Indeed, piracy isn't a problem with just the games market. Many other software makers like Adobe and even Apple are having trouble with piracy. Many Mac users were concerned with reports about a year ago that Apple was considering integrating copy protection into Panther, given that Jaguar and Panther pre-releases were widely distributed on the internet. Piracy is even a problem in the content market, concerning services like the iTunes Music Store: despite obvious other causes for the decline in sales, the RIAA does have a right to ensure that it's content doesn't get distributed without users paying for the ability to use that content.
The major response that software and content providers have with regards to piracy is to integrate copy protection into the content or software, making it much harder to pirate it. Unfortunately, at the same time, it shackles fair use rights of those users that legitimately bought the product. The result is that many legitimate users of Halo are now forced to be chained to the CD whenever they want to play their favorite game.
The first problem with this line of thinking is the way that companies justify the use of increased copy-protection. Tamte claims that from extrapolation of file-sharing activity on the net, "the lost sales [for MacSoft] are already in the millions. There is a big difference between what is now known as "piracy" and stealing. Stealing does constitute a direct loss of sales for a company. Stealing entails physically going to a store, taking something off a shelf, and walking out of the store without paying for it.
In doing so, the thief takes tangible goods out of the store. It cost the company something to manufacture the packaging, to burn the CD, and to ship it to the store. Furthermore, the removal of that item from the store's shelf means that another potential customer may come in and find the shelf empty, in which case that potential customer will be unable to buy the product.
The result of this is that the customer may end up buying a different product simply because the store was sold out of the original item. In this case, the thief has a direct , tangible effect on the revenues of a company. Piracy is a totally different thing. With piracy, the pirate sits in his chair at his computer, looks on file sharing services for a copy of the full version of the software, and usually waits a few hours for it to download.
It's true that the pirate is getting goods without paying for them, and that it's a morally unacceptable action. But that doesn't mean that he cost the company any money. See, when a pirate downloads a full version of a piece of software, the pirate isn't leeching bandwidth from the company's servers. The pirate has to download the software from some other person who has already purchased it.
So bandwidth costs because of the pirate are zero for the company. Furthermore, the pirate isn't depriving any other potential customer of the game: he has not physically removed a copy of the software from a store shelf. There's no loss of sale for the company there, either. Finally, the software company paid absolutely nothing for the packaging or manufacturing of the product.
Given the nature of computer software, it was downloaded from someone else's computer; so no manufacturing was needed. It could be argued that piracy amounts to lost sales because a pirate would be motivated to buy the software if he couldn't download it.
However, given that pirates go out of their way to search the internet for pirated copies and to wait for the software to finish downloading, it's still highly unlikely that they would have ever bought the software, whatever the circumstances. Pirates don't want to go to the store, and they don't want to pay money for software. So this can't be legitimately construed as a loss of revenue.
It's unfortunate that groups like the RIAA and other software companies equate piracy with stealing. They are different, and people need to understand this.
They are not the same thing. Or share it with my friends? Why would I pay out when I can download it free and just pay a few bucks to get the authentication codes needed to circumvent the security measures? Piracy is a crime. Unfortunately, lots of youth and adults think sharing software, games, music, ebooks, pictures, etc. In fact, digital piracy is often portrayed as a victimless crime, but that portrayal is false.
John Kennedy, executive chairman of the IFPI, said: "It would be great to report these innovations have been rewarded by market growth, more investment in artists, more jobs. Sadly, that is not the case. Digital piracy remains a huge barrier to market growth iii. The film industry does not appear to take much of a piracy hit on movies within the US, but the cost to the industry in loss of international sales is significant, though there are variations based on genre and on how long it takes to get the legitimate movie into theaters in various countries; the longer the delay, the greater the financial loss to piracy iv.
Piracy negatively affects every single person working in these industries and their supply chains. There is less money to invest in new software, developing music artists, and movies. There is less work for developers, testers, sound engineers, videographers, actors, scriptwriters, musicians, assistants, set designers, security guards, stores, salespeople, website developers and every other type of person who goes into creating, packaging, advertising, distributing, supporting, promoting or reviewing these products and services.
Most of the people who lost work because of piracy and stolen profits will struggle for the means to support their families. This loss of income may shut the door on the restaurants and stores they once visited in your hometown. Since they can no longer afford home remodeling, new plumbing, repaving or new furniture, these businesses will also suffer along with everyone who works in the housing industry.
Infringing intellectual property rights can also increase cost to those who pay for the good, in the form of higher prices. The question of the morality of illegal downloading is so difficult because it takes place in an environment in which the penalties attached to this behaviour ordinarily seem to be overkill, but where there are pretty clear social costs to engaging in it. What, then, should be done? For starters, it seems important to stop treating intellectual property infringement as common theft and to develop different legal remedies for its protection.
As legal philosopher Stuart Green has pointed out, prior to the 20th Century, theft law consisted of a sort of ad hoc collection of specific theft offences and specific kinds of property that were subject to theft.
Different rules applied to different offences and intangible forms of property, like intellectual property, were not included in theft law at all. We may need to return to the rules that are well suited to protecting different forms of property. In the meantime, it seems incumbent on consumers to try to respect intellectual property unless doing so imposes unreasonable cost on them. Refraining from accessing patented essential medicines that are inaccessible due to price does seem an undue cost.
Previous editions Story archive Letters Subscribe Newsroom. Search query. Volume 46 Number 3. In the community. Contact me with news and offers from other Future brands. Receive email from us on behalf of our trusted partners or sponsors. You will receive a verification email shortly. There was a problem.
0コメント