Posts tagged Piracy
Creative Works, Greed and Free Information, Pt. 3
Jun 9th
This series of posts was started to address a common justification for the piracy of digital products, the idea that information should be free. In the first post, I examined a related argument, that corporations are evil, and argued that it is no excuse for piracy. In part two, I started to look at the information should be free argument by trying to define information. I asserted that there are two definitions of information relevant to the discussion and argued that the first, knowledge, cannot be applied to digital products. I concluded with the following:
…since music, movies, or software all fail to fit the definition of knowledge, this falls flat as an excuse to pirate digital goods. Where the ambiguity arises, and where you can get your ammunition to call me a moron, is when information means data.
Are you ready to call me a moron? OK. Here’s your ammunition. The word data has different meanings in different contexts. It could be the results of scientific experimentation or observation, the results of a public poll, a set of statistics such as those collected during a Census, and more. The meaning of data relevant to our discussion is given to us by Merriam-Webster as:
3 : information in numerical form that can be digitally transmitted or processed
So there you go. Digital products such as books, movies, music and software all fit that definition nicely. Now you can sit back, call me a moron, and laugh about how you’re entitled to all of that music you’ve been downloading because it is information and information should be free! Finished? Good. Now I’m going to show why you’re a bigger moron than I am.
Before we go further, it would be helpful to understand a bit about information in numerical form that can be digitally transmitted or processed. Technically, computer data is not stored or processed in a numerical format. But it is often visualized that way, so the definition works for our purposes. Computer data is often viewed in base 16, or hexadecimal, format by software developers and crackers because it’s not too hard for a human to interpret. But on the computer architectures we use today, it is stored, transmitted, and processed in a binary format. If you were to directly translate computer data to an equivalent numeric format, you would use base 2, which is a series of zeros and ones (11110110, for example). Not so easy for we humans to interpret.
If you were to print out any file from your computer in binary form, regardless of the format of the file itself, you would see an unbroken sequence of ones and zeros. It would all appear meaningless. And you know what? It would be. Those ones and zeros only have meaning to the computer. If your printout is of an image file, you have absolutely no way of reproducing that image yourself without feeding it manually (using special software) to another computer. If it is a music file, you have no way of reproducing or transcribing it. And you certainly wouldn’t be able to do anything with the binary printout of a program. Even if you have the patience to learn to interpret binary printouts, they would still be out of context and, therefore, meaningless to you.
Here’s the problem. A given sequence of binary numbers can have several different meanings, depending on its context. As an example, look at this sequence: 11110110. By itself, meaningless. But in an executable file (a program) on an Intel processor (or any processor with that supports the x86 architecture) it might be a command to execute one of several types of multiply operations on a couple of numbers. Or, instead of a CPU instruction, it might represent the number 247. Or it might represent the division sign, ÷. Or it might be part of a longer sequence, something like 1111011001101110, which could again have a different meaning on different CPU architectures. Furthermore, these numbers could represent operating system commands. Or they could represent other commands inside a program.
The point is, computer data out of context is meaningless. It needs to be interepreted by the CPU, the operating system and, ultimately, the software you run on your system. Take a Windows executable file and try to run it natively on Linux or Mac OSX. Not going to happen. By themselves, those operating systems do not know how to interpret the binary data in Windows executable format. Try to run a program written for an Intel CPU on a PowerPC CPU. Won’t happen. Each CPU architecture and operating system has its own way of interpreting binary data. This is a very important factor in deciding whether or not movies, music and software are information.
To illustrate, let’s take something from the real world. Preferably, something that qualifies as knowledge. A phone number would do just fine. It qualifies as the knowing-what type of knowledge. If someone were to ask you for your phone number, you might write it down on a piece of paper. Or, you might send it via email. Whether it’s on paper, or in binary format on an email server, the number itself is still the same. All that has changed is the medium on which it was delivered.
Now, would you consider a piece of paper to be information? If you would, you’re a lost cause and can just stop reading now. The paper is not information. But the phone number is, in the form of knowledge. As for the email, that’s a different story. Not only is the phone number a kind of information, but so is the binary code used to represent it. Now we’re dealing with two types of information — knowledge, the phone number, and data, the binary code. One type for human consumption and the other for computer consumption. When the recipient reads your email, he’ll be able to see your phone number in text format on his monitor. But there’s more to the story.
