Piracy is wrong

[Sandy Harris]

Anonymous wrote:
> 
> This shouldn't have to be said, but apparently it is necessary.
> 
> Piracy - unauthorized copying of copyrighted material - is wrong.

Piracy involves someone other than a warring state attacking ships.
The only recent example I can think of was the French gov't blowing
up Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior. Your metaphor sucks.

Unauthorized copying is sometimes wrong. However, if the copying
is fair use, then authorisation is utterly irrelevant.
 
> 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.

For many of the proposed systems, that extent is nil. For example, the
encryption used on DVD disks has exactly zero effect on anyone with
appropriate tools who wants to copy the disk:

	Do not attack the encryption.
	Do not spend 200 billion computer cycles.
	Go directly to copying theb bits.

A bit-for-bit copy of a DVD will play on any system the original
would.

Record and movie companies have a long history of trying to extend
their control, to the detriment of both artists and audience. We
should all oppose DRM to the extent that this is its purpose.

Some examples:
 
United Artists was founded by Chaplin and others as a defense against
the big studios, a way for the actors and directors to get more money
and some creative control.
http://www.mdle.com/ClassicFilms/TheStudios/studio1.htm

See Courtney Love's rant for a recent example:
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/

The RIAA argued that making a cassette copy of a record you own, for
example to listen to in the car, violated copyright. The US Supreme
Court ruled it was fair use.

The movie industry claimed that taping a TV show violated copyright.
The Court ruled that at least some taping, such as recording a show
to watch later or in another place, was fair use.

Having lost in court, these industries are now attempting to bypass
those decisions by technical means. 

> When an artist releases a song or some other creative product to the
> world, they typically put some conditions on it.  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.

The reverse also applies. The clearest example is patent law. In return
for a strictly limited monopoly on commercial exploitation of the 
invention, the inventor publishes details and agrees that the invention
enter the public domain eventually.

There's a trade-off. The basic public policy goal of patent and copyright
law is to enrich the commons by getting good stuff created and into the
public domain. Rewarding the creators is a step to this goal. In the US,
the Constitution authorises the federal gov't:

"  To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
"  limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
"  respective writings and discoveries; 

(What is the legal meaning of "useful arts"? If it means only disciplines
 like medicine and engineering, then the Constitution does not grant the
 gov't the power to do anything about music or film copyrights.) 

> 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,

No. An author cannot prevent you quoting his or her work, nor a composer
stop you from humming a tune. Some things are fair use.

> and you are free to accept them or not.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> This isn't complicated.  It's just basic ethics.  It's a matter of honesty
> and trust.  When someone makes you an offer and you don't find the terms
> acceptable, you simply refuse.  You don't take advantage by taking what
> they provide and refusing to do your part.  That's cheating.

It is far more complex than that. 

There are situations where various types of copying are unethical and
should, I think, be illegal. Mostly, those are covered by existing law.
There probably need to be some adjustments for the Internet. 

For example, I'd say it is fairly clear that buying a concert ticket 
does not give me the right to record the concert and sell tapes. It
seems likely we need a bit of law that says the same principle applies
if I get a piece of music off the net. 

Perhaps we even need some form of legal framework that has Internet
"radio" stations paying royalties for muisic they play, as real radio
stations do. Or a framework for choose-the-song pay-per-play music 
that treats it differently from broadcast material chosen by the
station; if you're choosing the time, perhaps time-shifting is less
of a legitimate reason for copying. Or ...

However, it does not follow that we need any form of DRM software to
protect the musicians' and music companies' rights on the net, any 
more than we need concert staff searching concert-goers for concealed 
recording equipment.

Even if DRM software comes into wide use, neither defeating it nor
distributing tools for that purpose should be an offense. There are
many legitimate reasons to defeat it. 

	A blind person wants to read an e-book, needs Sklyraov's 
	 software to defeat Adobe's stuff and get Braille output.

	I want to quote a movie in a review or a sociological
	 paper and, since the paper is going on the web, I want
	 a video quote.

	...

The companies involved have no more right to prevent such use than
I have to sell copies of their book or film on the street corner.