A pirate's success is determined by the correct allocation of booty to the legal team.

I am computer savvy person and ever since I became one I started using pirated software. I told myself once I make a living off computer work I will buy... eventually I did. I own some Adobe Software, some Apple Software, and some Panic Software. I still also have pirated software. I used to use ProTools for music and I paid for my copy. However, Apple would release a minor Mac OS update and ProTools would stop working, then they'd want me to buy a $100 update... kinda whack behavior if you ask me- kinda like corporations manufacturing crappy products so customers have to keep coming back. My audio software is now pirated... sorry I just don't have the money. Do I feel like a criminal? Hell no!

And right before I read this, I downloaded every version of Helvetica known to man while my roommate and I download Oscar movies we didn't see. Yay, Internetz.

that's funny sketch, I too just downloaded all the helvetica fonts! blessed internet! we stand behind you, YACHT!

check it out - Available Online for Free by Evan Roth - http://www.woostercollective.com/2009/02/available_online_for_free_selected_works.html

I find this disappointing. You fail to address any of the real issues surrounding piracy or any of the ones aimed at you specifically after Wafergate, instead brushing it all aside by saying, "it's complicated" and "it happens," and hoping that some "respectful discussion" will emerge from the ether. I think it's irresponsible and a cop-out to lump together pirating of software, pirating of music, Pirate Bay, TV Links, Oink, and other phenomena of the so-called "illegal" or at least "uncompensated" spread of digitally reproducible data. If you want that discussion to happen, then I think you should start it. You're in a good position to do so, having been called out by some the people you pirated from and having a large audience that will listen to you.

Your honesty doesn't make me uncomfortable. What actually makes me uncomfortable is how opaque your "policy" is. A policy is a course or principle of action that's proposed or adopted or suggested, right? (I copied that from New Oxford American Dictionary, naturally.) What are you adopting or suggesting? It seems to me more like a press release; admitting to nothing but generalizations that no one can assail.

I mean, really: do you actually think that pointing to a YouTube clip (pirated, naturally) of a film quoting Steve Jobs quoting Picasso's cheeky truism about the value of drawing inspiration from Great individuals is a serious commentary on piracy? Or even a stepping stone to that serious commentary?

(This was originally email correspondence; I didn't notice the page had comments enabled. I'll continue the conversation here, pending the posting here of Jona's response.)

Matthew McVickar,

Thank you for the email and the honest response.

Are you able to describe the "real issues surrounding piracy"? We do not feel like we have the authority or the expertise to do that. We apologize for not taking a firmer stand on this issue, but please note that our stance is based on our understanding of the issues, which matches the general nature of the policy.

(An example of the difficulty in this query: Is there a difference between pirating music and pirating software? We are not sure there is.)

The Policy is a living document, and we hope to add to it as we work this out. This is the internet we're talking about. One of our favorite authors, Matthew Stadler, wrote:

"The Internet lacks closure, not in some cloying therapeutic sense, but literally. At every moment a website can be surfed, linked, crawled, or refreshed by any one (or several million) of billions of browsers. The net isn't 'read' like a book, 'watched' like a movie, nor 'attended' like the theater - it is 'browsed.' The word itself suggests a restless, sideways scuttling motion, a distracted kind of snacking without end. Everything else ends - the book closes; the screen goes dark; the curtain falls; the orchestra leaves the stage. But the browser never finishes its meal, never stops, and is never sated."

The point of the YouTube clip is that even before the ease of digital reproduction ideas were being "pirated." Apple, a company so often lauded for innovation, has taken many ideas without permission. The originators of those ideas would say they have been robbed. This seems like the perfect place to start this discussion.

The point of posting our Policy is to spark a discussion, preferably in public, that will help us determine the correct course of action. Thank you for agreeing to post your thoughts in the comments and are happy to also post our response.

Remain in Light,
The YACHT Trust

Sorry, I guess I was pretty vague myself. Thank you for allowing me this forum in which to elaborate.

