A Terabyte of Piracy Ain't Art

[uranutan]

I think it's art. Actually, I think it's pretty good art. I can't speak for anybody else, but it makes me think. I don't think it's glorification of piracy; I don't think it's holding it in high regard. Making art about something doesn't mean you're praising it. I find the concept of $5,000,000 of stolen products being held on a small, easily available, and inexpensive device interesting. And the fact that anybody could do this with minimal risk of actual prosecution adds to it.

In my opinion, great art is something that makes me think. It's subjective. There's really no sense in arguing with each other about whether it's art or not, or whether it's good or not. You're entitled to think it's garbage or that it's not art at all. I'm entitled to think it's thought-provoking, great art. You can interpret it however you want. I think the fact that this provokes a discussion like this over whether piracy is actually stealing or not, or even what art actually is, shows success.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

While I don't think much of the display in itself, I think I see what he's trying to do. As well as being quite original, the idea is likely that the viewer sees the 5 million dollar tag and it's simply a small, forlorn, unassuming black box. It's innocuous, subtle and not worth noticing, and yet it contains what would amount to $5mill dollars of content were it paid for.

I think the viewer is supposed to think about piracy and understand that while it seems so easy, so without notice it deprives the industry of money one could argue it's due. That black box represents companies that haven't been paid, it represents greed/selfishness, it represents abuse, it represents consequences (or lack thereof). The (price) tag is a shock tactic. Such an unassuming box worth $5mill? Piracy isn't noteworthy if it's "just one track" worth $0.99c, but so much in one little box, maybe people will think twice in the future.

And with that in mind, what is art if not a means of expressing an idea?

While I can appreciate the message in art like this, or like Damien Hirst's ridiculousness, the part that I don't like is that some of these "artists" get paid exorbitant amounts of money for very silly things. I too find it ironic that Tito seems to have missed the point of the piece though. It's not about the downloaded programs/files being meaningful within themselves, it's about the fact that he could get $5 million worth of data into such a small thing with so little effort and no one is able to stop him. I guess if all the music was pirate metal it'd be kind of funny, but that's not really the point here, I think.

 

[BarbaricGoose]

I'm pretty you could take a shit in your hand, throw it at a wall, call it "Moon Rising Over Chicago," (or some other stupid, pretentious name) and it would be inducted into the MoMA.

I'm just sayin'.

 

[Popido]

I really should stop reading Escapist. Everytime I come here for gaming news and entertainment, I just burn my nerves. Fuck you and fuck your opinion. This constant pussy stance propaganda has netted you with the most sore assed, butthurt escapists I have ever seen on this side of the net.

I guess I should congratulate you.

 

[vxicepickxv]

The art in it is seeing that it's actually a very accurate statement about society's materialism. No part of it is art. The fact that a purpose was given to it is what makes it art.

I'd like to see how he priced everything to get his final tag though.

 

[BooDoug187]

Only 1 terabyte of illegal stuff? Fucking amateur!

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

This piece is a powerful anti-piracy message.

Without knowing the artist, I'm not sure how you can come to that definite conclusion.
Your points are well made, but I think it could just as easily be a pro-piracy message.
Or, even, a openly defiant anti-copyright message (Which is what I think it is).

Regardless of interpretation, however, it is still art. Tito basically dismisses the whole thing out of hand and that's what has really tweaked a lot of people in the discussion so far.

 

[Bostur]

He certainly managed to effectively compress 5 million dollars.

It makes me wonder how we value things. And how easy it is to put a price tag on something, compared to how hard it is to create real value.

5 million dollars is just a number. That display won't feed a village in a third world country, or buy an airplane. But we still accept that it represents 5 million dollars, why is that?

 

[Curttehmurt]

It's Art, pretty much anything can be art so long as it's presented as such

 

[Elijah Ball]

I Just can't keep up with all this insanity...Wait. I just realized something. My buddy has over a terabyte of porn...is that art?

yes... yes it is.

