Hi guys, first of all, I fully support Piracy. But Im writing a piece on my blog about what I might considere as “Ethical Piracy” and I would like to hear your concepts of it.
Basically my line is if I have the capacity of paying for something and is more convinient that pirating, ill pay. It happens to me a lot when I wanna watch a movie with my boyfriend. I like original audio, but he likes dub, so instead of scrapping through the web looking for a dub, I just select the language on the streaming platform. That is convinient to me.
In what situations do you think is not OK to pirate something? And where is 100 justified and everybody should sail the seas instead?
I would like to hear you.
I genuinely believe that stealing is stealing and anyone justifying it is doing so to not feel guilty about it.
I download things I haven’t paid for. It’s wrong. I can rationalize this because the stuff I’m stealing has already made their money and me enjoying it on my own time likely has zero impact on the content creators. Also, fuck the non-skippable intros and commercials on blurays.
The one exception to this, what I would argue is unquestionably “ethical piracy”, is content that’s actually important to the progress of humanity. Things like well researched scientific papers, studies about the humanities, psychology, the affects of technology, mechanization, artificial intelligence, etc. This should never be held behind lock and key. You whining about not having access to How I Met Your Mother is not a valid reason to steal content.
Also, people need to spend more time at their public libraries. If you want free shit, a lot of it is there explicitly for the purpose you all espouse.
I’d like to add a couple preservation-adjacent scenarios for you to consider. If a product is no longer made available by its rights holder, would it be unethical to acquire it through other means?
A: Pirating Abandonware
This would be software that was once sold, but is no longer made available by the rights holder. The creator of the software is no longer profiting from new or existing sales, and it’s no longer possible to acquire a copy through legitimate means. At that point, does pirating the software actually hurt anybody?
Argument against: not letting the software fade into obscurity stifles the market by providing freely-available competition to products that are actually being sold.
Argument in favor: preventing piracy of the software will do more harm, as it stifles the growth of any community around the software.
B: Pirating Discontinued Software
This would be software that is no longer officially sold in its original form, but has been superseded by other software available from the same rights holder. For example, older versions of Adobe Photoshop.
Argument against: pirating discontinued software hurts sales of the currently-available software.
Argument in favor: currently-available software may be inferior to older versions. (example: licensed music being removed from remastered games)
C: Digitally Pirating Out-of-Circulation Physical Media
This would be acquiring digital archives of out-of-circulation physical media such as video games or out-of-print books. The media isn’t sold by the rights holders anymore, but it would still be available through used goods resellers.
Argument against: by pirating out-of-circulation media instead of paying for the physical copies, the individual is preventing the flow of capital through the second-hand market.
Argument against: the rights holder may consider selling the media again in the future, and digital archives will prevent prospective buyers from purchasing the media when it eventually does become available.
Argument in favor: it is financially inviable to acquire the media through the second-hand market. (as in: it’s overpriced)
Argument in favor: as the physical media degrades over time, it would become more scarce and may eventually be lost entirely.
Argument in favor: under the assumption that second-hand resellers exist primarily for profiteering, giving them money does not contribute to humanity or culture in any meaningful way.
D: Removing DRM Technology
In this scenario, the individual has already purchased the media, but it is encumbered by DRM. Suppose the DRM either prevents the media from being accessed entirely1, or it hinders its usability2. Would it be ethical to use a “crack” on your purchased copy or acquire a pre-cracked copy from some other party?
[1] Examples include: lifetime activation limits or activation servers being shut down after the expected lifetime of the product.
[2] Examples include: always-online DRM, unnecessary resource usage
Argument against: the existance of a crack could mean lost sales, since some individuals may choose to illegally acquire a pre-cracked copy instead of purchasing the media.
Argument in favor: the DRM is hostile to the consumer. For example, the Sony BMG rootkit that caused excessive resource usage and provided a way for malware to conceal itself.
Argument in favor: if the DRM is never removed from the media in the future it will hinder preservation efforts.
Public library near me is more expensive than amazon prime… I call that criminal.
Uh, yeah. I would think that is criminal. Your library isn’t free?? Do you not have one in your county?
