Media Piracy: Good Economics?

Alright folks, seeing as how the boards are finally back up and running after an abnormally long down-time, I'm hoping we're all ready for a fresh start. But rather than re-hashing all our previous threads, I'd like to offer something a little more brain stretching, something which, for many of us, might be on the outside of the box.

Fist off, the topic for this thread: is media piracy good for the market? If so, Why? Is it unethical? And if so, on what grounds?

We live in the age of the DMCA, when the simple distribution of information "product" outside of the bureaucratized consumer system is branded not only as illegal, but as a form of theft. I've even seen it stated on one CD that "Copying this recording without permission is a violation of the eighth commandment."

In case you haven't guessed, I would suggest this is a grave misapplication of principle, and that, on the contrary, those pulling the strings on these ideas and regulations are the ones guilty of "violation of the eighth commandment."

I'd like to see this proposition debated, rejected, or supported intelligently. For the sake of quality discussion, please make your posts as well thought out as possible.

With that said, have at it!

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

As an underground hip-hop artist, I've come to understand one thing - Anyone who is going to pirate your music is someone who wasn't going to buy your shit in the first place.

Originally Posted by Fatt

I like to buy all of my media legit, as I have some satasfaction knowing that the industry is becoming stronger. If I buy more hip-hop music, the hip-hop industry becomes stronger. If I buy more anime, the anime industry becomes stronger. It isn't the cash value, it's the fact I am a buyer. I am a statistic. I count.

I think these quotes illustrate two sides of an important truth: In a free market, people will give their support to those to whom they want to give it.

When you hear someone saying that copying media is tantamount to theft, you have to ask what principle drew them to that conclusion; and I think, at least in theory, that the idea behind our system of copyright law is that "a worker is worthy of his wages."

In the reality of the workforce, however, you have a choice as to whom you will hire. By purchasing a director's DVD, or a musician's album, you are essentially saying, "good work, buddy, I'd like to see some more from where that came from." High-paying accounting jobs don't pay you to take a degree in accounting - you have to prove, and improve, yourself. So by these rules, if a first time artist comes on the scene, the law shouldn't force everyone to buy it, or even to pay to rent it, before deciding whether "they get the job". We don't need every B-rated director getting financial backing for his second hapless audience because we were all paying guinea pigs the first time around.

In short, let the market decide whether a viable market exixts for a given product.

That said, however, not everyone who likes your work is going to buy it. Those who have the money and feel strongly enough about it will. Others won't, but please, don't accuse them of stealing from you. You can't "steal" publicly available information.

To drive this home, an example to illustrate the absurdity of the idea: A skilled street performer can make a killing in a well-selected location. (And if good enough, people will even go out of their way to a less well-selected location.) But the price is set appropriately: to what the market will bear. But people who like you and want to see more of you will choose to support you, whether it's a child with a nickel, or a professional with a $5 dollar bill. The people who listen and don't like it, or the people who just like listening to the flavour of the day, or even the people who are just to poor to afford it, are they all stealing from you? No, they're excercising they're right not to support you.

But our legally-backed "entertainment industries" (they seldom offer anything more than mere entertainment) say to one and all, be they rich, poor, adoring fan or arch enemy: "$20 or I'll sue you!"

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Ladies and Gentlemen



Since I have your attention, I'd like to take this opportunity publicly congratulate KrazyTaco for actually posting something in direct response to the stated topic.



Legato and Ridan Krad: You have a good discussion going. By all means, let's have technological progress and the human workload as topics for a new thread; but please, let's not derail this one.



By and large, I think the sentiments expressed in this thread reflect the ideals of a free market. The organizations that currently control consumer distribution of media are attempting to use legislation to create a monopoly for themselves. This is the opposite of a free market; they are making an enormous effort to ensure that they control the market.

In the 17th century the Westminster assembly formulated the documents that for a long time became an important influence in western law. Because it is of particular interest, I'll offer an abridged excerpt:

Q. 142. What are the sins forbidden in the eighth commandment? (Thou shalt not steal.)

A. The sins forbidden in the eighth commandment... are, theft, robbery,... fraudulent dealing, false weights and measures, removing land-marks, injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of trust; oppression, extortion, usury, bribery, vexatious lawsuits,... ingrossing commodities to enhance the price;... and all other unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbour what belongs to him, or [unjust or sinful ways] of enriching ourselves...

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Watts

your misconceptions about a "free market" are simply wrong then. For example, how is the "invisible hand" at work when the Federal Reserve is setting the interest rates? Think about it.

I'm afraid you'll have to elaborate on this. First of all, how is it conducive to a free market to say that a commodity ("information") which is all over the place and easily available, is legally owned by one person or corporation, and only they have a right to decide what happens with it? Imagine if this were done with, say, coffee mugs for example: everyone had mugs, and everyone had the equipment to be able to reproduce them cheaply, but then it was legislated that only company X was allowed to do it. Anybody caught making a mug for themselves or for someone else would be shut up in jail. Now company X controls supply, even though there's no real reason they should.

As per the second part of your comment, I think I know what you're referring to, but you'll have to explain what you mean, as I don't live in the US.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Watts

What I'm basically saying is that the "free market" concept is pretty much bullshit. We can talk about supply and demand, and ignore resource scarcity and depletion. We can talk about the free market, when really all the world's economists base their decisions upon the flow of equidity coming out of the Federal Reserve. Thanks to the dollar's status as the reserve currency.

With the Federal Reserve wielding that much power and influence I'd say it's a pretty visible hand. Not the "invisible hand" of the market.

Heh, I see what you mean. And while I do, personally, hold to largely libertarian viewpoints, by no means would I assert that we are currently operating under any ideal sort of free market. Obviously, I would say that we would be better off trading in a monetarized wealth medium. A currency directly tied to the reseve would be a little better than what we have now, but even this has problems I don't need to mention.

Originally Posted by Watts

Most Western countries regulate alcohol in such ways. Yes, I know we're talking about information; and more or less the free flow of it on the internet. But in the capitalist system commodities are commodities to be bought, traded, and sold.

Exactly. What I meant to get at, was that music, movies, games and such are available in a basically unlimited supply at essentially zero price. In a natural state, without the historical anomaly that has become copyright law, what value does it have as a commodity? The answer to this is the reason that, more and more, it is necessary to regulate it artificially to create value for the enormous amount of business built up around it. And personally, I don't think it will be born out in the long run. (Now I may very well be wrong on this - controlled economics often sustains itself in cycles for quite some time.)

Originally Posted by Watts

Since when are companies able to legislate anything for themselves? That's what lobbyists are for. And enforcement of such legislation? At this point you're not talking about the "free market" at all.

You're right. I was actually talking about copyright law.

I was speaking idiomatically.