You are on page 1of 9

Anti-Piracy: is it wrong and dangerous?

Written by Joakim E. Hansson


________________________________________________________________________

Introduction: Im about to tell you why the methods of anti-piracy is a dangerous act
towards human rights, such as private integrity, which threatens our democratic system. I will
also explain how it negatively affect the cultural-sector, production quality, etc; and examples
of how piracy has always existed and provided a positive outcome from both parties, and will
continue to to do so, and why it should. At the end of the article, Ill write an in-depth
discussion about the text, were Im also going to provide why anti-piracy could also be a
positive anti-measure, and its justification, vice versa.
Piracy (file-sharing) will remain no matter the cost, and it doesnt matter whoever dislikes it
or not, because it does not change the fact its impossible to control and stop free information.
In the long term we probably wont be able to pay for digital products as society moves
deeper into digitalization. Besides, its just a piece of technological history, and nothing else,
and it will soon perish amongst others

...

So why even bother with all this frustration, when the film and music industry cant stop it?
Especially when these pirates always finds a way to protect themselves against the legal
system and the copyright holders, through methods of anonymous tools, such as encryption

and

virtual private networks (VPN), and the infamous private trackers, etc; and this is not an
issue from their perspective, since it requires barely no advanced computer experience at all,
and is therefore available to every citizen on Earth. And yet, the copyright industry is
constantly trying to set examples by punishing randomly selected individuals on a severe
level while disproportionate their manners (the fall guy) that also considerable effect their
relatives aswell, from both an economic point of view, and a disorganized dysfunctional
family positions; and this is not acceptable.

The worst part is the enforcement of general monitoring of everyones private


communications, which filters and censors each citizens democratic thought, which threatens
our societys development. Unfortunately the general population isnt aware of this issue, that
the Swedish justice system (incl: several other nations) bends over for foreign politics and
the will of private corporations, with the use of extreme amount of lobbyism, while using the
so called victim card.
Its that simple. While theres no way to terminate the use of piracy except of the immaterial
distribution of physical copies on the ground (field-work > Internet control), the only
somewhat efficient method of anti-piracy is mass surveillance of all Internet users, according
to the last decade of academic research of cultural development, statistics and marketing
strategies1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . So if they wish to grasp straws in the fight against piracy, they
must rely on mass surveillance, and the copyright industry knows this by hand. Therefore,
even those who believe that file sharing has a negative impact (which is the opposite) on
culture and creationists income, and ideally wish itd be exterminated, we must ask them:
Are they prepared to accept a mass surveillanced society to achieve it, which threatens their
democratic -human rights. Because when the monitoring system has been deployed and
fundamentally installed, it can and will be used for the purposes that best suits those in

power, in order to achieve their agenda > Murphys law. I feel obligated to mention the work
of George Orwell: 1984 and a small portion of The Pig Farm, to further justify my
statement.

The movie and film industry often talk as if they knew how theft of property, or the principals
of property ownership works, on how they get robbed when someone makes a digital copy of
their product; which is completely wrong due to its misinterpreted concept. But that doesnt
matter, since they always want to express it this way because like I said before, the general
population isnt well educated in this matter. This opens a backdoor by time, that sneaks into-the idea that copyright monopoly means property, or at least comparable with the property in
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-593-EN-F1-1.PDF
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2176246
3
http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/documents/MPP/LSE-MPP-Policy-Brief-9-Copyright-and-Creation.pdf
4
https://www.europeandataportal.eu/sites/default/files/edp_landscaping_insight_report_n1_-_final.pdf
5
https://www.iis.se/docs/Svenskarna_och_internet_2016.pdf s.6, 23, 77-82
6
http://www.politico.eu/article/insiders-slam-commissions-copyright-plans/
7
http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Ups_And_Downs_authorised_translation.pdf, s.48, 60, 101, 131
8
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091213/1648377324.shtml
9
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2009/06/harvard-study-on-file-sharing/
10
https://torrentfreak.com/artists-make-more-money-in-file-sharing-age-than-before-100914/
11
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091114/1835036932.shtml
1
2

ownership. This just a regular rhetoric from the copyright lobbyists that attempts to produce
monopoly as something righteous, to associate the copyright monopoly with positive words
such as property. But when we look at the monopoly in practice we see that there is a
limitation of property rights.
So how about we start comparing the two things you can take: a chair, and a DVD. Whenever
you decide to buy a chair from IKEA, you leave the money over to the cashier, you receive
the chair that has been mass-produced from an original factory in the middle of nowhere.
Once the money has been transferred from your possession onto the cashiers, it is rightfully
yours in the eyes of property principals. There are a lot of copies of this chair, but precisely
this one is yours, and yours only. Youve purchased one of many identical copies and you
have a receipt that proves it. Since this chair is yours, and yours only, there are still a number
of things you can do with it: you can pick it apart and modify it by your will and personal
requirements, and even create a better version (hence open-source marketing), or use the
parts to build a treehouse for your cat to enjoy, that you may later sell to a private party, or
even give it away. Or follow the example of major corporations by using someones idea and
afterwards make it better and sell it as your own. All this is normal for the possession of
property. Its yours, and you can do what you want with it. Produce copies, sell, display and
let your neighbours use it as they please.
Now we take a further look on what happens if you buy a movie. Whenever you decide to
buy a movie from Walmart, you leave the money over to the cashier, you receive the DVD
that has been mass-produced from an original factory in the middle of nowhere. Once the
money has been transferred from your possession onto the cashiers, it is rightfully yours in
the eyes of property principals. There are a lot of copies of this DVD, but precisely this one is
yours, and only yours. Youve purchased one of many identical copies and you have a receipt
that proves it. Since this DVD is yours, and yours only, there are still a number things you
cant do with it: because they are prohibited by the copyright monopoly, that says it belongs
to someone else. You can not pick it apart and modify it by your will and personal
requirements, or even create a better version (which hinders cultural, marketing, etc
development (hence open-source marketing), or use the parts to create a better movie for you
and your family to enjoy (improved sound, phase, subtitles, etc), that you may later sell to a
private party, or even give it away for christmas. Or follow the example of major
corporations by using someones idea and afterwards make it better and sell it as your own
(remakes).

