" Piracy "

[mukund_nadkarni]

I want a Ferrari, doesn't mean I go down the road and nick one.

How is this analogous to Piracy? Pirating that Ferrari would leave the original Ferrari in it's place while you'll get one of your own. A copy in other words. The Ferrari owner would loose nothing here. Apart from a bit of his Ferrari's exclusivity maybe! Well I do believe if it was possible to pirate a Ferrari everyone would be having one. I wish it were possible.:upray

I'd be pirating the Ferrari 360 Modena, my dream car!

 

[Highlander999]

Depends on your definition of piracy. For instance pirates a few centuries ago, would steal items and sail away. However, your definition, mukund, is also correct, so in a round about way, you are both correct in the terms you use.

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

You bring up a very good point Tom. The definition of Piracy. I can't help but wonder how it came about to be called as piracy when it is essentially copying. Copying, absolutely anything, is a fundamental right, not necessarily enshrined in the law however. I tend to think that it was either the media companies which labeled copying as 'piracy' or maybe even those who copied took that title themselves as a symbol of defiance.

 

[Sureshot]

It does have several definitions. Obviously media piracy is very different to "Ahar me hearties" piracy...

I have and will always class media piracy as stealing. Maybe my analogy of the ferrari wasn't so good as it is an actual physical form, rather than lots and lots of little bits and bytes.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

It's basically just robbing the owner a chance of earning something off it. With the vodka analogy, you are robbing the salesman not of his Vodka, but of people who would otherwise buy it. He still has his vodka, the only problem is that people would now rather buy it off the guy around the corner who is selling the exact same thing for a fraction of the price, or even giving it away for free. He hasn't lost his vodka, just earning he could have made from it.


This, in an indirect way, could equate to stealing the money from him, and so stealing vodka from him.


As for the sharing vodka thing, when you share it with your friends, you give everyone a portion of it. With piracy, you give them a whole copy of the real thing. It is like scanning the vodka bottle and giving each of your friends a copy, which isn't right (Cause we have Copyright laws for that...)

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

He hasn't lost his vodka, just earning he could have made from it.

Personally, I don't buy the vodka analogy or any other analogy that compares the act of 'stealing' of a physical quantity like a vodka or a Ferrari with the act of copying digital data. The two things are fundamentally different, none more so than in the way digital data can be copied while not affecting the original copy itself or the ownership of that copy in any way.

But the argument about the loss of earning potential is indeed a pertinent one. In fact that is what is the fundamental issue in this debate, isn't it? Now, if one had to turn back the clock to when the Industrial Revolution had yet to happen, how were the different articles of daily consumption (as also other articles) produced? There were no machines so obviously every activity required manual labour. How much that labour requirement might have shrunk in the aftermath of the Industrial revolution? Isn't it the same as loss of earning potential? I do think that technology and society are intimately intertwined. The constraints of technology define to an extent the nature in which people function in a society, at least in the economic sphere. The Industrial Revolution made manual labour redundant in a major way. The digital technology today is similarly challenging the way digital media is produced and distributed and thus the earning potential digital products carry. In fact the earning potential of any digital work is as much dependant on the constraints of technology at that moment. Today technology has overcome some of those constraints that limited the manner in which we could copy and trasmit data. Consequently some things are now going to be rendered redundant. Like the system in which we pay for software and music is redundant already. Now those who run this system will obviously protest. Infact, believe it or not, they are actually trying to portray copying as unethical and immoral! Now I'm pretty sure there will be small companies, developers etc who will suffer because of these changes but the solution to that lies elsewhere and certainly not in defending the present system. The loss of earning potential has to be addressed, but if they think they'll be able to convince people that they are 'stealing' when they clearly aren't, then they are wasting their time. It's time to get a move on now. Time for a new system.

 

[Sureshot]

But I think the point is that digital data has the same rights as physical data. You own digital data in the exact same manner you own physical data.

 

[Gurjot95]

I have a question
I know downloading a song from other site free is illegal It means then downloading a youtube video will also be illegal?isn't it?

Many users download a video from youtube and it's free so I think it also includes in piracy

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

But I think the point is that digital data has the same rights as physical data. You own digital data in the exact same manner you own physical data.

And how does that change anything? You own your house, you own the software you developed. I have a copy of your software. You still own the software you developed. In fact if anything, the ownership of software in the same way as ownership of physical property is now redundant. Actually if it were to be possible to copy your house in the same way as copying digital data, then again you'd still be owning your house. It really means nothing now. As for the loss of revenue for the developer, that needs to be addressed, but why does the developer expect me give up my freedom of choice to suit him? Why, didn't they suit themselves all this time?

