Debates about music and movie piracy tend to center on whether piracy hurts CD and DVD sales. When record sales go down, some use this to show that piracy is harmful, and when they go up others argue that piracy doesn't matter or could even be beneficial. Predictably, sales figures go both up and down at the same time depending on who's looking. Both sides seem to agree that this is the core of the debate. So a lot of effort and prestige is invested into it.

This is a shame, because trying to find the precise effect of piracy on CD and DVD sales is a distraction. Mostly because the question is unanswerable. It would be nice if we could plug a few numbers into an equation and determine what effect the birth of widespread piracy has had on the entertainment industry, and what it will have in the future. But we can't do that. There are too many unknown factors, and we have no control groups to compare against. So the issue is a waste of time.

Besides, piracy is here to stay. Even a massive (and unpopular) War on Piracy would only be effective against the most public and open forms of file-sharing - technology is ultimately on the side of the pirates. Combine increasing bandwith, storage and encryption capabilities with huge numbers of potential pirates and you have something that is difficult to limit with legal and technological means.

So the more interesting question is the moral one. Is piracy necessarily wrong? Is there a way to be a responsible pirate?

I think there is, and I also think there's a way to be an irresponsible and dangerous pirate. And it's important, in the absence of practical restrictions, to encourage the responsible kind.

The responsible approach to piracy is to use it as a try-before-you-buy method. Download whatever looks interesting, and then buy it if it's good. This has become my approach. I download large amounts of DVD rips, TV shows and albums, but I've also set apart a large budget to spend on whatever I like, because I know it's vital to actively reward the people and companies who make these things.

You might wonder why I'd even bother downloading in the first place, but piracy has some beneficial side-effects. Where I once bought movies and music based on reviews and cultural "importance", and ended up regretting it half the time, my place is now filling up with nothing but personal favourites. Lots of them. Which means that my money now goes to the people hwo deserve it the most.

Piracy is also a wonderful way to discover obscure art, it frees me from being restricted to whatever is popular enough to breach the big media barrier. My favourite way of discovering new music is to download the first three songs from about a hundred albums at once. I'll find maybe five albums that sound interesting, which I download in full, and if they're as good as I thought I buy them. This allows me to discover all kinds of gems - music that is perfect for me, but nobody else knows about, and which I'd never have come across anywhere else. (By contrast, as an experiment I downloaded all the best-of-2004 albums I could find in December - and hated nearly all of them.)

Used this way, piracy becomes a tool to discover and reward art. It makes piracy a viable part of the entertainment economy. Pirates like to talk about how the big media companies don't "need" our money, and how they're "ripping off" the artists, so we shouldn't support them. But the entertainment industry depends on feedback from consumers to decide which movies to produce and which artists to sign up - and the only feedback that counts is cash. Questions about "need" aside, buying a record is your way of telling the market that you want more records like that to be made. Which is what try-before-you-buy piracy accomplishes. It tells the market exactly what you like, ensuring both the daily survival of your favourite artists and continued industry interest in your favourite kind of art. Everybody wins.

The dangerous form of piracy is the kind that takes whatever is available with no thoughts about consequences, that buys only when necessary, or when the movie or album is exceptionally good. I've been that kind of pirate too. It began as not having money to buy for, but it's damn easy to make it a habit. The problem with this approach is that, contrary to what pirates like to think, the big, scary entertainment industry is the weaker party, and the pirates are the ones with more power. Consider how almost every battle over the last decade has been decided in the favor of pirates, and the ones that were lost didn't make much difference. Cut off a head, and two more pop out. Every legal and technological way to limit piracy has either failed or succeeded in an unimportant way, and piracy is easier and more widespread than ever.

So maybe the industry rips off the artists, but that's nothing compared to the power technology has handed the pirates. Dystopic scenarios about the death of the entertainment industry are not very plausible, but only to the extent that pirates learn to behave responsibly. And that's a conscious decision, which goes against the freeloader instinct of many pirates.

