Piracy - the Stick versus the Carrot

[Genius of the Restoration]

In light of yesterday's injunction forcing LimeWire to disable it's P2P functinoality (see contentbox below), I was wondering what everybody's thoughts were on the ramifications and methods of the war being fought against piracy.

Is this sort of action the way to go? Is it part of a solution, and if so, is it a meaningful part? I've often heard that shutting down the 'distributors' of copyrighted content doesn't do very much as new outfits will take their place. A number of posible alternatives exist, though it could be argued that different methods should be used together. The iTunes Store model could attempt to create a market by selling individual items at a low enough price that it wont take a chunk out of the budget of potential pirates. On the opposite end of the spectrum, some now-infamous law firms have chosen to sue individual downloaders. There is a mixture of carrot and stick involved at the moment. Game companies sometimes offer special things that you can't get with a pirated version, updates etc. (let's leave the draconian DRM measures taken by some companies aside).

Will the heavy boot of the law ever be able to stamp out illegal file sharing? Certainly not by focussing on lawsuits and shutting websites down exclusively; the history of prohibition in the world isn't a very successful one. How then should piracy be combatted?

At the moment, I think many people view piracy as acceptable, especially if it's being pirated off a 'big label' like Sony. The culture of the day is that big labels rip off the creators and suppress individuality and that we shouldn't support them like an independent, so maybe it's a cultural problem and a rebellion against the profit-driven media. Do the big labels need a makeover? Probably. They need to be seen to be doing more for the little guys to hopefully change how they are perceived and then hopefully change the culture that says it's okay to obtain their products for free because they are terrible people. That would help the situation in my opinion, as the morality of using what is essentially not your property is currently often ignored.


To finish my ramblings and pose a final question: how important are the stick and the carrot in relation to each other in regards to piracy, a unique crime that doesn't currently carry much moral weight for many people?

Sour ruling for LimeWire as court says to turn off P2P functionality

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/sour-ruling-for-limewire-as-court-says-to-turn-off-p2p-functionality.ars By Eric Bangeman | Last updated a day ago LimeWire's days as a major player on the P2P scene appear to be over. Judge Kimba Wood has issued an injunction forcing LimeWire to disable "the searching, downloading, uploading, file trading and/or file distribution functionality, and/or all functionality" of its software. After years of litigation—the RIAA first sued LimeWire in 2006—Judge Wood ruled in the RIAA's favor this past May. In granting the RIAA's motion for summary judgment, she found that LimeWire was liable for inducing copyright infringement, despite asking users to affirm that they were not using the software for that purpose. The company didn't help its case, as it made little to no effort to police infringement by its users via fingerprinting or content-filtering. LimeWire had thoughts of going straight in August 2007, and planned to launch its own music store selling 256Kbps DRM-free tracks. Unsurprisingly, the labels weren't willing to offer their wares on a service also known for warez. The P2P stalwart is still holding out hope of transforming into a legitimate destination for music, though. "While this is not our ideal path, we hope to work with the music industry in moving forward," a LimeWire spokesperson told Ars. "We look forward to embracing necessary changes and collaborating with the entire music industry in the future." The spokesperson also noted that the company isn't "shutting down," but it will be using its "best efforts" to stop supporting and distributing P2P software and to ramp up filtering. LimeWire now faces a January trial for damages, and the RIAA is looking forward to compensation for the "billions" of infringements that took place. "The court has now signed an injunction that will start to unwind the massive piracy machine that LimeWire and Gorton used to enrich themselves immensely," an RIAA spokesperson told Ars. "In January, the court will conduct a trial to determine the appropriate level of damages necessary to compensate the record companies for the billions and billions of illegal downloads that occurred through the LimeWire system." The injunction marks another victory in the RIAA's campaign against file-sharing. As recently as two-and-a-half years ago, LimeWire was the most popular P2P app out there, and it's still widely used. Disabling the functionality that file-sharers find useful will no doubt cause usage to bottom out, and some LimeWire users are likely to "go straight." But there are numerous other places for the discerning pirate to find illicit content, including BitTorrent, private hubs, and Usenet. Big Content's never-ending game of Whac-A-Mole continues.

Please keep this within the TOS, a thread following this article has already been closed once.

Pirates, ye be warned! Any discussion portraying piracy as normal or acceptable will be harshly dealt with. First and only warning.

