Piracy is a deadly virus that cannot be eradicated completely from our blighted planet but we all can join hands in curbing it

Sorry for misreading you.

Capitalism is the only thing that brings about X. And X is the best of possible worlds. Therefore, capitalism is the thing. (Without which we, somehow, gets reduced to potatoes and looters.) But the only thing this argument then says is: nothing.

Excuse me, but it's not what I was trying to say. My point was to say that while you can argue that private property reduces freedom along some dimensions, it also increases it on other aspects. So I don't agree with the assertion that capitalism reduces freedom - I think it's a bit unidimensional. I've never said that capitalism was the only way to organize society, nor the best (that's another topic).

That kind of argumentation is common:

Capitalism is the only thing that brings about X. And X is the best of possible worlds. Therefore, capitalism is the thing. (Without which we, somehow, gets reduced to potatoes and looters.) But the only thing this argument then says is: nothing.

In my mind, capitalism has (helped) brought about certain good things, yes, but with other ways of organization we would have been far better off, capitalism actually being the factor that obstructs and hinders full scale realization of our possibilities.

Having replaced social, cultural, political, religious, racial, etc., violence with natural violence (the one unleashed against nature in general, eco-destructive consequences of which increasingly are irreversible and thus breaking the very temporal barrier in that it directly and physically infringes upon any future generation's conditions), capitalism is surely to be looked upon as a phase of great hubris and arrogance.

Sharing is vital, also the sharing that goes across generations, including any future generation in general. Sorry to say, not only do we have the petty infringers and corporative infringers but also an infringement that seriously destabilizes human temporality.

Who can deny that in capitalism there there is a structurally inbuilt tendency towards rights of property infringing ever greater areas former unregulated and thus accessible to humankind in general?

If I understand correctly, you're saying that as soonas something is not available for public use, you can imply that the freedom to use it has gone, so you conclude that private property, which is a prominent feature of capitalism, is inherently reducing freedom.

I agree that it's reducing one kind of freedom : direct use of some natural resources. But I wouldn't say it reduces my individual freedom as a whole. Without private property and law, I may have to spend much more time taking care of my acres of potatoes and fighting against looters, wouldn't I ? I would consider it a massive reduction of my freedom of action, as this time couldn't be used producing food, educating myself (and increasing my abillity to think by myself - isn't it freedom too ?).

Another example I can think of, is how capitalism helps giving access to some technologies, from the washing-machine to the Internet. Well, haven't these two modern breakthroughs increased our freedom as well ? I think they have. Has private property and capital helped give access to numerous people to these technologies ? I think it has. So sometimes I think private property can indirectly help people access to something new.

Which is not to say that capitalism has all the virtues (it certainly hasn't), but once again, strictly opposing it to freedom looks like an exaggeration.

Who can deny that in capitalism there there is a structurally inbuilt tendency towards rights of property infringing ever greater areas former unregulated and thus accessible to humankind in general? Thus property does contradict freedom. Ever greater areas of phusis is usurped by an ever decreasing amount of individuals. Is that on par with excercise of freedom? And the institution of law and justice accordingly shrinks.

I still have no clues whatsoever why people are so vigorously, righteously, and honorably! defending the interests of a handful multinational corporations. What's in it for the massively great majority? Only the ruining of phusis. So perhaps that's what these things are all about.

"Property and freedom: two contradictory terms" (rubenshein)

I'm sorry but I don't follow you here : freedom is not supposed to be unlimited (that's why I think it's good to refer to some specific fields - freedom of thought, of speech...).

Let's not forget our individual freedom stops where our neighbour's one starts (please correct my English if necessary) Else, there's no society and no civilization...

Thanks rdietl,

it is always a pleasure to read you.

I always try to economize. Also in this case where you have had me under suspicion. I would, for my part, never allow myself to suspect otherwise from my interlocutors either. Such a fundamental belief, which is to say that people generally always and to their very best try economize, is one of the things that gets language and communication going. But then again, such suspicion is interesting as it provokes us to reflect deeper on what this thing we call langauge is. The same goes for "self-indulgence." I presume that people I interlocute with doesn't self-indulge too much, since if I were to presume otherwise the whole process of communication, fragile as it already is in its ontological ground pillars, would start to fragment. Grice's implicatures, e.g.?

