Has online piracy reached a tipping point?
For years, digital technology and the Internet have provided a virtual buffet of digital content from which millions have feasted for free.
Whether it be downloading movies illegally found with the help of the Pirate Bay, ripping a movie rental from Netlix to a computer hard drive, republishing an unauthorized copy of a news photograph to the Web, or sharing music on peer-to-peer services, the people who create this content have begun to send a message: "no more free lunches."
Copyright owners around the globe have gone on the attack. They're backing antipiracy legislation in France and Sweden. They're lobbying Internet service providers in the United States to crack down on customers who download files illegally. They're pressuring hardware and software companies to prevent their products from being used as "pirate toolboxes." They're threatening legal action against Google and other sites that aggregate news without permission.
Perhaps the most dramatic example of the new resolve of copyright owners came on Friday, when a court in Sweden found the operators of the Pirate Bay, likely the best known hub for file sharing on the Web, guilty of violating copyright law. In a case that is sure to be appealed, the four men were sentenced to a year in jail and fined the equivalent of $3.6 million.
"There might be just a point here where the culture is changing on what's legitimate behavior online," said Mike McCurry, the former White House press secretary under President Bill Clinton and co-chairman of Arts+Labs, a collaborative group of technology and media companies. "I think perhaps something of a tipping point has been reached where people are finally saying that activity we thought was just okay or skirting around the edge has tipped over into something both dangerous, criminal, and unfair."
The outcome of all the antipiracy efforts may be that jobs are spared and investor value is preserved. It might also mean information and digital entertainment becomes more expensive and less accessible. What the content creators have yet to prove is whether these moves will make any difference. They have little to show for previous efforts.
"It's not that they might not obtain their short term aims," said Danny O'Brien, International outreach coordinator for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that advocates for Internet users and technology companies. "But what is the long-term goal? What is the end game? You take out The Pirate Bay and people will still make copies of movies. People will continue to share music online...It's been five years since Grokster. How has that helped the music industry?"
The $3.6 million the Pirate Bay was fined is only a fraction of what copyright owners say they are losing each year as a result of copyright infringement.
(Credit: Mats Lewan/CNET)O'Brien is referring to the U.S. Supreme Court decision that peer-to-peer file-sharing services Grokster and Streamcast could be sued for encouraging copyright infringement. The decision effectively forced Grokster out of business and set a legal precedent against peer-to-peer services. Yet, such services continue to operate and illegal file sharing, at least by most measures, has only grown.
Nonetheless, copyright owners aren't waving any white flags.
Layoffs, ISPs, and Kindle
There aren't supposed to be any free lunches, say executives from media and entertainment companies who spoke with CNET News. The tab for all that so-called free content is being picked up by stunt men, makeup artists, secretaries, sound engineers, editors, truck drivers, and lots of other people who work for media and entertainment companies, according to the executives. They maintain that at a time of massive corporate cutbacks and layoffs, media and entertainment firms have to cut a little deeper because of piracy.
So, the stakes are higher now for content creators. They say they will prevail for that reason and because they understand technology better, are marshaling more resources and enjoy more support among International lawmakers than ever before. The most recent endorsement came Friday, when British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told a gathering of techies in London that his government "will support the legal framework that enables the private sector to create content."
Copyright owners also point to other important, if hard-won, victories.
• YouTube once swelled with pirated clips of movies, TV shows, and music videos. In the last year, however, the site has begun filtering out illegal content. The move came after media conglomerate Viacom filed a $1 billion copyright lawsuit and as YouTube began partnering with Hollywood in a bid to offer premium TV shows and films.
• Amazon handed over control of the Kindle 2's text-to-speech application when the Authors Guild claimed the function violated copyright law and could cut into sales of audio books.
• In cooperation with the film and music industries, AT&T has begun testing an escalating system of warnings or graduated response. The ISP says it would never terminate service without a court order. Apparently, not all ISPs are as squeamish (go here to see a copy of a warning letter from Charter Communications).
