Piracy is Not Theft: Problems of a Nonsense Metaphor

Unless that copy originated with permission of the property owner, or a representing legal agent thereof, then it most certainly is.

I'm not sure why you'd pick a trivial issue on purpose because - no offense - it doesn't make for a very compelling argument. In your specific case, the effort to rip a movie to avoid watching the FBI warning etc is a bad deal for you: it takes far longer to rip and burn than to just do something else for the ten seconds until the movie loads.

Piracy advocates/apologists can make a case that piracy is about convenience but there is no whitewashing that it is as much about paying. I deal with this all the time with artists I work with. Here's one email I received just this morning:

"I'm very tired and down right now. I'm getting sick of being contacted by companies pretending to help me, then asking for thousands upon thousands of dollars for everything. There are so many people feeding from struggling indie artists. Things are so bad right now in music. I actually don't think it's possible to do all this on your own but I'm really trying.

The biggest thing that need to change is the general public's attitude towards new music right now. They expect it for free and don't have any respect towards the amount of work you do and how much it costs to make it. They still think 'signed' artists are 'real' and we are just beggars on the street in comparision."

This is an indie artist who has 1,000s of fans, is high on the internet-radio charts in his area, etc. He has spent tens of thousands of dollars to put a good product out and he spends literally 60-80 hours a week on fan contact etc.

I'm sorry: piracy sucks. People can crow about the labels etc all they want but they have changed their business model: they sign 360-deals with artists because recorded music sales are a loss-leader; then they promote acts like Justin Bieber because they know 13-yr-olds are more likely to a) pay for music and b) much more importantly, buy all the associated merchandise that feeds back into their 360 deal. So if you think they are 'dinosaurs' you're wrong; they've already changed to service the market that exists - leaving lots and lots of independent musicians with no pipeline into wider exposure. And if one thinks being on the internet is 'wider exposure' I have a bridge to sell you;)

As much research into human value strategies has shown - the truth is that people dislike for paying for things increases dramatically when they think others aren't paying; that is, when there isn't fairness going on. It's not talked about enough - that piracy 'poisons the well' by leaving people who would pay for things feeling like rubes for doing so.

This particular artist has 1000s of fans who listen to his work several times a week; he sells a digital download version of his album for $3 - yes the same $3 that will get you a half-hamburger at McDonalds - and he has sold zero - literally ZERO. Before any debate about the quality of his work or fans or exposure - all of which are well above-average for indies I have worked with - the ugly truth is that people don't pay when they can get around it - it doesn't matter what the amount.

So, with respect to all, complaints about "inconveniences" are not compelling at all when I know how much blood, sweat, and tears artists are putting into their work. Pro-pirates like to tout how 'free' makes things more accessible - but they are totally blind to the fact that 'free' keeps as much content inaccessible as it leaves legacy content accessible. At best, it's a zero-sum game, a choice - and as such it's no point of support for why one way is better than another.

As I have said many, many times - I'd much prefer a world with things worth buying than one where everything is for free.

If you can show that something is being stolen, then yes. If, on the other hand, no stealing is going on, then no.

The problem I have with the "piracy is theft" thing is that I think its use makes it harder to convince people who counter with arguments saying that the original owner still has the "stolen" item.

For one thing, it's an extra step one needn't take. First you have to convince them that it is actually theft, then you have to convince them that they should do something about it.

If you start with the simple position of "this thing normally costs money, and you haven't paid for it", then you can get straight to the heart of the matter.

Note that I say "convince" and not "be more right than". People indulge in all sorts of self-justification and moral balancing, particularly if they can convince themselves that it's a victimless crime.