Signs are split a priori. It is an ontological fact. Otherwise they couldn't be shared by generations upon generations. An essential trait of language is that its "units" are "graftable." And as with grafting in a biological context, grafting in a linguistic context does yield strange effects, always already fragmenting the sign. The sign may have some condensated "core," but only for rough practical circumstances. Signs change and have histority; most certainly even a chief agent in historicity itself. It is interesting to note that Derrida late on described his entire oeuvre as one pertaining to parasitology.

We could take this debate somewhere else, of course. But I promise you that same deflection, same aberration, same deviance is bound to re-appear. Compartmentalizing gives a new and fresh start, yes, but we all know where it ends, more or less on par with some sort of Freudian play of "free association." Also, if you think about it, this little "ad hoc" discussion (just another term designed to have us believe in purity and the proper and property and propriety, etc.) could provide some interesting perspectives for our piracy debate.

One could even speculate as to whether the whole enterprise of computer technology isn't deep down one of desparately (re-)trying to (re-)secure (re-)"compartmentalization" (re-)itself, bypassing all the troubles relating to auto-immunity, virology, contamination, a priori splits, aporias, grafts of all kinds (there are very many of them!), pervertibility, perfectibility, dissemination, and so on. But even in the virtual realm things are never identical despite the innocently looking pure and neat electronical binaries; the copy is still dirty, and subject to a Derridaean différance. Post Derrida the whole ideology of identity has been solicitated (here from the Latin sollus, meaning 'the whole, or all,' and citare, meaning 'shaking'). The same procedure that Derrida had an entire philosophical tradition sifted through, one could do with, say, our information technologies.

First I beg you pardon me writing this post as it has little to do with the topic. So.

RC_Woods,

being a 'mummer' ('guiser' ("geeze," right?)), me? I don't act in a mime. (I presuppose you don't do either.) I philosophize. Giving respect to the reader, one thus tries to economize with words, that is to say to say the thing you want to say in as clear, distinct, and efficient way as possible. Problems might arise as to the legibility of what written, of course. Such problems always arise, with no exception. If I, to the best of my belief having written things as efficient as possible, get reproach and ridicule from you, I can only hold fast, still, to my above stated vow. (There is no "mumming" in my words.) And add, after your performative speech act, that legibility lies in the eyes of the beholder. I can't help you, I am sorry. That's anyway the fuzzy thing about writing: as one can know a priori that one can't help but provoke a great variety of feelings in the readers, how to level, neutralize, bracket, those feelings that typically hinders a solemn reading? Always an impossible task. But one is obliged to try it, to the best of ones powers. Apparently what I wrote arose something in you that stands in between what I tried to have said, and your reading of it (irrespective of your reading being affirmative or not).

Concerning misunderstandings, misreadings, communication, transferral, and so on, I have myself found great benefits from studying the texts of the great philosopher Jacques Derrida (try him out, if you have the time, RC_Woods, and see what will have been provoked in you). He says that all signs are split a priori --- due to the fact that they are indefinitly repeatable across an unlimited array of contexts, consciousnesses, epochs, intentions, etc. They are repeatable, but not, thus, as identical to itself. As always already split they will take on a life of their own. It is a generalized repetition inscribed in difference, or in his own terms 'general iterability.' I am not sure if his writings, either, will make sense to you. But one can hope. One thing is clear, though: when one writes, what should dictate ones writing the most should always be the issue at hand, not some populist obscure knowledge of what are the statistical average reading capabilities of future readers. (This last tactic has undermined public debates for decades now. "Be short, be fast, be pointed, speak a common language that all can understand." Don't be mistaken and think that this is a sorry fact, an unlucky consequence of otherwise sound intentions; it is willed, intended, and applauded.)

