A Terabyte of Piracy Ain't Art

[Canadamus Prime]

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.

Actually I didn't ask. I merely pointed out that I didn't know how the US "Justice" *Again sarcastic air quotes around 'justice'* System's defined theft, I didn't actually ask to be informed of what it was.
But since you felt obligated to tell me anyway, I think that maybe the definition of theft needs to be re-evaluated or maybe software piracy should be a criminal offense unto itself, buy equal to theft. Either way, prosecuting it as copyright infringement is bullshit and I imagine it infuriates more than a few software companies.

 

[The Random One]

Ugh, of course it's art. It's not art in itself, but it's art in the way it's set up and exposed, like that urinol. I'm sorry, but the tone of this article just comes across as ignorant.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

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.

I also think the definition of theft needs to be re-evaluated. To more clearly express deprival and removal of owned property, that is.
Because that's what stealing is: if I could copy your car atom for atom, there's no way in hell you could accuse me of "stealing" it as long as it was still there and owned by you.
Categorizing the copying and sharing of digital media as theft would open the door to a thousand retarded lawsuits, such as with livestreams and youtube videos. Trust me, we don't want that.

Well you see I would define theft as the taking of things, by copying or otherwise, that don't belong to you without permission of the owner nor the intention of returning them.
I certainly don't want to see the kind of lawsuits that you suggest might occur, but at the same time I don't like seeing this kind of shit either; where a guy has taken a hard drive full of stuff that doesn't rightfully belong to him and put it on display for all to see.

 

[Iron Lightning]

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.

Yes, because clearly justice is not about fairness. It's about persecuting criminals as easily as possible.

I think we should change the definition of all crimes to "looking funny." Think of how easy it would be to prosecute crooks, the judge would take on look and the case would be shut.

All sarcasm aside, let me ask you a question. Do you believe that the punishment of a crime should be proportional to the harm caused by that crime? If you do believe in that, then why do you think that the nearly harmless crime of piracy should be equated to the very harmful crime of theft? If you don't believe in that, then I suggest you reevaluate your life and subsequently stop being such a cretin.

 

[t3h br0th3r]

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.

If something costs money and you, without payment or consent, take it, then you are stealing. It doesn't matter why you do it, it doesn't matter how much you do it, you are still stealing.

I'm not trying to slap you personally with a jolly roger, but i am just calling a spade a spade. wheather you are some kind of consumer rights advocate or some broke mutha with space on his hard drive you are still stealing.

While there do exsist a few legit reasons for stealing (like: I need food and have none or hey look, the enemy's ammo store)

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.[/quote]

 

[Rad Party God]

Art my ass. Stupid jerk, he didn't even tried to be original.

 

[Iron Lightning]

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.

I also think the definition of theft needs to be re-evaluated. To more clearly express deprival and removal of owned property, that is.
Because that's what stealing is: if I could copy your car atom for atom, there's no way in hell you could accuse me of "stealing" it as long as it was still there and owned by you.
Categorizing the copying and sharing of digital media as theft would open the door to a thousand retarded lawsuits, such as with livestreams and youtube videos. Trust me, we don't want that.

Well you see I would define theft as the taking of things, by copying or otherwise, that don't belong to you without permission of the owner nor the intention of returning them.
I certainly don't want to see the kind of lawsuits that you suggest might occur, but at the same time I don't like seeing this kind of shit either; where a guy has taken a hard drive full of stuff that doesn't rightfully belong to him and put it on display for all to see.

If you paid attention to my first reply you would see that copyright infringement of this type is probably already a criminal offense. The only reason he is getting away with it is because no one cares enough to press charges. Any lawsuits would also be pretty bad PR and thus not worth it.

For the last time, taking a thing (i.e. the transfer of ownership of the thing from one individual or group to another individual or group) is NOT the same as copying a thing (i.e. creating a thing which resembles the copied thing.) Saying they are equally harmful is just plain stupid.

 

[FeralDynasty]

On the subject of modern art. At some museum in Chicago there is a blank piece of paper. It is entitled "Erection". I hate modern art.

 

[Keepeas]

I don't think it's art,
I don't support piracy,
I think it's lazy....

But I kinda like it...

