Just a few random thoughts here... and as a disclaimer, there may be some slightly political things injected here - they are not injected to spark political discussion, but really, truly, are injected in an attempt to answer the fundamental question of "why piracy?" I give them as assumptions/premises to my logical argument - if you disagree with them, you will disagree with my conclusions and that is fine. Take it up with me off-thread.
Mods - if this is too "political," feel free to delete.
Why is electronic theft so prevalent?
That's a fairly easy one... let us start with a few quick assumptions:
1.) If it's free, there will be a line.
2.) To easily distribute information, one needs (a) the ability to convert that information into digital form and (b) a medium for distributing the digital copy. (Corollary: These must be CHEAPLY available).
3.) Technology has now provided first high-resolution, inexpensive scanners and then high-data-transfer-rate cabling.
Therefore, with the proliferation of technology, it is both easy and inexpensive to convert books to digital form. It has also made it easy and inexpensive to transfer these digital copies. Since there are those who provide these copies for free, there will be a lot of people trying to get at them.
You can't squeeze blood from a stone/turnip!
Granted, this is true. Those without the money to spend on RPG products are not causing the industry to "lose" money as there was never a revenue stream there to tap. For all the billions of dollars the RIAA claimed to lose due to Napster, for example, most anecdotal evidence pointed to the majority of users of Napster being teenage to early-20's kids with little money but with access to computers and a lot of free time.
While these users have a point in clamoring that, "we're not costing anyone anything as we couldn't pay in the first place," that is not the point. One thing that seems to have been lost on the population in general is the old adage, "if you can't afford it, you must learn to do without it." The moral deficiency is not on a company that makes a luxury item that you can't afford - the moral deficiency exists in the person that takes that which he cannot afford... and that doesn't just mean stealing, either - it means living beyond your means in all its forms. Whatever happened to self-discipline?
The reason "electronic theft" (I will not refer to it as "piracy" for reasons I will get to in a moment) is so prevalent is that the prevailing social attitude is, "if I want it, I should have it. Since I don't have the money for it, nobody is hurt by my taking a copy." While it is true that the copy does not properly represent "lost revenue" on the part of the company, there IS a "natural" crime being committed and it IS theft. Why?
Because the way our society is structured, the idea is that in order for your quality of life to improve, you must exchange goods, services, and/or money earned by your own goods or services for that improvement. While I don't necessarily agree with the exact way current copyright laws work, I understand and agree with the premise - in exchange for my effort in transcribing an idea to a communicable form, society at large agrees that I will have, for a limited time, the right to profit from the disemination (sp?) of the transcription. When I make that available as a book or in digital format or whatever, I place certain terms and conditions on the disemination - namely, that I should receive a certain amount of money per copy created. In other words, society at large has promised me that copies will (for a limited time) not be made without my permission so that I may profit for the service I provided to society (transcribing the idea).
When an individual makes an illegal copy of my work, regardless of whether he has the money wherewith to pay me, he harms society by violating its agreement with me, thereby reducing the chances that I will trust society's word sufficient to transcribe ideas (read: write a work) again. Who is the victim in this case?
It is not me - I have lost no revenue (as the copier cannot pay to begin with) and I am not harmed by this; I still have my ideas.
Society is harmed by this because if I no longer feel that I can trust society sufficient to transcribe my ideas, society will not get my subsequent ideas. That makes society a victim and thereby justifies it in seeking recourse against the individual, punishing him for harming society at large - which is why copyright infringement is illegal and it IS in fact moral to make it so.
Furthermore, the individual who illegally copies my work is the victim, regardless of whether he bears a cost based on society's prosecution of him. He, like the rest of society, does not get access to my subsequent ideas, thereby literally costing himself an "intellectual revenue stream." His quality of life may improve short-term due his theft, BUT at the cost of even greater improvements to the quality of his own life later (in addition to the improved quality of life of society at large).
Now, I think the current terms offered by society to a "scribe" (not a "creator") of ideas are a bit slanted towards the creator, but that's not the point.
Have I encountered illegal copies of PDFs (and other programs, for that matter) in my day? Yes. Have I copied and used them? Yes. When I recognized what cost it was having, did I stop using them until I had acquired a legal copy? Yes. I no longer use illegal copies, because I realize that the victim in the crime is - surprise - me. I am in no hurry to steal from my future to indulge my present.
There is no correlation between making a perfect copy of something and stealing an original meatspace version of something - particularly if the copy is of something cheap and the meatspace thing is expensive.
I am reminded of the man who approached a woman and offered her $50 million if she would sleep with him. She immediately said yes. He then asked her if she would sleep with him for $5. She was offended and said, "heck no, what kind of a woman do you think I am?!?" The man replied, "that was established when you accepted my initial offer. Now we are only haggling over the price."
I don't know about you, but I value my own personal integrity above the $5 or $10 I might save by making an illegal download of a PDF. If you do not, that is your business and nobody can tell you that you should.
The point, though, is that the choice of words, "making a perfect copy" illustrates a very poignant understanding of the difference between copyright and "normal" property. It is that with normal property, there is effectively a limited supply. I cannot take your car without impoverishing you by robbing you of the ability to drive it, enjoy it, and otherwise use it. However, if I make a perfect copy of your book, I have in no way dimished your ability to enjoy it and use it, right? You still have the original, and both of our lives are enriched! What a great system!
Yes, it's great for the copier. The copier did not have to expend energy in putting pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard to RAM to disk, as the case may be). But there is very real effort expended on the part of the writer of a book in creating it. For you to benefit from the fruit of another's labor (without his consent) is immoral, even for a Keynesian - you are to benefit from the fruits of your own labor. THIS, ultimately, is why copyrights are created - it allows the writer to be compensated for his labor.
