The thing about copyright infringement: Everyone’s at it.*
Is indignation rising to the back of your throat, as you silently voice “I am not!” ?
Here’s a quick questionnaire you can take to prove that you, unlike all those nasty pirates, have not ever infringed copyright. On the other hand, if you answer yes to any of the below, you may have to consider investing in a wooden leg.
Have you ever:
1) Made an eighties mix tape?
2) Recorded anything off the TV?
3) Transferred music from a CD you bought onto an MP3 player?
4) Printed something off the internet?
5) Retweeted someone else’s comment?
Arrrrha, me hearties! You be welcome aboard thar great grand ship known as “Piracy.”
“But... but,” I imagine some people weakly stuttering, “that’s different.”
Why is it different? Copying something that you don’t own the right to is, in a nutshell, copyright infringement. While calling it “piracy” is new, the act of copyright infringement itself is not - it wasn’t created by the internet, and it certainly doesn’t doom the entertainment industry to financial ruin.
There are a number of common myths about the serious badness of digital pirates, and while some arguments have merit, others are simply uninformed regurgitated paranoia.
Main arguments against piracy seem to be:
1) It’s wrong, don’t do it.
2) You are robbing artists of their livelihoods.
3) The whole entertainment industry will crash, thousands of jobs on the line, no one will make movies anymore.
4) You’ll be caught and bankrupted by the fines.
Before I address each of these points, I should start by making it clear: I am not saying that “it’s okay” to breach copyright. Someone who creates something does deserve the right – morally and legally – to be able to control their content. I am one of those content creators myself, and I don’t want to be ripped off the one thing I do own.
However, rather than fighting against something that is a common practice in households around the world, and one we are all guilty of to some degree, I think it’s best we come out and examine how we can find a reasonable middle ground.
Obviously some acts of copyright infringement are not as bad as others. Just like when you kill someone, there are considerations when judging seriousness of the crime:
a) Self defence (didn’t have a choice)
b) Manslaughter (it was an accident)
c) Crime of passion (impulsive)
d) Premeditated (planned it)
e) Contract killing (did it for profit)
f) Level of brutality (pleasure in inflicting pain)
g) Mass murder (did it to many times and will again, given the chance)
Calling a one-off copier a “pirate”, and using the same term for an operation that mass produces and sells illegal copies, is like calling someone who acted in self defence a “psychopath.” The term is a clear exaggeration, and the lack of sub categories is a failure to accurately measure variations in the extent of the crime.
If we want to be able to discuss this topic properly, we need to ensure that we’re comparing apples to apples, not apples to sea biscuits. Here’s my first attempt at labelling different categories of digital copyright infringers:
Purchaser: someone who makes a copy of something that they have purchased, as a back up or for multipurpose use (e.g. listening on mp3 player).
Hostage: someone who acquires an illegal copy because there is no legal alternative (e.g. old tv show that hasn’t been released for purchase, but someone has uploaded a bootleg, or recorded it off the tv).
Previewer: someone who acquires an illegal copy and, if they like it, will convert to purchase.
Pauper: someone who acquires an illegal copy because the retail price is too high - they would like to pay for it, but the price needs to be reasonable.
Thief: someone who acquires an illegal copy with no intention of ever paying regardless of whether they like it or not.
Guerrilla: someone who takes pleasure in causing havoc for the “capitalists/establishment” by spreading as many files as possible, with the argument that everything should be free to the public, not lining someone else’s pocket.
Racketeer: someone who makes multiple copies to sell as a commercial operation.
What do you think of these categories? Have I missed something? Or got it wrong? Let me know, and then in a further post I will address the arguments for and against various forms of digital copyright infringement.
*And yes, I did "pirate" that line from a Lily Allen song. Out of context, of course, and with some degree of irony, seeing she herself launched an 'anti-piracy' blog.Oh, she'd be pissed...Unless, perhaps, she realised that I'm also a 'fan' of her music who has bought her CD and paid to see her in concert. Admittedly, only after first hearing her music for FREE on Triple J. Ah, this relationship between 'free' and 'paid' is more complicated than black and white.
Categories look good except the
ReplyDelete"Pauper: someone who acquires an illegal copy because the retail price is too high - they would like to pay for it, but the price needs to be reasonable."
If you can't afford it- save up and buy it. Support is the key. If you hate the arts- pirate until all content dries up and goes away.
If you support the arts don't pirate- buy indie!
First, please revisit the "copyright infringement" v "stealing" issue in a later post.
ReplyDeleteConfusing real/property rights with copyright tends to cause the moral v. legal fuzziness. "Piracy is morally wrong because it's stealing" is not the same as "Piracy is morally wrong." As you noted, there is no such thing as copyright theft.
Second, I like the categories, but some definitions are based on empirically-provable actions, while others are defined by intention.
Can you define them all based on action (or have a second set that explored intention)?
Your current set allows that a pirate could be a Hostage in action but a Thief in intention. This might cause confusion.
It feels like you are mixing types of pirate activity with intentions/reasons for pirate behavior/mentality. Both equally valuable for exploration, but mixing them indiscriminately might add to the confusion you are trying to eliminate.
Or maybe not. I could be splitting hairs here.
Regardless, thanks for pushing the conversation forward!
