Piracy is Not Theft: Problems of a Nonsense Metaphor | Hacker News Reader

Piracy is Not Theft: Problems of a Nonsense Metaphor

torrentfreak.com

32 pointsGarbage36 comments

Piracy and copying seem to have more to do with the accessibility/usability of a product than its cost per se. In that sense, piracy is the market attempting to provide what people want when the copyright owners are unwilling to do so.

Here's an example (I deliberately picked an issue that seems trivial): I deeply resent DVDs that force me to stare at the FBI/INTERPOL warning for several seconds before I can advance to the menu - which also frequently takes a long time to load - or, God forbid, the actual movie. (Again, this is not even to raise the issue of DVD Regions, different release dates for different areas, and all that nonsense.)

These things are steady, low-grade reminders that the heavy-handed UI wrapped around the movie exists to accommodate someone else's interests, not mine. If a DVD is really egregious - and that seems increasingly to be the case - I'll rip the movie, strip out the menus, warnings and other crap, and re-burn it or just watch it on my computer. Yet I can't help but notice that it's easier simply to download the torrent of a movie than it is to rip it from a DVD.

Now consider that in Canada, where I live, a planned update to our federal copyright legislation would make it a criminal offence to make a personal copy of a DVD I legally purchased for my own use - with no exception for "fair use", which doesn't exist in Canadian copyright law (we have "fair dealing", which is weaker and more limited in scope than "fair use"). It would be illegal because DVDs are nominally protected by DRM - even though the encryption was broken 12 years ago - and it is a criminal offence to break a 'digital lock' for any reason.

"""In that sense, piracy is the market attempting to provide what people want when the copyright owners are unwilling to do so."""

When, which is, basically, proving the goods for free.

I'm not sure why you'd pick a trivial issue on purpose because - no offense - it doesn't make for a very compelling argument. In your specific case, the effort to rip a movie to avoid watching the FBI warning etc is a bad deal for you: it takes far longer to rip and burn than to just do something else for the ten seconds until the movie loads.

Piracy advocates/apologists can make a case that piracy is about convenience but there is no whitewashing that it is as much about paying. I deal with this all the time with artists I work with. Here's one email I received just this morning:

"I'm very tired and down right now. I'm getting sick of being contacted by companies pretending to help me, then asking for thousands upon thousands of dollars for everything. There are so many people feeding from struggling indie artists. Things are so bad right now in music. I actually don't think it's possible to do all this on your own but I'm really trying.

The biggest thing that need to change is the general public's attitude towards new music right now. They expect it for free and don't have any respect towards the amount of work you do and how much it costs to make it. They still think 'signed' artists are 'real' and we are just beggars on the street in comparision."

This is an indie artist who has 1,000s of fans, is high on the internet-radio charts in his area, etc. He has spent tens of thousands of dollars to put a good product out and he spends literally 60-80 hours a week on fan contact etc.

I'm sorry: piracy sucks. People can crow about the labels etc all they want but they have changed their business model: they sign 360-deals with artists because recorded music sales are a loss-leader; then they promote acts like Justin Bieber because they know 13-yr-olds are more likely to a) pay for music and b) much more importantly, buy all the associated merchandise that feeds back into their 360 deal. So if you think they are 'dinosaurs' you're wrong; they've already changed to service the market that exists - leaving lots and lots of independent musicians with no pipeline into wider exposure. And if one thinks being on the internet is 'wider exposure' I have a bridge to sell you;)

As much research into human value strategies has shown - the truth is that people dislike for paying for things increases dramatically when they think others aren't paying; that is, when there isn't fairness going on. It's not talked about enough - that piracy 'poisons the well' by leaving people who would pay for things feeling like rubes for doing so.

This particular artist has 1000s of fans who listen to his work several times a week; he sells a digital download version of his album for $3 - yes the same $3 that will get you a half-hamburger at McDonalds - and he has sold zero - literally ZERO. Before any debate about the quality of his work or fans or exposure - all of which are well above-average for indies I have worked with - the ugly truth is that people don't pay when they can get around it - it doesn't matter what the amount.

So, with respect to all, complaints about "inconveniences" are not compelling at all when I know how much blood, sweat, and tears artists are putting into their work. Pro-pirates like to tout how 'free' makes things more accessible - but they are totally blind to the fact that 'free' keeps as much content inaccessible as it leaves legacy content accessible. At best, it's a zero-sum game, a choice - and as such it's no point of support for why one way is better than another.

As I have said many, many times - I'd much prefer a world with things worth buying than one where everything is for free.

Question for the article author: Could you explain why "piracy" is not also a nonsense metaphor?

Piracy is an act of robbery and/or criminal violence at sea.

It feels like 99% of arguments are between people who haven't clearly defined the meaning of words they are arguing over.

I believe nowadays "piracy" isn't being used as a metaphor at all, it's just a re-purposing of a word. No one is conflating the act of sea robbery with copyright infringement. No one is saying "Our navies need more funding because of these pirates." With "theft", there's no metaphor being used. It's trying to set things up to use theft as a synonym for copyright infringement.

