Piracy

I was just wondering if I was unknowingly being a pirate. I always thought it was only illegal if you made a profit off of it and didn't give the original creator their dues. After reading this thread, about having a copy you didn't pay for I was confused. My brother technically has 9 copies of the CD, that I only bought once. In fact the CD is now being borrowed by his friend. But if his friend makes copies of the CD for his own personal use, then that is pirating (I guess unless my brother says he can keep it). Right?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Right. Well, do you agree with me that piracy is wrong or not?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is generally false, although it's a very common misconception. One specific copyright law - the Copyright Act - says that it's not a violation of that specific law to make a backup copy of computer software for personal use. Whether or not this exception applies to things like music or movies is a grey area.

Also, there are other copyright-related laws (such as the DMCA) that still apply, and there's a good chance you'll end up breaking them if you make a backup copy. The backup exception in the Copyright Act doesn't give you permission to break other laws, like the infamous DMCA. Specifically, the DMCA says that it's illegal to circumvent any "copy protection measure." Since all DVDs/Blue Ray disks and many computer software and music disks have some type of copy protection built into them, there's a good chance that you're doing something illegal when you make a backup copy for personal use. In fact, it's guaranteed that you're doing something illegal if you ever copy a DVD, even if you own it.

You'll note that in the previous paragraph I said "music disk," rather than "CD."
That's because strictly speaking, a music CD is required to have the data encoded in a specific format in order to call itself a CD. That format doesn't have any copy protection built in, so it's probably not illegal to copy them under the DMCA. But a large percentage of the music disks that are released today do have some sort of built-in copy protection, and so aren't technically CDs and can't be legally backed up. Of course, this distinction is lost on the vast majority of people who consider any music disk that you put in a CD player to be a CD.

Note that there's no requirement that the copy protection be effective - there just has to be some copy protection technology present. This is important because many modern CD drives and music-ripping programs are able to automatically defeat the copy protection measures found on music disks and software without the user ever even realizing it; they just put the disk that they purchased into the drive, tell the computer to copy it, and it works - but they have technically done something illegal.

Edit: This is just one more example of a situation in which I don't feel a bit bad about "pirating," even if I'm technically doing something illegal. If I paid for it, I should be able to make a backup copy for personal use, regardless of what the laws say.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ok. i've written countless songs and have well over a dozen albums. plenty of people are pirating them, yet i am not losing money, and so, i am not angry.

and what is this about people "claiming it as their own"? examples?

yet you erroneously claim that a songwriter owns his song--if you care so much about this issue, why don't you bother to educate yourself about it, Norse?

 

I dont know how you came to that conclusion. Unless you want to give your stuff away for free and dont need to make a living from it then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

Let's ask another musician

There are two major factors to consider in that conclusion:

• A good number of pirates wouldn't otherwise buy the album, anyway. No money lost from those.

• Others will acquire the album or songs without paying, decide they like it, and either buy the album a ticket to a concert. And if people buy the album at the concert, it is generally a better deal for the bands.​

I keep posting this article, yet there's always someone who wants to ask the question without considering artist experience:

The NARAS people were a bit more pushy. They told me downloads were "destroying sales", "ruining the music industry", and "costing you money". Costing me money? I don't pretend to be an expert on intellectual property law, but I do know one thing. If a music industry executive claims I should agree with their agenda because it will make me more money, I put my hand on my wallet…and check it after they leave, just to make sure nothing's missing ....

.... Let's take it from my personal experience. My site (www.janisian.com ) gets an average of 75,000 hits a year. Not bad for someone whose last hit record was in 1975. When Napster was running full-tilt, we received about 100 hits a month from people who'd downloaded Society's Child or At Seventeen for free, then decided they wanted more information. Of those 100 people (and these are only the ones who let us know how they'd found the site), 15 bought CDs. Not huge sales, right? No record company is interested in 180 extra sales a year. But… that translates into $2700, which is a lot of money in my book. And that doesn't include the ones who bought the CDs in stores, or who came to my shows.

Or take author Mercedes Lackey, who occupies entire shelves in stores and libraries. As she said herself: "For the past ten years, my three "Arrows" books, which were published by DAW about 15 years ago, have been generating a nice, steady royalty check per pay-period each. A reasonable amount, for fifteen-year-old books. However... I just got the first half of my DAW royalties...And suddenly, out of nowhere, each Arrows book has paid me three times the normal amount!...And because those books have never been out of print, and have always been promoted along with the rest of the backlist, the only significant change during that pay-period was something that happened over at Baen, one of my other publishers. That was when I had my co-author Eric Flint put the first of my Baen books on the Baen Free Library site. Because I have significantly more books with DAW than with Baen, the increases showed up at DAW first.There's an increase in all of the books on that statement, actually, and what it looks like is what I'd expect to happen if a steady line of people who'd never read my stuff encountered it on the Free Library - a certain percentage of them liked it, and started to work through my backlist, beginning with the earliest books published.

