Piracy, Morals and The Need for Change
Written by Ernesto on December 23, 2007Morals are often defined by what the general public sees as right or wrong. Most people don’t feel that they’re doing wrong when they download an MP3 or share a movie, but in most countries they are actually breaking laws, laws which do not reflect what the general public considers to be legal, fair use, or even moral.
Law and morals are clearly out of sync when it concerns sharing copyrighted works on the Internet. To give an example, David Pogue, technology writer for the New York Times often questions his public during talks to find out where the line between wrong and right lies in this case. He starts of with a simple statement such as:
“I own a certain CD, but it got scratched. So I borrow the same CD from the library and rip it to my computer.”
He then asks the public whether they think it’s wrong or not. Normally the more extreme the examples are, the more hands are raised, but when he spoke to an audience of 500 college students, something different happened.
Finally, with mock exasperation, I said, “O.K., let’s try one that’s a little less complicated: You want a movie or an album. You don’t want to pay for it. So you download it.” There it was: the bald-faced, worst-case example, without any nuance or mitigating factors whatsoever. “Who thinks that might be wrong?” Two hands out of 500.
Pogue was blown away by this response, and he realized that there is a clear generation gap when it comes to copyright morals. Indeed there is, but what else do you expect from a generation grew up with iPods, CD-burners and the biggest copying machine ever invented (the Internet) at their fingertips. There’s a whole industry built around filesharing, take the 160GB iPod for example, any idea how much it costs to fill that with legally purchased songs?
Computers and the Internet made it easier than ever to reproduce and share files, and it is virtually impossible to stop people from sharing and copying music and videos online. I’m not talking about copying movies for profit here, just for personal use. Besides, sharing files is not as bad as most anti-piracy lobbies want people to believe.
A recent study has shown that people don’t buy less CDs when they download songs, instead, they discover music they otherwise wouldn’t have listened to, and buy more CDs than people who don’t download. On top of this, research continues to show less popular artists actually profit from piracy simply because it allows people to try new music.
From people who missed an episode of their favorite TV-show I often get the question whether it is legal for them to download these off BitTorrent. For them, the only way to see that show is to download it, again, they don’t make any money off it, they just want to see an episode they missed. Is that immoral?
Personally I think it is all about alternatives. Movie, TV and music companies should put their content online and make it available in high quality for a reasonable price without restrictions such as DRM. At the moment there are often no products online that can compete with their pirated counterparts in quality. Sure, there are ways to download (some) music and movies online, but apart from the ridiculous prices, these products are often offered in a low quality format and restricted through DRM.
The thing is, the entertainment industry should learn how to embrace technology and compete with piracy, instead of fighting its customers. The rise of illegal downloading is a signal that customers want something that is not available through other channels, it’s more about availability than the fact that it’s free, as illustrated by the missed TV-show example.
Honestly, the real problem isn’t so much about protecting the rights of the artist, but about protecting the revenue stream for the big media companies. The people who actually create the movies and music want their content to be shared, only the large corporations behind it are too afraid to move on. Lobby groups such as the MPAA and the RIAA represent the distributors of movies and music, NOT the creators. They even pay politicians to support their cause by voting for or against laws so that legislation is made with their interests in mind. Is that moral?
The main reason why these corporations are hesitant to go online is because they are trying to make most of their money of something that can easily done by the public – distribution. They are striving to preserve outdated business models because that’s how they make their money. I’m not proposing that everyone should just pirate everything, but I suggest that the movie and movie industry make their content available online for a reasonable price.
The Internet and filesharing technologies make it possible to make production (of the copies) and distribution costs disappear, yet the prices still don’t change. Why? Because they cling onto their old business models.
So should sharing copyrighted material be legalized? Not per se, but the entertainment industry should focus on monetizing filesharing networks instead of bringing them down. Sharing is a good thing and there are tons of possibilities to profit from it.
What do you think?
Previously: MediaDefender Stock Plunges Due to Leaked Emails
Next: Most Popular DVDrips on BitTorrent, Christmas Edition
193 Responses
Old Topic Is Old
stealing is stealing. you ppl steal music, you don’t buy it.
