I'm not a thief-Piracy issues
Monday, October 12, 2009 by Shell
Arguments surrounding piracy and copyright are complex and arguably extremely subjective. Majid Yar begins his discussion of piracy by outlining the concept that an act is not inherently deviant or criminal; what we consider to be a crime is tied into an underlying assumption that we all agree on what constitutes deviant behavior. “The identification of conduct with crime depends crucially upon a wider consensus that the behavior in question constitutes a breach of acceptable social norms that it partakes of some social wrongdoing or injury that offends against a society and its members”. This benefits a discussion of piracy issues as it shows how society is divided in terms of how we perceive the act. It could be argued that there are varying degrees of copyright infringement that may increase or lessen how ‘bad’ an act it is.
In Greg Elmer’s book, Critical perspectives on the internet, Nick Dyer-Witherford’s chapter looks at some of the contradictions in corporations’ attitudes and concerns over piracy. In particular, one of his arguments relates to the way that the internet and technology is promoted. He argues , “so much corporate effort- in technological design and legal activity- is today being exercised to restrict what the media corporations ostensibly promote, that is, the literally free flow of information”, This is an interesting point as it provides the argument that to a certain extent we are being fooled into thinking the web is a space in which we are able to freely roam and have agency over our consumption choices, whereas this agency is actually being restricted. It is important to consider whether this restriction is fair or not. In some respects the creative commons may be a ‘happy medium’ in that the artist keeps some of the rights to the material but also opens up the level of flexibility in terms of how the audience uses and consumes this product. However this may also be seen as an example of the contradiction that is mentioned above, in that the audience is being restrained to varying degrees.
In my opinion there are limits to what people should be able to do with other people’s material. In some respects I cannot see the problem in copying a CD that I have bought and passing it on to a friend, providing I am not profiting from this process. When thinking of music specifically, the act of pirating material is not a new phenomenon. I can remember that as a child I would always keep a tape in the stereo in order to record my favourite songs off the radio, to playback later. This too is illegal but I do not consider myself as some sort of deviant or criminal because of it. However as Critical perspectives on the internet points out, the internet has broadened the scope of dissemination of pirated material. Coming back to my starting point, piracy is a complex issue and I think I will have to remain a fence sitter. While I do believe that the audience should have some freedom over the way they consume media such as music, I do have issues with people going on to sell an artists material.
In Greg Elmer’s book, Critical perspectives on the internet, Nick Dyer-Witherford’s chapter looks at some of the contradictions in corporations’ attitudes and concerns over piracy. In particular, one of his arguments relates to the way that the internet and technology is promoted. He argues , “so much corporate effort- in technological design and legal activity- is today being exercised to restrict what the media corporations ostensibly promote, that is, the literally free flow of information”, This is an interesting point as it provides the argument that to a certain extent we are being fooled into thinking the web is a space in which we are able to freely roam and have agency over our consumption choices, whereas this agency is actually being restricted. It is important to consider whether this restriction is fair or not. In some respects the creative commons may be a ‘happy medium’ in that the artist keeps some of the rights to the material but also opens up the level of flexibility in terms of how the audience uses and consumes this product. However this may also be seen as an example of the contradiction that is mentioned above, in that the audience is being restrained to varying degrees.
In my opinion there are limits to what people should be able to do with other people’s material. In some respects I cannot see the problem in copying a CD that I have bought and passing it on to a friend, providing I am not profiting from this process. When thinking of music specifically, the act of pirating material is not a new phenomenon. I can remember that as a child I would always keep a tape in the stereo in order to record my favourite songs off the radio, to playback later. This too is illegal but I do not consider myself as some sort of deviant or criminal because of it. However as Critical perspectives on the internet points out, the internet has broadened the scope of dissemination of pirated material. Coming back to my starting point, piracy is a complex issue and I think I will have to remain a fence sitter. While I do believe that the audience should have some freedom over the way they consume media such as music, I do have issues with people going on to sell an artists material.