 

[DaJoW]

Why not? Far worse, lazier and more disruptive things have been called art.

 

[retro himself]

I'm usually opposed to the whole "not art" art, but this is one of the rare cases where it makes sense to me.
You see, that little external disk filled to the brim with pirated stuff is kinda like... compare it to putting a typical american sixpack of beer on display and call it art.
Say whatever you want, but that sixpack does have a meaning, it conveys something. And so does this external drive, at least to me, since I'm used to a lot of people having external drives filled with pirated stuff. Except here it's not that big of a deal. It's like a can of beer on a table.

The image it conveys is stupidly simple, but that what's so effective about it.

 

[Lizardon]

This isn't as bad as what happened here in Australia a few days ago.

I present to you "Currency". It's $20,000 in $100 notes. This is apparently art. Art that sold for $21,000!

And this man is even lazier than the one who just downloaded a terabyte of data. The $20,000 was an art grant from the Australian Government.

 

[ckam]

Modern art is art, but it's stupid art too.

 

[Cecilthedarkknight_234]

...really..REALLY?? hmm I wonder how much of that was loli/shota.. ahem moving on.. i have no words or face.. just this

 

[Jestere]

I think it's art. Actually, I think it's pretty good art. I can't speak for anybody else, but it makes me think. I don't think it's glorification of piracy; I don't think it's holding it in high regard. Making art about something doesn't mean you're praising it. I find the concept of $5,000,000 of stolen products being held on a small, easily available, and inexpensive device interesting. And the fact that anybody could do this with minimal risk of actual prosecution adds to it.

In my opinion, great art is something that makes me think. It's subjective. There's really no sense in arguing with each other about whether it's art or not, or whether it's good or not. You're entitled to think it's garbage or that it's not art at all. I'm entitled to think it's thought-provoking, great art. You can interpret it however you want. I think the fact that this provokes a discussion like this over whether piracy is actually stealing or not, or even what art actually is, shows success.

I totally agree. The fact that all this conversation has been started about piracy, art etc has happened seems to suggest it is in fact fulfilling a few of quota of 'art'. To be honest, it is a pretty broad category and notoriously hard to define. In many ways, saying something is art of having it in a gallery pretty much grants it that status.

It would be interesting to see what a poll attached to this whole post would have shown about opinions

 

[KeyMaster45]

Why list the sources? Perhaps to get those sites shut down? Or perhaps to point out how many of these sites there are, and how no one is doing anything about it.

Actually all the links in the pdf just go to Pirate Bay posts and they've been wasting money trying to take that down for years and it's still going strong.

Though I have to agree that it's making more of a statement rather than putting it on a pedestal. Whether he's criticizing the act of piracy or not it still makes the statement of how 5 million dollars worth of stuff now fits into such a tiny space.

Personally I think this is kind of a knee jerk reaction by the escapist and comes off as something that would do better as an entry on someone's personal blog than on a news website. The whole thing is basically Greg giving us his opinion on how despicable he thinks it is and fails to even give us the whole story. I'm sure the artist in question has his explanation for the piece, and frankly I'd love to hear it, but instead we got what amounted to a rage post that makes no attempt to let the other side of the story be shown.

I have to say for shame on this one, especially since the community and website here rips on Fox News over the same thing on a regular basis.

 

[Iron Lightning]

Error 404: Art Not Found.

Also why was this guy not arrested?

Because copyright infringement is a civil matter and not a criminal offense. It's like breach of contract in that you can get sued for it but not arrested.

More on Topic: Of course this is art. It's kind of a paradox that something that costs $5 million dollars can have so little value. He "stole" 5 million dollars without taking a dime from anyone.

But we're not talking about copyright infringement, we're talking about THEFT. He's openly admitted to stealing $5 million dollars worth of software and put it on display for all to see and nobody is going to arrest him??? I would've thought that the companies behind some of that software would've been all over him like white on rice, with the lawyer brigade in tow.

Edit: This is like if someone broke in to your house and stole your couch and then put the couch on display and said "Look, art!"