I’ve decided to write a new program for fun (not really, but indulge me). My program will go through emails, extract phone numbers, and save them to disk as JPEG image files. What does that mean? It means that software which knows how to interpret the JPEG image file format will be able to read the file and interpret the binary data that represents your phone number not as text, but as the color values of a digital image. The binary data is the same, but it no longer represents your phone number. Did your phone number change? Even if I directly edited the binary data that represents your phone number such that it became a different phone number, your real phone number would still be the same. If not, the universe as I know it no longer exists and we can all go home now.
If you haven’t figured it out, I’ll summarize the point I’m trying to make. The binary data that represents your phone number in an email is distinct from your phone number itself. The two are not inextricably tied together. Changing one does not change the other. They are separate entities. It goes back to that word that I emphasized in the last post, representation. I’ll explain.
Take a board game. Any board game. Remember, we determined in part two that board games do not classify as information. The rules do, but the representation of the rules, in the form of the game board and accessories, does not. Now let’s make a computer version of the board game for Windows. The rules are the same (assuming we didn’t intentionally modify them), but this version does not have a physical representation. Instead, it has a graphical representation on a computer monitor. Furthermore, the graphical representation is enabled by an executable computer file, which is a collection of binary data that can be interpreted on a Windows operating system. Now let’s port the game to Mac OSX. If we were to compare the binary data of the Mac version with that of the Windows version, we’ll find that while a lot of it is the same, there are several differences. However, the graphical representation will essentially be the same. And, importantly, the rules will not have changed. The game itself is distinct from the executable file that creates its representation.
So what does all of this mean? I’m about to tell you. It means that books, music, movies, and software are not computer data and, therefore, are not information. Now, I know you’re going to wave your hands in protest, especially with my claim that software isn’t computer data. After all, software, by definition, cannot exist except in digital form. And most software does not have a real world equivalent like a board game. But it doesn’t matter. Whether you’re talking about computer games, office suites, graphics editors, or any kind of software imaginable, the representation of that software, be it in text mode or in graphical GUI goodness, is distinct from the binary code that creates it.
I’m simplifying a bit. OK, a lot. Most of the software you use, games especially, have a lot going on behind the scenes. The computer is crunching numbers, saving files to disk, and doing a lot of work that you don’t see graphically. But, again, it doesn’t matter. That, too, is a representation of the software. Any program can be ported to multiple operating systems and CPU architectures, performing the same general operations. The binary changes, but the program itself remains largely intact. Open Office is still Open Office on multiple platforms, even though the binary data is different. And in the future, if we ever represent computer data using something other than binary, we can still port old software to the new format and the representation can, conceivably, be largely the same.
So in two posts, I’ve laid out the rationale behind my assertion that digital works are not information. You may agree with me, you may not. That’s fine. You are free to do either. Ah, there’s that word free again. He just keeps popping up. And in part 4, I’m going to tackle head on the argument that information should be free. Despite all of the effort I went to in explaining that I don’t think digital works are information. Because I really love freedom, but all of those information-should-be-free hippies keep trying to take it away from me.
Creative Works, Greed and Free Information, Pt. 2
May 24th
In my last post, I laid out my view that supporters of digital piracy who claim to be fighting evil, greedy corporations are missing the bigger picture. They are ignoring countless small businesses and individuals whose products are pirated just as often as those of major corporations. In summary, I find the argument that “corporations are evil” simply an ingenuous excuse for pirates to justify their behavior. When people do bad things, they always look for ways to paint themselves as the good guys. Now on to the the point that started this little series of posts.
I opened the last post with the following sentence.
No matter how hard I try, I cannot contort my neurons enough to understand the argument that a creative work is information.
This was in response to the oft-repeated argument by some supporters of digital piracy that information should be free. In their deluded minds, music, movies, software and other digital products are information and, since information should be free, are therefore subject to be downloaded and copied about freely.
Now, if you actually take the time to analyze my remark in the context of digital creative works, it’s rather easy to come back and call me a moron. The problem is with the definition of the word information. Grab a dictionary. Any will do. Look up the word information. Merriam Webster’s online dictionary is my favorite. Their definition of information will do just as well as any other. You’ll find that you can summarize most definitions of the word succinctly as knowledge or data. You may also find, as in the linked definition above, words like facts or intelligence, but these are irrelevant to our discussion.
Before we go any further, let’s focus on the word knowledge for a moment. Philosophers generally consider two types of knowledge. One is referred to as knowing that and the other as knowing how. Mathematics is often used to demonstrate both types. We can know that 1 + 1 is 2. But we can also know how to add two numbers together. Or, as a real world example, I know that my DVD player has a gazillion features, but I don’t yet know how to use them all. I think it’s safe to say that the idea of free knowledge has been around since the concept of knowledge itself. To Aristotle, the pursuit of philosophy was about free knowledge, which meant knowledge for its own sake rather than for any utilitarian purpose. And there have also long been those who believe that knowledge should be free, which is rather different. And, in English anyway, confusing.