All this is normal for the possession of property when it comes to copyright monopoly, as if
their market had special rights that doesnt exist for others. They are the perfect example of
special snowflakes. They have limited your rights to consumer ownership. The DVD is
yours, and you cant barely do anything you want with it. Produce copies, sell, display and let
your neighbours use it as they please. Imagine withholding development in the cultural-sector
and the quality of production itself. So who is the real culprit that prevents cultural
development? People that loves culture will always love culture. People that loves to create
culture, will forever always create culture.
None of us can say that we legally own a copy of our DVD:s, at least in one way. There is a
clear definition of consumer ownership, and no more, and the receipt proves that you own the
DVD:s in all its interpretations and aspects (read John Lockes theory of labor and property).
Each part of the shape that represents the DVD is yours, but according to the Copyright
holders monopoly it restricts how you get to use your property which you legally have
bought with your own hard earned money. This does not imply that copyright monopoly is
bad, but it means that you cant defend it on the basis of the ownerships rights is something
good. Assuming it will come to the conclusion that the copyright monopoly is bad, because it
means a limitation of property rights. To defend the copyright monopoly on the grounds that
ownership is sacred is exactly as defending the death penalty for murder on the grounds that
all life is sacred. There may be other, valid defense for copyright monopoly and restrictions
on ownership, but the logic does not agree. Copyright must exist, and the creationist has
every right to protect their creation, but is it really possible, and what is the cost of doing so?

What can history teach us?


___________________________________________________________________________
During the golden age of Great Britain in the 19th century, books costed a fortune and was
only available to exist in rich peoples homes. Even though some of them favorably lent
books to the common folk. The publishers became anxious and desperate, while they loudly
screamed and exerted pressure onto the british parliament to make a law that would forbid
people to read books that they never paid for. They even tried to ban public libraries before
they even existed12. Reading books without paying for it, is just like stealing the bread right
from their childrens mouths!

However, Parliament considered that the reading was positive for the whole community in
order to contribute to social and systematic development, so they ignored the publishers'
doomsday prophecies, and decided that public libraries would be legal and public for any
ones use. Whether it was good or bad for the publishers' business, it was important for the
country that even ordinary people learned to read, so they were ready for the new age
requirements. It existed for the advantage of society to create equal conditions, to establish
public libraries, available to rich and poor alike. Copyright monopolists collapsed when they
heard this: "You can not let people read books for free! Not a single book will ever be sold

again! No one will be able to support themselves in their writing! No writer will ever write
even one book if this law goes through!"
But the Parliament in the 19th century was much wiser than today, and saw the copyright
monopolists outrage for what it was. Parliament took a clear position for universal access to
knowledge and culture was more important to society than the copyright monopoly, and so,
in 1849, they adopted the law on the introduction of public libraries in the UK. The first
public library was opened in 1850 --- and which we already know since then not a single
book has ever been written...? Or was it the copyright monopolists laments that said nothing
will ever be created without a strong monopoly, which is just as false as it in todays modern
times.

12

http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/pva/pva74.html

The conflict between the copyright industry and citizens is virtually identical to that which
took place when the printing press was introduced in the 15th century, and the Catholic
Church declared war against people who by themselves sought knowledge. In both cases, it is
not really about religion or law, but on the very same principle that people are people, and
that powerful people are using their power to keep it, any methods necessary to achieve their
goals. Because whoever has the knowledge, is a threat to their control of information.
What is interesting here is that the copyright defenders are acting like religious
fundamentalists. The course is not religious in the true sense of the word. But they react as if
the copyright was a religious belief, as if it is something that can not be questioned, with an
emotional and aggressive spirit and call reformists pirates, thieves, free freeloaders etc. In
another time and in another place they would have said heretics. Facts and figures that
illustrate the situation and point to a solution and yet no welcome it, but instead aggressively
rejected and ignored by copyright fundamentalists. There are some observations can be made
based on this. Firstly, people are people and will always be people, and the sky is blue, and
grass is green. All this has happened before and will happen again, because the copyright
formulas has been reformed several times, over and over again, but yet were not allowed to
do it anymore because the Its stealing! mentality, which is very shortsighted because the
topic is far more complex than we thought it was, because it reaches out to several major
topics that inflicts upon our society daily.
The printing press (modern times: the Internet) was a revolutionary technology that
threatened the control over the information that the Catholic Church had used and
manipulated to their will, to reach their agenda; for centuries. When the old power structures
realized that their power were in danger of slipping out of their hands or eroded out of
existence, they fought in every way possible, no matter the cost, because the monetary system
is far more valuable than human lives and society as a whole, according to their actions. And
although the technology won at last, which it always does, the former monopolist community
succeeded to cause indirect collateral damage to the society.
We must set our mind at ease, and prioritize the designated threat, to stop this vandalism that
threatens our social development; and ask ourselves: is piracy wrong, or are there more
important factors to accommodate?

