superchunk said: I think a person should be paid for what they create. I have in the past taken illegal copies of media, however, since the last few years I absolutely will not. I will not even buy goods I think may have been stolen. It is just wrong.
There is no reason why you can't pay $10-$20 for a cd or dvd. There is no reason why you can't pay $30+ for a game. If you pirate, you are stealing and that is socially and morally wrong and the only reason you do it is because you know it is highly unlikely you will get caught over the internet. Bet you wouldn't walkout of a store with that CD/DVD/game.
When I see these file sharing sites go down, I applaud. When I see the industry sue some people I laugh and say good.
Now, if it is an item that is no longer available on the market, then I would say its ok since the company/creator no longer have interest. Other than that, you are just a common thief. |
I'd hardly say it is socially wrong. Practically everyone I know has pirated something (especially in the under 30 crowd) whether it be music, movies, games or books. Even people who are dedicated to buying what they think is worth it still ends up with a small collection of pirated materials. I've yet to meet someone who refuses to watch a movie, not attend a party (music) or have a go of a video game because their is pirated materials in use.
Even within content creation industries I've seen piracy. I worked for one company that does computer effects for big name hollywood movies as a sys admin. During my time there, the issue arose that there was an open collection of mp3s and movies avilable on the server to those who wanted it. Funnily, the primary issue was the collection was taking up too much space and utilising large amounts of network resourses, rather than the content being illegal. Although the illegality was used as the justification to the rest of the company to get rid of it, it was presented in such a way that local copies (at that point in time) would not be frowned upon, and anyone who wanted any of this content was to create a local copy before it was removed from the server. Once again, the company was primarily comprised of younger people, so it wasn't surprising.
Copright Infringement (piracy) is also a significantly broad term (hence why stealing is different). Up until 2 years ago, in Australia, copying a legally bought CD to mp3s was considered copyright infrigement. You could pretty much guarentee anyone who owned an mp3 player was infringing copyright. Even now, it is still illegal to transfer DVDs. If it is morally wrong to not purchase a license initally for the work, why is it not morally wrong to ignore that license? You (and others) also agree that if the product is unavailable, then piracy is ok, but the laws guarentee the creators 50+ years of protection, so why is it morally ok to decide they aren't allowed to control their creation distribution?
That said, I agree that copyright has its place but it needs to be heavily revised* to deal with a rapidly changing landscape for media distribution.
*in particular, no 50+ year content protect, the original 14 years was more than enough.