The problem with the word free in English is that it has two meanings, libre and gratis. When something is free as in libre, people can share and distribute it at will. This is what the Free Software movement (notice the capital letters) is all about. When something is free as in gratis, it is given away at no cost. This is what freeware is all about. It is quite possible to use a Free Software license, such as the GPL, to distribute software and still charge a fee for it. Several companies do so. It is also possible to give away freeware with restrictive licenses. You can find examples of that on the internet as well.
Now, whether or not knowledge should be free is not a question I’m willing to answer. What I am willing to say is that music, movies, software, and other creative works in no way, shape or form can be considered knowledge. In and of themselves, these things don’t work in the context of knowing how or knowing that. I’ve never heard anyone make the claim that a Monopoly board game is knowledge. The rules certainly are (knowledge-how), but not the representation of the rules. So I don’t see how a case can be made that the computer representation is knowledge.
On a side note, someone I know once made the claim that music is cultural knowledge. I can appreciate that, but I don’t quite agree. Knowing how to play music in a certain style, how to react to it, how to compose it… all of that is certainly cultural knowledge. After all, Asian music, European music, and African music are all quite different. But the music itself is not knowledge anymore than that Monopoly board game is. Sure, the notes and instructions written in a piece of sheet music qualify as knowledge, much as the Monopoly rules. But the representation of music, the sound you hear, is not knowledge.
I’ve use the word representation three times in the two preceding paragraphs. Get used to it. It’s a key concept to this discussion and will come up again as I try to get my point across.
Now to wrap up the discussion of knowledge. To me, as in most people I come in contact with on a daily basis, when the word information is used it is usually in the context of knowledge. So when I hear the phrase information should be free I understand it as knowledge should be free. And since music, movies, or software all fail to fit the definition of knowledge, this falls flat as an excuse to pirate digital goods. Where the ambiguity arises, and where you can get your ammunition to call me a moron, is when information means data. And that’s for part 3 of this little impromptu series, which will come at a later date. I’m a terribly slow typist.
Creative Works, Greed and Free Information, Pt. 1
May 17th
No matter how hard I try, I cannot contort my neurons enough to understand the argument that a creative work is information. This is the position taken by a segment of the anti-copyright, pro-piracy crowd. Though, I suspect that those who say it with conviction are a minority, while the majority who spout it are just freeloaders looking for any reason to justify getting free stuff. Either way, to me it’s a wholly irrational argument.
A typical example of this position can be seen in a ‘news’ item at a blog called Free Software in South America, which discusses the recent decision in the Pirate Bay case. There are several points in the post worth disputing, but for now I’m only interested in that made in the opening paragraph (I’ve left the links in the quote for context).
We are currently living in a historical moment which will define and shape digital rights and information freedom on the internet for generations to come. It’s one of those rare moments where the issue is black and white and where the two opposing camps can be identified without over-simplifying the issue. On one side, there are those fighting for the information revolution’s culture of sharing, co-operation and the public commons. On the other side is a powerful, industry cartel who would stomp out the commons to salvage proprietary information that they can buy and own.
Already, it’s obvious that the author has a profound misunderstanding of reality. Things are not so “black and white.” So first, before I get to what originally prompted this post, I’m going to go off on a tangent and turn it into at least two posts. I’ve got a lot to say.
It may make piracy advocates feel smug to view their activities as part of a greater good vs. evil campaign, where the noble Rebels are taking on the evil Empire for the greater good, or to portray themselves as modern day Robin Hoods serving the greater good against the corporate Sheriffs of Nottingham. But that point of view misses the big picture by quite some margin. Tell me, how evil is the independent game programmer who spends two years and several thousand dollars out of his pocket to create a game, not because he wants to get rich, but because he is passionate about creating games? How evil is the garage band who want to sell some of their self-recorded tunes online in order to continue pumping out great music, free of the record labels, for their fans? How greedy is the author who spends endless hours writing, revising, and editing her self-published novels because she has wonderful stories to tell, but can’t tell them all unless she can quit her job to do it full time?
I am sick of hearing the argument that digital piracy is a means of sticking it to the evil, greedy corporations. Yes, it is quite unfortunate that the RIAA, with their heavy-handed tactics, have become the face of anti-piracy. It’s also very unfortunate that copyright law has been butchered to the point that it no longer serves it’s original purpose, but effectively works against it. None of that justifies piracy. Nor does it justify ignoring the hundreds of thousands of creative individuals who create their works alone, or as part of small teams, because they absolutely love what they do. Indie game developers, garage bands, self-published authors, and all sorts of people out there are selling their products not because they want to take as much of your money as they can, but because they want to continue to bring to you products that you can enjoy using and that they enjoy making. I mean, seriously, how many novels do you think someone can write if they only have a few hours a week to spend on it, thanks to a full-time job they need to support their family?
I’m not trying to pull on the heart strings and generate sympathy for the poor, starving artist. Far from it. The fact is, that’s why copyright law exists in the first place. No matter what our talents, no matter our interests, we all need to put food on the table. And unless you are independently wealthy, that means maintaining a steady income through some sort of job. For someone with the ability to program and a passion for games, that job could possibly be as a game programmer for a large company, or it could be as a self-employed game programmer creating fun games out of his bedroom. For a creative writer, it could mean pumping out one story after another for a publisher, or self-publishing. If there were no guarantee that the indie game programmer or self-published author could profit from their works, then how are they supposed to do so full time? And if they can’t do so full time, how much will that affect their productivity? How many literary classics would never be written if all authors had no choice but to hold a full time job and only write a few hours each week? The intent of copyright law is sort of an agreement between the copyright holder and the government: the government will legally protect the copyright holder’s exclusive right to profit from their work for a period of time, with the understanding that once that time is up the copyright holder loses all exclusive rights to the work. At that point, the work becomes part of the public domain and is available to all. The intent is to ensure that there is incentive for creators to create at their full potential while guaranteeing that their creations are ultimately available to all. This is a boon for cultural history.
Yes, copyright law is broken and has been perverted beyond its original intent. It’s a horrid, illogical mess right now. I sympathize with everyone who opposes it in its current state. I oppose it myself. But it’s important to understand the distinction between its current state and its original intent. The original intent of copyright law was to ultimately work to the public good. Yes, it benefits the corporations now. But copyright law in and of itself is not a bad thing. We shouldn’t be working to circumvent or abolish it. Instead, we should be working to modify it so that it falls in line with the original intent. That is a noble cause. Stealing the hard work of others is not.
In my next post, I’ll address “the information revolution’s culture of sharing”, the bit that set me on this post in the first place.
Pirate Bay Loses
Apr 17th
Good news for software developers, artists, writers, movie makers, and anyone who wants to make a living off of their creativity. The four men behind Pirate Bay, that cess pit of digital piracy, have been found guilty of violating copyright laws. Each of them have been sentenced to a year in prison and will all have to pay a hefty fine. Now let’s just hope the sentence sticks on appeal.
DRM Hell
Apr 30th
It never ceases to amaze me how dense corporate types are when it comes to DRM. They repeatedly venture into the realms of stupidity and self-destruction. Supposedly, DRM exists to prevent people from pirating ‘intellectual property’. But because of the brain-dead decisions corporations make regarding DRM issues, it instead has the same effect on piracy that Bush’s War has on terrorism. The latest case is Microsoft’s decision to stop supporting the DRM licenses from its defunct MSN Music service.
The net effect of Microsoft’s decision amounts to a massive inconvenience: those who purchased music from the service won’t be able to play it on new computers without first burning it to CD, then copying to the new machine. That’s not as bad as not being able to play it at all. But, um, what about the people who bought several CDs worth of music? Of course, one Microsoft executive has this rock solid rationale to justify the move:
Microsoft exec Robert Bennett defended the company’s decision to destroy its MSN servers, arguing the move will affect only a small number of people.
That, of course, makes everything alright. Yeah, right.
While I sympathize with the MSN Music customers who are getting hit by this bit of silliness, the bigger picture is what concerns me most. This sort of boneheadedness does nothing to help the negative perception of DRM by consumers at large, but goes a long way toward making it worse. People who have never bought music from MSN are now going to point at it as an example of why DRM sucks and why they won’t bother buying any DRM protected music, ever. If that were all, there’d be no problem. But the greater issue is that this now becomes one more excuse people will use to rationalize their piracy of music. And more people who have never pirated music, after throwing up their hands in frustration, will realize that pirating is much easier and free of hassles.
Ultimately, the pirates aren’t alone in ruining it for the rest of us. The lion’s share of the blame can be laid at the feet of the corporations with their failure to handle the situation with common sense. Whether it’s music, videos, ebooks, software, or any other copyrighted digital content, all of the lower end, usually independent, producers of such content are ultimately getting screwed because these corporations have their heads up their asses. This crap could have been greatly slowed a decade ago had the corporations had the foresight and the common sense to adjust their business models to address the growing shift in consumer behavior. Not to mention the creativity to work out solutions other than the draconian DRM measures we see today. And still, after all of this time, they haven’t learned their lesson. Either they collectively have the mental capacity of a rock, or they live in a corporate bubble where reality is what they see when they close their eyes.
In the fast moving world of the internet and other technologies, it really helps if the people making decisions at a corporation really understand what’s going on. The days when you could live for a decade in ignorant bliss are long gone. The world is changing rapidly and companies who are affected by current and emerging tech need to be led by people who aren’t tied down by the bottom line, who can quickly make decisions based on unknown trends, who can recognize a shift in the market before it happens, and who can meet these challenges head on with solutions that make customers happy instead of treating them like criminals. Those who can’t keep up are going to lose money, alienate their customers, and, in some cases, cause irreparable damage to entire markets.
It’s sink or swim. And I’m tired of all those who are drowning bringing the rest of us down with them.
RIAA Gets Sued
Aug 18th
I think people who pirate are scum, but I”m not a fan of the RIAA either. Their tactics have done nothing to solve the problem and a lot to exacerbate it. You’d think that executives with years of education behind them would have the critical thinking skills to realize that suing middle school students and handicapped people for swapping music isn’t going to do much to help their cause. Instead, most of them are blinded by greed, isolated inside their ivory towers, or both. So no one at any of the music labels has done anything to prevent the RIAA from digging itself deeper and deeper into the massive hole of negative public opinion it has created. Enter a class action lawsuit against the RIAA.
A single mother from Oregon has a long list of complaints against the RIAA. When you read what they did, it’s enough to boil your blood. Whoever is calling the shots at the RIAA must have the brain capacity of the Decider himself. I’m hoping this suit goes forward as a class action and that everyone who has ever come under the RIAA’s thumb gets on board. This is one case of corporate machinery gone awry that needs to be remedied as soon as possible. Make them pay several hundred million dollars to the people they’ve attacked over the past few years and see how long they continue with their stupidity.
A Music Lover’s Tale
Mar 21st
In my last post, regarding measures like DRM I said, “The draconian steps these corporations have taken have, rather than preventing piracy, very likely led to an increase in piracy.” The consumerist has posted a reader’s letter, which was originally intended as a consumer complaint to Rhino. Titled “How I Became a Music Pirate”, the letter details a life-long music lover’s issues with music he bought from Rhino and highlights the biggest flaw with DRM — legitimate consumers are restricted in how they can use the music they purchase (which the music industry says you “license” rather than purchase). In their zeal to make profits and prevent piracy, the music industry is not just shooting itself in the foot — it’s blowing away its legs.
How Not To Fight Piracy
Mar 21st
In my most recent post on piracy, I talked about some of the reasons people pirate and, as an example of the draconian measures corporations implement in response, talked about Vista’s DRM features as related in a document by Peter Gutmann. In Gutmann’s opinion, Vista is suicide for Microsoft. I didn’t quite see it that way. This quote is the gist of what I was on about:
Microsoft has focused primarily on Vista’s security features in their
marketing efforts, but very little has been advertised about the
Digital Rights Management features of the OS. Many are are agreeing
with Gutmann that this is a suicide move by Microsoft, but I fear that
it is a clear signal of things to come.
It seems, however, that Gutmann was pretty close to the mark. If not suicide, it certainly appears to be damaging. Maybe it’s not a sign of things to come, but instead a lesson for supporters of DRM. Check out a few opening paragraphs from this AAx editorial:
Upgrading to Windows Vista has been banned by the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), technology
giant Texas Instruments and other corporations and government agencies
(V1, V10, V11).
These organizations are evaluating their options, but overseas it’s turning
into a stampede to get out of Microsoft software (V15).School districts in the U.S. are starting to move entirely to Linux
rather suffer the cost of upgrading Windows. Examples are the Windsor Unified
School District in Northern California and the Bexley, Ohio high school
district. Schools making this move have been surprised how easy it is and
how much money is saved. (V6, V8)Leading computer maker HP is reporting “massive deals for Linux desktops”
with corporate clients (V4). Runner-up computer maker
and long time faithful Microsoft ally Dell has been overwhelmed by demand
and has started developing Linux desktop preloads for their notebook
and desktop computers (V9).Even that great bastion of the status quo, the Wall Street Journal, has
published an article under the title Linux Starts to Find Home on Desktops
(Business Technology, 13 Mar 2007).Small business and consumer demand for computers with Windows XP is
very high, but Microsoft has moved swiftly to make sure they can’t get it.