"The really interesting thing is, of course, that these aren't Baen books, they're DAW---another publisher---so it's 'name loyalty' rather than 'brand loyalty.' I'll tell you what, I'm sold. Free works."

I've found that to be true myself; every time we make a few songs available on my website, sales of all the CDs go up. A lot. And I don't know about you, but as an artist with an in-print record catalogue that dates back to 1965, I'd be thrilled to see sales on my old catalogue rise.

(Ian)​

There are, of course, a couple of outlets for piracy I don't talk about. It's the industry's and artist's fault that these avenues are available, and there is far more at stake if those avenues are closed than whether or not people pirate albums.

The best an artist can hope for is conscientious fans with discriminating tastes. And some musical styles and trends will encounter higher or lower proportions of "good" fans. Those who cater to mass vapidity can expect the same in return. Those who play to people who genuinely appreciate good music can expect more thoughtful returns.

Think of it this way: Weeks before the first Audioslave album was released, six or seven tracks leaked to the market. Most of my friends hadn't heard that Chris Cornell was working with members of Rage Against the Machine. But then one friend got hold of the leaked tracks and gave copies to all his friends. That resulted in ... well, I know at least five people who were salivating for the album when it finally came out, and actually bought it. Plus the one Chris Cornell addict who found the tracks, who was the only guaranteed sale Audioslave had in this circle of people.

One other major point: in the hysteria of the moment, everyone is forgetting the main way an artist becomes successful - exposure. Without exposure, no one comes to shows, no one buys CDs, no one enables you to earn a living doing what you love. Again, from personal experience: in 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've never once received a royalty check that didn't show I owed them money. So I make the bulk of my living from live touring, playing for 80-1500 people a night, doing my own show. I spend hours each week doing press, writing articles, making sure my website tour information is up to date. Why? Because all of that gives me exposure to an audience that might not come otherwise. So when someone writes and tells me they came to my show because they'd downloaded a song and gotten curious, I am thrilled!

(ibid)​

____________________

Notes:

Ian, Janis. "The Internet Debacle". Performing Songwriter. May, 2002. JanisIan.com. January 18, 2010. http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html

 

well, i need to make a living from it, and i do. i have plenty of complaints about the "music industry," it's simply that piracy isn't one of them. for instance: i go to europe and i get paid anywhere from two to six hundred dollars (150-400 euros) for a show--even when there are only 20 people in attendance--and i get meals, lodging, and often a plane or train ticket. in the u.s., i'm lucky if i break even. that is my primary complaint--the fact is: piracy is doing me, and plenty like me, a world of good.

 

i couldn't agree more. my audience is small--drone hasn't quite caught on in the mainstream and i don't expect it ever shall

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

--yet quite supportive and conscientious: i know some folks who do object to their albums being posted in entirety on blogs (for instance); and when they request that such be removed, the blogger obliges--they needn't "threaten" legal action, it's simply common courtesy.

 

Obviously you are losing money; you are losing the money those people owe you.

Yes, if someone pirates your song, you are losing money; even if 'they wouldn't have gotten it anyway', they still did and so owe you money that you don't have. They have used your song without giving you payment; that' losing money.

That is between the songwriter and the record company; point is, someone owns it and you need to pay.

It isn't enough to only obey the law some of the times; you obey it, or you are a criminal. It is simple as that.

Like this quote from the brilliant Caesar,
"If you must break the law, do it to seize power: in all other cases observe it."

 

I don't think you understand business very well. Think of it like marketing, you spend money putting your product out there, and you get more returns than if you don't. If you keep it just between you and a few friends, your sales are limited and profit lowered.

Heh, if the music industry doesn't want to take more peoples money to make more profit then that works for me! Pretty sure most people could find other things to spend money on. :shrug:

 

ahhh, i see. IOW your silly little emotional appeals make it perfectly clear (as per my speculation in post #221) that you are BOTH profoundly ignorant of any and every aspect of this issue AND you are being disingenuous, as you really couldn't care less about the poor little artist.

and funny that you should use that quote--though not really, it's already perfectly clear to me that you do not understand much of what you read [and puhhlleazzze: do NOT ever mention nietzsche again--i think your "reading" would make elizabeth appear a faithful interpreter.] --"if you must break the law, do it to seize power." hmmm. why don't you think about that one for a while, Norse? or perhaps review from secondary literature regarding that matter.

do you not realize that, as per that quote, caesar would be on the side of the "pathetic, unjust, immoral, impure" in this matter? now, have you thought about that quote for a while? "do it to seize power." now what do you suppose that one means?

alright, i'll give you a while--i'm sure you can figure this one out on your own, Norse.