*hands booga1134 a box of tissue.
piracy ftw
change the system to stop pushing processed shit down my throat and maybe i’ll stop “stealing” things that are either a) too hard to find or b) to expensive when I do find them thanks to their obscurity in a market flooded by nonsense.
long story short, get with the times.
I have always copied my music. Before i had a pc i used to tape my mates cd’s or casettes. It is stealing, and everyone knows its wrong, even those that don’t admit it. But its so easy to do no one can stop it. If i got caught downloading i would just go back to copying my mates cd’s.
In the first example, can it honestly be said that that is a broad demographic? Anyway yes, old hat, where’s the xmas theme anyway torrentfreak? No jolliness in pirate heaven?
I think sharing absolutely should be legal. You set up this point but then don’t actually make it — why not? Laws should follow morality (not vice versa as suggested by some lobbying groups).
It would be great if content distributors were offering an actual quality product, don’t get me wrong. But all these attempts to sell content are based on a lie: “The audience has to pay before they can get this.”
They don’t, and so what you’re doing is not selling, but collecting donations. That and a tax on the less P2P-savvy.
My favorite example of doing it right is the Saul Williams album:
http://niggytardust.com/saulwilliams/download
You can choose to pay or not, with that choice made on the basis of whether you want to support the artists. If you pay, you can get a small perk (FLAC audio quality instead of MP3), but that isn’t the main point.
This arrangement:
* Acknowledges that you can try before you buy and allows you to do so.
* Doesn’t demonize you if you share the files you download. (Lots of people torrented the FLAC version, liked it, and ended up paying)
* Ensures that the work is received as intended by the artist. (In particular, a full .pdf booklet was included, whereas most music torrents don’t include artwork scans)
Sadly, most attempts to “sell content” aren’t half as realistic or effective as this. But there is hope.
yep this is true, you cant stop us, so let us do it, and dont waste millions trying to stop it
There’s nothing immoral about sharing.
Some capitalist whining about their profits doesn’t change that.
[quote]It is stealing, and everyone knows its wrong, even those that don’t admit it.[/quote]
Oh great, more people like you…
[quote]My favorite example of doing it right is the Saul Williams album:
http://niggytardust.com/saulwilliams/download/quote
I have to say… When I heard about that particular arrangement, I thought: “Wow, that is 100% perfectly fair – the price, the quality for the price, everything. He’s really got it. I hope he succeeds with that.”
I read much on this topic by now and tried to view both sides of this copyright conflict between content providers and
consumers. Although my opinion is influenced by the fact that I use filesharing to get copyrighted material for free, I do
thinks I represent a moderate point of view.
I do strongly agree with the essential critique this website embodies towards the distributing industry. However, the
downside should not be ignored or underestimated as these articles tend to implicate.
There are people on both sides in this battle that care nothing for the sake of others. On the one hand there is the
greedy business man that only cares for profit and on the other there is the ignorant leecher that only cares for his
personal downstream (in any way). That is the problem!
Artists have to get there piece of the cake as well as the distributers and of course the consumers. Lacking only one
having no more motivation to give OR take is going to turn the whole trade down. It’s all about balancing!
(My native language is German; I apologize for text errors.)
Jeez guys, I’m still dealing with the issue of whether it is legal or illegal to program your VCR and copy a missed episode of your favorite TV show to a VHS tape. Then lend it to a friend who doesn’t get cable or satellite.
It’s very true.
Just how many times I have bought a book or a movie that I had previously downloaded and saw that it really is a qulity release and that the creators and everyone else deserve to get payed for it.
Also many times I would not buy and even delete the file after a short time because it is unworty!
I guess all the big companies want is people to keep buying the bad stuff so they can get more revenue… it’s the bad artists that need protection, not the good ones…
I believe that if the product’s good enough to be bought, online or offline, there will be people willing to pay for it. If they sell crap, few to none will spend.
I trully believe it is all about distribution and control, protecting the artist is not in their best interest.
well am from a third world country,having to pay ridiculously high prices for software,music,media Etc,is out of the question.i know its wrong but i cant help it,coz otherwise i will be living in the stone age deprived of all the goodies offered by File Sharing
This article tells nothing new, but it’s very true also, and you can’t tell the truth often enough. I for myself also encourage everyone to download the stuff they need and have no remorse with it. Not that this would be ultimately right, but imho it’s need to further increase the number of people sharing files, and thus to force the media industry to finally give up criminalizing half the planet.