And also, lastly but not least: why do you believe, and why do want others to believe (since, after all, you are sharing your views), you are the judge of the quality of my writings, RC_Woods? Its sense, sanity, or coherence, or lack thereof? I have my own words for describing such, but I wont share it in here, generally. Does anyone around benefit, for the sake of the argument at hand or enlightenment in general, from you stating what you just did? You would, beyond doubt, benefit greatly from clinically removing such belief (as was demonstrated in your last post). It is an understandable affect though; you can't take the ball?, kill the man.

Resuming to the actual debate, I just say I just don't understand why laymen so vigorously defends the continuation and even increase of the exploitations of a few insanely wealthy transnational companies. Does anyone really believe that such companies gives a flying monkey about our interests? That's why, in my opinion (and it isn't stated "humble" as RC_Woods for some reason publicly states is his), piracy is applaudable. It breaks things up. It gives the finger to the stone-dead rich people. You see, what these businesses are really afraid of is loosing their grip on the market. With certain new technologies artists can really do without those grease-fat middle-men --- to the benefit of the artists own creative products and to the benfit of those wanting to enjoy those products. This technology is already at hand, it has already happened with a growing number of artists, and it will continue like this, and big business is frantically trying to simulate a situation that will have us believe that nothing has changed.

rubenshein, you are an odd geezer - you know that?

some of your posts seem rather incoherent, and while you are not afraid to be radical in your conclusions (or original in your analysis / reasoning) at some points here the sustaining arguments are missing or don't add up all that well. Unlike regular jibberish though even your incoherent posts hint at being more than just random exclamations. 

You seem like a smart guy who could do with being outplayed a bit more often. Don't let it get to you - as a philosopher you should know how unlikely it is that unchallenged ideas turn out to be original, radical and right at the same time.

They may provoke an interesting discussion, but to me it doesn't seem necessary to talk in certainties. 

Capitalism and communism are not that far, far. Close as they are, Stalin greats us. It's funny how hard-core capitalists share the bone with hard-core communists. It is funny.They say: there is nothing but the economical incitament.

I have a friend, which is muslim; he's my friend. What I have discovered is that Islam culture is obsessed with reciting and copying. An oral culture it is, and it is doomed to schizophrenia in a culture that worships texts like ours (imagine coming from a story-telling culture, entering texts of all formats). Bloody imagine what a textual culture like ours, appears to a reciting, oral culture. Dare I say: that's the definition of piracy today?

Copyright debates are no issue there. Everything is recited. They will try chant texts away. Everybody knows what textuality means; on par with evolution theory, language creates new species. 

I love the West, and everything I do is always in the name and love of it. But recital people will be traumatized. In my opinion, the issue of piracy and the issue of orthodox moslems share some vitals.

The one and true secular state, be it of the West, will condemn any form of monotheism. We have had all these bloody century wars --- about polyism. 

It is quite surprising to see that this blog is still being read and commented... most of the blogs i had written were done with any activity in a couple of days or so... I guess the word "Piracy" has just gotten a lot of your bloods boiling :)

I am not even sure if i can go and read all those comments, since they seem to be much more lengthier than my blog itself.... Thanks to everyone for sharing your ideas, that is the only thing i had in my mind when i wrote this... to share and discuss....

@ Fonix

    I think i definitely need to answer your comment....  Your opinion on "a less than heartfelt confession" i can say nothing about it, i guess its just your opinion. I wrote this blog to share my ideas, thats about it... not to seek the readers approval for my actions. I do believe my actions in the past were bad and i am trying my best to change them, however i do not claim that i am perfect. I do make a lot of mistakes, but i sure do hope when i make those mistakes i am aware of them. I do not try to be perfect, because i know that is impossible, i just try to know and understand myself better. I know for sure that i pirated all those things for no reason that are discussed here, no fight against capitalism or any other revolutionary idea, i just did them because they were easy and free and i truly believe that they are wrong. If you feel this is not heartfelt, again that is your opinion, your entitled to it..... 