I know that many consider piracy to be wrong without exceptions. There are good arguments against try-before-you-buy. For instance, I decide how large my DVD budget is, and it would be easy to find excuses for reducing it. Entertainment companies are right to be skeptical about the willingness of pirates to voluntarily spend money on things they already have. But this argument assumes that ending piracy by legal or technological means is an option, that society can somehow decide to end piracy by force. I don't believe it can, not under current circumstances. So we should encourage the good, harmless kind of piracy, instead of pretending it's all equally destructive. Even the "it's theft plain and simple" camp should recognize the importance of at least limiting the damage caused by piracy, even if we can't agree on abstract property issues.

Yes, I am also a responsible pirate, but isn`t that because we are old enough to be used to CDs and not just owning the music on mp3? A sort of nostalgia for the CD or even vinyl medium? Do you think that those who grow up today and are used to just using mp3s will have the same affinity for actually bying the music?

I'm not sure that's a factor - it's not for me. I don't use the CD's I buy, they don't have any advantages over downloaded mp3's. To me this is about rewarding the artist, not getting the music in a medium I'm more comfortable with. Haven't felt comfortable putting a CD in the player in many years.

I do the same, sample on mp3 and buy the really good stuff on CD in order to reward the industry and the artists for the good record. However, who thinks Average Joe will voluntarily obey this principle? Really?

Recommendation: "Frances the Mute" by The Mars Volta. Give it a good five listens, though.

I have been thinking about the pirating issue recently. I couple weeks ago I bought a few used CDs off the Amazon website. They cost a lot less that the new CDs so it seemed like a good idea. As the CDs started arriving and I began downloading them onto my computer, it occurred to me that, on a financial level, what I was doing was in no way different from someone pirating the music off some ftp site. The record company and artist have been taken out of the transaction and will see none of the cash I sent the seller and Amazon. However, what I had just done was in fact totally legal.

Further clouding the ethical waters…. If I desired, I could now (legally I believe) take the CDs I only recently bought and copied onto my computer, and resell them again on Amazon and thus recoup my cost of the music. Maybe there is a EULA somewhere that says if I sell the CD I have to destroy the copies I made of the CD?

In any case, my point is that legit commerce sites like eBay and Amazon are probably enabling as much pirating as any web site and yet seem to have escaped the scrutiny of the RIAA lawyers. Who knows where the CDs I bought really came from?

Franko

Franko:

If the CDs were originally bought, then both the record company and the artist have been paid, and so are only left out in the sense of you buying them used. Same as for buying a used Fiat, Fiat doesn't see a dime from that transaction, but no one would say that is in any way similar to car piracy.

If on the other hand the CDs you bought were stolen, then you were partaking in piracy in a sense, ie. buying stolen goods.

If you copy the CD on to your computer and then resell the CDs then you are no longer in possesion of copys of your original CDs, you have copys of somebody else's CDs.

Saying that piracy is not stopable does not make it any less wrong to do so.

The "Try before you buy" argument makes it sound like the producers of these art forms hide their art away in deep cellars so no one can find it, which is contradictory to the the whole natur of these art forms, which are, to say the least, exhibitionistic.

Most musical artist already have try before you buy and free samples available on any radio station, music video tv channel and on the internet, not to mention that most stores specializing in music gives the possibility to customers to listen to whatever CD they may wish to try.

Likewise movies are reviewed back and forth on the internet, in newspapers and dedicated tv-shows, also commercials are normally broadcasted. Not to mention the fact that movies are made available for rent, and some are even made available for free at the library. Most movies have their own dedicated internet site where a lot of information can be found prior to buying.

There is no such thing as responsible piracy, there is only piracy, windowdressing with the word responsible is an irresponsible use of contradictions in terms.

Fess up to it.

nn: If the CDs were originally bought, then both the record company and the artist have been paid, and so are only left out in the sense of you buying them used.

