-Why I Pirate- Is piracy justifiable?

[Reasonable]

Scoobes said:

Reasonable said:
While I don't advocate piracy in the least the article raised a number of key issues - or flaws - in current corporate and international operational models that certainly encourage people to pirate digital media of various forms.

Ultimately it's wrong simply because while not theft in the traditional sense, it is electing to use something without paying that represents someone else's income model. The example given of a painting is key - however many copies are made the artist should get a fair share as the originating creator.

There are too many barriers to ownership and use currently, and I do believe that rather than limit piracy the result has been to swell the ranks of knowing illegal pirates with people who wouldn't pirate if there was no DRM, no usage restrictions and re-sale was understood and accepted.

Better transparency of costs of a digital model and what is a fair charge would also help.

In the end piracy has always been around since the earliest availability of anything to pirate, but I believe corporations and international legal enforcement have gone in entirely the wrong direction to combat and control it.

The income models need to change though. They're still based in an archaic world whereby physical sales are dominant and can be controlled. By contrast, the modern world is connected on a global scale and very few companies have adapted to that change. Rather than fighting piracy through legislation, DRM and threats, companies should be looking to adapt and thrive by offering legal alternatives; effectively outcompeting the pirates. The music industry has started doing this in recent years. Hopefully the game and movie industries will take note.

I see two elements - the income model for sure, but also the fact that these large companies in many ways exist to cover bulk costs for the artist/creator of the media.  So for example a publisher pays to print your book and takes a cut.  Clearly digital changes that but it doesn't remove all costs - servers and bandwidth are still required.

What I'd like is clear visibility to the costs and what is a fair return for involved parties.

For example let's say it costs £2 pounds to get the book in my hands, and it's deemed £1 pound should go to the publisher as profit and £1 pound to the author (just making up easy numbers here BTW).  In that case I'd happily pay £4 pounds for the book.

Now, if we switch to a digital model and the cost of getting th e book in my hands (or iPad) is only £1 pounds then I believe I should only be paying £3 pounds for the book - £1 to cover the cost of getting it to me (break even point basically) and then the same £1 pound each to the author and the company providing the servers, etc.

Obviosuly different media may have different approachs - but I agree, the goal should be to provide a good service and only ask a fair profit.  DRM, etc. doesn't help at all in my view - I suspect it actually hinders more than anything.

Equally though, if you want to play a game, watch a film or read a book someone has created which is there source of income you must be willing to enter into some form of trade for this.  Pirating is essentially chosing to consume the output (digital or otherwise) of someone else without any attempt at recompense.  I'm pretty sure that anyone pirating would be just as unhappy if they found themselves not being paid for their job and expected to simply accept they should provide their work for others to use for free.

I just feel that there is way too little transparency in the business model as well as the income model right now.