And DEFINITELY i am not seeking a public repentance here in chess.com for my sins... No offense to your comments, but i am not going to apologize for my actions to you??? I think you have taken this out of context... i would think about doing that when i face someone i have ripped off and someone who has been affected through my actions and again that would be my personal choice... As far as the readers are concerned, it is just a fact that was stated about me... tats all.... I did not advice the readers to apologize for their actions either, i just suggested you all to think twice before you do something even if it is so routine, so normal and a casual trend in our so called society.... Think for yourself and decide for yourself...

I download all the stuff I need. I do not care if somebody does not get enough money. Like I care if producing movies stops. Piracy is not stealing anyway because the owner does not lose his product.

@ Fonix

Good for you that you thought yourself better than to comment on this blog and then changed your mind because it still pops up on the homepage from time to time. Thanks for sharing that information, it is relevant to all!

Then on to your point: you seem to have a very clear perception of the moral code that should apply to what thamizan has to say here. Not a very flexible or nuanced code, but a clear one for sure.

In my opinion, if thamizan would have given a public apology and a financial restitution for everything pirated he ever enjoyed (however shortly and no mater if he would have bought it otherwise) would not make him a good guy - it would make him like a saint. (Or perhaps more like someone addicted to repentance.) 

I think this because, you see, piracy really is widespread, and if you really think it is such a bad thing then I think the appropriate thing to do is to encourage people coming into the clean - not demanding extensive apologies and financial retribution. Confessing to pirating and promising not to do it any longer is a glass more than half full, no need the go dramatic on the fact that it didn't overflow.

The last thing - I've been argueing in favour of partially legalizing piracy while at the same time trying to ensure sizable revenue and fair distribution to authors. If that makes no sense to you either, please don't react too soon. I want a bold notification of your reluctance to respond too! 

P.S. & Off topic :

"We are turning your bedroom back into the computer room"?! Epic. thanks for sharing!

I wanted to comment on this blog when I read it for the first time last week, but thought better of it. Since it is still being paraded on the chess.com home page, I am going to take a crack at it anyways. 

GM thamizhan, you open this post with a less than heartfelt confession to stealing/pirating. I read the word 'ashamed', but never once did I read about you attempting to reimburse the companies whose products you stole. Nor did I read anything remotely close to an apology. Confessing isn't the same thing as apologizing last time I checked, and it certainly isn't the same thing as making restitution. 

I don't mean to sound harsh, but this blog post really annoys me. How can you admit to stealing, never once mention an apology/restitution, and then spend the remainder of the post blasting pirates/piracy? 

This doesn't make any sense to me. 

@ PhilipN

The T shirt is selling less t-shirts because pirates lower demand. I agreed that they do just this.

I also pointed out that the amount wherewith demand is lowered is not equal to the amount of piracy - Some pirates would never have bought the software, or wouldn't have bought it for the current price.

If everyone who would have bought it still buys it, then demand hasn't been lowered and there is no negative effect. (Think about it - how is it that a net. increase of wealth that causes no decrease of wealth for anyone can be bad?)

I don't want to rationalize unlimited piracy, I want to make a case for legalizing parts of it. You see, In my opinion, wealth increases so much through digital copying at such a low cost that we (society) would be retarded if we simply tried to ban it.

It seems likely that any system allowing piracy will decrease to some extent the profits made by authors. But on the other hand the technology that allowed piracy is also what allowed gigantic increases in revenue for authors. I think a smaller increase is reasonable still.

The ideal system would be (in my humble opinion) one where you'd spend a fixed amount of money to download whatever you want.

You see, if I would normally spend $ 1000 a year on software/music/dvd's, then what if I still paid this amount but subsequently found myself able to download whatever I want - then demand would not be lowered at all and wealth would be increased a lot. 

The problem with this idea is that is not clear at all who should distribute the $ 1000 and how. The summary of my belief is that I think we should tackle these kind of problems rather than banning piracy, as to me the potential gain in world wealth provides a very good argument in its favour.

@ rubenshein

You seem to think that we should't have property because it infringes on sharing, but my talk about freedom being limited wasn't a discussion about language. I think not having property also infringes on your freedom, because that would mean anyone can take whatever you are enjoying right now. 