Depriving others of revenue IS theft. If the terms of use for a service or product require payment then any use without payment is, in effect, theft. These juvenile justifications are how 13-year olds comfort themeselves about their behaviour. Don't want to pay? Don't use it.

"Depriving others of revenue IS theft." - No, it is not. This is a much more complex scenario, and reducing it to simple lines like that doesn't further the discussion at all. (Not to mention there's a million ways to "deprive others of revenue". What if I slander you, so that people stop buying your service? Do you really want to call that theft?)

Take the example of a DVD you've already purchased for personal use. If I rip that to play on my unlicensed OS, is it theft? What if I rip the DVD so I can email a link to my brother, instead of shipping him the DVD? Calling this theft is pointless, unless the point is to unfairly frame the debate.

> "what if I slander you"...

An even more important example - What if I open up a competing business with better advertising and greater value for money? That deprives others of revenue, but is neither criminally nor civilly illegal, and only in certain cases could it even be considered immoral.

>...Paulo Coelho made a Russian translation of The Alchemist available without permission from his publisher. As a result the sales in Russia skyrocketed from 1,000 books a year to over 1,000,000.

I feel uncomfortable with this example because it was the author who chose to give his book away.

I'm of a mixed mind about piracy in regards to media content. I don't agree with it but it's the only thing that manages to force content owners to rethink their business model. If it wasn't for Napster and the like, there wouldn't be an iTunes or Spotify. If it was up to them we would still be paying $20 for a CD. The same is happening with TV and movies and I'm sure they will be facing the same situation as broadband gets faster.

I don't include the print industry in this because they are more lost than any other because it's so poorly run.

I think theft can be simply defined as: "Taking something that isn't yours without permission."

On the plus side, the various rationalizations people come up with to justify theft of creative works shows that they have at least some bit of conscience left.

Teacher: "Billy I gave you an 'F' on your paper because Bobby already passed in that exact same paper."

Billy: "But I wrote the paper! Bobby must have stolen/copied it and passed it in first!"

Teacher: "But Billy, you still have your original paper so how is that theft?"

"Bootlegging" always seemed like a more appropriate term to me. Although perhaps that has the connotation attached that the illegal distributor is profiting from the materials in question.

Copyright is just a dirty hack to make capitalism work with information, a domain capitalism not at all good at dealing with.

"There is no loss when something is copied, or the loss is radically different from losing something like your bike..."

The question is not about tangible loss, it's about property rights, and the forceful encroachment thereof.

Being semantically picky about the concept doesn't alter the fact that the property of one individual is interacted with apart from their prerogative, i.e., their right to property is being violated - by force.

There is a loss when something is copied by force, the loss of one's right to private property. Call it theft or not, the legal repercussions should be the same.

A lot of the issue is about how the debate is being framed. There's no value in a discussion to shift terms around to confuse the issue. Copyright infringement is well defined; there's no need to use "theft".

"Call it theft or not, the legal repercussions should be the same."

You are aware there's a difference between uploading a file, and breaking into your house to steal a physical DVD? Why on earth should a license violation be considered a criminal offense?

"Why on earth should a license violation be considered a criminal offense?"

Why shouldn't it? In principle, they are the same - which is my whole point.

Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing. Where's the difference between civil and criminal offenses?

Do you really consider the act of stealing someone's physical property to be the same? Uploading a video of a child dancing to a song should be prosecuted by the state, with imprisonment as a valid punishment?

"Do you really consider the act of stealing someone's physical property to be the same?"

In principle - absolutely.

"Uploading a video of a child dancing to a song should be prosecuted by the state, with imprisonment as a valid punishment?"

This is not an example of piracy, but of copyright violation.

In any case, copyright is worthy of a thorough analysis. Where to draw the line in such corner cases can be hard to pin down.

Should I be able to author a home movie with copyrighted background music to privately show my friends and family? I think so, under fair use and for the same reason that I can buy a cd or dvd and view it with others (who didn't personally enter into contractual stipulations by purchasing it).

Should I be able to upload it to youtube - since it's a convenient venue for sharing? If it's restricted to private, invitation only viewing, I think so. If it's exposed publicly, then, unfortunately, no.

Should I be able to profit commercially from it without royalties? Of course not.

On the other hand, say I happened to catch on video my child spontaneously reciting the Magna Carta, and this remarkable event took place in a restaurant that happend to have background music playing. Should I be able to post, share, even profit from? Maybe so. I think the intent (or lack thereof) to violate copyright, while not an absolute metric in all contexts, has merit which is selectively applicable.

It's hard to codify objective assessment of intent into law, but the underlying ethical standard is that of the explicit choice to intentionally violate the property rights of another individual by acquiring a commercially available product outside of lawful venues and apart from legally valid contractual stipulations.

Piracy, on the other hand, is - without exception - a blatant manifestation of such malicious intent.

Those who do it should know it's unethical, and any attempt to justify it is merely a rationalization - as is the attempt to whitewash the practice under ambiguity and semantic nitpickery, which is the purpose of the article at hand.

It shouldn't because the original possessor of the copy still has access to his copy. In principle they are different. Copying is no different morally than speeding.