Now, because (a)copies are relatively cheap and of use for all, and (b) it is also immoral for the writer to be paid again and again for the same work (you don't pay the plumber who fixed your toilet every time you flush it; he has to keep fixing toilets to keep making money - so, too should an author be required to continue to produce new material to continue making money), it also stands to reason that at some point, the transcription should become free to all (i.e., public domain). Those who would keep transcription out of the hands of the public, with the implicit blessing of government are more properly called "pirates" (remember, pirates were not exactly outlaws; they were granted by governments the right to raid ships of OTHER governments - or in the case of copyright law, raid the public domain by keeping things that ought to eventually fall into the public domain from doing so).
Therefore, I am of the mind that we need copyright protection AND we need copyright expiration within a limited amount of time in order to continue to enrich the public domain and encourage continued production on the part of writers (and other artists). A writer or artist who somehow feels that his one masterwork means that the world owes him a living the rest of his days is as offensive to me as the one who steals the work of the writer because he feels the world owes HIM a living.
BTW, copyright holders ought to be beholden to the public to release their work into public domain after a time, due to the social agreement that gives them copyright in the first place. Because the "big copyright holders" have been fighting to keep this from happening, the trust of society in the copyright holders has been significantly diminished, to the point where now many are rebelling against the concept of copyright completely, outraged at the abuses suffered under it. Don't get me wrong - copyright holders (collectively and not individually) and their draconian efforts to keep everything under their thumb have probably done as much to cause/encourage piracy by violating THEIR agreements with society as anything.
But two wrongs do not make a right - electronic thieves cannot justify their actions by claiming copyright is too draconian but neither can copyright holders justify THEIR actions by claiming there are too many electronic thieves. Both, ultimately, are in the wrong.
What does all of this have to do with the original question?
A fair question. In the above, you have the "simple" reason that "electronic theft" exists - because it's relatively easy to do and (as has been mentioned by others), because it's hard to stop. Furthermore, it is generally considered to be "easy to get away with" - "really stiff penalties" are not nearly the deterrent that "high likelihood of getting caught" is.
So why drag copyright and harm into it?
Because I think part of examining the "why it exists" must of necessity be an attempt to understand the mindset of those who do it and by extension, understand the reasons for which it is illegal and/or unethical. Computers don't copy books and swap files; people do. Therefore, an examination of people is a necessary part of answering the question of "why there is piracy." This can be boiled down to a few key points:
1.) Electronic theft is illegal because it harms society by disincenting writers and artists from transferring ideas into a communicable medium. IOW, it reduces the willingness of writers to write and artists to "art." This damages society by cutting off its "intellectual revenue streams."
2.) Electronic theft is immoral because it involves one person profiting without doing work from another who has done work; regardless of whether or not you have "impoverished" someone else by making a copy - "I did not impoverish another" is no justification for "benefitting unjustly (i.e., by taking the benefit of another's work)."
3.) Rampant abuse of copyright by copyright holders has tarnished the standing of the "social contract" that creates it in the eyes of the "common man." They (perhaps rightly) see copyright in its current form as immoral, as it results in one entity benefitting unjustly for its work (i.e., attempting to leverage benefits into benefits for long periods of time without the need to continue doing work). Because of this, "electronic theft" is seen as a form of civil disobedience, striking back at copyright holders (in general and not individually) who have harmed society by not living up to their end of the bargain.
4.) Electronic theft is not victimless; because it diminishes society's "intellectual revenue streams" (see point 1), it harms all members of society EXCEPT the writer but including the copier in cases where the copier has not the ability to pay, and of course also harms the writer where the copier does have the ability to pay as "lost revenue." Thus, in a very real sense, everyone, including the thief, is hurt by electronic theft.
5.) Because our society does not emphasize the value of "if you can't afford a luxury, live without it" and instead emphasizes, "you deserve every luxury you can get - legally or otherwise," and because many who engage in electronic theft do not properly understand the consequences of their actions (as described in #4 above), there is a large segment of the population that engages in electronic theft in ignorance of the consequences.
6.) Though this cannot be proven, I have a theory that says, "most people want to do the right thing" - the majority of people who are able to pay for something in fact will pay for it. Furthermore, those who "steal" when they have not the ability to pay often pay once they do gain that ability (though in some cases this belated payment may be too little too late). The few people that do "steal" and have the money to pay for it either do not properly understand the consequences for themselves (again see #4 above), they do it for the "rush" and don't really care what is stolen, or they are so concerned with immediate gratification that they care not whether it harms them - or anyone else - in the future (similar in mindset to those that have maxxed-out credit cards and make the minimum monthly payments - enjoy now, pay later, and hope to God later never comes). Unfortunately, while I do not share the same optimism about corporations, which have shown time and again that their interests now are solely concerned with "the bottom line" and not with honoring any "unprofitable" societal contracts. Suffice to say my only hope that copyright holders will stop browbeating the public lies with nine Supreme Court Justices right now... but this is getting off into political waters, so I'll stop it there. Suffice to say that both copyright holders and electronic thieves have completely missed understanding the consequences of their actions.
There is my collection of thoughts. I hope it is more or less coherent, cohesive, and non-inflammatory (though I expect I shall offend EVERYONE a little bit). But that's why I, personally, feel that piracy exists, from both a technological and psychological POV.
"I am not entirely on either side, as neither is completely on my side."
Anyone who wishes to take up any political discussion about this or the ramifications is welcome to contact me off-thread.
--The Sigil
