With all of yesterday’s hoopla about SOPA, it’s maybe time to pose this topic for discussion: What constitutes piracy? How and when is it committed? What role does the owner of a copyrighted product have in preventing/promoting the piracy of their product?
Follow up questions: Was using my cassette player to make a grainy and bad-sounding duplication of a radio station broadcast of Pearl Jam’s “Alive” an act of piracy? Was making a “mix tape” for my friends in high school an act of piracy? What do I do if I want a copy of an out-of-print album that is not available in mp3 format?
Additional talking point: iTunes used to have a barrier (protective code) on their mp3 downloads, which the record labels that used iTunes insisted upon, fearing that they would lose money if users were allowed to freely transfer their mp3s to one another. Now the labels have changed their minds, realizing that they will actually SELL MORE mp3s if they don’t have the protective code. How does this decision affect the piracy discussion?
These are questions I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about, and it’s been difficult to find a solid framework on which to build conclusions, despite each side of the argument acting as if the answer is obvious. Let’s get some conversation going here…
15 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 19, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Darius T
Hey dude, not sure I can add much to this conversation, but these two blog posts by a friend of mine were helpful to me in thinking about this issue:
http://zealfortruth.org/2010/09/myths-in-the-modern-church-copyright/
http://zealfortruth.org/2010/11/how-to-distribute-commercial-music-in-the-church-ethically/
January 19, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Seth Earnest
Relevant re: piracy definitions according to U.S. law: http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html
I, too, and trying to wrap my mind around it all. More thoughts later.
January 19, 2012 at 1:06 pm
B.C. McWhite
Arrrr, quit stealin’ me Steve Kahn.
…Someone had to.
January 19, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Samuel James Cook
It’s all piracy. However, the real question is a question of ethics. If a license to view, listen to, print, etc. the piece of intellectual property in question were available for purchase, would you actually do it, or would you still pirate the material?
If the license is not actually available, and the rights of the intellectual property owner are in no way being violated, I don’t believe that it is an ethical problem to “rip” an out-of-print album for personal use. Recording Pearl Jam’s “Alive” from the radio, however, is an ethical issue, as that act may prevent you from purchasing the song in another manner (I assume that particular song is readily available to most who search it out), and therefore prevent Pearl Jam from being compensated for the work they’ve created.
I think it comes down to this: people who are going to steal music are going to steal it no matter what. In the days of “protected” mp3s, one could simply add the song to a playlist, burn it to a redbook CD, and subsequently “rip” the CD back into their library as an unprotected file.
The question to ask is not “how can we add regulations to make it harder for unethical individuals to steal?” but rather, “how can we make people realize that piracy is stealing, and (in some ways, literally) taking bread off of someone else’s plate?”
January 19, 2012 at 7:01 pm
Darius
But is “piracy” stealing? As the links I posted mention, it’s not a scarce good. It’s not stealing to copy something. It’s hard to fathom in our modern mindset of intellectual property, but that’s a modern (18th century and later) concept. It has no real basis in history. Stealing is when you actually take something that is physically someone else’s to the point that they no longer have it. Copying doesn’t do that.
January 19, 2012 at 8:31 pm
Seth Earnest
The huge variable in the piracy issue is the nebulous legal definition of “fair use.” Using copyrighted material w/o the consent and/or licensing of said material from the owner of the copyright is illegal in current U.S. law. Arguing whether it’s stealing or not is semantics. It’s illegal, so it might as well be stealing (I’m talking strictly legally, here–we can talk the philosophical side of this whole issue all night!).
“Fair Use” is defined within these categories on copyright.gov this way:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
As if that’s not subjective enough, the FOLLOWING LINE on that page is, “The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.”
All this being said, ANY distribution of copyrighted material in ANY form is illegal under current U.S. law, except for that which can be argued “fair use,” which is really all about whose attorney is more bad-a.
January 19, 2012 at 2:44 pm
JoeS
Do I dare bring the speeding analogy into this? Government expects people to speed a little and police officers usually don’t pull people over if they are going 5 over. But if you are going over by quite a bit, you get pulled over.
So perhaps record companies understand that there will be sharing, and some of that is good; it helps people find new music to buy. But when you stop buying music because you can get it free, you are cutting into their profits. Whether you like them or not has no bearing on the law and the reality of a free market.
But then finally is the issue of digital music. On one side, I may have 3 different versions of a song (On my computer, on my Ipod, on CD). Or I can make a copy and give it to someone at no cost to anyone and without losing my original file. It’s like taking a picture of a picture (maybe). On the other side, What if only one person buys a CD, rips it, shares it, and everyone else gets a copy of it. The CD could be listened to by everybody in the world and yet still sell only one copy.
I got no conclusions to add. Sorry.
January 19, 2012 at 3:30 pm
B.C. McWhite
I’m inclined to agree in some ways with Joe’s “speeding” analogy.” At least the parallels between it and how piracy works.
