PIRACY!
Research recently done in Switzerland has resulted in the downloading and uploading of copyrighted materials being kept legal. Downloading has been legal in Switzerland for a while now, but the research brings out a few valid arguments for not banning piracy. Yet the ethical aspect of not making piracy illegal has, and most likely will be challenged. The prominence of non-tangible media has brought along a need for research in both the mind of the consumer as well as his purchasing habits.
As the Swiss research points out, people who pirate copyrighted software are also the ones who spend the most money buying entertainment and interactive media, as well as going to concerts and so on. This is a valid point, as well as a large misunderstanding on the part of the media producers. The idea that finding a way to decrease piracy is a valid method to increase profits, is in it’s essence, false. The understanding may be more truthful when dealing with actual tangible products. Like cars, for example. Yet when the property a company is making profit from is digital, this equation just doesn’t work. Yet another point that the Swiss research brought out, is that the piracy of software is complementary, not exclusive. The money used to buy software of all kinds is prognosed to say the same. As such, the amount of software bought as a result of making piracy illegal will not increase, it will stay the same.
Another point that the Swiss bring out, is that piracy and free sharing is the modus operandi of the Internet and that the producers of media and software should not try to battle it, but rather to try and strive thanks to it. It is said that piracy is sort of a filter, thanks to which the good software thrives and the weak falls behind because nobody actually buys it. This is yet another valid argument. If the software is good enough, it will be bought enough times for a gigantic profit to be made. Another way is to provide some sort of benefits to legally owning a piece of software. Some added functionality, or top notch customer support will motivate your end-user to pay for your software even after he has pirated it. Many games can only be played in multiplayer when the game is purchased, for example. This gives ample motivation for people to buy software and is a good filter to see what software is actually good and what isn’t.
Yet, even when considering this liberal way of thought, there are still people who just pirate because they want to, with no intention of supporting the developer or producer. And there is indeed no denying that piracy is a form of theft, and as such, a criminal violation. So at its roots, the decision Switzerland made is still legalizing theft. It does not matter whether the product is tangible or not, it is still theft. The psychology of the thief might be different, but sadly there is no “middle way” to combat piracy. You’re either a thief or you aren’t, nobody can be a semi-thief. So the only choices are basically to make it illegal or keep it legal, because there can be no partial legalization of theft.
The ethical issue of theft is more complex by an order of magnitude, due to the thing being stolen not actually being tangible. There is a great divide between the mindset of pirates and thieves, yet they have to be penalized in the same way. The arguments the Swiss research paper makes are valid, yet the choice of not banning piracy is still making theft legal. Yet the other choice would not completely be right as well. The hope is that developers of software will start thinking up new and new ways, not to combat piracy, but to make their products more and more enticing so that the end user would be more compelled to pay for their software.
As the Swiss research points out, people who pirate copyrighted software are also the ones who spend the most money buying entertainment and interactive media, as well as going to concerts and so on. This is a valid point, as well as a large misunderstanding on the part of the media producers. The idea that finding a way to decrease piracy is a valid method to increase profits, is in it’s essence, false. The understanding may be more truthful when dealing with actual tangible products. Like cars, for example. Yet when the property a company is making profit from is digital, this equation just doesn’t work. Yet another point that the Swiss research brought out, is that the piracy of software is complementary, not exclusive. The money used to buy software of all kinds is prognosed to say the same. As such, the amount of software bought as a result of making piracy illegal will not increase, it will stay the same.
Another point that the Swiss bring out, is that piracy and free sharing is the modus operandi of the Internet and that the producers of media and software should not try to battle it, but rather to try and strive thanks to it. It is said that piracy is sort of a filter, thanks to which the good software thrives and the weak falls behind because nobody actually buys it. This is yet another valid argument. If the software is good enough, it will be bought enough times for a gigantic profit to be made. Another way is to provide some sort of benefits to legally owning a piece of software. Some added functionality, or top notch customer support will motivate your end-user to pay for your software even after he has pirated it. Many games can only be played in multiplayer when the game is purchased, for example. This gives ample motivation for people to buy software and is a good filter to see what software is actually good and what isn’t.
Yet, even when considering this liberal way of thought, there are still people who just pirate because they want to, with no intention of supporting the developer or producer. And there is indeed no denying that piracy is a form of theft, and as such, a criminal violation. So at its roots, the decision Switzerland made is still legalizing theft. It does not matter whether the product is tangible or not, it is still theft. The psychology of the thief might be different, but sadly there is no “middle way” to combat piracy. You’re either a thief or you aren’t, nobody can be a semi-thief. So the only choices are basically to make it illegal or keep it legal, because there can be no partial legalization of theft.
The ethical issue of theft is more complex by an order of magnitude, due to the thing being stolen not actually being tangible. There is a great divide between the mindset of pirates and thieves, yet they have to be penalized in the same way. The arguments the Swiss research paper makes are valid, yet the choice of not banning piracy is still making theft legal. Yet the other choice would not completely be right as well. The hope is that developers of software will start thinking up new and new ways, not to combat piracy, but to make their products more and more enticing so that the end user would be more compelled to pay for their software.
Joel L, 
Sander, and 
Joel L 13:55 on December 13, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
If piracy was not possible, people would buy things. (So no, it is not false).
I would say the issue is with the (unsuccessful) methods used in trying to decrease piracy.
You say that “that piracy and free sharing is the modus operandi of the Internet”. So do you think things should never change? “Free sharing (of other people’s work)” is not the same as free speech.
—
Why is it bad to combat piracy? The aim should be to provide services people want and can easily pay for, not work around the premise that “everybody steals, now what?”
Sander 20:05 on December 15, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The aim SHOULD indeed be providing services that people actually want to pay for, but what I’m trying to argue against is the idea of “1 less pirated copy = 1 more bought copy”. Combating piracy is not bad in anyway, it is still combating crime. But doing so under the pretense that the thing being stolen is even remotely similiar to something tangible. A sausage is indeed just a collection of molecules just as software is a collection of bits. But its not treated the same.
It is difficult (NOT impossible) to percieve something you never actually have any physical contact with as something of equal value with a sausage. Especially when you can copy, share, and recreate anything an endless amount of times. All the contact you have with it is seeing a collection of pixels on your screens that are supposed to symbolize the same value that a box and a disk would have on your desk, they do not
. A point in my essay was that when the product is good enough, people will still buy it, did I not make that clear?
Free sharing is not like free speech, that much is true. Yet limiting file sharing could have very similiar implications.
Joel L 09:29 on December 16, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Still – if redistributing other people’s work is declared illegal, how does that have implications on free speech?
Crime in the physical world is not illegal because it is “bad”, it is illegal because it harms people (etc).
Content-producing corporations may argue that “pirated copy = money lost”, but this is because it’s their agenda, and most of the people are still gullible enough to believe it. But the fact that it is not a direct correlation, doesn’t make the argument invalid, and does not make stealing justified.
If a county applies capital punishment for petty crimes, it is unacceptable for most people, but does still not make the crimes themselves acceptable.
—
Are ideas worthless? Is the value of a book only in the amount of paper it is printed on?
Paavo Viilup 08:53 on December 15, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Answer Joel’s question!
Anyway, isn’t a sausage also just an organised collection of molecules, just like a file is an organised collection of bits? And when I eat the sausage it’s as if it never existed!