By "real issues surrounding piracy," I mean the reasons that people care about it in the first place. And I think that's capital: intellectual and financial. It's ultimately a problem of economy — of resources. And I think you're well aware that the mismanagement of resources is not a good thing.

Intellectual capital: Nobody really knows or could possibly trace exactly where every idea comes from, and it's impossible to say who came with which one first. All that really matters (assuming, which I will, that we live in an uncaring universe and the only true meaning is that which we create so let's have fun and make great things and be nice to each other before we die) is the implementation of those ideas. By that thinking, it doesn't matter if Apple copies something someone else did, as long as they do it better. This, of course, comes with its risks. If Apple, say, duplicates the efforts of an independent software company and effectively ruins the business of that independent software company, they risk the ire of their independent developer community. Maybe they'll risk that, and maybe that independent software company will give up or try something else or go bankrupt. The issue there is, I suppose, about whether it's "okay" to knowingly duplicate the work of another entity and capitalize on it because you have the power to do so. Is this a moral issue? A legal issue? It's both, in reality.

By entering into the economy of resources (something you cannot avoid unless you live somewhere completely disconnected), you are accepting the terms thereof. Those terms are pretty simple: there are a lot of people with a lot of ideas, some people are smarter or more talented or more powerful than you, and if you want to succeed you have to work hard and not stop working hard. Sure, misfortune might happen and your startup is nullified by a team of Apple engineers. So you change direction or develop something else. That's the economy of ideas. That's life. Adapt or die.

A number of the thorns in that bramble don't apply to you pirating software, or someone downloading music. Let's talk about the plug-ins that you pirated, since that's how this all started. You don't copy or better implement the idea of a software engineer by pirating their software -- you simply use the tool they spent their resources of time, money, emotional and physical effort on without spending any more than a few minutes of your own time. As a bonus, you use those tools that you didn't compensate the creator for to garner resources of your own. (I.e., you used a plugin to make a song or performance happen, you got paid for that song or performance in money or notoriety.) This is an imbalance.

Am I saying that person A giving cash dollars to person B for his work is the one and only way that economy can ever function? No, absolutely not. Clinging to that kind of idea is half the reason piracy exists in the first place.

What I'm saying is that the predominance of digital information and devices has brought more people into the fold of influencing the flow of resources (kinds new and old -- money, exposure, time, influence, connection, pedagogy, inspiration, skill refinement) to people who bring zeroes and ones together or create art. And just because we haven't figured out how to make that all of that resource flow sustainable for everyone right now doesn't mean that it's a free-for-all until we do figure it out.

Think of it like this: I make chairs. It takes me a long time to make these chairs, and they're really nice chairs. You want one. Lots of people do. They come into the store and pay $100 for my chairs, but you discovered a machine that lets you magically transport one of those chairs into your home with a minimum of effort. Would you use that machine if you could? What's the difference between the chair-stealing device and Oink? Have you acquired as many material goods without paying as you have digital ones? Why?

The amount of resources it takes to morph an idea into consumable thing demands compensation of some kind. You know this -- you make music.

You're not an expert on this; fine. But it would be nice to hear an explanation for your actions. If that's, "I don't know exactly why I did it, other than that it was easy and software is expensive and I couldn't afford everything I wanted when I was starting out," then so be it.

I don't claim to be an expert either; you've probably read more than I have about this sort of thing. So I'm not going to hash out the same arguments over and over again. I want to offer my thoughts about what's fair and feasible, figure out (if we can) if we do in fact disagree or why we disagree, and that's all.

So: I feel that the piracy policy, as it stands, does not adequately engage the reality of piracy's effect on the resources of all involved parties, and that effect is why piracy is an issue in the first place. Your thoughts?

whats all this contestation? i didn't even think that really happened...

If I had a chair-copying machine I would use the shit out of it. And it wouldn't be hurting you as long as I didn't pretend that I was the designer and sold them for money.