From my point of view they're morally equivalent. When I buy a used CD I use art without rewarding the artist, and without giving market feedback to the entertainment companies. The only difference between that and piracy is that buying used is legal, the practical effect is exactly the same - less money to artists I like, and less art of the kind I like.

The "Try before you buy" argument makes it sound like the producers of these art forms hide their art away in deep cellars so no one can find it

Not at all, but it's easier to evaluate a full mp3 rip of the whole album than a 30-second clip. Or imagine me walk into a music store and ask if I can listen to a hundred albums. It is possible to preview music without downloading it, but it's a lot more difficult.

As for reviews, that may work for some people, but not for me. I don't like what's popular, and I don't like what's critically acclaimed. Perhaps with a lot of effort I could find a reviewer with a taste similar to mine, but why do that when there already is such a person, myself?

Saying that piracy is not stopable does not make it any less wrong to do so.

Obviously, but you haven't made any arguments for why it is wrong. You've only argued that there are alternatives (yes but not as good). And from your argument about used CD's I get the impression that you think whatever is legal is okay, but if you regularly buy used instead of new CD's, then you're ripping off the artists just as much as any irresponsible pirate is. You just do it in a way that isn't a large-scale threat to the industry, so they leave it alone.

"From my point of view they're morally equivalent."

Buying and taking without paying is morally equivalent...

" if you regularly buy used instead of new CD's, then you're ripping off the artists just as much as any irresponsible pirate is"

Pirates and buyers of used goods are equivalent..

The rest of your arguments mr. Staerk only read: lazy and wanting without effort. There is only one question that arises, and that is; what kind of device enables you to listen to 100 albums quicker at home than in the store?

I would like to hear why I, in a civilised society, should have to make a case against theft,?

"Why should I pay for a car, the ones who buy the cars used do not contribute to the car manufactureur or dealerships any more than I will by taking this car from the factory grounds."

"why shouldn't I take this apple from the neighbor's yard? One day I will pay him for the apples I liked..."

nn: Buying and taking without paying is morally equivalent...

Of course not. Paying A for B's work is equivalent to not paying B - at least from B's point of view. The effect on the artist and the market is the same.

There is only one question that arises, and that is; what kind of device enables you to listen to 100 albums quicker at home than in the store?

I download the first three songs, and listen to them while I work or do something else. In terms of time dedicated exclusively to previewing music, it's instantaneous. Doing the same at a store would mean taking a day off from work, and the overhead of switching CD's would make it much less efficient. But surely you're not arguing that piracy is an impractical way of previewing music?

I would like to hear why I, in a civilised society, should have to make a case against theft,?

Why not? It would be easy for me to make a case against murder in terms of more fundamental axioms most of us agree on - wouldn't it for you?

"Why should I pay for a car, the ones who buy the cars used do not contribute to the car manufactureur or dealerships any more than I will by taking this car from the factory grounds."

Huh? Are you not reading what I write? I'm the one arguing for rewarding the artists here. All I'm saying about buying used is that if you regularly buy used CD's, you're harming the artists as much as if you had downloaded their work from the internet. It's legal, but harmful and therefore wrong. This is not an important point to me, you're the one who brought it up out of some curious belief that buying used CD's is morally superior to buying a new CD after previewing it as mp3.

"Of course not. Paying A for B's work is equivalent to not paying B - at least from B's point of view. The effect on the artist and the market is the same."

Seen in a vacum maybe. But Paying A for B's work, which A paid B for earlier is not equivalent to not paying B at all for the same work.

"But surely you're not arguing that piracy is an impractical way of previewing music?"

No, just wondering, you made it sound like you "previewed" hundreds of albums in one sitting, since you would ask to preview a hundred albums in a store.

"Why not? It would be easy for me to make a case against murder in terms of more fundamental axioms most of us agree on - wouldn't it for you?"

