Piracy (vs. Privacy): Part 2 of 2

Privacy vs. Piracy. Both boil down to one concern: regulating the internet. To control or not control the online world. Ideas, research and reflections. 

piracy  |ˈpīrəsē|  noun.
1. File sharing software like BitTorrent and others that enable individuals to download movies, songs, and other creative works without paying for them. Lecture Notes, Week 6
2. The practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea. A similar practice in other contexts, esp. hijacking : air piracy.
3. The unauthorized use, reproduction of, or appropriation of patented and/or copyrighted material : software piracy.
 
SYNONYMS: Freebooting, bootlegging, copying, illegal, plagiarism, infringement, robbery
Other definition information found at Dictionary.com

Well geez, when you put it like that I want to avoid admitting that I've ever downloaded something without authorization... but if everyone is a 'pirate' then what's the big deal?

The ubiquitous nature of piracy: A personal reflection on illegal downloading and other internet crimes we have all committed

I get it. Piracy is bad. It has been equated with the word 'hijacking.' Don't do it to avoid being considered a cyber-terrorist. Blah blah blah. Similar to underage drinking in the United States, can something this ubiquitos truly be a crime? Not only is everyone doing it but society is making it easy. If drinking before the age of 21 really is illegal in the States, then wouldn't there be cops in every college campus bar and strict fake ID scanners at every liquor store/restaurant/club entrance. I know damn well my friends and I looked about 15 when we started using our first fake IDs at the beginning of college. But really, where is the law enforcement? For every minor that gets busted for drinking under the age limit, the other ten thousand high-school kids across the country are not. For ever pirate busted for illegal downloading, the other five billions people on the planet are not.

In effort to make my point, I will rat out two personal favorite pirating websites. They may not be directly in violation of copyright law but they make redistribution of the song/movie doable and therefore they are the platform for the crime. If piracy, bootlegging, creativity-hijacking yadda yadda is so illegal, then explain why these websites have not been shut down... Channel 131 and YouTube video to MP3 File. And those are just two of the millions that exist like it...

If illegal downloading is SO illegal. Then prove it. Control it. Everyone understands the negative implications around it... the artist don't receiving their fair profit, the creators don't obtain the credit they deserve. Valid points, I agree with that. But when I'm downloading Usher's new hit single from YouTube, converting it to an MP3 file and sending it to my iTunes Library... the farthest thing from my mind is the 0.99 cents that I'm depriving Usher, the billionaire rap artist of earning.

But the government is not as concerned with people like me who merely flirt with the legality of piracy but more so with the trained, tech experts who could hijack an entire network within seconds. There is no way to count, let alone monitor, the astronomical number of websites on the internet. And if the sites themselves cannot be regulated than there is no way in hell that the information downloaded from them can be controlled. But there lies the most fundamental tenet of the internet. Its a free domain. The fact that piracy so easily happens is why the internet exists as such a brilliant network of knowledge, ideas, and people. Because its free. Because its completely open as a shared space.

But that's just it. "Almost impossible to control" are the exact words used to define 'bootlegging' (a synonym and close cousin of piracy). So where is the line drawn? How open can copyrighted information be if its on the internet? How limitless can the web become? Perhaps piracy is its border? Maybe we have found it's boundaries, a limit to the infinite online world. Since internet access has become a focal point of human life in developed countries, we cannot simply ignore the implications of piracy any longer. Something has to be done and I have no idea what will happen next.

George Monbiot, published in the Guardian in December 2010, wrote:

"The internet is a remarkable gift, which has granted us one of the greatest democratic opportunities since universal suffrage. We’re in danger of losing this global commons as it comes under assault from an army of trolls and flacks, many of them covertly organised or trained. The question for all of us – the Guardian, other websites, everyone who benefits from this resource – is what we intend to do about it. It’s time we fought back and reclaimed the internet for what it does best: exploring issues, testing ideas, opening the debate."

But if we reclaim the internet, that means rules and regulations. The freedom of the platform will vaporize quickly with each piece of legislation. If legislation can even be approved... United States Representative, Lamar Smith, from Texas, introduced a bill that yielded a multitude of backlash, called the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Check this out for more information on SOPA. The future of SOPA is still in progress and will undoubtedly be an issue in the upcoming US presidential election.

Two sides to the SOPA story:
Paulo Coelho, successful author and writer, captured an interesting perspective on the legislation through posting his thoughts to his personal blog. His bottom line: There is real danger backing SOPA; if the act is made into law, it will affect the whole planet. Coelho begins by saying, "From the Gospels to political manifestos, literature has allowed ideas to travel and even change the world." One would assume an author to be in defense of intellectual property but that is not the case for Coelho. He says the more people 'pirate' a book, the better. He compares it to the way we hear songs on a radio; the more we hear the song, the more apt we are to buy the track. Coelho claims that the same goes with literature. He concluded his thoughts in saying, 

"Pirating can act as an introduction to an artist's work. If you like his or her idea, then you will want to have [the real thing] in your house; a good idea doesn't need protection. The rest is either greed or ignorance."

So... can we have the best of both worlds? Can we have a free, unregulated internet with no restrictions of copyright? Is piracy truly impossible to control? It seems that piracy will exist as long as the internet remains a free, open and accessible commons.

It also seems that I am completely torn between the two sides of the issue... 

But then again, who isn't?

Sources:
Coelho, Paulo, "My thoughts on SOPA," Paulo Coelho's blog accessed via http://www.diigo.com/user/andersand/SOPA

Hildyard, Nicholas, Lohmann, Larry, Sexton, Sarah and Fairlie, Simon (1995) ‘Reclaiming the Commons’ The Corner House

Monbiot, George (2010) ‘Reclaim the Cyber-Commons’, Monbiot.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOPA