Jump to content

Online piracy: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Extensive article rewording – avoid using the smear word "piracy". See my essay WP:LOADED for why I have made this change. Comment out sentences with meanings that could not be determined. Remove sentences which repeated information or were nonsensical. Article has two reference lists – please resolve
Tags: Reverted Visual edit
m DesertPipeline moved page Online piracy to Unauthorised online distribution: Move page to a neutral title
(No difference)

Revision as of 12:33, 15 April 2021

An image of a qbittorrent interface; a popular torrenting program due to its free and open-sourced design.
qBittorrent is one of the most widely used torrenting programs because it is free software and distributed gratis.

Unauthorised online distribution is the practice of downloading and distributing a copyrighted work via the Internet or another computer network without permission, such as music or software.[1][2] In many developed countries, it is illegal; the term prohibited distribution is used for such jurisdictions. A more common term continues to be online piracy, which attempts to compare the act of copying with committing crime at sea.

History

One of the earliest recorded acts of unauthorised copying was when fourteen-year-old Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart visited the Sistine Chapel around 1771 and heard Allegri's Miserere being performed.[3] The piece's sheet-music was only authorized to be owned by three people: Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor, John V of Portugal,[4] and Giovanni Battista Martini.[5] After having heard it once, Mozart went back to his hotel and transcribed the entire piece from memory, coming back again two days later to proofread the transcription against the performance.[3] In the months following his transcription's publication, Mozart's fame for the act had become so significant that Pope Clement XIV summoned him to Rome in order to grant him papal knighthood.[6]

A screenshot of the installation of limewire pro that was attained via the free version of limewire
LimeWire's paid version of their app was frequently acquired by users using the gratis version

Nathan Fisk traces the origins of modern online unauthorised distribution back to similar problems posed by the advent of the printing press. Quoting from legal standards in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., he notes that there have historically been a number of technologies which have had a "dual effect" of facilitating legitimate sharing of information, but which also facilitate the ease with which copyright can be violated. He likens online unauthorised distribution to issues faced in the early 20th century by stationers in England, who tried and failed to prevent the large scale printing and distribution of illicit sheet music.[7]: 9–10 

Starting in the 1980s, the availability of dial-up modems led to the creation of the first warez distribution groups.[citation needed]

The release of Napster in 1999 caused a rapid upsurge in online unauthorised distribution of music, films and television, though it always maintained a focus on music in the .MP3 format.[8][9] It allowed users to share files using a peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing system and was one of the first mainstream uses of this distribution method as it made it easy for regular users to download music gratis. Napster's popular use was only short-lived, as on 27 July 2000 it was ordered to be shut down by a federal judge; it was officially shut down on 11 July 2001 to comply with the order, and the case was officially settled on 24 September 2001.[10]

Following its shutdown, many other popular P2P file sharing programs arose: the creation and usage of LimeWire quickly followed. Learning from the mistakes of Napster, LimeWire decentralised their servers by implementing the BitTorrent protocol on the Gnutella network.[11] The success of the BitTorrent communication protocol led to the rise[colloquialism] of many other popular programs that are still widely used today including μTorrent, Transmission, Deluge, qBittorrent, and Tixati. Unauthorised online distribution as a continuing problem significantly impacts various stakeholders, including the public, enterprises, and countries. This global problem can impact media and content-orientated industries.[12]

Scope

The economic loss caused by unauthorised online distribution before the year 2000 is estimated to be worth $265 billion,[citation needed] and in 2004 it was found that 4% of box office receipts were lost.[citation needed] Both unauthorised distribution and economic losses due to it are trending upwards.[citation needed] Lost revenues due to unauthorised online distribution could reach $5 billion by the end of 2005.[1][13]


The groups and individuals who operate unauthorised distribution websites potentially earn millions of dollars from their efforts.[citation needed] This revenue can come from a number of sources, such as advertising, subscriptions, and the sale of works available on the site.[14]

While these sites are occasionally shut down, they are often quickly replaced, and may move through successive national legal jurisdictions to avoid law enforcement. These efforts at detection and enforcement are further complicated by the often prohibitive amount of time, resources and personnel required.[15]


Some jurisdictions, such as Thailand and Malaysia, do not prohibit unauthorised online distribution, and others, such as the Philippines and Vietnam, have oversight regimes in place that have proven largely ineffective.[16]: 62–5 

Benefits

Unauthorised online distribution has led to improvements in file sharing technology that has bettered information distribution as a whole. Additionally, unauthorised distribution communities tend to model market trends well, as members of those communities tend to be early adopters. Unauthorised distribution can also lead to businesses developing new models that better account for the current market.[1] It has been argued that online unauthorised distribution may help in preventing businesses from investing in unnecessary marketing campaigns. In addition to helping screen businesses, research proposes that some organisations may be better off servicing only their most valued and legitimate customers, or those who buy legitimate copies of their products. Because unauthorised copies of software are expected to attract customers who are sensitive to price, it may not be in businesses' best interest to engage in extraneous price wars with their competitors or invest heavily in anti-unauthorised distribution campaigns to win target customers.[17]

Despite discourse on whether or not unauthorised online distribution is a threat, it has been shown that innovation and the creation of new works is flourishing[colloquialism] more than ever on the Internet.[18] Unauthorised distribution has also benefitted users in countries where works are either unavailable or delayed. In the case of ABC's Lost, the fear of its last episode being distributed without authorisation in European and Middle-Eastern countries pushed the network to accelerate the episode's distribution to those countries, resulting in the episode being available in those countries 24–48 hours after the original American broadcast.[18]

Ethics

The prevalence of unauthorised distribution and downloading of unauthorised copies despite potential penalties is because many individuals do not see it as inappropriate, instead viewing it as ethically acceptable, as it creates a copy of a work; thus, nothing is being taken away from the original owner.[18][19] People who download unauthorised copies of works are more willing to pay for copies distributed by the copyright holder if the work is customer-friendly.[20]

Conversely, those same individuals cited that the prevalence of unauthorised distribution is due to the inability of media companies to cater to the customer. Obtrusive DRM in paid software, overpriced media, and split markets were some reasons stated for acquiring unauthorised copies of works.[18][21]

Unauthorised distribution has posed a significant threat to the development of the software field and the growth of the digital media field.[citation needed] For the last decade, it has held considerable interest for researchers and practitioners.[22]

In the context of Indonesia, moral equity has affected unauthorised distribution behaviour negatively. Therefore, efforts to reduce unauthorised distribution have been focused on highlighting the importance of fairness and justice.[23]

Studying the causes and effects of unauthorised online distribution is one way of evaluating the ethics of how people view and share media with one another. Ample research in the study of unauthorised online distribution can help better understand the psychology of digital ethics. There is evidence that many individuals do not perceive unauthorised copying of software to be an ethical problem.[24] Research findings suggested that personal morals decrease unauthorised online copying mainly in the first phase, whereas neutralisation is used by individuals to support their behaviour throughout other phases.[25]

