Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Piracy - No, not that kind

Digital piracy. This may not seem like an ethical gray area to some, but for many it has become a sticky quagmire of rights, freedoms, and expectations. Gone are the days of recording mix tapes from the radio on a Saturday afternoon or doing a wavy-line copy from VCR to VCR of rented videos. Today, your grandmother probably has a computer with more processing power than was required to send someone to the moon and bring them back safely; making a perfect copy of a CD or even a DVD is a trivial operation. Just as the use of digital video recorders in the home has become mainstream and given people the ability to record television shows and movies for convenient consumption, websites like hulu.com, youtube.com, and tvrss.net threaten to make the very idea of recording your own content an anachronism. Limited not only to media such as music and video, digital piracy of software is enough of an issue that companies are willing to run the risk of alienating their own customers to prevent copies of games or operating systems from being distributed without their approval. Microsoft introduced its 'Genuine Advantage' tool which forced users to validate that they were using a legitimate copy of Windows before installing certain updates in 2005, but the sheer number of computers running pirated copies of Windows XP worldwide forced them to allow download of critical security updates even to known pirated copies for the general safety and security of the worldwide network (Interestingly enough, a google search for 'Windows Genuine Advantage' returns as many, if not more, hits on how to disable or crack it than Microsoft's own site). Sony is infamous for their XCP 'rootkit' technology which amounted to installing special software on a customer's computer, without their knowledge, in order to prevent piracy when a DVD or CD was inserted. Unfortunately this 'rootkit' itself turned out to contain flaws which caused major instability and even allowed malicious third parties to take control of affected computers. Herein lies the ethical dilemma, where does a company's right to protect their own interests supersede the individual's right to privacy and personal freedom?

Digital piracy has long been an issue among the technical elite but we are now at a point in history when it has become so simple to make flawless copies and distribute them that anyone can become a digital pirate. For many, the issue is no longer IF they can copy and share but rather to what extent WILL they copy and share. Some companies have embraced this new reality and have made efforts to make it simple and inexpensive enough to 'do the right thing' (pay for copies) that many people comply and pay for what could otherwise be had for free with almost no effort. Apple is a fantastic example of a company that has embraced this philosophy, placing no restrictions on the installation or copying of their operating system but selling family-sized licensing packs which allows people to pay a small markup in order to perform multiple, legitimate installations. Broadcast networks have also realized that people can find television shows on the internet and watch them for free with almost no technical know-how and have attempted to counter this by creating a better product instead of cracking down on what they consider illegal viewing. The inevitable arms race between those that want the content on their own terms and the companies who want to control distribution continues to rage on, but it has been pushed below the radar for most people simply because the 'right' avenue is simple enough and cheap enough to use. How is a consumer supposed to navigate these ethical waters when the border between what is possible and what is right is not only blurred but erased with the click of a button? In the United States, the DMCA makes it illegal to make digital copies of anything that a company has TRIED to protect with encryption, regardless of how good a job they have done. What difference does this make to an otherwise law-abiding American who would never dream of cracking encryption (much less have any idea how to)? The simple act of copying a 'Dora the Explorer' DVD to my computer so my children can watch it without scratching, breaking, or peanut-butter-staining the disk makes me a criminal. The encryption that protects DVD videos is so simple to circumvent that it can be done with 7 lines of computer code. Can it really be illegal to distribute 'encryption breaking software' that can be printed on the back of a t-shirt? (btw, here is the elegant DeCss algorithm in 7 lines of Perl).

Does this make sense? Should ordinary people be forced into becoming 'criminals' in order to do what seems natural and normal? Are you a 'pirate' if you copy a CD to your computer and then give the disk to a friend? Many record companies would argue that the answer to this question is a resounding 'Yes', even going so far as to argue that it is illegal to buy 'second hand' or used compact disc. Does it make sense to frustrate consumers who have purchased a video game that is encumbered with anti-piracy software, driving them to download 'cracked' versions from shady websites(I'll refrain from putting a link here ) simply to avoid the hassle of using something they legitimately purchased? The issue of 'Fair Use' has been around for quite some time, but how many people are able to determine whether a button click or even a photocopy is within the bounds of the law, much less ethically correct?