No sane person wants Vista, so Microsoft is making sure they have no
choice.
The whole article brings up some great points. Mircrosoft really missed the boat on this. Many of the problems people have with Vista stem from its built-in anti-piracy features, of which DRM is a big one. The message Microsoft is sending is pretty clear: we don’t trust our customers.
Of course, Mircrosoft isn’t alone in the group punishment camp. The RIAA also has adopted a policy of punishing the many for the actions of the moronic few. Their insistence on forcing digital audio dealers to distribute DRM-enabled files has long been a major issue to consumers, but the dealers are starting to speak out as well. Steve Jobs published an article on the issue last month in response to criticism of Apple’s handling of DRM. Of course, it’s the music industry where he squarely, and rightly, lays the blame. If Apple wants to sell music online, they have to do it on the music industry’s terms. Jobs thinks the industry should rethink their strategy:
In 2006, under 2 billion DRM-protected songs were sold worldwide by
online stores, while over 20 billion songs were sold completely
DRM-free and unprotected on CDs by the music companies themselves. The
music companies sell the vast majority of their music DRM-free, and
show no signs of changing this behavior, since the overwhelming
majority of their revenues depend on selling CDs which must play in CD
players that support no DRM system.So if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music
DRM-free, what benefits do they get from selling the remaining small
percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM system? There appear to
be none. If anything, the technical expertise and overhead required to
create, operate and update a DRM system has limited the number of
participants selling DRM protected music. If such requirements were
removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies
willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only
be seen as a positive by the music companies.
Now, online music store Musicload, operated by Deutsche Telekom out of Germany, is criticizing DRM. They say that 75% of their customer service problems are related to DRM:
Musicload said in a letter distributed last week that customers are
having consistent problems with DRM, so much so that 3 out of 4
customer service calls are ultimately the result of the frustrations
that come with DRM. In a business where the major music labels expect
to be paid well for their source material, the costs of supporting DRM
are borne entirely by the music retailers. If the labels’ love affair
with DRM is hurting the companies trying to make a go at selling music
online, something is horribly wrong.According to Musicload, DRM “makes the use of music quite difficult and
hinders the development of a mass-market for legal downloads.” The lack
of interoperability is unfair to customers and prevents true
competition between music services, in other words.
By no means am I a believer that piracy is morally acceptable. Nor do I believe that anyone is entitled to obtain commercial digital content for free. The creators of the content have the right to profit from their creation just as much as the manufacturers of an automobile or of a computer. The creator has the right to decide if their creation will be free or commercial. Consumers have the right to choose to buy commercial content or not buy it — they do not have the right to obtain it freely until the terms of copyright, where applicable, no longer apply (of course, the current state of copyright law is another matter). But Microsoft, the RIAA and other such corporations have taken the fight against piracy in the wrong direction.
The draconian steps these corporations have taken have, rather than preventing piracy, very likely led to an increase in piracy. When you make it difficult for legitimate customers to use the product they legally purchased, you are sending the message that they can’t be trusted. Meanwhile, pirates continue to circumvent the anti-piracy measures these companies cook up. I mean, the pirates are batting 1.000 against the corporations’ dismal record of .000. Meanwhile, legitimate consumers are getting painfully beaned in the head by foul balls. If any of the people who come up with these half-baked anti-piracy schemes
think that people are actually putting up with them, they’re dumber than they seem.
The RIAA was recently voted the Worst Company in America, most likely for all of their silly lawsuits against college students and teenagers. Greedy moves like hiking internet radio royalties certainly don’t help their image. Ostensibly, the RIAA is trying to recover losses from the falling CD sales they claim. Again, they are going about it the wrong way.
I’ve chosen to boycott Vista. I’ll continue to use XP until Microsoft makes it impossible for me to do so, but in the meantime I am also using Linux for a lot of tasks these days. So once XP is no longer usable I’ll be happy with Linux. I don’t buy music from digital download stores that sell DRM product, I only buy CDs or DRM-free music. Morally, I just can’t turn to piracy. But many people don’t have any problem doing so when it is so difficult to use what they obtain legally and ultimately become pirates out of frustration. As long as companies continue to consider all of their consumers as potential pirates, they are going to lose more of them (some of them to piracy).
If you want to help in the fight to save internet radio from the greedy paws of the RIAA, visit Radio Paradise to learn how. I encourage you to send a message to the corporate backers of DRM that you aren’t going to let them dictate to you how you may and may not use the product you legally purchase. Boycott Windows Vista (Ubuntu Linux is an excellent alternative). Learn who the members of the RIAA are and boycott their music. Buy music that is DRM-free. Buy music produced by independent labels and artists. Eventually, DRM dragons will either get the message or fade away.