 

this actually could have been an interesting thread, given that--despite Norsefire's simplistic and uninformed contentions--copyright infringement is NOT all that straightforward. plunderphonics, negativland, the riaa's curious claims to entitlement, there are countless avenues to be explored; instead, here the anti-piracy argument is simply: piracy is theft 'cuz it's illegal and 'cuz someone owns the material. yawn.

so why is this in the "ethics, morality, and justice" subforum? where are these discussions of ethics, morality, and justice? and sorry Norse, i know that you believe that the law defines these notions; but clearly most here believe otherwise.

 

Trying to steer things more in that direction...

One important issue that I've tried to point out several time (but that no one seems to care about) is that intellectual property rights aren't fundamental rights that are considered inherently worthy of respect, like the right to own real property; they exist only for the greater benefit of society.

Is it in the best interest of society for me to have to pay the MPAA once to buy a DVD, and then pay again to buy a separate copy of the same movie to store on my computer's hard drive, because they don't give me permission to copy my legally-purchased DVD onto my computer? Personally, I don't think so...

 

well, i've got my own opinions on any notions of "fundamental" or "inherent" rights, but let's not turn this into yet another discussion of deontological ethics.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

but even where they do "exist"--as legal notions--intellectual property rights are never straightforward, and this is most especially true with matters pertaining to media, and electronic media most especially.

when does a "performance," live or broadcast, become public? should those guys with ridiculously loud automobile stereo systems be obliged to pay ascap/bmi fees? i mean, oftentimes one can hear the performance several blocks away. silly example, but not really all that far-fetched when one examines matters which have become real legal issues.

and the newsbit provided by gustav:

any digital performance of a song falls under the riaa's compulsory license, irrespective of whether or not the artist is in any way affiliated with the riaa? wtf?! "pirate radio" has come a long way since the days of the offshore broadcasters.

 

Of course it could have marketing benefits, but if it isn't done with the consent of the companies then it is still wrong and illegitimate.


Parmalee, your condescending and arrogant attitude is nearly getting you a place on my ignore list. I respect you and hope that we can have civilized discussions, but I am getting tired of your attitude.

 

Non-commercial copyright infringement is criminal in the same way that failure to purchase a parking ticket is criminal. It isn't. It's a civil offense. At least in Australia it is anyway, and most other countries that I know about. If you're going to embrace the law as the ultimate standard of morality and ethics, embrace it properly. Be accurate.

Of course the law isn't necessarily the ultimate standard of ethics and morality, as evidenced by the fact that what is legal isn't always what is ethical and moral, and what is ethical and moral isn't always what is legal. So no, it's not as

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that copyright infringement is moral or ethical. I am pointing out that it's not criminal, unless of course it is on a commercial scale.

 

Then stop saying it "costs money". Your real objection is purely based on the fact that it's against the law, nothing more.

 

well, i wouldn't waste my time responding to you if i didn't have some respect for you as well, Norse--but in this thread you have described those who disagree with your views as pathetic, immoral, criminal, etc., irrespective of whether the individuals in question even engage in piracy! hence my tone here.

copyright law is never simple and straightforward, and even when it is clear that a law is being violated, the severity and nature of the offense is another matter altogether. likewise, who--if anyone--is being wronged is never all that clear either. the riaa has a long history of engaging in questionable--to put it mildly--business practices, and this is one of many reasons that the vast majority of musicians will have nothing whatsoever to do with the riaa. yet in recent years, the riaa has made bold moves in an effort to oblige everyone to be subject to the riaa, whether they choose to be or not. and this complicates the matter tremendously.

 

He's not able to differentiate between actively harming someone and simply not benefiting someone. Or at least, he's not able to differentiate the specific case of actually costing someone money (as in, you harm them by causing them to have less money after your actions than they did before your actions) and simply not paying someone money that the law says is due to them (even though the person still has exactly as much money as they did before, and are not in any way worse off).

Not paying someone money that is due to them does not "harm" them - it's simply not benefiting them. It's an important distinction, because everyone agrees that you have a moral obligation to not harm others, but it's not always clear that you have a moral duty to benefit others. He hasn't yet given any reason why we should be morally obligated to benefit copyright holders, other than "it's the law," which is more of a statement of legal fact rather than an ethical argument.

 

Exactly. I just wish he'd be honest about his objections, instead of lying. But lying isn't always against the law, and is therefore not immoral/pathetic/deserving of death/whatever other nonsense he manages to come up with - so he is perfectly moral and ok to do so, without being a hypocrit. Despite the fact lies and legal practices often harm more people than piracy.
This is without mentioning there is no such thing as a person who never broke any law, including him, and meaning the earth population would be 0 by his own rules.
This thread was never about morality. But I'm off to pirate that alanis morissette song IRONIC.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!