The Tao of Pirates

In the second chapter of Matt Mason’s book The Pirate’s Dilemma “The Tao of Pirates”, he examines the question: What is a pirate? With conflicting opinions about the benefits and harms of piracy (or as some like to call it, stealing) we must ask ourselves: how do we determine what is good piracy and what is bad piracy? Mason takes a clear standpoint in his novel, arguing that piracy will drive free culture, push towards innovation and democratize enterprise. We tend to think of piracy only in entertainment- but it has very clear benefits in many areas outside of this niche. A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted to an inventor for an assigned period of time which allows them to claim monetary gain from all uses of their product. Patency is useful in the sense that it protects intellectual property and makes sure that the right person gains from their hard work. I am going to focus on a certain problem that patents pose and some of the negative effects of piracy. Mason mentions a particular niche in which piracy is clearly important

“Medicine is an industry where the social benefits of piracy are clear, and the social costs of putting profit and intellectual property rights before people are horrifying.” (65)

This is true in the sense that Western drug companies are selling pharmaceuticals at such an inflamed price that it is impossible for people in developing countries to afford them, costing millions of lives. When the ingredients of drugs are available and slightly changed to create the same effect, scientists have been able to get around patent laws, creating generic drugs and selling them at a significantly lowered price, saving millions of lives. Registered drugs made from companies can be granted patents for up to twenty years; but what about non-registered medication in developing countries?  MAL, a pharmaceutical company, is only one amongst many that have placed a patent on nature, stealing from indigenous knowledge to create medication. Members of MAL visited a tribe in Peru, used indigenous ingredients and knowledge to develop pharmaceuticals and then later sued the tribe for violating the patent. This is classified under the term biopiracy. This is clearly wrong, but where is the line drawn?  We need to take an ethical perspective: this behaviour is clearly unethical according to several ethical perspectives except for one, moral legalism. It is legal and therefore it is moral. This seems to be the ethical perspective that large companies operate by when doing business. Clearly our laws need to be changed to prevent this type of stealing. But, it is difficult to determine what is stealing and what is not. I thought the best way to think about it is from a utilitarian point of view. But upon reconsidering this, I realized that by that rationale, it would probably be okay for MAL to steal from this small tribe since the medication probably did more good for people, and was only detrimental to the small tribe and the indigenous people it may have helped around the area. Biopiracy is being opposed by worldwide groups against corporations putting patents on seeds, genes, animals and humans. They are essentially stealing from farmers and indigenous people, creating what seems to be a global food and health crisis. However, piracy can be viewed in a different light of course. It is a great thing when scientists in India have been able to make generic drugs from the recipes found in western drugs made by pharmaceutical corporations and sell them at affordable costs, saving the lives of millions. This way, we avoid millions of unnecessary deaths.  There is a difference between biopiracy and finding indigenous ingredients in nature to create medicine without stealing the knowledge of locals and natives for profitable gain. Patents were designed to protect intellectual property, but loose laws allow for the patency of things that are not intellectual property-but global resources. Patenting is useful in the sense that it protects vital information from being used in detrimental ways. Piracy allows for anyone to take information and innovate. There needs to be policies put into place about how people can use information, what parts of the information and for what ends. Just like we essentially give government and corporate parties permission to “spy” on us by showing them that we condone the behaviour, the same thing is happening with piracy. Companies are fighting back. Some forms of piracy create innovation, creativity and democratize the flow of resources while other forms are globally detrimental. The Pirate’s dilemma is a moral one, and a very difficult one. Piracy can be justified from different perspectives-but this is because we are generalizing. We need to take the time to look at specifics and understand what their benefits and harms are, what their potential is in terms of finding ways to use other’s intellectual property for the greater good and what is used for the greater bad.
We need to find a way for individuals and corporate conglomerates to share knowledge that is useful to one another (for the GOOD) while making sure the right people are accurately compensated and/or recognized for their work. This is probably a difficult task, but we have no shortage of resources.