The Consequences of Piracy in the Digital Age – Vista Heralds Things to Come
Jan 6th
I’ve made my stance on digital media piracy very clear on this blog. I think people who copy and distribute the hard work of others are scum, even when doing it for no profit. Those who then take advantage of the situation by downloading such illegally distributed content are worse. But being against piracy does not mean I am against common sense.
The Problem
Despite what major software publishers want to believe, I think it is totally acceptable to install software on more than one computer as long as you have legally purchased the software and own the computers. I think it’s perfectly fine to copy your audio and video content to as many devices as you like, assuming of course that you purchased all of the content legally and own all of the devices. The idea of “licensing” software is ludicrous, as is the idea of restricting digital content to certain devices. I also support the idea that you are free to give away or sell software and other media that you own, providing that you transfer the originals and keep no copies for yourself in the process. After all, if you sell a television that you own you no longer have a copy of it lying around. People want to treat digital content differently than that of the physical world, but as I see it there is no difference. When you want a commercial product, you pay for it. You don’t steal it. But once you do pay it’s yours to do with as you please.
Yet morons continue to claim that they have some sort of inherent right to copy and distribute all digital content freely. They claim that information is free. In their minds, digital content and televisions are not the same. I’ve heard the arguments again and again: obtaining pirated content is not “stealing” because the owner loses nothing. Assuming that were true, then what happens when no one at all pays for the content? How then is the content creator to be compensated for his labor? Are musicians, movie producers, and software developers supposed to devote their lives to the creation of free digital content for the masses, relying on donations from a few kind souls to support their families?
The concept of free software, as defined by the GPL and the Free Software Foundation, is a noble ideal — not to be confused with freeware, which is a fantastic concept itself. I have several free programs installed on my computer, both those that are free as in “libre” and free as in “gratis”. OpenOffice.org is what I use in place of Microsoft Word. I use Firefox to browse the web, Thunderbird for email and newgroups, Java, Eclipse, MingW, DMD and Crimson Editor for software development. These programs were all released to the public freely by the developers, as free software and/or freeware. But no where on my computer will you find commercial content that I did not pay for. All of the audio files on my system come from my CD collection. My shelf is full of DVDs bought from a legitimate store (outside of which a stand selling pirated DVDs is set up on the sidewalk). In other words, I get free content for free, but I pay for commercial content.
The concept of free information is also a noble ideal. The sharing of information leads to the advancement of knowledge in diverse fields, which can be a boon to social and cultural evolution. Classifying software, music, and movies as information is a bit of a stretch in my view, but those pirates who copy in the name of “free information” do classify such content as “cultural information”. Such people are activists who passionately believe that what they do is for the betterment of mankind. To them, copyright laws are evil and should be abolished. But they have lost sight of one important fact: copyright law was brought about in order to guarantee that information would be free and available for the masses for posterity.
One of the most prolific writers in American history, Benjamin Franklin, was often plagiarized in publications both at home and in Europe. He lamented the fact that there was no protection for his work. The introduction of copyright law guaranteed that authors could publish their content, freely or commercially, with the assurance that they could seek restitution from anyone who copied it without their consent. They could for the duration of the copyright, should they choose to do so, profit from their work without the fear that someone else would take credit for their efforts or, worse, sell the plagiarized work in competition. It was an incentive for people to continue to create works that the public could enjoy. The critical part of copyright law was that it was limited. Eventually, the copyright law would expire and the content would be available to all to copy and distribute, commercially or otherwise.
The current anti-copyright movement is the result of a failure of government. The original intent of copyright law in the United States has been obscured by the efforts of powerful corporate lobbies. What once was a sensible law is now utterly absurd. The duration of copyright protection has been extended to ridiculous limits when major corporations saw the expiration of their copyrights on the horizon. It’s no wonder that some people want to abolish it. By pirating copyrighted materials, be they e-books, audio, video, or software, these anti-copyright hippies, as I call them, hope to force the issue. But abolishing copyright law is not the answer. It will send us back to the same situation that Benjamin Franklin lamented. There is no utopia on the other side. What incentive will people have to create? Oh, sure, some people would still create in their spare time. But the incentive to create content full-time would be gone. It may be romantic to label oneself a starving artist, but there’s nothing romantic about living in a box.
