If you're a regular reader, you'll know that I feel uncomfortable about a neat and simple distinction between piracy and theft. I don't think it should be assumed that copyright law is always correct in its understanding of theft.
Here's some advice on the topic on AFES' webSalt.
There's some good advice here, but it draws the link to tightly and also only recommend cheap ways of buying Microsoft software, rather than recommending open source stuff.
Some advice on piracy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
There is a bucket-load of spam in the comments on the link there...
I don't think "copyright law" is always correct either, unfortunately the workhorse word for the Christian isn't "copyright", but "law".
We may not agree, but we have to follow it :S
Having read through the article, I think it is wrong.
Illegal copying is not theft because you are not deprived of something as a result of my actions.
Every time I see an ad saying "it's just like stealing a car", I think that it is nothing like that at all. And I imagine little pirates being confirmed more and more in their justification of piracy because they see the distinction between stealing and copying.
Christians should be saying it is wrong because it is against the law of the land, not because it is breaking the eighth commandment.
I read someone's suggestion the other day that fraud might be a better way of looking at it.
"you are not deprived of something as a result of my actions"
Well, you are, though perhaps indirectly. My best friend's husband used to support both of them on the proceeds from his albums and tours. He used to make a plea to his audience that if they enjoyed his music, to please purchase it from a legitimate source. If people went out and downloaded pirated copies of his CDs because they didn't think it was "stealing," he and Kelsey didn't pay rent.
If you grant that many people download music illegally that they would otherwise buy, what those people are doing is stealing -- stealing royalties and dividends.
It's hard to be sympathetic to anti-piracy advocates like the guys from Metallica, because they're millionaires anyway. And I definitely think that copyright laws are often draconian and steam-rollerish.
My two (or ten) cents.
If you grant that many people download music illegally that they would otherwise buy
But I wouldn't grant that. In many, many cases there is no loss of sale. If they didn't pirate it, they wouldn't buy it instead.
The best way of preventing piracy is to put a face on the "victim", so that they can see they are hurting a real human person, not just a faceless corporation.
The "but they're millionaires, so it doesn't count" argument is also pretty dodgy - by that standard just about anyone poorer than me could take anything I have because it won't hurt me as much as it would them.
---
BTW - please don't read me as all for piracy, I'm not at all. It used to frustrate my friends that I wouldn't copy stuff for them to have, and that I won't download TV shows etc (except where it is legal). My wife got really annoyed because my conscience kicked in at episode 18 (of 20) on Battlestar Galactica. Right at a cliffhanger...
Right, I cut out the bit in my previous reply where I said that there's not a one-to-one relationship between the music people download and the music they would otherwise have bought. But I guess I don't get why taking a candy bar from the shop is LESS wrong because you wouldn't have bought it if you HAD had the money.
And I was trying (badly, I guess) to point out that the Metallica guys don't do a lot for the anti-piracy "cause" IMO because people get a Robin Hood complex about it.
I get that there are some complexities at work, I really do -- I'm as big a fan of Cory Doctorow as the next person -- but I also see that many of my friends who are recording artists suffer directly and immediately when people see piracy as something less than depriving artists of their due. Dig? :)
I don't get why taking a candy bar from the shop is LESS wrong because you wouldn't have bought it if you HAD had the money
If the candy bar you took was magically replaced so the shop still had exactly the same amount of candy once you took it, then this analogy would work.
That's the problem. There is no correspondence between a digital file and a physical object. If I copy the digital item, you still have it, I haven't deprived you of anything. Everything you had before, you still have now. Only I also have it.
The law says we don't copy (except where people specifically let us), so we don't copy. It's not stealing, because the victims still have exactly what they started with.
It feels like I am arguing for pirates here.
I really am not, I don't like piracy, and I don't practice it - I just don't think saying "piracy is stealing" is right.
"That's the problem. There is no correspondence between a digital file and a physical object. If I copy the digital item, you still have it, I haven't deprived you of anything. Everything you had before, you still have now. Only I also have it."
Not quite - the wax roll, 78, 45 , LP, audio cassette & CD all carried something that you paid for - the royalties of the song writer, the performer, and the wages of the distributor (at least). When you purchased any of these you paid for more than just a blank transport/storage/replay medium. That still holds for a digital file.
Try telling a lawyer that he still has the advice he gave you over the phone, so no one has lost anything if you don't pay his bill.
Back to mikey's post and the original post premise - Obeying the law of the land when the majority don't is one way of exhibiting our willingness to show God's changes in our lives.
The large corporations who appear to be making excess profits will themselves be answerable to God for their actions. It's not our task to 'judge' them by illegally copying.
As Laura has explained there are far more smaller organisations & people losing income for their work anyway.
A colleague of mine runs http://questioncopyright.org/ -- it's a thoughtful website proposing alternatives to the current structure without being extremist, alarmist or paranoid. I highly recommend it.
Some pointers for the discussion:
* "Piracy" (yarrrr!) and "theft" are both emotionally laden terms, Australian lawyers prefer "infringing copyright"
* In the digital world, viewing is copying
* Almost everyone agrees that artists should be paid and that the law should enforce this
* Business and law both make a distinction between actual cost and opportunity cost
* The current system of musicians making money through selling recordings has only been around for a century, for print authors only about five centuries. Get some perspective.
* http://www.unhappybirthday.com/
To me, I'm much more interested by DRM than copyright.
Gahreuaroe
Unhappy Birthday, Question Copyright
Thanks for your comments, jml. Very helpful list of clarifications and suggestions.
DRM does feel pretty sleazy.
Post a Comment