Would you then windowdress murder with responsible as well?
If you can make a case for allowing theft and murder in a civilised society based on real axioms, I would be willing to listen. If based on what in deed are most peoples' axioms, then I would have to conclude that what most people hold as axioms are not.

"..curious belief that buying used CD's is morally superior to buying a new CD after previewing it as mp3."

You have already admitted to the fact that you download a lot which you do not buy.
I never said buying a used CD is more or less moral than buying a new CD, I said acquiring a CD by not buying at all (as in stealing) is morally inferior to buying a used cd, for any reason.

You are in fact arguing for, pirating. How you manage to construe that to being benificial to the artist, I have no idea. How you will convince "irresponsible" pirats from stopping their activity when you in fact are not respecting the artists' rights any more than they are, I have no answer for.

You are not the one setting the terms for the artists' products and marketing of these. If they do not want you to highjack their products from the internet, then you should respect that. Even if you are going to buy it, you still have not. It may be less convenient for you, that is besides the point, it is the artist's product to do with as (s)he wishes, not yours, if (s)he wants to keep it on mount everest and only play it for the ones who make it to the top, so be it.

That is my arguement. The products you download are not yours, even if they might be in the future. You take something that is not yours, then we call that something else than "previewing" where I come from, and the word responsiblenever enters into it...

nn: Seen in a vacum maybe. But Paying A for B's work, which A paid B for earlier is not equivalent to not paying B at all for the same work.

Why not? A has already paid B, nothing you do will change that. A has rewarded B, and sent a signal to the market that B's kind of art is profitable. When you buy from A, you do not. You're leeching on A's support for B, as much as if you had lent the CD from A and ripped it yourself. What does it matter to B what kind of financial arrangement you work out with A for buying/borrowing/ripping the CD? So in terms of practical effects (if that's what we're talking about) the two acts are exactly equivalent from B's point of view.

No, just wondering, you made it sound like you "previewed" hundreds of albums in one sitting, since you would ask to preview a hundred albums in a store.

But that's exactly what I do. And out of 100 randomly downloaded albums, I usually end up with perhaps one that I like. Then again, it's probably an album or artist I had never heard of before, which makes the effort worth it.

Would you then windowdress murder with responsible as well?

Huh? Be serious.

How you manage to construe that to being benificial to the artist, I have no idea.

Then you haven't read what I wrote. What you probably mean is that you have an idea, (because I told you), you just don't agree with it. You believe I should spend my CD budget on music I haven't evaluated very thoroughly. I believe I should spend my CD budget on whatever music I enjoy the most.

If they do not want you to highjack their products from the internet, then you should respect that.

But which artists should I listen to? I'm sure the artists I discover through piracy and end up buying are very happy that I previewed their music. Many of them are pretty obscure, with little chance of reaching me through normal channels. The artists I found interesting enough to download but ended up not liking are probably not so happy. But I can only afford so much music - and I'd rather that be music I love.

"So in terms of practical effects (if that's what we're talking about)"

Yes, obviously we are only talking about the practicality of being a pirat. Seeing as you do not intend to address the moral issue here.

"But I can only afford so much music - and I'd rather that be music I love."

Then continue, but accept that you are principally no upholder of rights, and that you can not be trusted as such ever, and that you will sail under the flag of piracy, however responsible you may feel.

Peace out.

nn:
“Same as for buying a used Fiat, Fiat doesn't see a dime from that transaction, but no one would say that is in any way similar to car piracy.”

I think in the legal sense you may be correct here nn. However functionally the two cases are very different. Fiat doesn’t care if you buy a used car because they designed the vehicle to only function for 150,000 miles or so. They know you will be back in the market for another vehicle soon. On the other hand the CD could last indefinitely if properly cared for.

Bjorn:
“From my point of view they're morally equivalent”

I am not sure buying CDs used is morally equivalent to piracy. With the buying of used CDs, at least you know the artist and record company got paid at some time. When you download off the internet you know the artist never got paid at all. And in fact the law says it is ok for me to buy used but it is not ok for me to download a song off the internet. So if we are to use the law as a measure, then the two cases are absolutely not morally equivalent to each other.

