Obsolete Debate: Is online piracy ever justifiable?

[dig]

For a lot of people, online piracy is a heated topic. Do you, as a consumer, ever have the right to illegally download a copyrighted piece of work?

I think generally no, but that there are some exceptions where piracy is justifiable.

I pay for Spotify and Netflix, and I buy lots of physical media every month. Say if I own a CD, it works absolutely fine, I know the physical location of it, but for whatever reason I want to download a copy of it instead of ripping directly from my copy of the CD, would that be justifiable? I already own the physical media, am I not entitled to a digital copy acquired through means outside of ripping? I think in this case it should be legally fine. It isn't, but it should be.

If I already own something, should I not have the right to transfer that data into a format that better suits me? I've already paid for it, the artist and record labels have gotten their money, so why can't I use my copy to best suit my needs?

Discuss!

 

[CrackFox]

Morally it's not. It's technically breaking the law which makes you basically a criminal in the eyes of society. I don't personally think it makes you a bad person though. Depends what you're downloading whether it actually makes a difference. In some cases downloading cinema cam rips increases dvd sales, same with PC games and tv shows. Music is probably the only exception. Music is pretty much about the digital copy. Not many people value having physical CDs anymore so they get exactly the same content whether they download from a torrent site or buy from Itunes. The same can't be said about movies, tv shows and PC games. I don't pirate music, I just use spofity or youtube. When it comes to tv shows I get them asap because i'd rather watch my shows as soon as possible rather than waiting x amount of days/weeks/months for them to air on tv in Britain. I don't believe downloading tv shows affects anybody. Last year the most downloaded tv show on torrents sites was Game of Thrones. The producers said they were very happy with that and believed it helped in the long term with DVD sales etc.

I don't disagree with pirating or judge those who do it. I don't believe it hurts anyone aside from the music industry which admittedly it probably does. Still I can't bring myself to sympathise with big record companies. There are terrible things happening in the world everday so do I care that a record company is losing sales on the next Nicki Minaj album? No. The majority of money is made after the album is released and doesn't rely on sales anyway. They still have world tours, guest appearances and numerous royalties coming in from it so it's not like they wont make a crazy amount of money.

Also piracy is piracy if you do it in any shape or form you're breaking the same law and you are as bad as the next person. People who say 'I only did it once or twice' or 'I only get it because blah blah blah' are still breaking the law and have no right to look down on anybody else whether they only do it occassionally or not.

 

[Stuntology]

No, with one tiny exception: I'd say it's okay if you physically own a copy (not 'used to own') and your pirated version is used solely on whatever platform your other version can be used on.

It's always illegal (at least in my country), and other than the above case, I'd say unethical as well. The sooner that most people realize that it'll destroy the entertainment industry from the inside out, the better.

 

[Lord_Mewtwo]

I am pro official release with a few exceptions, and the only things I pirate is the Japanese version of the Pokemon Anime because I know it will never see an American release, so I really have no choice & anything that is so out of print you can't get it anymore like many foreign language Disney soundtracks, but for everything else I buy it .

 

[Osprey]

It's stealing. So no, not justifiable. Especially because this kind of thievery can't be excused by "necessity," like how stealing food or clothes can be. If you can buy it, you should. Might as well use your money to show your support to those who created the entertainment, right?

Also, it's thanks to these thieves that policies like SOPA came into existence and were nearly imposed on the internet. These people could compromise both the entertainment industry and the relative freedom of the internet. It's just not worth it.

 

[PyroPokeman]

Piracy......................kaizoku................

In all honesty, I don't agree with it on at all, it takes away revenue from the people who make the stuff we watch. I mean, we have Crunchyroll, and Hulu, and Funimation and Viz and whatever else exists for our viewing pleasures.

However, I must confess that just a few years ago, that's how I watched most of the stuff I like today, through sites that have pirated footage. It's stealing. I don't have much money to spend around for things online or even at stores, it is tempting to watch something that interests you for free.

I follow the rule for GRArkada now. If it's available for free legally, stream it. If you have the money, buy it. If there is no other way to watch it, a bad as it is, go ahead and watch it pirated.

SOPA.................that's an interesting thing actually, because is is laughably dumb. However, I just have one question. Why don't the government just take advantage of the people who pirate? I mean, Why not just make those things official. I mean it's more of a benefit if studios can make money of of these sites that steal the footage. You get wider range, the sites make money off of ads just like the official stream sites anyways. It's a better idea than taking them down. Just make the pirates earn the revenue for you.

 

[dig]

It's stealing. So no, not justifiable. Especially because this kind of thievery can't be excused by "necessity," like how stealing food or clothes can be. If you can buy it, you should. Might as well use your money to show your support to those who created the entertainment, right?

Also, it's thanks to these thieves that policies like SOPA came into existence and were nearly imposed on the internet. These people could compromise both the entertainment industry and the relative freedom of the internet. It's just not worth it.

That brings to me a directly related question, can theft be justifiable? I don't think anythung is black or white, right or wrong, there will also be circumstances when acting illegally may be the correct thing to do.

Let's say you're homeless, and your squatting in a vacant home without any power or water. No one owns the home, and for arguments sake, no one wants it. Is it ok to live there, even though you don't pay anything? I think so, I think in extreme circumstances we can justify acting out. I'd steal food if I was starving and penniless, no matter how wrong it may be.