11 comments:

  1. Being one who had to watch that my children did not put peanut butter and jelly sandwiches in the VCR - I know I know - they did crack the woofer on the stereo speakers from turning the knob all the way up while the stereo was on, or was the turntable playing??, something both did only once and never again - the noise scared! What I want to say is that for me copyright and fair use laws are a matter of integrity and I'm not willing to cross the line. I'd rather deal with doing without - even if it's the kids favorite DVD and it will be weeks until they go to the next thing. I don't think just because I can copy, circumvent, or that is seems logical, easy or even prudent for sanity's sake or any reason, that one should go ahead and do it. Yeah we dug things (mainly leggos) out of the VCR, and thought the music didn't sound quite as great from the speakers until we could afford to replace them but we all survived. I think the new questions that will come with new technology, can be answered by people - they will know if it's morally correct, provided the values and decision making skills are passed along.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What a quagmire, Chris. I appreciate you presenting the issues regarding digital piracy in such a user friendly manner. I know you can talk and write circles around many of us given your professional background in the IT field. I don't have any answers, but I do think about "power" when I read your post. I'm certainly not well verses in this stuff. However, I wonder how much the the powerhouses like those you mentioned really push for these protections to protect the "creation" of the author, musician, lyricist, software writer, etc or do so for the sheer economic control of their industries? Reading De La Torre's book, Doing Ethics from the Margins, has me thinking alot about disparity.

    I serve as music minister for a very small church. I often think about the composers and lyricists who create the music we use. I make sure that we secure and maintain the licenses we need to make print copies of the music for our worship services. I'm aware we're so "under the radar" that we could easily make copies of the music and CDs of new songs for people to take and listen to during the week etc without anyone really knowing. However, it's important that the artists behind the creation have some protection and acknowledgement (including royalties). I know that these artists do what they do for love of God and of their craft. However, they deserve credit and protection.

    On another note, we have restrictions against plagarising in the academic world. To use another's work without acknowledgement is a type of privacy.

    It seems that our advances in technology, the RAPID change in the field, and the increase in global use of this technology have far outpaced the very types of protections (e.g. licenses, academic acknowledgement, copyrights, and even patents) that we relied on for many, many years related to written word, music, and inventions. They just don't translate easily to our 21st century world.

    You wrote: "Some companies have embraced this new reality and have made efforts to make it simple and inexpensive enough to 'do the right thing' (pay for copies) that many people comply and pay for what could otherwise be had for free with almost no effort." Your statement makes some sense in how to balance on the thin line and hopefully avoid the slippery slope. Somehow, it comes down to the choices I make as a consumer. Do I take the sometimes inconvenient route and "do the right thing" as a sign of respect for the person who created whatever I use--even though I will never meet that person? Or, do I do what's convenient for me? And yes, you're right Chris, I often don't have enough information as you wrote, "to determine whether a button click or even a photocopy is within the bounds of the law, much less ethically correct."

    I know my "choice" approach is a very simplistic approach to a very convoluted quagmire. However for me, in my little corner of the high tech world, I use it to keep me grounded in a world, especially when I can sense my own "powerlessness" and feel overwhelmed by all the information. I try to remember that someone created whatever I use in this world and deserves my intentional acknowledgment.

    I'm thinking you and Bob Gilfert need to connect as he's wondering about the ethics of all of this stuff too!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, Chris - you almost managed to confuse me just with this blog! Simple html and user friendly MySpace; that's about my speed. I agree that this is a slippery slope in many cases. I don't download music or movies online for two reasons - there's a strong likelihood that they are illegal AND I really don't know how and don't want to, so much. I still listen to the radio more than CDs; although I've been known to toss an album on the turntable to this day (I still have the fuzzy record case of 45 rpm singles from my teen years. Most of the records are my little sister's, but still...)