But this is of course the heart of my argument/dilemma. Why is it ok for me, legally, to buy used CDs from Amazon or eBay when functionally it is the same as piracy? I understand that morally speaking, buying used and piracy are one and the same and will have to consider adjusting my spending habits accordingly. What I don’t understand is why the law and the record company lawyers are not making an issue of buying used CDs?

I would like to understand how the argument is made that buying used is ok but internet downloading isn’t.

FC

nn: Yes, obviously we are only talking about the practicality of being a pirat. Seeing as you do not intend to address the moral issue here.

I've addressed the moral issue all along, (ie. the actual harm/benefit caused). But I'm still waiting for you to explain why you believe as you do - so far you've given me axioms and circular arguments. You're good at explaining what you believe, but when asked to explain why you just repeat the what in stronger terms.

Franko: What I don’t understand is why the law and the record company lawyers are not making an issue of buying used CDs?

Because there's no threat of used CD sales seriously undermining the real market. There's a physical limit, (one CD can only have one owner at a time), and a limit to convenience, (the used CD story may not have what you're looking for). So they can safely ignore it. But there's no physical limitation to digital music, and the internet is far more convenient than a music store.

"I would like to understand how the argument is made that buying used is ok but internet downloading isn’t."

If you buy Microsoft Windows you get a license to use Windows. If you buy Microsoft Windows used, you get the license to use Microsoft Windows (if it is a real one). If you download a pirated version, you do not recieve that license and do not have the right to use it even though you can. Same applies to music. Since the one who made the music originally still owns the music on the CD you buy, you are licensed to play it at will, as long as you acctually bought the original that came with a license. That license does not extend to making it into a digitally compressed version and blowing it off to whoever.

[The Money Argument]
I think the reason why the money arguement always shows up in this type of discussion is probably because there isn't any. It is an old argument the record companies caved in on concerning the copying of the old vinyl records onto magnetic tape. People could then freely copy records and share with their friends as long as they did not sell copys. The record company used the money argument, but since this was on a small scale back then, they backed down... So, now it comes back to bite them in the ass, because now there is still a no-money argument, nobody is profiting from internet sharing, and no, there probably isn't much money lost by the artist or the record company. This however is not the real issue. The issue the record companies and artists should have pursued all along, is their property right to their own product, to do with it as they please, and set their own terms of use for it. That is the issue, the earnings and/or losses of the artist and record companies are non-determinable figures, and can not be used as an argument pro or contra.

"I've addressed the moral issue all along, (ie. the actual harm/benefit caused)."

Harm/benefit is not the moral issue. Using another man's property without consent is the moral issue here. And I have so stated repeatedly.

Why do I believe that stealing is wrong, is what you are asking me to explain to you, while you at the same time do not admit to the stealing. As I said earlier, why indeed should I have to explain the good of property rights, which is a cornerstone of all civilized societies, when you are not willing to condenceed to that being the issue.

If that is axiomatic and circular argumentation, ok be it, but I live in a civilized world where stealing is wrong, and one does not have to exlain why, except to young children.

You on the other hand have not once answered my arguments of property rights, thus my insistance on the team, louder, yes, because it was totally ignored, therefore I gave you the benefit of the doubt, that you had not comprehended fully or that I had badly explained.

You call on your love for music and your personal convenience, lack of money, and giving money to the ones you feel deserve it the most. These are not arguments for why you should be allowed to break property rights, these are your rationalizations for your actions. There is no way of building lasting principles on these arguments. That would be dictatorial: Bjorn Staerk said stealing was right, because he felt nobody was harmed, therefore it is right.

I was actually cutting the trusses to this debate, but I was sucked back in due to menial chores that were devestatingly boring, but I do believe that the time has come to swabber the floors now...
(Nautical puns intended) :)

nn:
“So, now it comes back to bite them in the ass, because now there is still a no-money argument, nobody is profiting from internet sharing, and no, there probably isn't much money lost by the artist or the record company.”