One important finding from AT&T's test is that the company said it sees a drop in illegal downloading from people who have received a warning. With more experience, copyright owners and ISPs will only get better at discouraging illegal file sharing, said Rick Cotton, NBC Universal's general counsel.
"What's important is all the creators of the broadband Internet be working together to reduce pirating activity," Cotton said. "What needs to be clear is that accessing copyright content illegally is simply not acceptable. We need strong messaging, in the form of technology barriers and speed bumps that make it difficult to access pirate sites. There does at some point need to be some consequence (in graduated response by ISPs). My expectation is that there will continue to be dialogue but ultimately the test is effectiveness."
The end of free?
As for the motivations of media and entertainment companies, there is perhaps one more reason for drawing a line in the sand against piracy now. So far, free hasn't turned out to be a very profitable business model.
The decimated newspaper industry, which has given away stories on the Web for years, is talking about charging for content--again. Digital music services that depended on advertising sales to support themselves, such as SpiralFrog and Ruckus have gone bust. Imeem, an online social network that focuses on music, has staggered recently and has asked financial backers for more support.
Even YouTube, with its 100 million users, has struggled to generate cash. Google CEO Eric Schmidt said last week that he expected the site to one day charge for some content. The statement is a startling revelation coming from the chief of the world's mightiest advertising company, and seems to underscore YouTube's struggles to squeeze profits out of ads alone.
This is not the first ad-market crunch the tech sector has seen. During the dot-com bust in the early part of this decade, ad-supported companies scrambled to charge for services that they once gave away free. Most of those companies disappeared.
Jonathan Zittrain, professor of Internet law at Harvard Law School and author of the book "The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It," says it's too early for free services to be written off.
"I wouldn't say (this is) the end of free yet," Zittrain said. "There is a vibrant set of activities to occupy people's leisure time that isn't fee-for-product. Whether blogging, video making, tweeting, or interacting on social networks, the number of things to do while staring at a screen that require no monetary investment at all has climbed significantly.
"In a down economy," Zittrain continued, "one might surf for an hour rather than spend $15 at a multiplex."
Author's note: I recently asked a public relations executive at a major entertainment conglomerate why, if piracy is hurting everyone, more celebrities aren't speaking out against it. "I've got two words for you," he said. "Lars Ulrich." Apparently comedian Jack Black was willing to risk condemnation from cyber-groovies. The video above is an antipiracy message he made two years ago.
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
But the chilling part of the story is the AT&T practice of warning downloaders. In order to know that, the ISP listens to every byte their users transmit and receive! And then take legal action against the unsuspecting broadband user. That is eavesdropping and censorship -- the article casually mentions WIIRETAPPING that we don't even permit on our phones, even if we think one party to the conversation is a terrorist. Yes, I feel for and am a IP content creator, but are we really willing to hand over one of our basic freedoms because an attorney for a music publisher argues we should?
And everyone reading this should be very wary what they put in emails, blogs, and tweets -- it is a fact that someone is reading every word! And guess what? In most communities, you have no choice -- you can't go to an alternate to your monopolistic, eavesdropping broadband provider.
I know, IP owners will scream about this. Fine STOP PRODUCING and go on strike. That is what us poor slobs have to do to make a point. We get rob everyday by the system, welcome to our world you stuck up so and so's.
That's a fabulously puerile perspective you have there, congratulations.
Firstly, it isn't just MPAA and RIAA that you and others like you are hurting. Even in the movie or recording industry, there are plenty of little guys whose wages are paid from copyright revenue. For instance, the sound technicians, cameramen, gaffers, riggers and so on. They don't get millions in pay - and they certainly aren't rich - but you're stealing from them too. There are, of course, other industries involved as well, and even in the movie or recording industry, not everybody is a member of MPAA or RIAA, and not everybody has royalties collected by those organisations.
