't as incredibly cheap and easy as it is for pretty much anyone to do as it is today, record companies served some form of purpose. Today, they have no purpose, and thus are NOT entitled to get paid for pretty much doing nothing other than shackling talented artists with contracts.

 

[Hitokiri_Gensai]

so what is it exactly? Cause im prettttty sure taking someone's work without paying for it, is steaing.

Nothing is being "stolen" in the case of piracy, it's being COPIED. The original still remains the same, unaltered and unremoved from it's proper location. It's just that there's an exact duplicate of the original afterwards. Nothing has been stolen at all, and anyone trying to claim that it has is using severely flawed logic.

Regardless of it being copied, youre not paying for it, when you should be, so what is it?

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

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.

If you gotta eat, then do what everybody else does: GET A FUCKING JOB!

Plenty of artists have normal jobs, and they still express themselves artistically through several different mediums.

There's absolutely NOTHING supporting the wishes of commercial artists that they are somehow supposed to have a "right" to be able to LIVE of their art. And the industry itself is a big sign of this since only tiny little fraction of all the artists in the world are actually popular and famous enough to actually be able to earn an entire living from their artistry.

Tha fact of the matter is that artists DON'T have any sort of inviolable "right" to get rich or even just be able to scrape by a living through their artistry. It's a PRIVILIGE which a select few of them are LUCKY enough to attain.

The majority of all artists still have normal jobs (or just spend their time in a very poor existence, more often than not because they cling to this delusional notion that the are going to "make it big" real soon if they just stick to it a little longer).

Im an artist myself, and I get a lot of enjoyment out of my artistic pursuits. But there is NO WAY IN HELL I'd just decide one day to quit my job and hope that my art is going to pay my bills and put food on my table. And it's not because im bad or incapable of creating art that could become popular, it's because it's an unrealistic expectation to think that artistry alone is going to be enough to earn a living.

If you're a real artist, you make art for art's sake, not for moneys sake. If you need money, then do what everybody else does and get a fucking job...

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Regardless of it being copied, youre not paying for it, when you should be, so what is it?

Why should I pay for a copy that someone uploaded and shared with everyone for free? The copyist is charging me any money, and the original isn't being removed or misplaced in any way (it's still there in it's original state, and the original has still been bought and paid for). It's just that now there exists a copy, created by the copyist and the copyist isn't charging me for the copy. So why should I pay when the person I acquired the copy from isn't asking me to pay for it?

Calling it "stealing" is nothing but an emotional argument, intended to make people think of actual theft (like a robbery where criminals go and actually TAKE someone elses belongings). You can't "steal" information that's been copied. At worst you can only STEAL the medium which that information is stored on (a CD, DVD or Blu-ray disc for example), but in the case of internet piracy, not even that is happening. So actual theft doesn't come in to it in ANY shape or form.

 

[Doctor Glocktor]

Regardless of it being copied, youre not paying for it, when you should be, so what is it?

Why should I pay for a copy that someone uploaded and shared with everyone for free?

Because the original copy, the one that has been copied, and that you are now using, was created with the intent that the artist would receive compensation in return for their work on said copy?

Do artists somehow not deserve monetary compensation for the work they did, with the point of obtaining that compensation?

 

[Duatha]

It matters because you are stealing from someone, regardless of whether the company makes 200 million dollars or not. Its like if someone stole youre bike, you would be pretty ****ing mad eh? imagine a company that gets one bike stollen and then that unique model is sold thousands of times over to millions of people. that is, in a nutshell, piracy.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Three sides:
Side A wants Side B's stuff for free.
Side C wants to make money out of Side B's stuff.
Side C pays for Side B's stuff.
Side A doesn't.
Side C gets upset with side A and throws silly numbers around.
Side B either sides with Side A or Side C.
If B+C are together, both become rich.
If A+B are together, B has more fans.

Whatever happens, it doesn't change A or C's perspective. But it's B doing the work.

Side D pays A twice for A+B and suffers for C.

We're D.

C is not stealing. C is getting B's stuff for free. This doesn't mean it would have been paying A.

 

[AperioContra]

If you gotta eat, then do what everybody else does: GET A FUCKING JOB!

I can't believe I have to point this out, but when I said "dude's gotta eat" I wasn't meaning that he literally has to attain nutritional sustenance for his work. It was more of an allusion to both the starving artist stigma, and the fact that people have to be enjoying your work in order to be properly considered an artist. It means more "You have to display eventually."And in popular culture that generally means selling to a large company. And in order to sell you have to present something they want to buy.