Advantages and disadvantages


___________________________________________________________________________
But there has to be a positive side right? Everything cant be just negative, theres a thing
called right and wrong. Yes, theres always a glimmer of light in the darkest corner of the
Earth, and this is why we must question our own opinions and beliefs, in order to move on to
progress; to stay subjective. What I will primary focus on is the game market, which happens
to have a portion of negative impacts when it comes to piracy acts.
The sales impact whenever the un-released product falls into the hands of the individuals
before its release date, which affects the income of the premiere (launch-date). A
counter-argument to this, is the game markets lack of playable demos/trials, that lets the
consumer try the product before they buy, but does it justify it considering that the individual
may or may not buy it afterwards, while owning a complete illegal copy instead of a limited
demo copy? I already have a complete copy, why should I buy it?; refer this quotation to
the paragraph below.

Whenever the product has been consumed to its final stage, there may not be a guarantee that
the pirate may buy it afterwards, even though he enjoyed it and wishes to contribute to the
game development studio. Unfortunately theres no documentations that either proves or
disproves this, because its difficult to create an analysis, which has been tried before. So
none of us can be sure of this, and it should therefore depend on the individuality.
Small indie-developers may not get a great start for their company, when their products keeps
getting illegally obtained through torrent client(s). Different Internet polls (with low amount
of users involved) says that price tags are a major factor, when it comes to buying their
games; and small indie-developers usually sell their copies at low prices to gain as much
sales and marketing as possible, so maybe the piracy doesnt affect it that strongly, while the
product may not even be renowned in the first place; hence why some artists decides to
spread their work for free, in order to gain popularity among boxed communities. Are the
products not sold due to being unknown by the general, or was it thanks to piracy?

Conclusion(s)
___________________________________________________________________________
Despite the topics lack of documented analyzes, we must rely on individuality itself. Theres
no way for us to say Thats the truth, because weve proven it, because theres not enough
material to go on, except for the few statistics and theories we have, including several
anonymous opinion voting polls that we dont know if theyre trustworthy enough, but these
cases obviously says that the positive effects are far more than the negative ones (its a
temporarily truth). A wise and scientific society relies on the model that is most fresh and
beneficial, and switches whenever it becomes outdated. We can not be sure if the legalisation
of piracy is the right choice in the future, but right now it outweigh the negative aspect. What
we do know, is that the anti-piracy methods affects multiple and crucial topics in every
society, and is therefore a dangerous game to be played, especially when its in the hands of
privately owned corporations, and not the citizens nor the governments; which terminates
the purpose of democracy, its equality and neutrality. It also punishes individuals with
charges that are far worse than crimes of humanity, such as: assault, sexual assault, real
physical theft, speeding, and other crimes that threatens human life; why does money have a
far higher priority? Wheres the ethical morality and principles of human life and its value?
As any other market, there has to be a business model that is adapted to the consumerists
need, or else the service would be in denial of demand. The creators of Spotify and Netflix
has proven that a new business model can and will decrease piracy substantially, because
theyre offering a digital service that fits their customers needs; but theres still a lot to
improve so why cant the film industry do the same since it increases their user rate and
economical income, and showcases their products on a much larger platform? History has
shown many times, with the same scenarios, but with different context, that still has the same
principles, that anti-piracy (the control of information and the cultural-sector) is ineffective
and hurt the society; the priority between a corporation and societies development. Of course
the effects of piracy and anti-piracy is different when it comes to context: music, film, games,
art, etc. and must be evaluated specifically because it has different in and outcomes, because
of factors such as usage, storage, purpose of existence, the background market(s). This makes
it even more difficult to know whats right and wrong. What any person with technical
knowledge can understand, is that society as a whole, is a straggler. Its flexibility is not
enough to adapt to todays technology, and therefore we can not use its for our advantage.
This model is sustainable for models during the 90s. We must move on, weve waited
enough.

Ill finish this article by giving you an end quote by the official representative of The Pirate
Bay, which of course isnt neutral, but atleast he has experience with the subject:
"We should start in another way we shouldn't ask how can people make money, it should be
more about how can we use the new technology that's changed everything and actually make
a living with this tool instead of against it, because that's the problem. If a company invented
a car that ran on water you wouldn't say 'so how will the oil companies make money you
have to come up with new ideas on how to get money into the business." /Peter Sunde
2016-11-10