Copyright can kiss my ASS.
And if someday I end up making anything remotely popular, that would need commercializing .. you all can just rip it off me. I assure you I’ll live.
The torrent user that is often ignored in these talks is the true musicphile. A number of downloaders are looking for something that has never even graced the side of a cd.
They want the vinyl rip of a b-side from a record put out by a independent label that went out of business in 1978. or a sessions. or a live show.
I’ve never even seen the album art for some of my favorite music and I may never do so without a lot of money, luck and time (im working on it).
With the undying prevalence of piracy and the digital medium the entire canon of all media released today (independent and mainstream) will be available to future generations. Wonderful.
But ever time a torrent tracker is closed down the community trading in older analog material is severely fractured and discouraged. Some obtuse but wonderful genre does not re-appear on the next replacement tracker. It fades away on some dusty vhs or gets scratched and broken at a swap sale.
In my opinion, they should set up a little online download site. Offer music at 160 or 128kbps for free, and anything over is charged. Say, 50 cents per song, and 5 – 7 bucks for a full album in MP3, and 10 bucks for an album in FLAC. I don’t see why they wouldn’t make a good deal of money on that just in advertising alone. The site would generate a TON of traffic me thinks. Like some said before me, a chance to try before you buy.
In all reality, downloading music should be legalized I think. From my experiences, I have bought many more CDs because of downloading the songs before hand. Now, I realize some people out there will probably never buy a cd if they had a chance to download it before hand, but, theres a lot of people who will buy.
I am one of them.
My favorite line:
“Honestly, the real problem isn’t so much about protecting the rights of the artist, but about protecting the revenue stream for the big media companies. The people who actually create the movies and music want their content to be shared, only the large corporations behind it are too afraid to move on. Lobby groups such as the MPAA and the RIAA represent the distributors of movies and music, NOT the creators. They even pay politicians to support their cause by voting for or against laws so that legislation is made with their interests in mind. Is that moral?”
You said it perfectly.
Think of other art forms. Books – you can sit down in the store and read the entire thing if you want before you buy it. I don’t see the Book Writers of America standing over your head asking you to pay for each word you preview.
Or a painter who has a gallery show – you are invited, in fact encouraged, to come and enjoy their work, without being forced to pay ANYTHING. Often times they offer free food! Those participants who have the means and like the work support the painter and buy their pieces, while the rest of us are just able to enjoy the culture.
I love you guys here at TorrentFreak.
I try and explain this exact thing to people all the time, but a lot of them just go “Fuck you, it’s stealing.”
They’re ignorant to how most people actually use the shared material.
They take in what the big corporations and anti-piracy campaigns tell them, and they just choose to ignore the facts.
Yes, this is an old topic, but it’s a good one to discuss.
As mentioned in the article, they need to embrace current-day technology.
If they fail to do that, chances are, all these big companies will start falling like dead birds.
They profit from us.
They just choose not to see our side of the story.
Fuck them, I say.
A very well written article I must say, unfortunately I moved out of the states a couple of years ago for a research project in a third world country due to the nature of my work, I have no means of any entertainment whatsoever.
But thanks to file sharing I can keep in sync with whatever’s goin on back home.
a Big thanks to P2P from my side.
If atrists want to make music, how about this: It may soon be a reality that there are musicians who can’t make music profitably anymore. If that makes them stop producing music, then there’s one less blight on the “Music for Music’s sake”
landscape.
I write, produce and release via torrent. I don’t see a cent and my quality is as good as I want it to be, not some dickhead in a suit wants it to be.
I don’t care one whit for the record companies and their kept artistes.
Oh no, Britney’s not gonna make music anymore. It’s the filesharers fault… Who cares if she has to fall back on leaked photos and videos from her abbatoi– er, boudoir to smoke in the fashion she is accustomed to.
hmm… good argument their… But in the end,
I… Only want marijuana legalized.