Additionally, it may not have occurred to you, but you're also stealing from your government, since you aren't paying taxes on the illegally copied material. So you're stealing from the poor, from the little old lady down the road, from schoolchildren - in fact, from society in general.
Morally bankruptcy such as yours is the same problem that has brought down the banking system; it is the same problem that results in our politicians misbehaving and feathering their own nests at our expense; indeed, it is the malaise behind many problems faced by most countries today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
Add to that a constant assault on privacy, the perversion of laws and lawmakers, attempts to shape the internet into something it was not meant to be and all of it without the slightest shred of evidence of financial loses and there's plenty of reasons to root for the other team.
And it's no ones responsibility to send money to the government - it's our responsibility to care for our own.
You want to take the moral highroad? It is morally bankrupt for the MPAA and RIAA to sue children. It is morally bankrupt of these industries to add to their swelling profits without giving the artists, the industry people (eg your cameramen, gaffers, riggers, etc) a cut of that increased profit (the writers strike ring a bell??), nor the tax payer (via tax evasion methods). Lets also not forget that the movie industry is in Hollywood specifically to avoid paying patent royalties (for edison if I recall correctly, the patent didn't apply in Cal) - now, isn't that stealing? They aren't paying tax on the royalties they aren't giving out. So that poor old lady is missing out on way more money that a single downloaded cd.
Get off your high horse and realise that the people you so righteously defended are the morally bankrupt ones.
Personally, it is 'worth it' for me for the peace of mind for some things and not for others.
Not everyone is in the industry to bust there ass and give things away for free some people have families to feed.
It's really funny. I've seen the RIAA and the MPAA make "statement" against piracy, I've seen one or two, maybe as much as a dozen "stars" make statements against piracy. I've not seen anywhere where those "little guys" are speaking out.
What I did see is the writers on strike to get an equal cut very recently. I've also seen those companies you apparently agree with suing people but not making legal charges against them.
I've read about deals with ISPs to get them to throttle connections and threaten to cut them off just because of accusations (again, not being found guilty of, just being accused of). I've even read claims of lost revenue. Tell me, where's the proof?
I can tell you now, the only way I hear any new music is from the radio. The only way I hear any old music is from Last.fm and the only music I have on my computer is free downloads provided by legal, legitimate sources.
There's plenty of revenue out there, plenty of ways to provide free, legal sources for media and plenty of ways to prove that lowering distribution costs via P2P or torrents would actually save money and provide at least as much revenue to pay those same "little guys" everyone seems to be so worried about.
If the media creators could just get it through their thick skulls that there is a way to do this, the only people who'd be out of a job are the huge numbers of lawyers. Tell me, does it sound like they're fighting for the jobs of others? It really sounds to me like they're fighting more for their own.
Piracy occurs for a few reasons.
1. People just can't afford to buy CDs at the unbelievable prices that the moronic Record Industry charges. And not a lot of songs come out as CD singles. Even the singles are a bit overpriced.
2. People do not want to plunk down $20 or more for a CD just to get just 1 or 2 songs they like.
3. People do not want to spend a lot for an album which they have no idea how good it is. (This one also goes for video DVDs)
4. People prefer to try before they buy. (I am pretty sure that most people wouldn't spend $20 on a shirt without seeing if they like the design first.)
5. People HATE record producers aand their vampiric cousins in the motion picture industry. (I know that I never trust the trailers to get an idea of the movie and how good it is. I caught some of The Day The Earth Stood Still on the net. I am glad I did, because it sucked harder than a Dyson. I saved myself from seeing a large sum of my limited cash shelled out to see this turkey.)
There are many more reasons for piracy. The various industry trade groups seem to think we are still living in the 1960, where they have total control of distribution of a film or music. This is no longer the case. The Internet is a wonderful think. It saves us from buying music that reeks by letting us hear it first. It also saves us from wasting money on the Motion Picture Industry's latest offering of junk.