-Nikos

[LaMuerte]

I think they can never stamp out illegal file sharing. The heavy boot of the law will always be one step behind the next new 'download system' . Hell , they can't even take the Pirate Bay offline , and how much money went into that suit already? Oh yes , people will be sued ... but it will be those who use 'outdated' download services , the not-so-streetwise. There will always be pirates , wether on the high seas , or on the internet. Yarr!!!

Personally I find banning someone from gaining online access due to download crimes a bit too much. Less stick , more carrot please ! ( As in lowering your overprized 'virtual' gadgets)

[jman47]

I really don't think anything can be done to stop it short of adopting a western version of the chinese 'great firewall' and even then that may not work.

As for the culture of file sharing, at least in the music industry the idea that you are stealing from the artists is laughable. Most artists make the majority of their money from live performances and endorsements, and less from albums sales. Record companies give the artists maybe 3-4% of record sale income if their LUCKY. That is why most artists don't say much about file sharing while the companies like the RIAA are in a full blown crusade against it.

In fact the only artist to really come out against it is Gene Simmons, however with how heavily commercialized KISS is and was I doubt you can really call him an artist, he is more of a businessman, making his condemnation logical.

[GrnEyedDvl]

In fact the only artist to really come out against it is Gene Simmons, however with how heavily commercialized KISS is and was I doubt you can really call him an artist, he is more of a businessman, making his condemnation logical.

Metallica comes to mind as well. Most musicians simply do not comment though, the politically safe thing to do.

[athanaric]

I prefer the "nuke" aproach.


edit: pardonnez-vous, I assumed you guys were talking about real piracy. About internet "piracy", I have no real opinion.

[C-Rob]

I know for a fact that my friends use 3 different other P2P networks that are invite only and haven't been touched by any companies ever.

These hush-hush systems will reign supreme over this .

Limewire just got too popular.

[Pra]

There are so many ways to fileshare. This is not a victory at all, but a sunk cost into removing one method to file share, in a world of many many many possibilities.

The best way to do it is use the carrot. Have 'additional' stuff with the content they sell will make file sharing unattractive for real fans who don't get the 'full deal' associated with the actual product.

Simple enough.

[Denny Crane!]

I came to terms with it the other day. If I can pirate I will, so will the people I know who fully and truly believe that music piracy is wrong they still do it. Its harsh, and I understand why its wrong, but I haven't got the money to go and get it legally so I'll get it where I can.

That is why it won't be stamped out, even people I know who think its wrong will still do it.

Technologically stamping it out is impossible. In the face of these realities music companies must adapt or die, most music companies are starting to get the idea but ultimately they are doomed I feel.

[JNS]

Piracy will continue on the internet until the incentive to pirate is removed, and that may never happen. Thruth is record companies don't seem to understandthat their product is overpriced considering that their main customers are young people, who tend not to have much spare money and are also technologically savvy enough to download whatever they want from the internet. Also the fact that the internet has made their roles as middlemen between artists and consumers less important.

[Col. Tartleton]

Why not just make it free?

I don't pay for radio but i get advertisements.
I don't as a rule pay for music.
I pay for concerts though.

Why can't musicians focus on performing live? I'd shell out 50 dollars+ for the experience of a concert. I wouldn't pay a dollar to "own" the song. I'm not going to shell out 20 dollars for a CD when I can listen to all the good songs on Youtube. I'm not going to pay a dollar a song when I can download it for free or even better fill up my music with someone else's songs.

I like the atmosphere of a live concert. A real performance is what I'm gonna pay for. Give me free music to entice me to see the shows... that's the way of the future IMO. In the old days a performer made their money performing. Then they found a way to make a lot more money with less work. They're a singer. I won't on their craft, but they don't need to be a millionaire. If they can find out how to, good. But music is expression, not money. If you want money get a real job.

[Admiral Piett]

Why not just make it free?

I don't pay for radio but i get advertisements.
I don't as a rule pay for music.
I pay for concerts though.

Why can't musicians focus on performing live? I'd shell out 50 dollars+ for the experience of a concert. I wouldn't pay a dollar to "own" the song. I'm not going to shell out 20 dollars for a CD when I can listen to all the good songs on Youtube. I'm not going to pay a dollar a song when I can download it for free or even better fill up my music with someone else's songs.

I like the atmosphere of a live concert. A real performance is what I'm gonna pay for. Give me free music to entice me to see the shows... that's the way of the future IMO. In the old days a performer made their money performing. Then they found a way to make a lot more money with less work. They're a singer. I won't on their craft, but they don't need to be a millionaire. If they can find out how to, good. But music is expression, not money. If you want money get a real job.

I feel the same principle with films. Steven Soderborgh had the idea of simultaneously releasing a film in the theater, on dvd, and on pay per view. A pretty interesting thing to say the least.

The only reason there ever was a traditional period between theater release and home video was to create demand. Now that box office numbers are at a depressing low (due to the poor quality of mainstream film for the past 7 years, the Academy Awards has been dominated by independent films since Lord of the Rings) distributors are attempting to fight against piracy to maintain some extra revenue. However, the issue I have with this is that most film revenue is actually generated from the box office. I'm not totally familiar with the numbers but home sales give a lesser profit for the filmmakers and cast.

It's a big waste of time and it distracts from the market perspective that people are selling a poor product and thus, abysmal numbers.

[roy34543]

Music companies might adapt, but honestly im starting to think they will probably end up just keeping the vast majority of their music exclusive to life preformances at this rate, making it impossible to find the music at all on the web, or very hard to find at a decent quality.
And concerts cost a awful lot more then they did, Im guessing they will just jack up the price even more until only the upper middle class people can afford it and it becomes more like an exclusive club with lots of goodies that locks out anyone who doesnt pay . Thats at least the logical extreme assumption, if records dont make money they wont put them out at all. Its just going to be the most extreme stick, because honestly thats pretty much the only long-term thing that will work.

I hope noone is using this excuse for video games though, they dont have any such indirect money-making methods.

[Pickle_mole]

Its impossible to stamp it out, and i doubt that they can recoup losses through lawsuits. Our legal system wouldnt tolerate the extra strain. The only logical step forward is the "carrot" approach.

[roy34543]

Its impossible to stamp it out, and i doubt that they can recoup losses through lawsuits. Our legal system wouldnt tolerate the extra strain. The only logical step forward is the "carrot" approach.

They will just use the extreme "stick" by making sure unless you pay your not in the exclusive club that gets to listen to music. Ie the carrot is you get something that noone else does, and the stick is the fact that most people wont get anything.
Thats what I think will happen anyway , People are probably going to regret piracy at one point in the future .

[Thorn777]

I guess the big internet providers will loose allot of money when the record/movie/software-company's get their ways.

I think macro-economically its a win for the govts to not give in to much, also because it makes internet and all its business overall allot more attractive to millions of people who dont feel like paying 40$ a month just to look up wikipedia and what else.

[chilon]

I was wondering what everybody's thoughts were on the ramifications and methods of the war being fought against piracy.

One victory for the RIAA and MPAA has been their dedication to the use of the word "piracy" and "pirates" to describe those guilty of copyright infringement. The term is loaded and not accurate for copyright infringement yet the interests of the outdated RIAA, MPAA organizations (who do not yet acknowledge their own imminent death) have continually forced this meme on the media who uses it of course because it is sensationalized hyped up term that gets attention even if inaccurate. And the act of downloading songs violating copyright infringement is NOT piracy in any appropriate definition of the term. The flunky artists who believe in the RIAA hype really need to learn from Radiohead and the music industry in China rather than Metallica.

The real pirates of the modern day are not individuals who download some songs from an irrelevant band like Metallica but rather the criminals who perpetrate ATM skimming and such. ATM skimming costs citizens of the USA over $1 Billion dollars a year (this is far, far more than any quantifiable negative money multiplier effect of copyright infringement on songs downloaded) and the people involved here are ACTUAL pirates in the true sense of the word.

[Genius of the Restoration]

One victory for the RIAA and MPAA has been their dedication to the use of the word "piracy" and "pirates" to describe those guilty of copyright infringement.

It's not only those who are trying to prevent it that use the term. Pirate Parties have sprung up to defend piracy in many countries.

The term is loaded and not accurate for copyright infringement yet the interests of the outdated RIAA, MPAA organizations (who do not yet acknowledge their own imminent death) have continually forced this meme on the media who uses it of course because it is sensationalized hyped up term that gets attention even if inaccurate.

Any term is loaded, but I don't think 'pirate' is too bad to be honest. 'Pirate' has romantic connotations, it's not all negative. It's far nicer than just 'criminal' at any rate.