It's funny to an extent actually. I mean if all the governments of the world decide they wan't to get rid of Piracy, they can. A law that prohibits ISPs from providing access to peer to peer sites will do it to a large extent. Now how come that has not happened so far? I suspect they are all in it for money!

mukund_nadkarni added 4 Minutes and 47 Seconds later...

I have a question
I know downloading a song from other site free is illegal It means then downloading a youtube video will also be illegal?isn't it?

Many users download a video from youtube and it's free so I think it also includes in piracy

Interesting question actually! Never really thought about it. A majority of You tube videos do amount copyright infringement. So in a way yes, it would also come under piracy. However in this case, I wonder how one identifies the pirate?

 

[Sureshot]

If the host of the video is the copyright holder, then they can distribute the media how they see fit.

 

[tech.007]

Downloading illegal content =Stealing a product from a Shop Which itself is illegal.


So who shall be punished first the customer or the shop owner?

You See in countries where people dont have money to get the treatment for diseases like Cancer/AIDS.....purchasing a 200$ Software is impossible.

 

[sohum]

But I think the point is that digital data has the same rights as physical data. You own digital data in the exact same manner you own physical data.

You don't own it in the same way because physical data is dictated by the laws of physics. Physical data cannot be effectively "cloned".

The problem with the laws, imo, is that they equate physical data with digital data. That said, I cannot think of how the laws could be amended to make it more in tune without destroying the business model of the music and software industries.

I know Microsoft is addressing this by implementing licensing-based products instead of purchasing product. Essentially, you will be "subscribing" to the software. So you can go and get the actual product from any place you want and then you have to subscribe to the license. So if you only want to use it for a year, you pay for that year. After you're done, you're done, unless you want to renew your license. Hence, copying software would achieve nothing since you would still need to buy a license to actually use it.

However, this is somewhat of a DRM issue. For example, there are music stores (I think Real's Rhapsody is one of them) that has a subscription fee and you can download and listen to as many tracks as you want while you are subscribed. However, your rights to that file disappear when you unsubscribe. It's a queasy issue.

sohum added 3 Minutes and 21 Seconds later...

I have a question
I know downloading a song from other site free is illegal It means then downloading a youtube video will also be illegal?isn't it?

Many users download a video from youtube and it's free so I think it also includes in piracy

It is not piracy, but it is a violation of terms of use, which is essentially a legally binding contract. The YouTube terms of use state:

5. E. You agree to not engage in the use, copying, or distribution of any of the Content other than expressly permitted herein, including any use, copying, or distribution of User Submissions of third parties obtained through the Website for any commercial purposes.

If an artist was to sue YouTube for allowing files to be downloaded and provided IP addresses/identification details of the downloader, YouTube could simply sue those downloaders for violation of contract.

 

[Bibu07]

Downloading illegal content =Stealing a product from a Shop Which itself is illegal.


So who shall be punished first the customer or the shop owner?

You See in countries where people dont have money to get the treatment for diseases like Cancer/AIDS.....purchasing a 200$ Software is impossible.

The (so called)shop owner will be punished becasue he is the one distributing(actually redistributing) and the (so called)customer are just consumers, like Adam consume the apple given by Eve. So the bottom line is that both can be punished, but it doesn't work out in this stupid, stinking, arrogant, corrupted world of ours.
This is how it usually goes,
A shop sells illegal(pirated) movies etc. then the police get news so they set up a Raid team and plan to storm the place and sieze everything, but somehow(Dont know how) the shop keeper gets the news priorly, and on the day of Raid, SHOP CLOSED! they call it a general holiday, and also the dumb Raid team, goes back reporting, nothing illegal, everything is fine, Case closed.

 

[Sureshot]

You don't own it in the same way because physical data is dictated by the laws of physics. Physical data cannot be effectively "cloned".

Legally, you own it in the same way.

 

[Insomniac]

The (so called)shop owner will be punished becasue he is the one distributing(actually redistributing) and the (so called)customer are just consumers, like Adam consume the apple given by Eve. So the bottom line is that both can be punished, but it doesn't work out in this stupid, stinking, arrogant, corrupted world of ours.
This is how it usually goes,
A shop sells illegal(pirated) movies etc. then the police get news so they set up a Raid team and plan to storm the place and sieze everything, but somehow(Dont know how) the shop keeper gets the news priorly, and on the day of Raid, SHOP CLOSED! they call it a general holiday, and also the dumb Raid team, goes back reporting, nothing illegal, everything is fine, Case closed.

But this shop has been open for the last 4 years...

(I think YouTube started in 2005?)