Nope…
Welcome to European capitalism guised as a social democratic monarchy… (The Netherlands)
It costs 54 euro per year… Not much, but amazon prime here costs 3 euro a month.
Sadly bit is, as a new immigrant, I’d really love to have free and easy access to local literature… But between the relatively high cost, and the library being open 3 hours a day (and closed on Sundays)… It’s just a little tricky to actually make it work.
As someone who grew up in the “golden age of piracy” who remembers those stupid FBI warnings on VHS tapes, I’ve never been able to wrap my head around that point of view. To me, it’s always been propaganda that creates this so-called anti-piracy morality.
The idea that piracy is stealing is so foreign to me. Stealing/theft is a very specific behavior. Nobody called it Theft when competitors followed around Shakespeare and made copycat plays. Nobody STILL calls it theft when we see stupid copycat movies come out. Nobody called it theft if you got a “copy painting, signed by actual painter” before modern copyright law. Now they call it things (not usually quite theft).
To me, piracy just lacks all the hallmarks of stealing. Hell, I’ve been in lawsuits. In every other realm, the Law draws some very clear lines between real damages and potential ones, and in many cases if I have to sue somebody, the law might even PREVENT me from seeking the latter. So what’s so special about piracy that so many people’s headspace have this attitude the “how the world works” goes out the window and it’s really stealing?
To me, it’s always going to be a matter of propaganda. Very successful propaganda. And I think your last sentence backs that. The big media IP owners started pushing the bubble of “it’s stealing” to libraries as well, and only backed off when it didn’t work. They were somewhat more successful with “used games” and have largely succeeded in killing the used game market off in some domains. I consider it stealing if a game company locks a physical product behind a single-use code so that they can seize part or all of the product if you purchase it used.
But here’s my counterpoint to all of the befuddlement. The companies don’t call these things products anymore, but licenses (so they can seize them at will from people who paid for them). How can you steal something that you can’t own in the first place?
It’s literally the definition. Do you think pirates were invited on board to take a ship’s volume of goods without compensation? I’m at a loss how you believe the acquisition of something with a price tag on it without paying for it is not theft.
Your Shakespearian example is very clearly theft. If you sit down at a theater and transcribe the entire show then produce the exact same show, you have stolen intellectual property. What example of “copycat movies” are you considering? I’ve never heard of such a thing nor can I comprehend how it might exist. If someone is literally copying the exact same movie, if someone is producing a movie with the exact same script, it’s theft. Intellectual Property is a thing that can be stolen (hint, it’s in the second word).
You’re right in regard to licensing. We no longer purchase a product but a license to consume that product for a period of time. This was established in the DMCA as media moved from physical to digital formats. When you buy a DVD, you purchase the license to view the content on that medium. If you sell or give away that medium, you are transferring that license to the new owner. There’s a company called Kaleidescape that takes all your physical movies and rips them to a local server. You have to sign an agreement that confirms you own a physical copy of that movie and if you give that movie away you must delete the file from your server. So, you can watch the movie however you like on whatever medium you like, provided you’ve paid for and currently hold the rights to that license.
I’d like you to further explain your philosophy of original content being of no value and everything being free.
I can’t count how many times I have to explain to people that etymological roots of words are not a foundation for an argument. The term “Piracy” was adopted by movie studios back when it wasn’t really illegal… the same ones who also tried to make used media illegal (and eventually succeeded in a way).
Except it’s not, nor was it ever. Here’s my metric. Anyone more property-focused than Adam Smith is wrong by default. If you’re more capitalist than the founder of capitalism, maybe you have a problem. It’s like Marx looking at someone and going “OMG is he too communist for me”.
@oxjox @vis4valentine
I’m not bashing you, just pointing out our differences, but I think it’s really interesting that you say “me enjoying it … has zero impact on the content creators” but you also think you SHOULD feel bad for it and that it’s wrong.
My view (that cannot possibly be theft) *feels* natural to me, and your viewpoint (if I tried to have it myself) would feel way more like “rationalizing” or “justifying”.
Also you’re right, public libraries rock :)
Just because I know something is wrong does not mean I feel bad 🏴☠️