As it pertains to the music industry, you will only get a deal if you prove that people like or will like your stuff. While this is not an absolute that you will sound the same as everyone else, as a general rule people like what they know. And if you are an established artist, this means that you will have to maintain a consistant style, to the point that your songs will all sound the same (I call this the Disturbed Conundrum).

But let's shift the focus to another artistic medium we all enjoy: video games. Notice how all AAA games nowerdays are the same Gray/Brown Fraternity House First Person Shooter. Notice there is a lack of imagination that this field should encompass in the last years. Well, it's because the firms are only buying what they know will turn a profit. And what turns a profit is Gears of Duty. This lack of imagination is less due to the developers and artists, and more due to the fearful company that pays their bills.

You are right, if you are LITERALLY a starving artist, then getting a job would be in your best of interest. However, the point of the argument is that if you want your art to sell and be distributed that it is in your best interest to sell what is bought. Which is kind of a sad prospect.

 

[I.N.producer]

Almost every band makes almost nothing through CD sales. That's the record company's money. The CDs get people to see the band live, which is really where they make money.

Many lesser-known bands and artists will release music for free and ask for donations. This gets their name around and draws people to the shows.

For more well-known bands, pirating music does not hurt them in a noticeable way. It would be like if you dropped a penny at a drive-through restaurant.

The RIAA lawsuits rarely, if ever give money to the artists.

I'm not saying it's good to pirate, but it doesn't cause any real harm. In some cases, it does good.

I will admit to having pirated a fair amount of music. However, after listening to that music I want to go to a lot of the shows too. And I have. I get free music, the band gets revenue from my ticket(s) and merchandise.

Ask an artist if they would take a large decrease in album sales if it meant more tickets sold. I will bet you almost anything they will say yes.

 

[Aeshi]

And? Counterfeiting is technically just "copying" money but you can still get thrown in jail for that.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

If you gotta eat, then do what everybody else does: GET A FUCKING JOB!

I can't believe I have to point this out, but when I said "dude's gotta eat" I wasn't meaning that he literally has to attain nutritional sustenance for his work. It was more of an allusion to both the starving artist stigma, and the fact that people have to be enjoying your work in order to be properly considered an artist. It means more "You have to display eventually."And in popular culture that generally means selling to a large company. And in order to sell you have to present something they want to buy.

As it pertains to the music industry, you will only get a deal if you prove that people like or will like your stuff. While this is not an absolute that you will sound the same as everyone else, as a general rule people like what they know. And if you are an established artist, this means that you will have to maintain a consistant style, to the point that your songs will all sound the same (I call this the Disturbed Conundrum).

But let's shift the focus to another artistic medium we all enjoy: video games. Notice how all AAA games nowerdays are the same Gray/Brown Fraternity House First Person Shooter. Notice there is a lack of imagination that this field should encompass in the last years. Well, it's because the firms are only buying what they know will turn a profit. And what turns a profit is Gears of Duty. This lack of imagination is less due to the developers and artists, and more due to the fearful company that pays their bills.

You are right, if you are LITERALLY a starving artist, then getting a job would be in your best of interest. However, the point of the argument is that if you want your art to sell and be distributed that it is in your best interest to sell what is bought. Which is kind of a sad prospect.

If you spend your time creating art with the hope of selling it, then yeah that would be the right course of action.

However, your artistic integrity would be pretty dubious if your sole goal with making art is to make it sell.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Because the original copy, the one that has been copied, and that you are now using, was created with the intent that the artist would receive compensation in return for their work on said copy?

Do artists somehow not deserve monetary compensation for the work they did, with the point of obtaining that compensation?

No, because the artist in question here made the mistake of releasing a piece of information. Once you make something intangible like information public it's not your own anymore. It's like saying that you can "own" a dream or a thought. As soon as you tell someone else about it and it's in "their head" it's not exclusively yours anymore and you can't claim any sort of tangible ownership of it.

So what these "artists" needs to do if their sole goal in life is making money is insuring that the original work is impossible to duplicate so readily and easily.

And it's STILL not STEALING to accept a given copy of something that someone else gave you FOR FREE. THEFT is a matter of physical and irreplaceable objects, not intangible concepts or information.