Unless that copy originated with permission of the property owner, or a representing legal agent thereof, then it most certainly is.

Identity theft is still called theft, even though there's no actual stealing going on. You still have your identity, it's just copied.

I'm waiting for another GNU license violation story to come out, because when a company uses source code in a proprietary app and doesn't follow the license, people here throw around the word "theft" even though there's no actual stealing going on. A good example is the Thesis Theme.

The trouble with the term identity theft is that there typically _is_ actual stealing going on, but that it's not actually your identity that is being stolen.

Identity thieves don't normally just go around introducing themselves to strangers with the stolen identity. Were that the case, it would rarely be a problem. They apply for loans with no intention to repay, and buy goods with the goal of landing the bill with the real owner of the identity.

It's curious that you mention this because I had my identity stolen when I went to college. A Chinese student was currently using my SS# at a school. The same school. I had to go out of my way to prove I was the correct owner of the number.

He is charging loans on my account. Is that not a form of theft?

This is why I used the words "typically" and "rarely" above, but I'd still argue that your identity wasn't the thing that was stolen from you, rather that they used your identity to steal something, either from you or someone else.

Not being from the same country as you, I don't really understand what it means to have someone else use your social security number, but as I said above, it is theft, not of your identity, but of the money being lent to the false "you".

Basically, the term "identity theft" could be likened to "knife crime" or "gun deaths". "Knife crime" rarely refers to the theft of a knife, but to crime (robbery, assault, murder) committed using a knife.

So using your reasoning, we can still call piracy "theft"?

If you can show that something is being stolen, then yes. If, on the other hand, no stealing is going on, then no.

The problem I have with the "piracy is theft" thing is that I think its use makes it harder to convince people who counter with arguments saying that the original owner still has the "stolen" item.

For one thing, it's an extra step one needn't take. First you have to convince them that it is actually theft, then you have to convince them that they should do something about it.

If you start with the simple position of "this thing normally costs money, and you haven't paid for it", then you can get straight to the heart of the matter.

Note that I say "convince" and not "be more right than". People indulge in all sorts of self-justification and moral balancing, particularly if they can convince themselves that it's a victimless crime.

"They apply for loans with no intention to repay, and buy goods with the goal of landing the bill with the real owner of the identity."

Which technically is fraud. Another word that can be used when they actually go to the bank, etc.

Copying is just copying. By using it for your own benefit however, you are directly influencing (for the better or worse, but definitely without permission) the original's value, worth, rights.

If you were just copying someone's identity, you wouldn't do anything with it would you?

Sorry, but the copying is not by 'force'. The force part comes in where the government tries to enFORCE copyright. There is no loss when something is copied. There may be no gain, which is different.

Unless there is a contractual stipulation which pertains to copying. In which case, it is force, and there is loss.

I think the argument whether a copy is theft is irrelevant. In my view, hacking into a bank's database and adding a few thousand dollars to your bank balance would be theft as well even if you didn't modify any other accounts or data. The point is that you steal money from the copyright owners when you copy their work without their permission because you owe them money you and you didn't pay.

Adding a thousand dollars to your bank balance does deprive others. It's hard to take anything else you say seriously when you make such a basic mistake.

But that's exactly my point. In my view, you also deprive the interested parties in copyright when you don't pay for the content you use or redistribute.

There's no need for ad hominem attacks, we're all civil, nice people on Hacker News.

It's not theft. It's worse. Theft of something like a television means just that physical physical is stolen. It's the cost of doing business.

Over time, if piracy is not stopped, users will get the idea that your software is free and will be unwilling to pay for it in the future. This has the potential to destroy the profits for your entire product. Big companies like Microsoft and Adobe can handle this, but it's devastating to a smaller company.

Companies also lose money through support calls from people that haven't purchased the product (this happens more than you think).

Think about the newspaper industry: It's dying because you can get news stories anywhere, for free. Why would it be any different for the software industry?

Torrentfreak is a pro-piracy site. They want to change the word "theft" to something positive so piracy is accepted as a positive thing. It's not positive.

Piracy is the equivalent of a big company farming their work out to China: they don't want to pay the big prices here (software that's expensive) or worry about restrictions (drm/copy protection), so they go somewhere else where it's cheaper (piracy sites/bittorrent).

You realise that some of your arguments could be applied equally to open source software?

I'm not sure why I got down voted. I made my points and wasn't a troll about it. I suppose down voting = difference of opinion on HN these days.......

yes, and they stand for open source software too. Open source is devaluing developers in the long run. With all of the free open source software being released, many companies don't need software engineers because all of the hard work is already completed. Many only really need software mechanics, which tinker with the already existing code and add features. As more and more owners realize this, salaries for developers will slowly drop.

I've already seen this at a few companies. Instead of hiring a team of developers to work on something, the company hired one developer and used an open source app. You don't really need a college education for this type of work.

Just quick: I downvoted because you made a silly argument. You dismissed physical theft because "it's the cost of doing business" (ignoring physical harm). Then you went on a generic complaint about the decline of industries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com