Hari's Corner

Humour, comics, tech, law, software, reviews, essays, articles and HOWTOs intermingled with random philosophy now and then

Is piracy morally objectionable?

Filed under: People and society by Hari
Posted on Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 12:08 IST (last updated: Wed, Jul 16, 2008 @ 21:16 IST)

I have always been amused when, in online discussions, people tend to equate piracy with plain theft. I have been equally amused when companies like Sony and Microsoft try to jump on the high moral platform in this issue and purely focus on piracy as a criminal/ethical issue rather than an economic issue, which it truly is.

I for one, do not condone piracy. On the other hand, I don't think that people who take the moral high ground on the piracy issue are doing justice to the issue at hand. It's not as simple as saying that piracy is theft and therefore an immoral thing. Let's also forget the fact that the theft=piracy analogy doesn't make sense in any case. I'll grant you that piracy, in fact, is a crime. Although it is technically a crime, I think that there are enough grey areas in piracy and that not all piracy can be treated as equal. For instance, if a friend of mine copied a music CD from me or ripped my CD as Mp3 files and copied them on to his computer, he and I would be technically liable for piracy. However, a professional piracy racket involving dedicated individuals who spend their life in actively promoting piracy for their own profit is a totally different kind of piracy. And this piracy industry thrives purely because piracy is profitable and it makes good business sense for those who aren't too particular about ethics or morals in the pursuit of making money.

And yet, the music and movie industry is either unwilling or unable to realize the primary factor behind piracy which is the economics of the issue. Let me give you an example. Original Harry Potter movie DVDs are on sale at many reputable supermarkets. Do you know the price of a single DVD? It is in the range of about Rs. 799 to Rs. 999. Sometimes, new releases are priced at more than Rs. 1000 per piece. These glittering shops always sell at the MRP rates and offer no discounts. If you came back three or four weeks later, you find the exact same DVD lying there gathering dust with the same price marked on it. To me, this kind of pricing policy seems unjustifiable, considering that I might not see the movie more than once. Who would want to pay that amount for watching a two or three hour movie maybe twice or thrice? It's ridiculous to say that since I own the DVD, I can watch it as many times as I want. In practice, I doubt whether many people watch the same movies over and over again. Most movie CDs/DVDs go into the dusty cupboard and hibernate there after a couple of viewings at most. Music CDs/DVDs probably have a slightly longer life. On the other hand, I can easily get a pirated Harry Potter movie DVD priced at Rs. 50 to Rs. 100 at any of the less reputable shopping districts. While I personally don't care much for HP, wouldn't there be so many people out there who love Harry Potter and would want to watch the movie even if they couldn't afford such a price? If the original DVD was priced at Rs. 299, wouldn't that help in cutting down some of the piracy? Is it really necessary for music and movie companies to make 1000 percent profits on sales of CDs and DVDs? I certainly think it would cut down piracy considerably if they took stock of the economics involved. Most reasonable people prefer to avoid piracy when they can. Only when the originals are priced at ridiculous prices are they forced to seek alternatives.

There is another argument that the "moral high ground" squad will take at this point: "If you cannot afford something you shouldn't buy it. You have no business pirating it and enjoying it."

To say that those who cannot afford to buy shouldn't want to enjoy it is stupidity confounded by a naive idealistic view of human behaviour and psychology. Marketing strategies ensure that desire for material products and comforts are embedded firmly in the minds of people, giving them a perpetual sense of inadequacy and a constant need for "more". To me, that manipulation of the human psyche to create artificial wants and desires is as morally repugnant as piracy if not worse. It is a product of unbridled free market capitalism which is a totally different topic altogether. Nobody of course, has to listen to the latest music albums, watch the latest Hollywood movies or use the latest software packages. Entertainment is not an essential of life. But in reality, isn't the industry itself creating that very human desire in the first place? Aren't they, in a sense, manipulating our emotions and feelings and creating that want inside us which drives us into purchasing products which can be termed as "unnecessary" to our lives? Doesn't the whole entertainment industry thrive on this rather questionable manipulation of our individual tastes and desires? From that angle, wouldn't it be fair to say that piracy might be an offshoot of the problem rather than a problem by itself?

