I agree that the article is lacking in nuance, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The "piracy" that Biden, et al, are speaking of here is not individuals downloading torrents, but bootleggers (largely in China) reproducing and selling works. And, in this case, the similarities are strong.
When you buy an item-- be it a Xanax, a Kevlar vest, or a Pink Floyd CD-- you want to know that it is "authentic" (i.e., made to the proper spec) which implies "authorized".
You're confusing the issue exactly the same way Biden is doing it. I'm pretty sure that you do know that "authentic" does not mean "made to the proper spec" and that you didn't write this out of ignorance. That's exactly the stretch I'm talking about.
Yes, I do care that my Pink Floyd CD is authentic, because I would be pissed off to find out that I shelled out money for Pink Floyd studio album and got a recording of my neighbor singing in the shower or a recording of a Pink Floyd live performance. But that doesn't really have much to do with piracy. In this case we're talking about fraud, not illegal distribution.
Interestingly enough, the situation is not that much different when it comes to material goods, like Xanax or Kevlar vests. If my doctor told me to buy Nexium and I decided to do exactly what he said and buy that particular brand and a pharmacy sold me a knock-off, I would be pissed off because I paid for Nexium (as opposed to a cheaper pill with the exact same dose of esomeprazol). I would be pissed off because I was scammed. I would definitely not be pissed off that Nexium's brand was infringed by whoever made the knock-off.
I do realize that there's a cause-effect relationship there: if it was difficult for people to copy someone else's brand, I would be safer from that kind of fraud. But it's a long way from recognizing that relationship and putting the piracy and counterfeits in the same bag.
No, but there are Chinese companies that make cheap reproductions of Pink Floyd CDs, and sell them (very cheaply) in Asia, and also (occasionally) in the US. Needless to say, they are sometimes sonically inferior, and lacking the proper packaging (which drives the Floyd guys crazy, believe me.)
Except for the time spent downloading it, in some cases days / weeks. And the implied risk, however small it's interpreted to be. And the danger of it being a virus (diminishing, but applicable). And etc etc etc.
Nothing's "free" to the extent that people wouldn't care if it's crap. Actually, there's a nice analogy: that flaming bag of dog doo on your porch was likely free too, but it may cause damage. Is it a non-issue because it's free?
> Except for the time spent downloading it, in some cases days / weeks. And the implied risk, however small it's interpreted to be. And the danger of it being a virus (diminishing, but applicable). And etc etc etc.
Downloading is asynchronous. It may cost some computer resources, but probably not any which you would not have used anyways.
You're missing the point. It's practically free, certainly much freer than the retail price. And usually finding the illegal version something (that's worth it) is just a matter of time.
People illegally downloading don't care about authenticity because it's practically free and is worth it to them. Obviously if the time it takes to acquire it illegally over legally is more than its worth to the person, he/she wouldn't do it (or shouldn't do it), but for the majority of people it isn't true.
I'm not so sure this is right. They want a high quality file and hopefully one that is trojan-free etc. Thus, there are several 'name brand' ripping groups.
The "piracy" that Biden, et al, are speaking of here is not individuals downloading torrents, but bootleggers (largely in China) reproducing and selling works. And, in this case, the similarities are strong.
When you buy an item-- be it a Xanax, a Kevlar vest, or a Pink Floyd CD-- you want to know that it is "authentic" (i.e., made to the proper spec) which implies "authorized".
That's not such a big stretch, is it?