I have no pity for these industries, or for artists who go along with them and whine that they are not making enough... I mean, come on people. I am all for FAIR compensation for artists, but the key word is FAIR. No one seems to have any pity for the low income girl who's family can't even afford a digital download, or can't even get one because they can't afford a computer. What if her friend burned her a copy of the latest random pop star hit and got caught...? No... when an artist complains that he or she isn't making enough, then boards his or her private jet to rush to the Mediterranean for the weekend, I have no pity whatsoever for them.
Lately I had some moron somehow get tapped into my wireless router and he was sharing a movie. I got a letter from our ISP that nearly scared my wife to death. Where is the fairness in that...? And yes, I use 128bit encryption, but he still somehow got in. I am in the market for a new wireless router as we speak.
If the various industries involved want to stop piracy, then the answer is NOT litigation. Most of the folks who get sued are hard working folks on low incomes who can't afford a legal purchase. Or who do NOT want to be limited as to what device that the song can play on. Has anyone asked themselves why we have been slowly switching over to Digital recording methods, despite the fact that Analog recordings are of a higher quality? The answer is simple. You cannot effectively copy protect analog media. With digital, you can stick in any draconian DRM junk you want.
Here's how to stop piracy.
Provide a full copy of a movie or audio recording, with a limited use or time based kill switch. And provide it for free, and at a high quality bitrate. If they like it, then let them purchase a totally unlimited no DRM copy at an AFFORDABLE and REALISTIC price. If they don't like it, it self destructs and frees up precious disk space on their PC or MP3 player. The ONLY reason not to adopt this simple method would be in the studio knew something was crud and didn't want the general public to know (which covers about 80% of todays motion pictures and music.)
Marketing more would help. If they stopped paying billions to shark lawyers for little or no return, maybe they wouldn't be losing so much income. I guarantee that most of the lost money they claim is caused by piracy, is actually lost to legal fees.
Keep in mind one last point...
The MPAA and RIAA CLAIM to be losing these HUGE amounts of money through sales to piracy. But, besides the fact that these figures are basically being pulled out of some accountants aft-end orifice, the figures are very misleading.
About 50%-60% of piracy is done by people who would never have the money to buy the content normally, so there is NO lost sales from these people. If they didn't pirate the stuff, they simply wouldn't have it. BUT and this is a huge BUT. If these people like the music, they may tell their friends who might actually have the money to buy the music of video. Something to think about.
Pardon the typos...
But the studio heads KNOW they aren't going to get the govts of China and India and Pakistan in a sweat about the profits of US companies, so they pick at the Internet instead.
Hell, I'm pretty sure that I've got legal physical copies of every "Made in Hollywood" movie that I've ever downloaded! What do they think anyhow, that the public will pay for five or six copies of the same work? That's not even how the LAW reads, for God's sake!
You're confusing commercial piracy with consumer piracy. The former *used to be* the biggest problem, but the biggest problem today is the latter, at least for consumer-oriented products.
@sparrowhyperion:
The main reason people pirate stuff is that they're morally bankrupt and greedy. It isn't that they can't afford (many of them could easily, if they wanted), or any of the other reasons you give. It's simply that they think they can get away with it, and for the most part at the moment they're probably right.
What man am I sticking it to if I go to Last.fm and listen to music instead of getting into my car, spending money on gas that I can't afford, drive to the store, look through hundreds of CDs filled with crap that I'm not legally allowed to do anything with even though I own it, buy it for at least $10 more than should be allowed by law, drive back home, spending more money on gas that I can't afford, get to my CD player and play the 1 song on the thing I wanted to listen to in the first place?
Oh, you think I should have just spent the money for a single download at Amazon? So, instead of paying $10 more for a CD, I could have paid $0.70 more than it actually costs for anyone to profit off of it?
The problem is very simple, they're not losing costs, they're not even losing a normal amount of profits. Hell, they're not even losing the obscene amounts of profits they've always made.
