Piracy is wrong

[Joseph Ashwood]

Subject: CDR: Piracy is wrong
> This shouldn't have to be said, but apparently it is necessary.

Which is a correct statement, but an incorrect line of thinking. Piracy is
an illegitimate use of a designed in hole in the security, the ability to
copy. This right to copy for personal use is well founded, and there are
even supreme court cases to support it. DRM removes this right, without due
representation, and it is thinking like yours that leads down this poorly
chosen path. The other much more harsh reality involved is that DRM cannot
work, all it can do is inconvenience legitimate consumers. There is massive
evidence of this, and you are free to examine them in any way you choose.

> Piracy - unauthorized copying of copyrighted material - is wrong.
> It inherently involves lying, cheating and taking unfair advantage
> of others.  Systems like DRM are therefore beneficial when they help to
> reduce piracy.  We should all support them, to the extent that this is
> their purpose.
>
> When an artist releases a song or some other creative product to the
> world, they typically put some conditions on it.

These include the expectation that the artist will be paid according to
whatever deal they have signed with their label. Inherent in this deal is
the consumer's right to copy for personal use, and to resell their purchased
copy, as long as all copies that the consumer has made are destroyed. DRM
attempts to revoke this right to personal copying, and resale.

> If you want to listen
> to and enjoy the song, you are obligated to agree to those conditions.
> If you can't accept the conditions, you shouldn't take the creative work.

And if the artist cannot accept the fundamental rights specifically granted,
they should not produce art.

> The artist is under no obligation to release their work.  It is like a
> gift to the world.  They are free to put whatever conditions they like
> on that gift, and you are free to accept them or not.

Last time I checked the giver is supposed to remove the pricetag from the
gift before giving it. By a similar argument, everyone should be happy that
the WTC flying occured, after all they were kind enough not to kill anyone
that's still alive. The logic simply doesn't hold.

> If you take the gift, you are agreeing to the conditions.  If you then
> violate the stated conditions, such as by sharing the song with others,
> you are breaking your agreement.  You become a liar and a cheat.

In fact one of the specifically granted rights is the right to share the
music with friends and family, so this has nothing to do with being "a liar
and a cheat" it has to do with excercising not just rights, but rights that
have been specifically granted.

> If you take the song without paying for it, you are again receiving this
> gift without following the conditions that were placed on it as part
> of the gift being offered.  You are taking advantage of the artist's
> creativity without them receiving the compensation they required.

Because of that specifically granted right, that copies can be made for
friends and family, it is also a specifically granted right to accept those
copies. So it is merely excercising a specifically granted right. You
clearly have not read or understood the implications and complexities of
your statements, with regard to either logic or the law.

> This isn't complicated.

Apparently it is too complicated for you.

> It's just basic ethics.

It's just basic rights and excercising of those rights.

> It's a matter of honesty
> and trust.

If the record companies were prepared to trust, why do they employ a
substantial army of lawyers? Why do they pursue every p2p network? Why are
they pushing for DRM? Trust is not a one-way street. The recording labels
have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted in any form, what delusion
makes you think they can be trusted now?

> When someone makes you an offer and you don't find the terms
> acceptable, you simply refuse.

Exactly, I refuse to accept a DRM -limited environment which does not allow
me full ownership of something I purchased.

> You don't take advantage by taking what
> they provide and refusing to do your part.  That's cheating.

No, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of everything involved, from law
to basic logic you have misunderstood it all.
                        Joe