No, no, no, piracy is not equivalent to theft. Let's elaborate on your simile to demonstrate this.

If you were to take my couch from me then I would have one less couch and you would have one more couch. That would be theft.

If you had a device that could make an exact duplicate of my couch without harming my couch then I would not lose my couch and you would have one more couch. That would be piracy. The only theoretical problem with this sort of action is that the couchmakers might want you to pay for the couch that they designed and thus have the right to copy (or copyright.)

Although, you are probably correct that this is a criminal offense. I did more research into U.S. copyright law and found that it is a criminal offense to reproduce copies of copyrighted material over a 180 day period which are worth $1000 or more (see: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506 and/or http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/gmoohr/Criminal.pdf .)

One could make the argument that since the information stored on this hard drive has not been used it would technically not be copyright infringement or perhaps that the work itself is an original creation that doesn't violate copyright infringement. I'm no lawyer but I can see that this case is not quite open-and-shut, that is, if anyone should decide to press charges.

Nevertheless invocation of the criminal aspects of copyright law is fairly rare (again, see: http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/gmoohr/Criminal.pdf for an indication of general trends, sorry I do not have any studies that show this ratio directly) and the majority of cases remain civil matters. The police have better things to do than to start arresting copyright infringes en masse (we're already the country with the most prisoners per capita, no need to start arresting more minor criminals.)

I expect that the reason no corporations or companies seem to want to sue our artistic friend is to preserve their image. Any corporation or company seen beating up on this small-time artist would lose a lot of face and therefore lose a lot more money from lost sales than whatever they could soak out of this likely not-wealthy gentleman.

Well gee, I was on under the impression that the definition of stealing and therefore theft was the taking of things that don't belong to you without permission of the owner nor the intention of returning them. The fact that the data involved was copied and not removed is irrelevant, he still took stuff that doesn't belong to him without permission and without the intention of returning it. Now I don't know how the US "Justice" *sarcastic air quotes around 'justice'* system defines stealing, but in my mind this guy still stole things. Also I was under the very distinct impression that piracy=stealing. That impression heavily re-enforced by many an Escapist topic regarding the issue.

Well, since you asked, here is the legal definition of theft:

Theft/larceny is typically defined as the taking of almost anything of value without the consent of the owner, with the intent to permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken. Most states recognize degrees of theft, such as "grand" or "petty," which usually relate to the value of the property taken.

For example, Dan goes to Victor's music store, puts two CDs in his pocket, and walks out the door. Dan can be charged with theft/larceny. Had Dan stolen Victor's car from the parking lot, Dan would likely be charged with grand theft/larceny.

Note the bolded section. Piracy isn't theft as the victim is not deprived of anything. Piracy is copyright infringement, i.e. a violation of the right of the owner to decide who gets to copy his data. The fact the data is copied and not physically removed is certainly relevant.

If my car gets stolen I am one car poorer. If my car gets copied then I am not one car poorer. Sure, if I was selling cars and one of my cars got copied then I potentially lost a sale. However, I did not certainly lose a sale as the copier probably couldn't afford to buy my car if he was out copying them. Even if I did lose a sale, it would be indistinguishable from an individual simply not choosing to purchase one of my cars. Whereas if one of my cars was stolen then I would lose actual property instead of potential revenue.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Well gee, I was on under the impression that the definition of stealing and therefore theft was the taking of things that don't belong to you without permission of the owner nor the intention of returning them.

Definition of THEFT
1
a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

There is no removal of property involved with digital piracy. Therefore, piracy does not fully constitute theft.

Also I was under the very distinct impression that piracy=stealing. That impression heavily re-enforced by many an Escapist topic regarding the issue.

Merely a common misconception. Piracy is copyright infringement. A thousand ignorant voices crying out that it's theft doesn't, in fact, make it theft.

I think these definitions need to be re-evaluated. I know software companies would have a much easier time persecuting software pirates if they could they could persecute software piracy as theft and not copyright violation.