Thanks for your comments :)
ReplyDeleteScott, can you suggest alternatives? I'm just taking a pot guess so, any suggestions are welcome.
I do think intention is something to consider in addition to action, as - in the case of killing someone - the act can be the same but have one instance considered "self defense" and another considered "murder".
However, I am not a lawyer, so I don't pretend to know the ins and outs, just trying to find a way that we can break down the topic of "piracy" so we can address the arguments without lumping all types in together (which no one will agree on).
On reflection, perhaps it isn't the roles, per se, but how I'm afraid they may be used in the discussion.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't really have an idea how you want to frame the discussion (attempt an education about actual copyright law, touch on how content creators come to terms with digital piracy, suggest alternatives to litigation for copyright infringement, etc.).
I shouldn't be criticizing the roles until I have a better understanding of how you plan on using them.
The most common place for piracy discussions to go off the rails is when intentions of the pirate and/or personal moral/ethical considerations are substituted for what is actually written in the legal code for determining whether infringement has occurred.
I believe the roles will have limited value and/or inject confusion when discussing whether a party is guilty of infringement based on the existing framework of law (and admittedly, I'm only familiar with U.S. law!).
But they could be *very* beneficial if you're approaching it from a perspective of what content creators can/should do in the face of trying to eliminate/mitigate piracy in the digital age.
The kind of granular distinctions your roles allow for will be most helpful in that analysis.
Hi Scott,
ReplyDeleteI guess the point I'm making is that we are all in breach of copyright law on some level, so there's no point discussing piracy on a purely "legal" basis.
Where people really differ is how they view it morally, how bad they think it is, and for this I think we need to acknowledge that you can't use a blanket term for all forms of piracy. By sub labelling different types, we might be able to find a middle ground in discussion that both sides can live with.
At the moment a huge amount of debate continues to rage, and huge sums of money and police work are being dedicated to this - without reaching solutions. What would be a solution that people could agree on?
And the point from there? Perhaps laws need to be updated to reflect more of the middle ground. You know, in some places it's illegal to be gay, but legal to beat a woman - sometimes "the law" isn't in line with other values.
Luci,
ReplyDeleteAs I said, your proposed roles will be *very* beneficial if you are discussing the issue outside of the legal framework.
Are the laws horribly out of date with technology and out of touch with reality? You bet. I think copyright law is horribly whacked in the U.S., and the chances of getting it changed for the better are bleak (ACTA, anyone?).
Still, I'm going to take umbrage with anyone who is tossing moral and legal issues in the same piracy bowl. That's a pointless exercise that's unlikely to end in conversion on either side. And I see it happening all the time.
I am all for anything that will help us have more meaningful discussions, and I am respectful of your attempt to bridge the gap.
Style-wise, I tend to go with a different tack.
And who knows? Perhaps we'll make some progress with lots of people working towards the same goal from different angles.
I'm in your camp, even if I'm on the other side of the fire! :)
I think that as a content creator, you want to see your work recognised, and when it is being recognised, that it's being acknowledged as yours.
ReplyDeleteAs a musician/painter/writer/whatever, you want as many people as possible to have the ability to consume your work. If they are doing so by sharing it "illegally", I think this is no bad thing. It is allowing someone who had not previously had the desire to purchase the work, to be exposed to it and potentially become a 'fan'.
They may then become advocates over time and encourage others to find o9ut about you or your work for themselves, and as a consequence, some may part with their hard earned cash.
It seems to me that the only people who lose out when these transactions of content occur are middlemen, such as publishers or record companies.
They want to keep control of the content to be able to charge for it. If it's freely available, they lose their primary source of income.
Culture should be free for everyone and the Internet is allowing this to happen at a greater rate than ever before.
The way we're consuming content is changing and it is upto the guys in the middle to adapt by offering better value to potential consumers and acknowledging existing consumers.
Hi Luci,
ReplyDeleteInteresting in the way you phrase your groups. The one I found troubling is Guerrilla:
"someone who takes pleasure in causing havoc for the “capitalists/establishment” by spreading as many files as possible, with the argument that everything should be free to the public, not lining someone else’s pocket."
Now I guess you could say that I am a guerrilla. I have a web site that post files for as many folks to download as possible, and we do believe that in our case these files make sense to be free, as the target audience probably can't afford them. Of course, what is different is that we create our own material and give it away for free.
Our project creates software and training materials for emergency service agencies. We are targeting the small, volunteer agencies that can't afford a lot of money for training materials and software. We feel that it is better for these folks to spend the money on stuff like Defibrillators, medical aid kits, fire hose, axes, etc. Stuff that can really help save lives and property.
Unfortunately a lot of the open source folks are lumped in as 'pirates' and the definition of Guerrilla in your article sure comes close to us.
One comment I would like to leave you with, something to think about. The overwhelming majority of firefighters and EMTs in this country all volunteers. They spend their own money to learn the craft, and the majority spend their entire lives performing this service for free. Some even die. Its very discouraging to think that simply because they are not paid, they are any less professional than the folks that are.
Yet we do the same thing to the folks who donate their creative works to the community called the internet. As if by offering their work for free, it has less value, or it is attempting to take value away from those who earn money from their creative work. That appears to be the definition you have adopted in Guerrilla. How about give that one another thought?