The biggest issue is, of course, that companies not only want to continue making hefty profits but also manipulate the public into thinking that piracy is a crime that is to be equated with burglary or kidnapping. The preachy nonsense of anti-piracy drives in fact alienates even the most reasonable, paying customer apart from having zero effect on those who have no moral objections to piracy anyway. To me such arguments are as morally questionable as piracy itself - some might say it is used as a form of emotional blackmail. To the ordinary customer, such a stance also reeks of hypocrisy considering the profit motive and the questionable business practices of these companies who tend to take the moral high ground on issues that suit them. To assume that every customer is a potential thief drives more and more people away from buying their products. DRM is a prime example of such a measure which not only alienates the paying customer, but actually drives him into piracy actively. The professional pirates, of course, will continue to thrive in any situation.

The best solution and the only solution to piracy, then, is to address the economics of the issue and make piracy unprofitable. How do companies do it? By selling their products at reasonable prices in the market. Price does matter to the end customer. No amount of emotional or moral-ethical posturing can get around this simple fact. Given a choice, most customers would prefer to be honest. No reasonable man would want to take the risk of criminal or civil liability however small if he can avoid it. Sadly, the blind profit motive continues to dominate and companies who can still make good profits by following ethical business practices prefer to sow artificial desires and wants in the minds of people by manipulative marketing practices and then grossly overprice their products merely to exploit the situation. There can only be one word for that: Unadulterated greed. Which is more morally questionable I leave it to you to decide. If the music or movie industry loses millions of dollars to piracy in such a situation and still make profits, it tells me a kind of story...

9 comment(s)



  1. Comment by ray (visitor) on Wed, Apr 26, 2006 @ 00:13 IST #
  2. I do agree that piracy is a crime. What I dislike is the moral posturing of people who equate it with theft or even worse crimes. :P

    Comment by hari (blog owner) on Wed, Apr 26, 2006 @ 08:35 IST #
  3. I definitely agree. While I would not say that it is a victimless crime (no sales hurt smaller shopkeepers, after all), there are far worse things to do.

    Comment by ray (visitor) on Thu, Apr 27, 2006 @ 23:26 IST #
  4. I don't know what the legalities are in your country, Hari. In the United States there are two different kinds of laws, criminal and civil. The mere act of infringing on someone's copyright by making and distributing copies is considers a civil act, not a criminal one. Criminal infringement occurs when X number of copies are distributed, usually by a pirate ring. I wrote a post about how downloading pirated stuff isn't illegal and the reality is that it isn't theft (a criminal act) but merely copyright infringement (a civil act). Still, the intent to infringe has to be pretty clear for the recipient to be liable for anything. There's no question that distribution is infringement, just how far does it go before it becomes criminal infringement is the question that has to be answered.So, in the U.S. theft = crime, infringing a copyright = civil. The two are only mutually inclusive when a pirate ring of some kind is involved and only on the distribution end. The entertainment industries try to brainwash people into believing they are always inclusive.You're analysis that price is the causative factor in piracy is 100 percent correct. The cost of music and videos are artificially inflated and market forces have no impact on the prices, therefore piracy flourishes.

    Comment by RT Cunningham (visitor) on Mon, May 14, 2007 @ 21:11 IST #
  5. Thanks RT. I pointed you this article because I knew you had expressed similar feelings on this topic and knew I had echoed them at some time myself.

    Comment by hari (blog owner) on Mon, May 14, 2007 @ 21:37 IST #
  6. I totally agree with your last sentence. The most pirated softwares in the world are the products of Microsoft, and yet Microsoft and Bill Gates still own an believable wealth. If their argument is correct, piracy takes away their profits, why could this happen?

    Comment by ykkwan (visitor) on Tue, May 15, 2007 @ 22:01 IST #
  7. Probably Bill Gates would have been a trillionaire had it not been for piracy. :lol:

    Comment by hari (blog owner) on Wed, May 16, 2007 @ 08:10 IST #
  8. I hope software industries adopt the model initiated by Moserbaer for Home videos...But then, the truth is, their primary profit comes from corporate customers and rich people who buy legal copies at MRP. because of this, the companies are able to absorb the impact of piracy. If the prices are brought down, income from premeir customers and commercial entities will fall and this drop may or may not be compensated by a raise in domestic buyers...

    Comment by Shrinidhi Hande (visitor) on Mon, Aug 27, 2007 @ 15:51 IST #
  9. Agreed. The pirates thrive because they have a market. The companies thrive because they have a market too. Ultimately the big software companies are not bothered about cases of individual piracy, but are very worried about corporate piracy (companies which install wholesale pirated software instead of buying licenses).

    Comment by hari (blog owner) on Mon, Aug 27, 2007 @ 17:07 IST #

Comments closed

The blog owner has closed further commenting on this entry.