But after word gets out then you would add bits of Teflon to the bottom of the chair because your lawyers told you that it keeps them from being copied. So you do that for a week or so until I figure out how to remove them, so you hire a 3rd party to evaluate the lost revenue and another to come up with a new way to attach bits of Teflon... rinse and repeat.

If you would have just concentrated on making the damn chair better/cooler/cheaper then your business would be better off.

If music distribution and software publishing corporations would concentrate on making their products better instead of piracy-proof everyone would be better off. CDs and Blue-ray would not exist, DRM would be for corporate secrets and governments, and I would be using a $1/hr web-hosted version of Photoshop because it is easier than downloading a pirated copy and makes Adobe more money anyway.

Instead? I've transitioned from Photoshop to Gimp.

I meant that the machine is magical — it transports a chair from my workshop to your home; it doesn't copy it. In that case, my effort is wasted when you acquire the chair without paying. That's theft, isn't it?

But there's the difference that I didn't point out when I wrote my reply: it doesn't cost anything to duplicate an MP3 file. It does cost something to duplicate a chair. And here's where it does actually get complicated: Every MP3 or album copied isn't necessarily a lost sale, because you may never have bought the song or CD in the first place, and it didn't cost anything to duplicate the file.

So then how does an artist or software developer get properly recompensed? So far, we've got systems to handle this like copyright and royalties and licensing. Obviously they don't totally work anymore. I'm not disputing that. As as I said, piracy exists because these systems don't work. But my point is that dissemination of bits that is disorganized (because it's underground), uncontrolled (because the artists no longer have a say over the presentation fidelity-wise/artistically/temporally), and completely uncompensated is not the answer to the failure of these systems to meet modern reality. It almost smacks of looting during a riot.

So what about the quality of the chair? I assure you that the chair is very cool and very well-made. You wouldn't be interested in copying it and having one in your house otherwise. In fact, that's why it's expensive. High-quality goods and services are expensive. It's expensive because you're going to enjoy using it, and it will last you the rest of your life. But wait — what does that have to do with digital bits? You pirate because music isn't better or cooler? I don't think so. I think there's a lot of great and cool music and software out there. People aren't pirating because music and software are low quality. You pirate because of the third thing in that list -- it's cheaper. $0.00 is cheaper than, uh, $11.99 for a CD, plain and simple. Anyway, why would you pirate something that sucks? More and more, you can listen to an entire album infinity times streaming for free on the internet. If you really like it then you can buy it, and have the convenience of not having to stream it and doing whatever you want.

Really, it's not like there aren't options. I find buying music to be an incredibly rewarding experience. Try buying straight from the labels. Nine times out of ten it's cheaper than a store, you get the artwork and liner notes to hold and keep forever, and maybe you get stickers and other bonuses in the envelope. I can't count the number of times I've emailed a label or artist to tell them how much I appreciate what they do and gotten more free stuff (CDs included) in the mail. Then I'm a fan for life. What's wrong with iTunes Plus? Yeah, if a band doesn't stream their album or offer free singles or utilize every digital outlet they can, they're shooting themselves in the foot. So instead of pirating the album, email them and say, "I want to hear your album but I'm not sure I want to pay for it sight unseen. How can I check you out and support you?" It works; trust me.

And what about software? Drop $50 (just about a day's wages at minimum wage in most US states) on a piece of software you use all the time and you often get free updates for life (sometimes), free tech support, and the peace of mind that comes with knowing your software isn't going to spontaneously stop working because it was cracked.

And that's not the half of it. What about eMusic or Amie Street? Sure, Radiohead's stunt really only works for people like Radiohead (and Nine Inch Nails, and Girl Talk, and…), but we're trying. Look at MacHeist, or at what OmniGroup just did. And TV? Hulu and Boxee are getting there. Networks are paying attention, though still stumbling. But we'll get there. We always do.

Matthew,

It seems that you find this issue as complicated and perplexing as we do.

As you said, the example of making chairs is flawed. If someone takes one of your chairs then you have one less chair to sell. This is not true if someone copies a digital file you created. This is one of the many reasons why this is a thorny issue. There is little to gain from drawing comparisons to the physical world.