The problem is that they're greedy bastards who just want every single penny every person in the world has just so we can all be litigated out of existence.
I read a comment yesterday that I completely agree with. Give me an address to send money to with a legally binding contract that the money be distributed only to those who actually did the work to create a piece of media. Instead of paying full price, I'll pay half and they'll all get a raise.
As for Music, games, etc entertainment, They are providing me a service that i'll pay for.
People still want films, music and so on ... and if they can't afford the overblown prices [which we are told are because pirates force the studios to raise them] then they will look elsewhere for what they want. The internet just makes this easier. And nobody really gives a much of a cuss about the studios and record companies because John.Q.Public is not fooled by all their hand-wringing over 'lost' profits and knows they are making money hand-over-fist. Also, lets not forget, these are *distribution* companies, *not* content creators. Those would be the musicians, actors, directors etc. People who are being paid a pittance by the middle-men.
The thing is... no-one has yet proven that piracy *does* cause lost profits.
Say I rip a copy of a CD I own for a friend... most likely because this hypothetical friend cannot afford one of his own, or is reluctant to shell out $15 for something he might not like.... If I couldn't or didn't do that, then my hypothetical friend wouldn't have bought a CD anyway. So he's not a lost sale, is he.
If I download a bit torrent of a movie..more than likely it's because I can't afford the $15 for a ticket [plus gas and snacks, more like $25] or don't want to spend it on a movie I'm not sure I want to see. Or even because I just don't have the time, and missed it in the cinema. Again, I'm not a lost sale.
If I snag a song off a P2P service ... it's most likely because I wanted that one song, not the entire CD. and I don;t buy a CD just for one song...
My point is this. I'm pretty sure that I am typical of 99.99% of so-called "pirates" ... ordinary users, who are unwilling to part with a significant chunk of cash for content for one reason or another, and so look around for a free copy. We are NOT lost sales. We are sales that never would have been.
However the companies are trying to forcibly monetise us, because their business models are incredibly broken and wasteful of their revenue. [as an aside, they're also short changing the *actual* creators of content.
The *real* reason for the record/studio companies antipathy towards the internet is simple. They are *distributors* of content made by other people. They have had a de facto monopoly until now. However the internet does what they do, it distribute content ... and it does it better than they can, and does it for free. Of course they're trying to kill it.
The real problem is stuff like this that further confuses the general public to what is actually going on and how any of this stuff works.
It should read something like this "Whether it be searching torrent files from The Pirate Bay, or Google, and using those torrent files in a separate program to then download copyrighted material"
Most will say Bah its just semantics , TPB is bad. but i feel its more important to fully explain things to the "stupid" public.
They refused to remove trackers and openly mocked the creators if they would of just had some sort of policy to remove torrents that the record companies complained about granted there weren't that many in the first place they would of been fine.
Movie # of DLs Worldwide gross Cost to Produce Profit (not counting DVD sales)
The Dark Knight 7,030,000 $996,500,000 $180,000,000 $816,500,000
The Incredible Hulk 5,840,000 $262,300,000 $137,000,000 $125,300,000
So the poor make-up artist and truck driver have to take a layoff because the poor, poor studio only made $816M, man what a load of crap.
He had the production costs in there. Try reading the comment properly.
2. Most people who fileshare do so, not because they cannot afford the movie or song in question, but because they want it, just not bad enough to pay for it. If there was no filesharing, they would go about their business and not even miss it.
3. The author of this article shows that they have NO IDEA how Pirate Bay worked. Pirate Bay hosted no files, and there was no downloading from Pirate Bay as the author so states in the first line of the second paragraphof this article, "Whether it be downloading movies illegally on the Pirate Bay", Pirate Bay was a Torrent Tracker. It's not even necessary the same thing can be down with several styles of torrent software that provides it's OWN tracker.
