I'm not sure if this is really the place for a serious debate on piracy but I think some deeper thought will reveal more complexities about the issue then most people like to admit.
First, let us start with some core ideas. We are taught to share and not to steal. Why is this?
This is because we can see or identify with the other person and that it is not good when someone takes something from us, and yet it is advantegous to us and to our friends and neighbors when we share. Sharing is not just a good value but it is an ESTEEMED value even in many religions.
Now, commercial interest teach us that we should BUY things, and maybe it is even infered that we should not share. It is better to have something new then something old. This is a basic tenant of captialism and commercialism. Often times things are DESTROYED instead of sharing them (as in the case of books and magazines).
Provided that the goods are physical objects then capitalism and our higher moral and philosphical values seem fairly in-check. But, this may be decieving.
We start to see a rift when we get into digital products and goods because now we realize we can SHARE without stealing! In other words, what makes stealing wrong IS NOT that someone is getting something ADDITIONAL but that someone is losing something. If you see it any other way then you are being GREEDY.
However, it is clear that if the company suffers a LOSS from this then it may be a type of potential stealing. It is still not the same thing as flat out stealing but it does produce some negative effects so it is still harmful.
But, wait, we know that people have a limited amount of money yet we can run off virtually unlimited copies in the digital world for virtually no cost.
And, here we are starting to get into some of the real arguments regarding piracy. The amount of work people can do is limited and the amount of value that people can acquire is therefore limited. And, in capitalistic and commercialistic markets this follows a type of pyramid to the top. Sure Bill Gates can buy anything he wants but not his secretary.
Anway, the point is the potential loss from piracy can not be as great as the actual losses in many cases because the money just does not exist and can not exist.
Furthermore, people claim that piracy hurts the economy. A common example is a person doesn't buy a game so in turn a sales clerk doesn't take an order, a driver doesn't deliver a product, and this effects the economy all the way down to the little guy working as a janitor in a huge chain store. This is silly and not true. Why? Becuase we know that most people SPEND or invest all the money they have and this means that regardless if people are pirating then the economy as a WHOLE can not be suffering. Piracy can affect localized events such as the closing of a certain business but it can not do what a lot of anti-piracy advocates claim it can especially not in any long term fashion. Also, this type of localized HURT is inflicted all the times by competitors and other businesses yet we dont see the economy collapse because of competition.
Where is the money going? Ah, now we are talking. The money is being spent and is usually being spent on some other product or good. And sometimes this can create complex relationships such as a person wouldn't buy a big computer if he knew he couldn't pirate video games so that he does this and in turn if enough people do this then computers become cheaper and video games become better and sales still increase!
I'd like to address a few more points. It is obvious that these types of philosphical views and implications are not the true driving forces behind these mechanisms . Although, in many cases the want to share or help a friend is a factor so these ideas may play a small part.
More realistically driving this issue is a type of Darwinism struggle of products in the survival of the fittest. A car is more fit to be protected from piracy in todays time then a song. The system is a type of chaotic open ended system where predictions are hard to make and effects are difficult to ascertain.
Also, the ideas, belief sytems, what is right, and wrong is subject to change. The idea of sharing for collective benefit is NOT new.
A good example is library. I don't know much about the laws regarding the ability to check a book out of a library but considering people can donate books to libraries it is hard to imagine that the authors are getting a fair cut from the libraries. If collective sharing is so bad then why are libraries such an important part of our communities and looked upon as GOOD?
Also, rememember when most people buy products or licenses then generally that only applies to one person. However, of course, how wrong would you consider if a friend came over and wanted to listen to a CD you have? If you denied this then you would be considered doing wrong or at least a jerk and selfish.
And this brings up another good point, and that is that sometimes people claim the problem with piracy is that both the person who bought the product and the people who get it can both use it at the same time, and this is not true with libraries.
But, wait.. what if effiency is increased to the point where you could give your CD's to friends whenver you werent using them and get them back, and what if you cuold do this 24 hours a day? Is this not piracy? Yet this could NOT BE ILLEGAL because it is freely giving, albiet the person recieving the material may not decide to give it back. And, in many cases product wear and tear would become extreme but not with some things such as music CDS!
And, we see here what effeciency and technoloy can do to change the way we view things.
America and most capital markets esteem the individual worth. But, what of the greater collective worth of society? What if you have a very valuable product that can be pirated but people just dont have enough money to buy it! What if you starve to death and die yet the collective good to society will continue to live on. Harsh, and I'll probably take a few flames for that statement but is that not what nationalism and giving to ones country is about?! And patriotism?
However, I'd like to make a few notes against piracy. First, if piracy becomes so great as to stop evolution then piracy could hurt the collective good. This is definetly not the case in computer markets such as video games where the industry has contiunued to boom and become a more billion dollar market every year nor could one ascertain this by the position of some of the highest paid people in the world.
Also, again, the system is dynamic and without a type of monotoring program then it would be difficult to know the effect of individual piracy. Suffice it to say that piracy kept within check or provided that the product being sold is still competitive to the pirated product that piracy can maintain checked.
Also, piracy can have again strange effects for a person may not be able to buy an expensive program may settle and buy a smaller and cheaper program. And in this sense piracy could hurt the small people yet strangely it would have a positive effect on the company being pirated from. But the effects are just too complex to predict in any real way. We can only speculate.
Furthermore, one more important point. You can't copyright an idea! And you can't copyright something that is seen as obvious. Learning Strategies has the copyright to the PRODUCT they are producing but not to the ideas. A person could make another product much like there own and give it away or sell it completely legally.
One more note, and the most important, and I'll finish: People are always talking about helping the third world, helping the starving and the homeless, and if we could only had something to give then we would. And this is why I find Pete's remarks entirely disagreeable in that if a person can't afford something then they just can't have it. Do we tell the people who work in China or India that you make our products for something like $10 per month that sense you don't have the money you just can't have it? I say this is wrong and this attitude is what is wrong with the world today.
I don't support or condone specific cases of piracy. But we should seriously examine the implications of taking capitalistic and current copyright laws as unabiding truth. And, more thoroughly examine ways that everyone can benefit.
Thanks.