Additionally, there seem to be contradictions in your argument. The statement, "That's life. Adapt or die." would seem to encourage a "free-for-all", but "just because we haven't figured out how to make that all of that resource flow sustainable for everyone right now doesn't mean that it's a free-for-all".

It is interesting that your final point is about the "reality of piracy's effect on the resources of all involved parties". Our policy is one of honesty and it was our choice to be honest about our actions which caused all of this. It was not that we pirated anything, it is that we spoke about it publicly. Had we not spoken honestly then the reality of piracy's effect would have been unknown to all involved parties. Our honesty about this issue makes people (including us) uncomfortable.

YACHT believes that if all 'pirated' copies of everything were suddenly deleted the world would be less interesting. Copies are a part of the digital culture. You should pay for things. We stand by our current policy, and we look forward to learning more. As you said, "we'll get there. We always do."

Remain in Light,
The YACHT Trust

The chair comparison is flawed in the way that you pointed out, but it still holds a bit of water: It raises the admittedly uncomfortable truth that it's easier to "steal" intangibles from a distance than it is to steal tangible ones, especially when there's little chance of being caught. I think that element of personal responsibility is very central to the piracy debate. What role do you think it plays?

And yes, it is complicated and perplexing. That's why I'm writing seven-paragraph essay responses. But that's no reason not to throw some ideas against the wall. You say that you stick to your policy, but I'm still confused what that is aside from having started this discussion. Will you continue pirating? Do you support piracy? What does "piracy" mean to you? Of course you don't have complete answers to all of these questions; I certainly don't.

I appreciate these solid points: "Copies are a part of the digital culture. You should pay for things." The former no one can deny. The latter is a big deal. Okay, one should pay for things. But one often doesn't. Why not? And what happens as a result? And what can we do about that?

I know that "honesty" does not equal "full disclosure," but why didn't you approve my comment containing the links to the Waferbaby article and the repost from Analog Industries? I think those are valuable reference points. If you think they are not, I don't understand why.

A few things:

You said: "Additionally, there seem to be contradictions in your argument. The statement, 'That's life. Adapt or die.' would seem to encourage a 'free-for-all', but 'just because we haven't figured out how to make that all of that resource flow sustainable for everyone right now doesn't mean that it's a free-for-all'."

I don't see the contradiction. I was using the phrase "adapt or die" to explain the necessity of tenacity in a successful economic venture. Tenacity is not a "free-for-all". A free-for-all in that situation would mean acting as though there are no repercussions — a lawless economic system, thievery and misallocation all over the place. Obviously that doesn't work. The "free-for-all" that I used to later describe the pirating situation refers to both the arms race of DRM and torrent trackers and the fact that pirates go for whatever they want and skip all other established channels, effecting the resource imbalance I've mentioned repeatedly. That is literally a free-for-all, and I am suggesting that doesn't work either.

You said: "Had we not spoken honestly then the reality of piracy's effect would have been unknown to all involved parties."

Except for you, who did the pirating, unless you didn't understand the effects at the time and were only aware when recently they were brought to light. In any case, I don't really buy the argument that if no one knows about something it doesn't matter. The economic ramifications still exist whether everyone knows about them, don't they?

By the way: I'm sorry if I sound frustrated. I'm trying to not use any euphemisms or extraneous language and I think it's coming off as surly. Please know that I'm not trying to indict you here concerning your piracy. This is not a witch-hunt, and I don't want an apology. But this is your piracy policy page, you invited commentary, and I think it's lacking. If you think I'm off-topic or disrespectful, I'll happily leave it all alone.

Hmmm. I'm re-thinking something you said. I'm very intrigued by this thing you said:

"The statement, 'That's life. Adapt or die.' would seem to encourage a 'free-for-all'."

If I promote this ideology of necessary adaptation, perhaps I should support piracy. If piracy is the natural adaptive response to the broken system it sidesteps, will it cease to exist when the existing systems themselves adapt and are then fixed?