The problem with it is that it relies on the “we all do it” ethic. The “we all do it” ethic basically says that if a practice is widespread enough, then that gives it moral and legal legitimacy. “We all” go 5 mph over the speed limit and “we all” (the police) generally don’t pull people over for doing so, therefore going 5 mph over is ethically and legally legit. Same thing goes for jaywalking, smoking 100 ft. from the entrance to a public building (in MN anyway. Most people stand, like 5-10 ft. from the door–especially in the winter), staying “in close proximity” to your car when filling it up at a gas station (again–another bonehead MN law)…
But “everyone” also agrees that the “we all do it” ethic applies only to things that “we all agree” are “minor infractions.” “We all” agree that the “we all do it” ethic doesn’t apply to Rwanda. You don’t get to kill everyone not from your tribe simply because “we all do it.” It seems to be that media piracy falls somewhere between jaywalking and genocide. But I’m not comfortable positioning myself as someone who gets to decide what’s minor, what’s major, where piracy is and where the line is. Which means, if I have any integrity, I shouldn’t make copies of things I don’t have permission to.
Hopefully this is a bit more useful than my prior comment. Probably only slightly, though.
January 19, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Darius T
This is a good explanation on why copyright laws are bad.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2011/08/animated-argument-against-copyright-law/41639/
January 19, 2012 at 8:12 pm
Seth Earnest
When Pearl Jam Ten came out, it was actually legal to record it off of the radio (or a movie on TV or whatever) for “home use.” That was under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. We just couldn’t legally SELL it.
However, in 1998, a new law–the Digital Millennium Copyright Act–was passed which made it illegal to create and/or release any method of sidestepping “protected digital copyrighted material.” It also brought much more serious penalties to violations of copyright done via the internet. All of the crazy RIAA suing 13-year-olds is done under the DMCA.
January 19, 2012 at 8:46 pm
Seth Earnest
All great links and discussions so far! While I agree w/the ethos of the Zeal of Truth blog, I think it ludicrous to compare sharing a song w/Jesus’ feeding miracles (but that’s just me). That blog misses the point in this SOPA discussion precisely because we ARE dealing w/specific U.S. copyright laws, not waxing philosophical about principles of giving, sharing and living together in the Christian life, nor especially physical matter-creating miracles done from the hand of God himself for the physical sustenance of over 5,000 people. [In principle, I agree that Christian authors/songwriters should allow their work(s) to be available to the church for church use, but that's a whole different discussion.]
To this issue (SOPA/piracy/copyright law) specifically: I have a couple players in the game as probably many of you musicians and writers do, as well. My first player is that I’ve made a small (wait…very small) portion of my living for the past 5 or 6 years from money coming in based on selling licensing of my copyrights of a work, i.e. writing songs for CDs being sold for money. I benefit from the *intention* of U.S. copyright law, namely keeping my work “safe” long enough for me to profit from it.
The other player in the game is that I like to get great things for cheap or even free, and I HIGHLY value the idea of sharing creative ideas freely b/c creativity shared breeds more and more creativity. This issue I wrestle with (and apparently the rest of the world) is confusing the two, or justifying an illegal action by twisted reading of the legal action.
“Hey, Seth, have you heard this tune?” Seth heads to YouTube to check it out. Fair use, right? No one’s making money. It’s educational, etc.
“Hey, man, here’s a record for you check out,” as I plug my iPod into someone’s laptop. Umm…fair use? I mean…uhh…right?
In fact, just the other night, I was bequeathed as from an angel on high an amazing record that I couldn’t find for sale online anywhere. Piracy, indeed. Glorious, glorious piracy that has not left my speakers since I got it.
That specific example leads me to my real thoughts on the issue. Accessibility, consumer desire and content quality. The model most used in piracy (file sharing) takes care of all three FOR FREE. I can hop on some torrent site and get anything I want in 5 minutes.
One step up from that? iTunes Music Store. Flawless accessibility of anything my little consumer heart desires for 99 cents. Oh, wait…what’s that? iTunes blew the doors off the music industry by providing EXACTLY what people wanted?
COPYRIGHT OWNERS NEED TO MAKE THEIR CRAP EASILY ACCESSIBLE AND PRICED REASONABLY FOR ANYONE LOOKING.
Will piracy still exist? Yes. So do bank robberies. And drug trafficking. And murders. Those are like highest-level felonies right there. And they happen every day. Piracy will happen. But creating BOMB content with easy accessibility all within a reasonable price range, and most people will get the wallet out.
Man, I write too much.
January 20, 2012 at 11:25 am
Steve Goold
Seth wins.
January 20, 2012 at 11:30 am
B.C. McWhite
That’s your contribution to the discussion, Steve? That was less useful than my first comment.
January 20, 2012 at 11:32 am
Steve Goold
Calm down… my contribution is coming in the form of it’s own post, because it’s my blog and I can do that.
January 20, 2012 at 11:36 am
B.C. McWhite
Oh, you’re pulling the “It’s my blog and I can _____ if I want to” card. Hm. Bush league.
Looking forward to the post, dude.