PulpLit.net

On The Difference Between Piracy and Stealing

In the last few weeks, now that the war in
Afghanistan has simmered down
somewhat and the
romance of incompetent auditing has lost its
edge, stories about Napster and the fate of
digital music have begun to resurface. A
recent article in the Wall Street Journal
("Record Companies Should Attempt To
Compete for Music Fans' Loyalty", 4.15.02)
spoke of the many wonderful ways to currently
pirate music. The article also suggested that the low
quality of current free services gave the RIAA
an opportunity to provide a subscription based
service of higher quality. While this may work,
the logistics of such a system
have yet to be worked out.

While I personally doubt such a scheme would work, I also
think attempting to make a Napster-like
service that charges people for access is
trying to answer the wrong question. Such a
service is well and good for compensating the
record companies who own the copyright on
the music being traded over the
Internet, but it's a pretty rotten way to
compensate artists who sold the rights in
the first place. As far as I know, nobody has
determined how to reward artists
proportionally for their contributions to a music
sharing service. Simply tallying the number of
downloads seems like a naive solution, easily
manipulated and not ultimately indicative of
each artist's contribution to a music service's
success.

The impetus behind such a subscription
service is to obtain
money for the distribution of music, under the
thinking that piracy (in this case, the unlawful
duplication and distribution of music over the
Internet) is stealing. This bumper sticker
equation "Piracy=Stealing" has become a
rallying cry among many, the main points of
which will be (presumably) found in an
upcoming book by O'Reilly. While I understand the
sentiment, I find the specifics of the argument a bit muddled.

Stealing is defined (by www.dictionary.com) as "to
take (the property of another) without right or
permission." Traditionally, when I think of
stealing, I think of taking something from
someone else. Like, say, taking my neighbor's
Prius. (Man, I would love to have a Prius).
Now, most people would regard this as an
immoral thing because I've deprived my
neighbor of his marvelous environmentally
friendly vehicle without his agreement
and without compensation. He feels wronged,
and may feel inclined to bring criminal
charges against me.

Notice, however, that no one thinks I have
been unfair to Toyota. Indeed, I doubt if a
manufacturer has ever sued a thief for stealing
their product. You might even consider it a form of advertising.
Hey, look, this is cool enough to steal!

Of course, with music piracy, things are quite
different. In the case of Napster, it's as if
there exists some marvelous machine which
can make a car for almost nothing. In addition,
my neighbor has not only lent me his car, but
felt like it was perfectly fine for me to copy it
with this marvelous machine free of charge.
He has not only consented to this, but even
gone through the trouble of putting it
out specifically for me to find.

Now, the argument against this line of
thinking is that you
are robbing from the copyright holder, because
if you hadn't gotten it for free, you would have
paid to get a Prius. Therefore, you are stealing
from Toyota.

This argument pre-supposes
that I would have bought a Prius if I hadn't
stolen one, which is most unlikely, as I cannot
readily afford an environmentally friendly
vehicle or any vehicle at all (unless you count
my Royce Dual Suspension Scooter). Even if I could afford one, I don't know where in San Francisco I'd
park it. Furthermore, if you really
insist that I am "stealing" from the copyright holder, then
why doesn't Toyota sue thieves when they steal cars from
Toyota owners, accusing the thieves of circumventing the cost of the car?

Ultimately, however, I will not argue that
piracy is not unfair, or unjust. In the U.S.
constitution, it clearly states in Article 1 Section
8 that "The Congress shall have power.....To
promote the progress of science and useful
arts, by securing for limited times to authors
and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries." One can
argue about whether the laws that Congress
has enacted are reasonable, but the right to
control how many copies are made and the
means of distribution for a given piece of work
is clearly covered by law. To trade music
through a service like Napster is
illegal and probably "wrong," as you have not
compensated the copyright holder or the
creator of the music (usually different entities,
in this case) for their respective contributions.
So it is illegal and immoral - it just isn't "stealing."