    At the church, we are very cognizant of copyright laws; as a writer, I am concerned about always making sure credit is given when due.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So one of the really interesting things to me is that as a writer, especially in Seminary, we take great pains to give credit to those whose work we use. We use quotations and citations liberally to enrich our writing. Imagine if you had to pay a royalty every time you cited someone's work! Even worse, what would happen to academia (and in our ministries) if we had to pay just to read what others have written or if by cutting and pasting text from one document to another we were breaking a federal copyright law! I would never argue that people (artists of any kind) shouldn't be compensated or given recognition for their work, but we're talking about the simple act of making copies or listening/watching/experiencing something in the quiet of our homes.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh, Chris, you've brought up things that I, in my technological ignorance, would have never even thought about until I had already broken some law -- and perhaps I already have. (And part of the time, I had no idea what you were talking about!)
    But seriously, I am so glad you posted this blog because it presented an ethical arena of which I was basically unaware and the follow-up comments contributed greatly.
    My thanks to all of you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh, Chris, you're so right about the fact that we do not pay for using a particular academic source each time we quote the source or give credit to the source. Hmmmmm. I'd be VERY broke indeed if I had some type of surcharge for every time I've cited someone, especially since I seem to footnote even when not needed. I definitly see the point of your response and understand your original posting to a greater degree. Huge implications. Again, our technological advances far outpace our usual protocols. I will be curious to hear more from you about this topic. You have a lot to contribute to our perspectives on this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well Chris, you've managed to triple my sense of technological inadequacy!
    Like Susanne, I don't know how to do most of the things you talk about and don't want to. As worship chair for my congregation, I am aware of copy write laws and making sure we have the licensing to use or copy music. The internet has made it so easy to find material for worship, but I'm careful to give credit when I do.

    Thanks for bringing this concern to our attention.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Chris this is a really interseting issue. This has been going on since the days that we have been able to record songs on tape off of the radio. I remember when I was young that I would sit with a blank tape in my stereo waiting for my favorite song to come on and then hit record.In high school (for me) the blank cds came out and I would borrow my friend's cds to make copies.

    Today our technology has become much more high tech so these copies can be shared in new and much higher quality ways. I agree that files are much easier accesible now a days then they were, and that there needs to be some line drawn to protect the copy rights of the artist. It is interesting to me that some in the entertainment business have seen this issue building over the years and it has only now become such a big issue.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I had no idea that people were suggesting that buying used copies of CDs is (or should be illegal). As someone who... sometimes acquires music before it is released ... I used the fact that libraries allow people to check out CDs or the legality of purchasing used CDs as centerpieces to the legitimacy of my enterprise. I guess I'll have to reconsider.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You brought up an interesting topic, Chris. I think we all have been tempted to the guilt of piracy at least once in our lifetime willingly or unwillingly. I, for instance, discovered lately that the version of the Windows I had been using for three years was not genuine. Three years ago my original OS went kaput, and I lost most of my information. The factory warranty had expired at the time, and I could not afford to buy a new genuine copy of Windows. When one of my classmates offered his help, I accepted without thinking further and without hesitation. As a matter of fact, he returned my PC the next day with a new OS. Until lately, I was using my PC without thinking whether the copy of my OS is genuine or not. However, a few months ago, a notice appeared on my screen warning me that my copy of Windows was not genuine. Now, when I have dozens of useful programs installed in my PC, I can’t change my OS, because I will lose all my softwares, which I want the least. I know that we have to respect the copyrights of the producers, but meantime, the producers should respect the rights of the consumers producing quality products in an affordable price.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Chris, thanks for this post! You bring up relevant information for the consumer today. Piracy is an issue that plagues us as the media-consumed customers that we are. This is definitely one of those thin gray line issues that deals with the realms of both ethics and spirituality. More then a question of 'what should I do' but rather 'what should I do as a Christian?' Ethical issues consume us daily and how we respond can be crucial. We are also dealing with these lines of ethics and spirituality at cfcbe.com. Please feel free to take a look at our site when you get the chance. Thanks again Chris, Keep posting!

    ReplyDelete