Stealing From The Rich And Giving To The Poor
Essay Preview: Stealing From The Rich And Giving To The Poor
Report this essay
“All stealing is comparative. If you come to absolutes, pray who does not steal?” (Ralph Waldo Emerson). Lets be honest, once an innocent man becomes introduced to the idea of free music, software, movies, and other expensive items, hell get attached forever. Kleptomaniacs are created every day as more and more join the “warez scene,” a global reference to the collection of warez groups. “Warez” was coined to indicate more than one piece of pirated software and refers primarily to copyrighted material traded in violation of copyright law (Warez). Despite internet piracy exploding recently as a world wide industry, it is being frowned upon as well as illegal in most countries; although, it will never be completely hindered due to the mass number of violators.
The law varies throughout the world, however, there are four elements of criminal copyright infringement that are universal: the existence of a valid copyright, the copyright was infringed, the infringement was willful, and the infringement was either for commercial gain or substantial gain (Warez). The law behind internet piracy in the U.S. falls under the Copyright Act of 1976 which gives the author the exclusive right to reproduce, display, distribute, and sell his original work. It is part of the Federal law and is authorized by the United States Constitution. The power to enact copyright law is granted in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, also known as the Copyright Clause, which states: 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 (Article One of the United States Constitution).
The growth of computer network communications, especially the global internet, has made illegal copying of expensive easy and nearly untraceable (Piracy). One of the biggest examples of this was “Napster.” “Napster” was a nickname given by friends to Shawn Fanning, a 19-year-old college dropout who made it possible to obtain copyrighted material without paying for it opening up Napster in 1999. Fanning got in trouble with five big companies that control a majority of the record labels represented by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). In order for copyright owners to shut down Fannings system, they would have to arrest every single user; Napster was growing to fast and it would be impossible to stop all its users (Controversial File-Sharing). Overall Napster got involved in million dollar lawsuits and was closed down in 2001. “It was naivety on their part. They think they are getting a free track. They didnt understand the price to pay” (Industry strikes blow…).
“No one wants to be tied into something as everyone changes their device every so often. The only solution to this whole issue is to sell music in MP3 format, which is what the independents have said for some time and what were still saying now” (COPYRIGHT PROTECTION…). But will this stop piracy when users have the opportunity of getting basically anything they want for little or no fee? With the information gathered in 2005 globally, businesses and consumers will spend more than $300 billion on PC software over the next five years, according to International Data Corporation (IDC) estimates and during the same five-year period, almost $200 billion worth of software will be pirated (2005 Piracy Study). For every two dollars worth of software purchased legitimately, one dollars worth was obtained illegally.
Citizens underestimate the affects of piracy. With such a big market in the United States even a small piracy rate can add up to enormous losses. The IDC concluded that lowering piracy by 10 percentage points over four years would add more than one million new jobs and $400 billion in economic growth worldwide (2005 Piracy Report). Consumers have reported that they feel piracy is becoming worse. Nevertheless, one thing seems clear: piracy will not diminish if nothing is done about it (2005 Piracy Report).
Anti-piracy members have the law on their side but no plan for stopping the current state of piracy. “Its not getting any easier but we are encouraged enough by the results to keep on going” (8,000 File-Sharing Suits…). Non-supporters of piracy feel that the high prices of software are not excuses to copyright infringement. One cannot evade the law to save money. Although they may agree that there are some positive effects of warez on the world, they argue that its benefits cannot offset its harms. Most members cannot even put up a legitimate argument besides that it is illegal. They just compare piracy to other acts of theft such as stealing money, credit card numbers, and DNA information. It is common sense that stealing is the same thing no matter what object is up for grabs, thus eradicating one of the anti-piracy members best arguments. This also applies to the argument that internet piracy is immoral as well. Of course it is immoral, one breaks the law!
On the more reasonable side, pro-piracy members are not flinching to the 18,000 lawsuits already filed in the U.S., largest market for music sales, and 13,000 in the rest of the world (8,000 File-Sharing Suits…) as their size worldwide is growing yearly. Dont you feel if the warez user truly never would have purchased the product, it is argued that the copyright holder does not incur a loss? A pro-piracy lobby manifesto establishes three principles:
One, “We will copy whatever we want. Make p2p legal or just accept it!” Two, “Free networking, everywhere by anyone!” and three, “Dont touch our Internets [sic]! No more efforts to limit, monitor, or sabotage use of the net!” (Aughton)
Contradicting pro-piracy arguments, since copyright holders sell their products and services at unacceptably high prices, users should not pay for these companies or holders. It is a perceived injustice to the poor. Pro-piracy members