So if I understand you nn, you are saying that the legal argument for the purchasing of used CD being ok, doesn’t really exist. Meaning that, the action is legal mainly because record companies conceded the argument back in the 80s when the threat to their revenues was negligible? Very interesting.

nn:
“These are not arguments for why you should be allowed to break property rights, these are your rationalizations for your actions.”

I have to agree with you nn. Although Bjorn does make a well reasoned case for what he calls Responsible Piracy, in the end the action is illegal and the justifications for it are merely a rationalization.

Not that Bjorn needs me to stick up for him, but I will say that the model he uses for sampling the music then buying what he likes and throwing out what the doesn’t, is a good one and consistent with taking a moral stand in favor of artistic rights and against piracy. In my opinion anyway.

The fatal flaw in the model is that it requires the people downloading/sampling the music to have the moral sense to first, know that piracy is wrong and then, to have the integrity to throw out what was got illegally and then go out and purchase a legal replacement. I am afraid most folks would not adhere to this model if given the opportunity.

"So if I understand you nn, you are saying that the legal argument for the purchasing of used CD being ok, doesn’t really exist."

Sorry. What you quote has to do with the whole concept of the money argument against or for _internet sharing_ and had actually nothing to do with used CDs as such to do, I covered that point before the []. The license will follow the CD. So buying a used CD is buying a license, downloading is theft.

It is my fault, I should have made a proper post for it, but I was in the middle of writing and couldn't stop..

The point was that I agree fully with Bjorn and his deduction of the winnings/losses of the artist/label being inconsequential to the discussion.

"is a good one and consistent with taking a moral stand in favor of artistic rights and against piracy."

By being a pirate... Is there no one that can see the glaring selfcontradiction in that?

It makes me wonder which of the artists' rights includes being ripped off?

"to have the integrity to throw out what was got illegally and then go out and purchase a legal replacement"

Well, some thiefs hide or destroy the loot due to who knows what, bad conscience, fear of capture etc. Other thiefs use the loot brazenly.
The moral difference between the ones that destory the loot and the ones that don't is none. They are all still thieves.

nn, you write:

"If you buy Microsoft Windows you get a license to use Windows. If you buy Microsoft Windows used, you get the license to use Microsoft Windows (if it is a real one). If you download a pirated version, you do not recieve that license and do not have the right to use it even though you can."

and you write:

"The license will follow the CD. So buying a used CD is buying a license, downloadThe license will follow the CD. So buying a used CD is buying a license, downloading is theft.ing is theft."

I'm not going to argue the 'right' versus 'wrong' with you. I am, however, going to point out that it's not theft to copy a CD you don't own.

It's a violation of copyright.

To steal something means to remove something from someone. If they still retain it, it hasn't been stolen from them.

You haven't even removed the potential profit by copying something and listening to it - as you may actually like it so much that you buy a legit copy - and other albums the makers has made too.

Thus, the use of the word theft - even though it's popular to use it in this context - is wrong.

thanks. the previewing here is interessting. I support BjornSterks research and buy method, because I do the same. I also had hundreds of CDs (wasted my money) i never listen to.

So today, I might find some I like, buy downloading and listen to. I do buy records still, impulse, or after testing. So pirating?
Come on! the idea of mp3, storing my music on my computer, is a good one.

When I move half way around the earth, its a hell of a lot cheaper for me to bring ALL my music in a HD or three, than 100eds of cds!
Can u imaginge flying KLM with that suitcases????

I do not steal, I looking up lesser known artists around on the net, and therebuy spreading their work, into my own living room.
Then They earn Money. instead of NOT.

Would you buy a car without testdrive it first???

Even though, people buy houses and apartments without testdrive them, dont ask me why....