Hell no, I'll pirate before I will pay that.
No, they get these networks like everyone else and search for files and record the IP address of those sharing them. They say they download the file to confirm it's content. Some companies like Media Defender have written software to automate it. They can only know everything you're sharing on services like Limewire that allow it. With BitTorrent it much more difficult to find everything one person is sharing. Researchers at a Washington University managed to show how unreliable their methods are by getting DMCA take down notices sent about a network printer by these firms hired by the RIAA and MPAA. http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/
"Bit torrent doesn't use servers either, they can still be tracked."
BitTorrent does use servers, it's called a tracker. It's function is to provide a list of peers who have the peaces of the requested torrent. By send a simple request to a tracker you can get a list peers for given torrent
As long as the information is traveling the internet, it's trackable."
"As long as the information is traveling the internet, it's trackable."
To an extent. Though there is proxy technology that makes it exceedingly difficult, which services like ANTZ and MUTE take advantage.
Why exactly are these the people picking up the tab for piracy and not the artists and execs who earn obscene amounts of money? When people pirate they think about the artists and media moguls with their 3 $6 million houses, 5 luxury cars, and generally ostentatious lifestyles. It is easy to rationalize taking a little content for free when you feel like otherwise you're just lining the pockets of people who already have more wealth than they know how to spend. Especially when you may be debating how you spend every dollar of your paycheck. Yes, pirating content is wrong, but the solution to for the people at the top to take some cuts (which they will surely not notice) in order to make content available for reasonable prices.
Distributing media for free online doesn't really cost you more than a dollar and it provides free advertising for your musical talents which in turn makes people want to go see your shows more, meaning you have to play in larger venues to allow larger audiences to come to your shows meaning you make more off of band merchandise being sold at those shows meaning you should actually be making more money than you would otherwise.
Of course, if you suck, it would mean you'd make less. So which is it, do you suck or are you just complaining to be seen?
TPB doesn't this is what got them in trouble.
This article made me sad because it showed me that the monopolies have the governments in their fatly bankrolled pockets and under their thrall, and their desired outcome will simply create more disaffected ex-consumers such as myself. Their methods certainly will not provide profits for them, as has been amply proven over the last few years. Nor will it revive the music community. Instead it simply represents a bankruptcy of imagination and a severe entitlement to having things be the way they were, for which it is far too late to go back to.
My hope rests with artists such as NIN who are seeking to create a new, electronic, channel between themselves and the music consumers that bypasses the entire creaking, outdated system that seeks to separate consumers from artists. If enough artists succeed in this new direct model, the old media-conglomerate model will die. It may be as simple as a few wealthy artists creating new media distribution companies that take the place of traditional conglomerates in helping new artists to succeed, while being committed to a more efficient, effective, and legal method of electronic distribution.
it might have in some industrialized countries (prolly not), but there is an entire world where Photoshop prolly costs more than one's life savings
so people turn to piracy
Vietnam and China, remind you of something?
Personally, if I have paid for something ONCE (gone to the theater and paid to see it, are paying for it on cable TV, etc.).... I have NO problem with going out and downloading the DVD version illegally. I've already paid my 'tithe' for the thing in question, so I have absolutely NO moral pangs.
You're mistaken. That isn't my intent. I try to provide information on both sides of the debate. Media and entertainment firms are making a lot of moves and my intent was to tell my readers why it's happening. In the past I've written stories about the Pirate Bay, the Pirate Party, TorrentSpy and other torrent-related sites. I've included some links to those stories. Sorry you didn't like the story.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9754659-7.html?tag=mncol
http://news.cnet.com/Torrentspy-names-alleged-MPAA-hacker/2100-1030_3-6087146.html?tag=mncol
http://news.cnet.com/Pro-piracy-politician-proffers-his-worldview/2100-1028_3-6201976.html?tag=mncol
The article briefly alludes to it by mentioning Trent Reznor and Lars Ulrich, but these companies suck most of the profit basically and leave the artists penniless from the profit. That's why these artists were actually smart and went all for it, dropping their labels and going directly to the market. They make most of their money from shows and merchandise anyways.