 

[Zero_ctrl]

-Snip-

I found it ironic that a person who's involved in an industry that's fighting to be recognized as art bashed another piece.
Thanks for helping me get my thoughts through.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

I usually have trouble with modern art (once I saw a broken snow shovel being displayed), but I actually get this. Doesn't it bring up the idea of how digital data that can be replicated with virtually no cost is assigned a value? A little black box you can buy at any computer store worth $5,000,000 because it's filled with data? And the fact that this is so easy to do?

This.

While I agree the act of piracy is wrong, the result is certainly art; it conveys a social idea and is symbolistic.

 

[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.

Yes, because clearly justice is not about fairness. It's about persecuting criminals as easily as possible.

I think we should change the definition of all crimes to "looking funny." Think of how easy it would be to prosecute crooks, the judge would take on look and the case would be shut.

All sarcasm aside, let me ask you a question. Do you believe that the punishment of a crime should be proportional to the harm caused by that crime? If you do believe in that, then why do you think that the nearly harmless crime of piracy should be equated to the very harmful crime of theft? If you don't believe in that, then I suggest you reevaluate your life and subsequently stop being such a cretin.

If you're going to resort to name calling and slander like a 5 yr old then I'm not going to debate with you.
In answer to your question, what I believe is that it is wrong to take things that don't belong to you without permission; which is what has taken place. Whether you want to call that theft or you want to call it something else, it is still wrong!

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.

I also think the definition of theft needs to be re-evaluated. To more clearly express deprival and removal of owned property, that is.
Because that's what stealing is: if I could copy your car atom for atom, there's no way in hell you could accuse me of "stealing" it as long as it was still there and owned by you.
Categorizing the copying and sharing of digital media as theft would open the door to a thousand retarded lawsuits, such as with livestreams and youtube videos. Trust me, we don't want that.

Well you see I would define theft as the taking of things, by copying or otherwise, that don't belong to you without permission of the owner nor the intention of returning them.
I certainly don't want to see the kind of lawsuits that you suggest might occur, but at the same time I don't like seeing this kind of shit either; where a guy has taken a hard drive full of stuff that doesn't rightfully belong to him and put it on display for all to see.

If you paid attention to my first reply you would see that copyright infringement of this type is probably already a criminal offense. The only reason he is getting away with it is because no one cares enough to press charges. Any lawsuits would also be pretty bad PR and thus not worth it.

For the last time, taking a thing (i.e. the transfer of ownership of the thing from one individual or group to another individual or group) is NOT the same as copying a thing (i.e. creating a thing which resembles the copied thing.) Saying they are equally harmful is just plain stupid.

Yeah yeah, I heard(read, whatever) you. But as I was trying to imply, if it was not a matter of persecuting for copyright infringement and rather a matter of persecuting for something a tad more serious it probably wouldn't be such a PR nightmare.

And yeah I read it the first time you posted it, restating it 50 times is not going to make any difference. As I said above, taking things, by copying them or otherwise, that don't belong to you without permission of the owner is still wrong! Whether you want to call that theft you want to invent some other magical word for it, it's still wrong!
And the fact that this guy is able to put together a whole collection of stuff he took without permission and put it on display without anyone doing anything is just a whole heaping load of bullshit.

 

[health-bar]

If he seriously is considering this art, then hes a moron, and the art industry is a moron, and the gallery is a moron, and the people who think its art are morons.

If he's doing it for the lulz then hes just a dickhead.
albeit it is kinda funny.

 

[Something Amyss]

Is that a challenge? I think that's a challenge lol.

Aphrodite Picture...I'd tap that.​

Don't worry, I subscribe to the Tom Lehrer school of smut.

Then again it reminds me of this:

XD

Art really is in the eye of the beholder, but sometimes a duck is just a duck.

 

[ardencabbel]

So what if somebody replaced this hard drive with an empty one of the exact same model? suddenly there's nothing special about it, but nobody's the wiser for looking at it.

What if that is what the artist did to begin with? It would change the meaning, but I would still view it as art. Something akin to a question on society. Why do we question everything a politician says (using politicians as an example), yet don't question the truthfulness of an artist? We seem to automatically accept that what the artist said was true.

 

[cdstephens]

1) It's not stealing. Stealing =/= piracy.

2) Pirating programs from the 1970s and 1980s that cannot be bought anymore isn't immoral at all....

 

[ardencabbel]

You know what, I'm gonna shit on a pedestal and sell it for 5 million.

The issue would be to locate a buyer. I didn't see anything related to the topic at hand that suggested that the artist intended to sell the piece for $5,000,000, he just stated what the content of the drive is valued at.