I think it is up to each on of us to rethink our moral responsabilitys to the artists and producers of the music that we download, stealing or not stealing - just face it - you are not paying for the music that you are downloading, download with CARE and RESPECT for the artist, and keep in mind that nothing comes for free!

" and keep in mind that nothing comes for free!"

This is very true, just as the cost of a pop musician's fame is to have a pirate steal their work from the internet. ;-)

They didn't think their millions of dollars and adoring fans, would come without conditions?

+16% of cd sales and +6% of turnover are the last figures in france, thus we need more pirates to kill these crappy majors! ;)
[real] artists must drop these vampires and self-distribute their self-produced art thru a viable medium. CD is an old *dead* shit.
Majors have increased the price by 100% from the audio tape, for a same content producted with less money; they are stealing artists for years and [real] artists hate them.
Pirates' groups that sell their "products" on (eg. asians) markets are the organized crime, should be put in jail and concentrate the police effort.
Free (to distribute), self-produced music from free parties, here is my taste and what i have on my HDs.

Best regards,
Sensi

n.b: 'real artists' opposed at 'marketed vectors by artistic directors', sold with the help of the fascistic 'heavy-rotation' conditioning method thru networks owned by trusts, in a business made of illegal agreements and self-promotion.
p.s: lol

Observe the ever-extenting time of the vality of copyright from the original 14 years to well after the death of the original author. This was done with massive campaigns by corporate copyright holders.

So, who is the "pirate" here?

The original intention of intellectual property righs was to encourage productivity and innovation. This is harldly the case anymore. It is cheap money through state a guaranteed monopoly.

Finally, copying various objects is not the same as attacking ships.

This might be a digression, but one that I think is relevant...

I strongly object to the use of the negatively charged term "piracy" to describe something which involves violation of the music authors' rights when I see that the neutral or even euphemistic term "digital rights management" is used to describe something which involves violation of the fair use rights of those who pay for the music. This of course suggests that "piracy" is bad and "digital rights management" is good, whereas in my opinion "digital rights management" is just as bad, if not worse, than "piracy".

Discussing the moral implications of piracy has thus far proved unable to resolve the issue.

The last few decades has shaken the human concept of ownership and the laws of the land we create to homour property. In the past it was easy; physical objects cannot be copied, and intellectual works existed upon more physical mediums -which were not easy to copy.

With computers and the internet things have changed, and many of us, including younger individuals like myself, are used to the idea of objects of value having no intrinsic physical presence. We are often quite content to have a digitally encoded music file which is moved from memory location to memory location.

We seem to forget just how these new non-substantial objects are merely a complex strings of code resembling an original, or telling a machine to operate in a particular fashion.

In essence we are discussing ownership of ideas on all fronts. If one whistles a truly original tune and a friend learns it off by heart and enjoys whistling it himself to crowds of paying fans (if such a thing can happen these days), can the original whistler sue him for his profits? Does he own that particular combination of notes, even when they mean something different to the second man?

This is not a simple question! While some claim that if profits are made the first man should be given royalties, others believe that as the original man can still whistle his tune he lost nothing in the process and was merely the inspiration for the second mans success.

I realise this all seems silly, but modern philosophers are actually struggling with this kind of thing.

The internet does indeed decommercialise ideas, does this mean that companies and artists should be upset? Perhaps it is a sign that they need to find new ways of making profits -after all that is what companies have to do.

I don't have the answers here, but as piracy has not been stopped yet by people attempting to morally shame or legally threaten them, perhaps it is a sign that humanity is making a transition to a new way of looking at ideas and how they can be profited from.

On a final note, not going into morals: I know of many individuals who are students and cannot afford software that costs $700+ and so will pirate it. However later in their careers they will use the legitimate copies, and if they had not pirated they would not had neccessary experience in the software, and so not of had a career and with a company that pays for the software...

Most businesses use the legitimate software, but i am sure at home a great deal of employees don't.

Piracy is very subjective. I think it's not necessarily evil. Just like before there are also privateers.

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1562