Plus, itunes, amazon, and netflix are already on the money by knowing what people will buy on the internet. Someone mentioned above that no one really wants to buy physical albums anymore. But I mean everyone knows itunes and amazon are alternatives. And trying out music and movies is already available for those including movies with netflix's service.
The ultimate last point here is that the internet has really added value to the music industry. Without the internet the music companies wouldn't care. People shared cassettes and cds back in the old days, all we do these days is share them in the form of torrents, links to myspace pages for artists, and so on and so forth.
Without the internet we wouldn't have acts like Fall Out Boy, Gym Class Heroes, Lady Gaga, Lily Allen, Arctic Monkeys, and it goes on and on. People are discovered online and whether you like the music or not someone else does. That's the bottom line in my book and I don't think I'll see an end to it anytime soon. I think that probably the music artists and other individuals will probably end up coming up with new ways of coming out to the fans and getting a profit, like Radiohead.
- by the_piano_man April 19, 2009 8:49 AM PDT
- How in the H*## is copying software/digital information the same thing as attacking ships on the high seas? How many of you have actually BEEN ON THE HIGH SEAS, during a storm where you life may end at any time? Messing with people at sea is life threatening - just being at sea is threatening enough. Piracy is a word used to describe life threatening acts of crime and violence on the high seas. I guess we want to make copying digital information sound like terrorism - hey there's an idea folks, just call it terrorism. Naaaahhh, people wouldn't buy that. But take a word like piracy or pirate with all its old-time connotations; add to it the current problems we are having with REAL PIRATES, and prevaricate its usage to serve your perverted purpose. Yeah, that's the ticket. Come on kids, get off the pirate thing, and call it what it is - at the worst theft, in actuality unauthorized copying.
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Darkatt April 19, 2009 9:47 AM PDT
- www.dictionary.com - Please note legal definitions 4 and 8
-
-
- by screamapillar April 20, 2009 8:56 PM PDT
- Ok, Darkatt - they are not "legal" definitions. They are definitions on an online dictionary.
-
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (103 Comments)pi?rate? ?/?pa?r?t/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pahy-ruht] Show IPA noun, verb, -rat?ed, -rat?ing.
?noun 1. a person who robs or commits illegal violence at sea or on the shores of the sea.
2. a ship used by such persons.
3. any plunderer, predator, etc.: confidence men, slumlords, and other pirates.
4. a person who uses or reproduces the work or invention of another without authorization.
5. Also called pirate stream. Geology. a stream that diverts into its own flow the headwaters of another stream, river, etc.
?verb (used with object) 6. to commit piracy upon; plunder; rob.
7. to take by piracy: to pirate gold.
8. to use or reproduce (a book, an invention, etc.) without authorization or legal right: to pirate hit records.
9. to take or entice away for one's own use: Our competitor is trying to pirate our best salesman
The legal definition, does indeed consider pirates at sea in some countries (not all, and I certainly don't know about the US, in fact, I don't think there is a "legal" definition of piracy in the US) but then again, the legal definition for a hotel in some countries still requires them to offer stabling for a horse (Vic, Australia only changed this a wee 5 years or so ago) so we know that not all definitions are really that accurate.
What the piano_man is trying to articulate here, is this exploitative misuse of terms to incite fear in people as if those that commit copyright infringements are the equivalent of these murdering fellows at sea. The fact that copyright infringement is not LEGALLY a "crime" - it is an infringement, these are different things - makes it all the more disgusting that people are trying to use such hate and fear based language.
Me parking for 35 minuts in a 30 minute parking bay is an infringement. So I suppose you would consider me one of the dreaded parking pirates of the east!! Muahahaha! I've come to rob ye of all your parking time! arrghhh