I was involved in a, er, heated discussion about whether it's right or wrong, morally and legally, to copy music CDs and software. The unfortunate thing about most dinner-table debates is that one usually doesn't have all of one's bullet-point index cards available. So, I figured I'd inaugurate my blog with a post about my point of view on this subject.
First and foremost: I believe that the creator of a work of "intellectual property," whether the work is music, art, software, electronic hardware, whatever, is entitled to (indeed, has a right to) earn a living from his/her labor. I make no distinction between a song on a record album, a software application and a physical gadget.
This "right to earn a living" is why I believe in strong copyright laws and workable (and reasonable) patent laws. However, as a music fan, I am aware of the issue of Fair Use and the idea that I can buy a CD and pretty much be able to listen to the music on it wherever, whenever and however I like. Fair Use basically says that it's OK for me to rip a CD and upload the songs it to my iPod.
Lots of people burn copies of music CDs for friends, much as we used to make cassette copies of our vinyl albums. Lots of people also make copies of software and share it with friends. Here's the rub. Unless the creator has given explicit permission for a person to make a copy of a CD for a friend, then it's illegal to do so.
Here are a few of the usual arguments to support such copying. One is that, "I want to expose this music to my friend who'd never otherwise here it." That's great, as far as it goes, but if the friend likes the music, then shouldn't the friend go out and buy a copy? Yes, friend should, but often doesn't.
Another goes along the lines of, "The labels are ripping off the artists, so 'Fuck the Man!'" Sure, so when a band's legit record sales are nothing but everybody seems to have a copy of the record, the label can rightly say, "Your sales suck and we're dropping you."
A third argument is used to justify pirating software: "It's too expensive." The most egregious example of this is when a record producer pirates a ProTools plug-in and uses it to make a hit record. Let's see, the record made millions of dollars, yet you're too cheap to spring the $300 for the tool that was a vital part of your product? And you want the guys who wrote the plug-ins to continue creating new products that you'll pirate? And the record producer is entitled to be paid for his work, but the people who make it possible for him to work aren't?
The biggest difference between a hardware product and a software product (and by software I mean music and movies as well as computer programs) is that making as many perfect copies of the software as one wants is both simple and effectively free. Anyone can copy a DVD in their living room. Basically nobody can copy a dishwasher, at least cost-effectively.
Why is this difference important? If I give you my chainsaw, I can't cut my firewood until you return it, or I buy a new one. But if I give you a perfect digital copy of my new Born To Run disc, I can still play my copy whenever I please. It's worth noting that there's a pretty good market for used CDs. As much as the record companies and artists (and authors and book publishers) may not like it, the secondary market is legal. I own a "thing," and it's my right to sell the thing. But once I sell it, I no longer have it.
There is an interesting argument that says, "I bought a cassette of Springsteen's Born To Run, and it broke. Since I bought it once and Fair Use says I can copy it, then can you make a copy of your CD for me?"
No. I can't. I'm sorry that your tape broke. But replace "Springsteen Cassette" with "television." "I bought a TV set a few years ago, and it broke. Mr. Sony, can I have a replacement for free?"
Sure you can, if the TV died during the warrantee period. If not, then tough luck. Buy a new TV. Sure, both the TV and tape can last a very long time when properly cared for, but it's unreasonable to expect Sony to replace your ten-year-old TV with a new unit, and so it's unreasonable for Sony to give you a new copy of the Springsteen record.
(Of course, there is the notion that a company might wish to keep a customer, and if that means replacing a TV that's out of warrantee, that's excellent, but of course the company is under no obligation to do so. Maybe Bruce will give you a copy of the re-ish BTR if you plead your case.)
The person with whom I was debating argued that "If the software is already out there and is copied, it's already obsolete, so the people who wrote it should be working on the next product." I'd like to make two points here. One is that why should they bother working on the next product if nobody is paying for the current product? (How are you supposed to develop software if you can't pay the electric bill?) And the second is simply that the current product is already "leading edge," ergo, not obsolete.
This person also suggested that "the [creators] need to use strong copy protection for their work." In other words, DRM, Digital Rights Management. There are lots of problems with this argument, the most obvious being that every encryption method used to protect software is cracked almost immediately. Yep, software developers have the mindset that their customers are thieves. There are those that will say, "software developers really don't mind piracy, as it gets people using the program, and then they'll buy it." Yeah, people are using the program, but what's the incentive to pay for something you've already got for free? Oh, yeah, so new versions can be developed. Right, when most of your user base isn't paying, how fast will new versions be developed?
Another argument against DRM is the Sony rootkit fiasco. In their efforts to prevent piracy, Sony effectively fucks your computer. Not good for the ol' Public Relations, eh? Thats' a good way to make your customers distrust any product you release for the foreseeable future.
A third argument against DRM is that every scheme I've seen renders Fair Use meaningless.
A fourth argument against DRM is that the content providers want to tell the hardware vendors how to design products. There's nothin' like specialized, expensive products that go obsolete as soon as the Next Big Thing comes out. It's another way to piss off your customers.
Having said all of this: if a content/IP creator wants to give away his/her work, that's great. More power to them. While I'm not entirely convinced that free and open-source software is always going to be higher-quality than proprietary software, I will say that I depend on certain open-source applications: emacs, Subversion, Firefox, Cygwin, X Windows, Open Office, Perl, Samba, the Entire Frickin' Internet Infrastructure. I'm glad that this stuff is out there. I just don't know how Stallman pays his rent.
Furthermore: I believe that copyrights should have reasonable expiration periods. I understand that Walt Disney's heirs have benefitted from his works, but at some point, you have to say, "enough is enough. He innovated, now so should you. Get a job." (Just think about Will in About A Boy: his dad wrote the hit song and he just lives off the royalties.)
Along those lines, if a software company goes bankrupt or ends a product line, why not open the source? It's worth more as an educational tool than a product (otherwise, they'd still be in business!).
Posted by Andy at December 30, 2005 12:07 AM