Which then brings me back to our question. I think it can be justified only when you simply conducting a transference of media - that is to say, downloading music you already own physically. I personally see it as a backup of content you already own.

 

[Osprey]

It's stealing. So no, not justifiable. Especially because this kind of thievery can't be excused by "necessity," like how stealing food or clothes can be. If you can buy it, you should. Might as well use your money to show your support to those who created the entertainment, right?

Also, it's thanks to these thieves that policies like SOPA came into existence and were nearly imposed on the internet. These people could compromise both the entertainment industry and the relative freedom of the internet. It's just not worth it.

That brings to me a directly related question, can theft be justifiable? I don't think anythung is black or white, right or wrong, there will also be circumstances when acting illegally may be the correct thing to do.

Let's say you're homeless, and your squatting in a vacant home without any power or water. No one owns the home, and for arguments sake, no one wants it. Is it ok to live there, even though you don't pay anything? I think so, I think in extreme circumstances we can justify acting out. I'd steal food if I was starving and penniless, no matter how wrong it may be.

Which then brings me back to our question. I think it can be justified only when you simply conducting a transference of media - that is to say, downloading music you already own physically. I personally see it as a backup of content you already own.

Hm. Your point about the homeless person is viable. However, those are extreme circumstances you're talking about. It's a matter of survival if it comes down to food. Entertainment media is not at that kind of basic-necessity level. It would be awful if something happened and all your content was lost, but it won't really kill you. And while it may be good to have "backup content," as you put it, it's still not right; it would be like buying a pack of pencils, then shoplifting another pack to use for later. Handy, but not that morally acceptable.

 

[dig]

And while it may be good to have "backup content," as you put it, it's still not right; it would be like buying a pack of pencils, then shoplifting another pack to use for later. Handy, but not that morally acceptable.

I'm not entirely sure that works, you buy something tangible and then you steal another. Whilst if your downloading purely to have a digital copy of media you already own, you've bought an item and then downloaded another. Me downloading does not deprive anyone of the chance to buy it, whilst if you steal an additional pack of pencils, the store can no longer sell them.

 

[Osprey]

I'm not entirely sure that works, you buy something tangible and then you steal another. Whilst if your downloading purely to have a digital copy of media you already own, you've bought an item and then downloaded another. Me downloading does not deprive anyone of the chance to buy it, whilst if you steal an additional pack of pencils, the store can no longer sell them.

Perhaps my analogy wasn't spot-on for this issue, but still, it's not that justifiable. It's illegal all the same. And if it were legal for a person with some content to download a digital version for free, how do companies make it so that only those people can get free downloads? If they can get it, so can those without a hard copy. It's leaving the door open for more issues than necessary. Although when it comes down to it, I still figure piracy is unjustifiable because entertainment isn't a necessity of life... but I'm starting to repeat myself too much here.

 

[dig]

Quite a lot of new vinyl issues come with a download code, and I think that should be expanded to include CDS, DVDs, Books, etc. why not get a free digital copy of something you've bought? I think that'd entice more people to buy rather than resorting to piracy.

 

[Robo-Floatzel]

I usually try to avoid piracy, and I think many people should unless they were wanting to see something that wasn't sold in their country or is something long-out of print like many TV shows from the 80's that never got home releases, then it might be somewhat justified. Though why would I need an illegally-obtained digital copy of something if I already have it in real life through legal means, digital or not? It kind of makes no sense why you would want something twice unless there was some reason for it.

I will say one thing though, and that is that it's virtually impossible to stop piracy no matter how many laws are passed as attempts to stop it, as people will ALWAYS find a way around these barriers. It's human nature and it's inevitable. Regardless of how morally wrong one might consider it, there will always be someone who will illegally download music or software out there. While some might consider it justifiable in some situations, it depends on your moral sense of scale. If anything, wanting a song on your MP3 player is not important compared to food and clothing.

Though barring the legal and moral implications, when you think about it enough, piracy could be considered one of those "necessary evils" for certain individuals, and there have been pieces of media that have been lost that have only survived (or are even known to exist) through pirated means, but again, I don't support piracy regardless of these events.

 

[CrackFox]

To me breaking the law is breaking the law, you're either morally ok with it or you're not. Sure you can try and justify it however you want. I disagree that it hurts every party though. In a lot of cases it either doesn't affect revenue or it actively increases it. A study in 2012 showed the box office movies were not affected by bit torrent downloads for example. Of course i'm not saying that it's fine to pirate things i'm only saying that the implications felt by the copyright owners are greatly exaggerated in most cases.

 

[Stuntology]

I can't believe that I didn't mention this in my original post!

Here's a great 3 part article I read a while ago discussing digital piracy, that, by the looks of everyone's posts here, most of you should agree with. If you don't want to read them (they're great, I recommend it!), they basically talk about how while piracy is wrong, a lot of companies aren't doing their best to incentivize people to legitimately buy their products, and that better incentives could be really effective for reducing piracy.

Part 1: Gamasutra: Lars Doucet's Blog - Piracy and the four currencies
Part 2: Gamasutra: Lars Doucet's Blog - Piracy and the four currencies, part 2
Part 3: Gamasutra: Lars Doucet's Blog - Pay What You Want and the Four Currencies