Piracy:sometimes it really is just black-and-white

            Media piracy has been a major issue for years. One only needs to watch the “Don’t Copy that Floppy” video (below) from 1992 to see the battle-taking place over two decades ago. The issue is one that has affected me from an early age, as a result of my being born at the dawn of the personal computing era. Despite being an avid music fan, I did not buy a single music album until I bought Kanye West’s My Beautiful, Dark, Twisted Fantasy out of a sense of loyalty to the artist at the age of nineteen. I had no need. By the time I was old enough to walk into a store and buy something, I had access to 20 GB of free music, and soon I would have the ability to acquire whatever I wanted. I also copied dozens of DVDs upon the release of DVD burners with DVDxCopy. When video streaming advance, I watched bootlegged episodes of The Walking Dead online.

            Many of us conceive the arguments on piracy as a simple battle between the copyright holders and those who want to pay less for their media. In R. Lobato’s “Six Faces of Piracy,” however, he suggests that we must have a more dynamic understanding of piracy. According to Lobato, theft is only one aspect of piracy, and it is only part of a constructed idea on piracy that results from the relatively recent idea of intellectual property. Lobato argues this aspect has received far too much focus, when there are five other aspects of piracy that exist: free enterprise, free speech, authorship, resistance, and access.

            I will examine these arguments, going from most effective to least effective. In my opinion, the arguments for piracy are valid, but most of them apply to cases where lawsuits do not occur frequently. The major lawsuits that do occur apply to blatant reproduction of mainstream media to get the same materials for free.

            The argument for piracy as expression makes sense, so long as it actually is expression, and not just reproducing the exact same content. The remix culture that has formed in the last two decades relies heavily on the ability to copy content, but alter it creatively. There is a large grey area here as to whether the material has been altered enough, but that will be a battle for the courts to decide. Ultimately, however, one may argue that if the material is being used as a means of original expression, it is not piracy at all.

            Piracy as access is a solid argument. There is a lot of material that has not actually been published online, or is impossible to access legally in remote regions. Still, the major lawsuits are not on the unheard of little materials or in the small countries, they are mainstream, and easily accessible.

            The argument for free-enterprise argument is intriguing. This argument is based on libertarian ideals, that interfering through legal means actually ends up hurting the market. In the end, however, most of the legitimate reasons for free enterprise are to allow remix culture and free enterprise., then use piracy for that which is not protected by copyrights

            Lobato describes the argument for piracy as authorship as a “poststructuralist critique of authorship.” This is a difficult side to defend. According to this argument, all language and experience is learned from society, and therefore creative content belongs to society and not the individual. Taken to an extreme, this philosophy would lead to the destruction of intellectual property, and a massive slow down in innovation.

            Last, there is the argument for resistance, as a Marxist critique of the media industry. Perhaps the laws are outdated, but one does not try to revise the law by breaking it, but rather using the democratic systems that all legitimate governments have to alter it. If one is offended by the corporate media industry’s attempts to profiteer, then one should select the art that is not copyrighted.  

            Intellectual property is not something that exists solely in the media. We can examine other industries to see the importance of defending intellectual property. Historically, pharmaceuticals have primarily been created because of the help of patents. The creation of pharmaceuticals requires unfathomable amounts of time and research, which is only possible if investors are confident their idea will not be stolen when it is produced. The arts are no different.

            Those who deny the financial losses of piracy are simply enjoying the benefits of the difficulties of calculating the effects of a black market. (Black markets are, by nature, difficult to model.) Perhaps the MPAA has misrepresented the figures of losses from piracy. But in their defense, there is no legitimate way to measure piracy: No one can track the exact number of thefts or how many copies would have been purchased had the theft not occurred. Still, a 2012 review of academic literature at Carnegie Mellon University reveals that the overwhelming statistics show piracy, both from material and file sharing, harms sales in a statistically significant manner.

            Piracy is not just disrespect for the law; it is disrespect for the artists themselves. If the artists did not want to protect their material, they would not have gone to the trouble of purchasing a copyright.

            There are many ways people falsely rationalize their piracy. One of the less reasonable reasons is that lawyers and a whole new business is being created. Indeed, robbing a bank is probably going to require many extra hours for law enforcement officers and attorneys. Still, the fact that other people may benefit from illegal activity is no argument to do so.

            Also, the perspective that only the corporation executives and the lawyers get paid from lawsuits, be that actually true, is one of ignorance. This anti-establishment argument is one that refuses to accept the business structures of the arts themselves. Artists who do not want to be involved in corporations have the right to choose whichever company they want, or none at all. Also, the idea that many in the corporations already have enough money is illegitimate. (If you think the Kellogs’ CEO makes too much money, that does not give you the right to steal a box of cereal.)

            Lobatto’s essay is one that provides some intriguing views of piracy. Still, it such should not distract anyone from the fact that most piracy is theft. Some aspects of file sharing are reproduction, such as the remix culture, are in a grey area that still must be assessed. But the majority of piracy is not in a grey area, it is black-and-white. It is illegal and unethical.

            Another absurd argument is that for those who do not have the means to purchase a product, theft causes no harm. There is a good article by Rob Hart on how people rationalize piracy. As Hart states, "An eBook is a luxury, not a right. If you can't afford it, too bad, but that's life. If you go to Target and they have a flatscreen television you like, but you can't afford it, can you just take it? No.”

            Piracy is such an interesting ethical case because you are so far detached from those you are hurting and also so safe from prosecution for illegal activity. Personally, I find piracy so fascinating to me is how my views on it have changed growing up. When everyone else does it, or you have older siblings, such as myself, it’s hard to decide against it. Not until you start to think independently can you really start to question what you’re doing. If you do start to ask these questions, however, I think it is important not to rationalize your way out of the truth. When you bit torrent that Taylor Swift album for free, you are committing theft.