This is about piracy (Yarr!). Software, music, movies - they are all pirated both in large, organised operations and individually by people at home. An interesting facet of the issue I have noticed is the way people who pirate make up all kinds of arguments to justify their practices. Many of these arguments are unrealistically self-righteous; others are flawed and to me seem to be weak justification for the practices made up "after the fact" - that is, people want to pirate so they make this argument rather than having an argument which enables them to pirate without tarnishing their ethics. Readers should note that this article is not primarily about whether piracy is right or wrong, just the way I think many of the arguments employed by piraters are quite odd and intrinsically wrong. As you will see at the end, I take the view that if you're going to pirate, just accept that it's against the law and probably unethical. If you're prepared to do it anyway, so that you can get free games or whatever, then I don't really have a quarrel with you. But what I think is weird is all of these nonsensical arguments. These are some of the main ones I have seen and why I think they're not appropriate "defences" for pirates' actions:
I would buy products if more of the money went to the artist instead of to the giant corporation.
Really? I wonder if you ever buy anything from supermarkets. Do you seem them giving 70-80% of the price of fruit to the farmer? No. Do you see clothes stores giving high proportions to the farmers who make the cotton? No. I remember from geography that about 60% of the price of making a Nike shoe went to the retailer - despite the fact that they have to do little more than buy it wholesale and then display it on their shelf. I agree that some companies go too far when they refer to the "starving songwriters in Canada", etc. but overall these people rely on us buying their products for an income. Even if they only get 30-40% of the money from a sale, this is pretty good for not having to meet any of the production, editing, distribution or marketing costs. No company today gives a large amount to the people who makes its products - yet we still purchase things. And despite the fact that "publishers take all the profits from artists", who is it that is the MOST conspicuously wealthy element of our society? Movie stars, musical artists, etc!
The big companies/stars make enough already and me pirating won't make a difference.
Apart from the fact that this contradicts the previous argument to an extent, I would argue it is invalid based on the following reason. If everyone used an argument like this, then profits would drop to zero. In the same way, if everyone decided, "well there are lots of murders already so me murdering someone will hardly make a difference to the overall statistics", there would be uncontrollable murder in society. The basis of a tenable democratic society is that most people have morals and are willing to do what they know is right or at least abide by the will of the community at large. This community, in our society, has decided that piracy is wrong and should not be allowed. Therefore, to be ethically "clean", we should respect this decision and not rely on a "he's doing it so I can too" kind of belief system.
It's their own fault for making their products way too expensive. Games should cost less than A$50; music and DVDs around $10-15.
This is an argument which is somewhat rational, but still pretty much motivated by the same kind of greed which leads the publishers to raise their prices. Of course the publishers want more money - they are not charities and the goal of most people in life (and therefore businesses) is to make money. Everyone wants the best for themselves, and just because we want cheaper games doesn't mean it is ethical to get them illegally for little or no money. Also, this argument fails to take into consideration the large amounts of money that companies spend on developing games. A best-selling game like C&C Generals takes several years and several million dollars to develop, on top of the cost of production (which is probably not that much). If the game is really new, incorporating revolutionary features which have to be designed and coded from scratch, then that cost will be even higher. The company has to make all of this back, plus whatever fee they pay the developers, plus a profit for themselves and their shareholders. This is probably what leads them to make things so expensive.
I think everything is summed up by the following quote from "Star Wars: Tales from the Empire" (Star Wars, what can't it teach us?),
"I know what I'm doing violates the law, but I do it because that's what I do. I take the risks, I make some money or I get sent to Kessel. It's all very straightforward. The Rebels, they do everything I would do, but they say they are entitled to do it because the law is wrong and the Empire is wrong. They're really just making excuses for their actions so they can feel they're noble when they're really no better than I am."
Of course, Star Wars is slightly different in that the Empire is a fascist government which decides unilaterally what is best for the people. We, however, live in a democracy and the majority of the community has said that stealing, and by extension piracy, is wrong.
If you pirate, do it with a fair attitude. Know that piracy is wrong, and do it only if you're willing to break the law in order to receive a benefit (ie not have to pay for music or games or whatever). But don't try to make up pious arguments justifying piracy and even making it seem as if you're a noble hero fighting against the evil publishers. I don't deny that publishers might be evil (eg. Warner Brothers making campaign contributions to certain congressmen in exchange for tighter legislation); but if you steal for your own personal gain (as you are doing), no matter who the target is, you're still a thief.