As more works are distributed via different services, the inconvenience of managing multiple service subscriptions is causing more people to choose to acquire copies of works via unauthorised distribution instead.[citation needed]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c Choi, David Y.; Perez, Arturo (April 2007). "Online piracy, innovation, and legitimate business models". Technovation. 27 (4): 168–178. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2006.09.004. ISSN 0166-4972.
  2. ^ "Definition of: Internet piracy". PC Magazine Encyclopedia. Retrieved 26 October 2018.
  3. ^ a b Roche, Jerome; Allegri; Scholars, Tallis; Phillips; Palestrina; Mundy (June 1981). "Miserere". The Musical Times. 122 (1660): 412. doi:10.2307/961024. ISSN 0027-4666. JSTOR 961024.
  4. ^ Stevenson, Robert (2001). "Barbosa Machado, Diogo" (Document). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.02018. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |series= ignored (help)
  5. ^ Grove, George, 1820-1900. (1954). Grove's dictionary of music and musicians. Macmillan. OCLC 36817387.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ "Vatican archive to display Mozart honour". ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 2020-01-30.
  7. ^ Fisk, Nathan (8 June 2009). Understanding Online Piracy: The Truth about Illegal File Sharing: The Truth about Illegal File Sharing. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-0-313-35474-8.
  8. ^ Giesler, Markus (1 September 2006). "Consumer Gift Systems". Journal of Consumer Research. 33 (2): 283–290. doi:10.1086/506309.
  9. ^ Fusco, Patricia (March 13, 2000). "The Napster Nightmare". ISP-Planet. Archived from the original on 2011-10-19.
  10. ^ "Napster Shut Down". ABC News. Retrieved 2020-01-30.
  11. ^ "How LimeWire Works". HowStuffWorks. 2008-01-25. Retrieved 2020-01-30.
  12. ^ Kos Koklic, M., Kukar-Kinney, M. & Vida, I. Three-Level Mechanism of Consumer Digital Piracy: Development and Cross-Cultural Validation. J Bus Ethics 134, 15–27 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2075-1
  13. ^ Al-Rafee, S., Cronan, T.P. Digital Piracy: Factors that Influence Attitude Toward Behavior. J Bus Ethics 63, 237–259 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-1902-9
  14. ^ McCOYD, Ed (January 2012). "Online piracy of publishers' content: a primer". Learned Publishing. 25 (1): 21–28. doi:10.1087/20120104. ISSN 0953-1513. S2CID 2912597.
  15. ^ Scott, Gini Graham (22 March 2016). Internet Book Piracy: The Fight to Protect Authors, Publishers, and Our Culture. Allworth Press. ISBN 978-1-62153-495-2.
  16. ^ Ballano, Vivencio O. (26 December 2015). Sociological Perspectives on Media Piracy in the Philippines and Vietnam. Springer. ISBN 978-981-287-922-6.
  17. ^ Haruvy, E. , Mahajan, V. and Prasad, A. (2004), “The effect of piracy on the market penetration of subscription software”, Journal of Business, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 81-107.
  18. ^ a b c d Frosio, G. F. (2016). Digital piracy debunked: a short note on digital threats and intermediary liability. Internet Policy Review, 5(1). DOI: 10.14763/2016.1.400
  19. ^ M. Limayem, M. Khalifa and W. W. Chin, "Factors motivating software piracy: a longitudinal study," in IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 414-425, Nov. 2004. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2004.835087
  20. ^ P. D. M. Fetscherin and P. D. C. Lattemann, "Motives and Willingness to Pay for Digital Music," Third International Conference on Automated Production of Cross Media Content for Multi-Channel Distribution (AXMEDIS'07), Barcelona, 2007, pp. 189-196. doi: 10.1109/AXMEDIS.2007.41
  21. ^ Al-Rafee, Sulaiman; Cronan, Timothy Paul (February 2006). "Digital Piracy: Factors that Influence Attitude Toward Behavior". Journal of Business Ethics. 63 (3): 237–259. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-1902-9. ISSN 0167-4544. S2CID 143769363.
  22. ^ Yoon, C. Theory of Planned Behavior and Ethics Theory in Digital Piracy: An Integrated Model. J Bus Ethics 100, 405–417 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0687-7
  23. ^ Arli, D., Tjiptono, F. and Porto, R. (2015), "The impact of moral equity, relativism and attitude on individuals’ digital piracy behaviour in a developing country", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 348-365. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-09-2013-0149
  24. ^ Glass, R.S., Wood, W.A. Situational determinants of software piracy: An equity theory perspective. J Bus Ethics 15, 1189–1198 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00412817
  25. ^ Mathupayas Thongmak, "Ethics, neutralization, and digital piracy", International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies, Vol.8, No.1, pp.1-24, 2017.
  26. ^ Larrier, Travis (March 4, 2013). "Bilal Is the Future (And the Present ... And the Past)". The Shadow League. Retrieved July 20, 2020.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_piracy&oldid=1017936848"