I guess the question in that case is whether we have a responsibility to fix those systems ourselves or just aggravate the environment to the point where those systems inevitably adapt or die.

Given that question, I still say piracy is not the answer, because I believe we are part of those systems (the total allocation of resources), and we can help them adapt faster by taking routes other than piracy.

Matthew,

Please do not leave it alone. We sincerely appreciate your comments and we find your tone respectful and honest.

We're going to think things over for a bit and hope some other voices join in the conversation.

Remain in Light,
The YACHT Trust

well while we are contemplating lets look at this great poster and a website of great typography!
http://www.typographicposters.com/stefan-lucut/?1&img=1

My example assumed the device copied a physical chair already in my home, not transported one from your shop, sorry for the confusion.

I guess my awkward point was that for everyone out there with a chair copying machine there are 10 others who just want a cool chair and might buy an original piece from the artist if they see my copies.

As soon as I pretend I'm the artist and sell them then I'm a counterfeiter which is already against the law. Until then I'm just a crazy chair fan who is spreading the love of chairs to anyone who visits my house.

Thanks for at least giving some of your music away, YACHT. At least you're not a hypocrite. I also wish that sound production software was actually affordable. Don't let the bastards wear you down.

I think sound production software generally *is* affordable. What does "affordable" mean? Anything endeavor you invest your creative, emotional, and physical efforts in is also going to take a monetary effort unless you intentionally forgo diverse, high-fidelity/quality, often digital equipment. From carpentry to golf to painting to photography, you get what you pay for. Can artistry transcend tools? Of course. But it's going to bear the mark of its production environment, barring some intensive and time-consuming work-around effort. That's why paying for tools is worth the money — you save time and sweat. What sort of outrageously-priced software are you referring to?

I see your point exactly, Matthew. I personally just wish that high quality was accessible to all. I guess the software isn't all that expensive, but, coming from the materialistic side of me, it seems expensive for the fact that it is not a "physical" thing. I probably shouldn't have butted in to the conversation. I'm not a lawyer or ethics buff - I'm just a fan of YACHT, and it's always harder to side with the law when you see that it's hurting someone that you appreciate.

you just have to know when to shut you pie hole.

it was all good, until you had to broadcast it to the world.

Ah, Roger. That's the paydirt there.

I think that's the point of the YACHT Policy: theirs is an Open Pie Hole, come what may.

It's less about the ethic of so-called piracy and more about the ethic of being 'out' about how you obtain your resources.

Not to stray away from this great conversation
although, I assume this German software, with notoriously unpredictable copyright protection, is Ableton Live.

Personally, I could not handle this unknown variable so I broke down and bought it @ the super Educational Price of $250USD (Download Version)

Just a heads up if you have a student friend who is willing to temporarily disguise themselves as an Ableton customer ;)

•xi|xi

If someone sampled the shit out of YACHT, someone big with the money to have properly cleared the rights to it, and had a fucking huge hit with the song that ripped YACHT off, would Jona be pissed because the royalties could've funded orthodontry (if claire's daddy wouldn't already cough up), or would he be 'hey that's digital'?

'htd'

Also, aren't you the same guy that whilst you blurred out the numbers, could clearly be seen with a giant cheque from Panic Software for a substantial amount of money? No excuses.

Katy Brannigan, that's an interesting point. I mean, I don't really understand why any band would ask for money if their song is sampled (other than because there's a history of it). I guess it depends on the specifics, but I would imagine having your song sampled into a really popular song would provide great exposure for your original work. Plus it might result in a sweet song.

I pirated software to learn how to use the software to get the job to buy the software.

Without that I would not have the knowledge or job, and the software company would never have made a penny out of me.

I think that the new software makes sense to sell, but older, outdated versions (like maybe Windows 95, or Apple Final Cut Pro 4) should become public domain. There are newer versions that do a lot more. That serves as a kind of trial, and it encourages developers to make more changes and make things more foolproof between versions.