And the act of downloading songs violating copyright infringement is NOT piracy in any appropriate definition of the term.

I think an alternate definition of piracy as a form of copyright infringement, rather than capturing a ship on the high seas, is already in operation with wide circulation. It's not the same sort of piracy, but a label is just a label, and the definition of the signifying word ('piracy') has changed with the new signified meanings. Can't believe I'm talking semiotics, I thought the day would never come

[chilon]

'Pirate' has romantic connotations, it's not all negative. It's far nicer than just 'criminal' at any rate.

Both terms have connotations that far exceed the law they are breaking (copyright infringement).

Do we call people that drive faster than the speed limit or jaywalk 'criminals'?

Those are both more potentially dangerous actions than filesharing since they both could potentially endanger a third party's life.

I think an alternate definition of piracy as a form of copyright infringement, rather than capturing a ship on the high seas, is already in operation with wide circulation. It's not the same sort of piracy, but a label is just a label, and the definition of the signifying word ('piracy') has changed with the new signified meanings. Can't believe I'm talking semiotics, I thought the day would never come

First let me say this is going to be a somewhat technical reply that most people will find pedantic and pointless. But you brought up semiotics so here we go.

Another disclaimer is that in any 'living language' where word's meanings evolve over time this type of thing is unavoidable to some extent. Nonetheless it is important we do not forget the etymology when just referring to some new Urban Dictionary definition over a classic OED.

I think the RIAA won a subtle but important cultural victory in getting this form of copyright infringement labeled as "piracy" (it is ironic that back in the 1980s copying cassette tapes and passing them out was not considered "piracy' at all even though the RIAA and MPAA did fight cassette recorders and VCRs like they are fighting modern digital filesharing).

If you want to use semiotics we can use Charles Saunders Peirce's original formulation of Sign, Object and Interpretant. Important to note that the Interpretant is not just the observer but rather the interaction of observer with the Sign of the Object.

So we have the Object = filesharing or copying digital information
Sign = the term "piracy" (with all its inherent connotations)
Interpretant = how the audience views the topic of filesharing

By using an old Sign that is already inherently loaded up with connotations instead of a new sign that is created to appropriately signify the new actions there is subtle meaning and inferences mapped from the original domain of the Sign "Piracy" to the new domain. The subtle frame that is mapped over from one activity to the new activity might have some somewhat positive minor connotations (pirates are sexy) but mostly the connotations about the action are much more strongly negative than using any form of the Sign "Copyright Infringement" to signify the action. In a subtle subconscious way people start associating the act of file sharing with the type of pillage and plunder that pirates are associated with.

So the metaphor is far more loaded and biased than any number of other Signs that could have been used. What is really going on is that institutions that are outdated due to technological progress are using every means possible (cultural and legal) to maintain their relevance in a society that really has out-evolved their use for society in any way. In order to try to conserve the status quo that they depend on to exist, they desperately use every tactic necessary which includes using the most loaded and biased Sign they can for actions which are not analogous to historical piracy in any way.

So sure, a sign is only a sign but considering that it is the only way we communicate which signs are culturally chosen over others is significant especially when they have domain mapping inferences that are metaphorical in nature.

[Genius of the Restoration]

The subtle frame that is mapped over from one activity to the new activity might have some somewhat positive minor connotations (pirates are sexy) but mostly the connotations about the action are much more strongly negative than using any form of the Sign "Copyright Infringement" to signify the action. In a subtle subconscious way people start associating the act of file sharing with the type of pillage and plunder that pirates are associated with.

I agree with everything you said but take a bit of an exception to this part.

I'm not sure that the negative connotations of the old term 'piracy' still come through. Perhaps it's a generational thing because I have only ever known copyright infringement as piracy. The multiple and transferred meanings of the sign as traced through recent history don't really enter it in the same way. My understanding of 'piracy' did not have classical pirates first, and copyright infringement added on to this second. The intertwining of the different meanings with the same signifying word doesn't necessarily occur, especially if the two responses have always been signified by that sign. Granted, this would depend on the individual, but the different meanings of a polyseme like 'piracy' don't necessarily have to complement each other. I don't always think of an erection whenever someone says the sign word 'wood' (depending on context of course...).

[MathiasOfAthens]

Spotify is great, you can play any song you want. Only downside are the ads and I cant load the songs on my mp3 player but I think ipods can play spotify.