The anti-copyright movement isn’t really all that big, though, from what I gather. There are, of course, people who pirate for other reasons. Some claim they do so to fight the evil of corporations, the leaders of which take advantage of and grow fat off of the hapless lower and middle classes. That’s another romantic notion, but one that rather falls flat on its face when you consider that many, not all, of the people who say that just as happily pirate music from garage bands who self-recorded, or games from indie game developers who work alone or in small teams with low budgets, all of whom do what they do because of the dream that they can get paid to do what they love. How then do the “evil” corporations suffer when people pirate software developed by a guy in his bedroom each day after work?
The truth is, most people pirate either because they don’t want to pay for something that is freely available online, or because they just don’t think it’s wrong. A woman I knew in a multi-player game a few years ago, an average American female in her mid-thirties, told me that if it were wrong for her to copy mp3 files from Kazaa then the files wouldn’t be available. I have since learned that this sort of logic seems to be more prevalent than I would have guessed.
The Consequences
Whatever the reasons a person pirates, legitimate consumers pay the price. We are seeing this more and more. Games are sold with obscene copy protection programs that fail to work on some system configurations. Sony distributed audio CDs which stealthily installed a rootkit intended to protect the content. Audio content purchased from Apple’s iTunes store will only play on Apple’s iPod — and consumers are limited in how many systems they can copy the music to. However, these are all insignificant compared to what is coming.
Very soon, we will be paying an even higher price for the actions of morons who pirate. If you want to see just how high a price that is, read this document by Peter Gutmann describing the workings of Microsoft’s new Windows Vista operating system. The gist of it is, every consumer who uses Vista will be penalized for using it to play/view their existing digital content. They will even be penalized for using existing hardware, such as graphics and sound cards. Any content you try to play on Vista that is not protected by new standards, or distributed in new formats, will be downgraded in quality. Any hardware that doesn’t adhere to Microsoft’s specifications, or that compromises Microsoft’s idea of content protection, can be disabled. Microsoft’s dominance in the OS market ensures that top hardware manufacturers will implement such features in their products, potentially causing problems for users of other operating systems such as MacOS or Linux. Users of Windows XP probably won’t be able to upgrade their hardware unless they upgrade to Vista as well.
Microsoft has focused primarily on Vista’s security features in their marketing efforts, but very little has been advertised about the Digital Rights Management features of the OS. Many are are agreeing with Gutmann that this is a suicide move by Microsoft, but I fear that it is a clear signal of things to come. Media companies are determined to control how consumers use their content. Whether or not consumers do the sensible thing and boycott Vista, digital content publishers will not be giving up their fight. They will continue to wield their influence in government and in the hardware industry in an endless effort to prevent piracy. Sincere anti-copyright and anti-corporation activists will continue to pirate with the goal of defeating them. Casual pirates, like the lady I mentioned above, will continue to just get things for free. Meanwhile, the small digital content businesses, like independent software developers and garage bands, will continue to suffer the effects piracy has on their businesses while legitimate consumers will constantly be faced with challenges to the use of digital material they purchase.
What You Should Do
Considering the circumstances, it is tempting to take the opportunity to thumb our noses at groups like the RIAA and just get as much free content as possible. But that is not the answer. In order to change the situation we need to work within the established framework of law. Boycott products, like Windows Vista, that restrict what you can do with the content you legally purchase. Email or call your senators and representatives to demand that they listen to the consumers and not the corporations. Push for a revision of copyright law to something sensible, not to abolish it entirely. But whatever you do, don’t go to the dark side. More piracy will only lend legitimacy to the DRM efforts.
If you are a pirate now, whatever your reasons, I hope you consider what I have written here. Please think seriously about the consequences of your actions, for they do have consequences that are far reaching. In the United States, we already have too many people in government who are more willing to produce laws tailored to protect the interests of big business than to protect the rights of consumers. Don’t prove the corporations right.
RegCure Key
Jul 5th
Since I posted an entry mentioning RegCure last month, I have been getting hits from Google and other search engines from people looking for a key for the program. If that’s you, here’s an idea: why not just fork over the handful of dollars the program costs and get the key legitimately instead of being a criminal? If you can’t bother to do that, or for some reason in your twisted, moronic mind you feel you are entitled to steal the hard work of others just because it’s digital, then fuck off. People like you are the reason we have Digital Rights Management, CD Copy Protection, and all the other crap that inconveniences law-abiding consumers who understand the difference between right and wrong.
If that’s not you and you are just looking for info about RegCure because you are interested in purchasing it, then I thank you for supporting software developers. It’s nice to know that the world hasn’t been completely taken over by morons.