If you cooked a meal, someone else could come by and eat it right in front of you. If you made a bike it could be taken from you at any moment. I don't see how that is a larger freedom, because there would be no freedom from want or fear at all. 

As to intellectual property, I think the concept needs to be redefined, not abandoned. You may argue that the ability to create is not innate, even 'borrowed' from society, but I don't think that argument can be considered strong. After all, many people in society had absolutely no support to offer to you, and knowledge from prior generations leaves us with no one to repay our debts too. 

Also, you can't force creation, so imagine two people living equally modest lives. The one sits and enjoys sunsets, the other works a bit more to buy canvas and starts painting. You seem to argue that his paintings are property of all, but in what manner has anyone but him earned that painting? He has worked to pay for the canvas, and he decided to give up free time to create it. 

While there are certainly things wrong with unrestricted capitalism, no ownership means less initiative to be creative and to put in effort. 

Digital copying is a special case because the act of copying comes at no cost. The painter in our story here could, at the same time, keep his painting, make money selling it multiple times and allow the rest of the world to have it for free. 

I think we should try to make sure the painter still makes good money (which implies he still needs to have some sort of ownership over his content, hence the connection with the general rules of property), while not being too restrictive on the rest of the world having it for free. (which implies property can't be interpreted as absolute, like we do in 'regular' (general) cases). 

When it comes to things that can not be reproduced at no cost, I think property is a decent concept.

In short, I agree capitalism isn't everything, and regulation is required. Limiting the accumulation of wealth to very few individuals is something that needs to be done to balance society. (Tax on inheritance is one good example of this.)  

On the other hand you have to be very careless in your reasoning to think abandoning ownership will help society - I think property has been around in pretty much all stable societies of the world throughout history. That it is incorporated in capitalism too doesn't mean the idea itself is new.

How can 'decency' be defined in terms of privatively expropriating something that univocally belongs to all? Creativity wouldn't be possible were it not for the creativity of others upon which any creative process necessarily finds its very well and resource, and were it not for the labor of still others that secure the possible space and time of creativity. Capitalism is a (late) historical product, thus contingent, derivative, secondary, dependent, changeable, always perfectible. What capitalism operates as decency is not the truth and the end of history --- as, say, Fukuyama would have people believe.

"Piracy" is a decent way of re-expropriating some of the wealth that otherwise would accrue to private interests in grotesque and utterly meaningless amounts.

In the States and the European Union there is planned jurisdiction relative counterfeit (including piracy, torrentsites, selling "Nike"-shirts on the black market, etc.) which not only spits in the face all those democratization and enlightening processes in the wake of the internet as open-source, collaborative, and anarchistic origin, but also approaches governmental standards (or rather lack thereof) that affiliates with those of China, Russia, South-America, and Muslim countries. These processes of jurisdiction has been discussed, evaluated, and decided upon, without any measure of decent public informing and debate. It is clearly a shame.

General sharing is the surest way to enhance creativity to a maximum. Had present-day capitalism as societal form come into being earlier, we would not have had what we now all enjoy. Capitalism is itself the quintessential definition of piracy and counterfeit. A shameless minority preys on aeons of generations upon generations of hard collaborative work, and claims that temporary and arbitrary consolidations of the collaborative processes of work-creativity are "private property"?! Our capitalist age will surely not be looked upon as a bright one; rather as one of the most oppressive and destructive ever.

Bill Gates might be paying better salaries if he decides to share some of his billions of yearly profit with the people working for him.

im not going to write a philosophical treatise like some of these other tools,but ill just say that i agree with the writer. piracy is rampant; its an offense to common decency everywhere. those with the creative energy to bring something new to the marketpalce are being raped by those with neither the creativity nor the morals to do anything but rip them off. piracy is the reason Bill Gates can justify paying a computer programmer 1/3 the salary of a construction worker. That's why i hang drywall instead of working for him - eventhough i graduated magna cum laude in computer science.