At the same time… we might have marijuana legalized before “piracy” does.
imagine if he would of said this…
“O.K., let’s try one that’s a little less complicated: You want a movie or an album. You buy it but the DRM stops you using it on all your devices wont allow you to convert, rip, copy, backup your investement and find when the DRM services and systems are down or shut down you lose all the content you’ve bought and paid for. So you download it.”
in a format that is x10 the quality x10 the portability works with every single device you may own, doesn’t restrict you doesn’t cripple your purchases is compatible with everything you own now and in the past and doesn’t make you jump through hoops to use it.
There it was: the bald-faced, worst-case example, without any nuance or mitigating factors whatsoever. “Who thinks that might be wrong?”
oh… as for morals…
HA! that ended when people began to realized that groups like the “Christians, Catholics, Pegan, Baptists, Budist, Islamic, ect.” are only “cults” and ways to take your mind off your problems, to be forgiven by a higher power “a God” for your sins, to embrace the inevitable truth that death is coming and no one can honistly tell you what will happen…
Morals are no longer a factor in todays living, because just as we have been given the many examples of differences in opinion on “copyright laws” morals are no different. Just a matter of opinion of someone else.
Those 2 who raised their hands are “M PA A” spies…
Hey Mr. Record Man,
The joke’s on you,
Runnin’ your label like it was 1992,
Hey Mr Record Man,
Your system can’t compete,
It’s the new artists model,
FILE TRANSFER COMPLETE!!!
I see this as something much bigger than simply trying to restrain Capitalism by need of a new moral Copyright system. (Or the eradication thereof)
I think this is one of the first of many truths we are seeing from the rise of the internet. A kind of resonating humane/socialist truth, that speaks louder than a love of money.
It is one of many, where people will unite around ways for us all to enjoy better lives. It could mean change of government, or it could simply mean recognizing new methods of allowing fairness and equality to prosper; where greed once infested.
I think this idea of a free means for everyone to communicate and learn equally is neat. I can’t wait to see it propagated by the people rather than ISP’s; in a free, p2p-based, wifi/wimax accessible network. It will happen; look at how technology is allowing us to mod or screw with Corporations now.
Fuck money. Man I hate the holidays…
I might have raised my hand as well. I have downloaded a few movies to see how they are. The ones I liked and wanted I went out and bought. To me just keeping a downloaded copy of a movie I liked and wanted is immoral. If I enjoyed it. I belive they deserve compensation.
how often do you have to quote that old crap that sharing music via internet actually gets them more money?
we already got it, but i bet someone will quote it in the next article as well
Maybe if the music industry knew the difference between noise and music these days and wasn’t so busy trying to find the next sexy pop star (PussyCat Dolls, Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson, etc), instead of people with great talent we’d buy their records instead of stealing them. I don’t download illegally, but I rarely buy new cds either, there is too much used stuff to choose from. Used selections of cds are far greater than what you’ll ever find in stores that sell new cds
And interestingly enough, I don’t see Simon and Schuster trying to sue me cause I want to read one of their new books at Barnes and Noble without paying for it. The music industry needs to get a life and get with the 21st century
Half of the problem in getting people to accept filesharing is a matter of word association. The media companies call it piracy, and that has a lot of bad connotations. It really should be referred to as filesharing, because that’s exactly what it is. Despite what a lot of people refer to it as, it is not stealing. It is copying, it is sharing. I’ll put it to an analogy to help illustrate my point.
Stealing: Somebody breaks into a house owned by Mr. MPAA or RIAA and takes several music CDs, a DVD or two, and maybe even a few software CDs. In this instance, something is actually taken, and the person suffers a real loss, not a prospective loss based on assumed sales figures.
Filesharing: Somebody comes to your house to borrow your photocopier, and they’ve brought their own paper, ink, and hell, maybe even their own power source to put things in to perspective. They then proceed to make a copy or two of something in your possession, a picture perhaps, or a page from a book. In this instance, you suffer no real loss, nor are your resources consumed. The only result is that now there is a copy of something out there.
I fully support filesharing, as long as the people downloading the files aren’t redistributing them for profit. Filesharing puts the power in the hands of the people, and allows them to figure out what really is good or not rather than going with what the media moguls tell them is good. It works, too, because if there’s something I like that I’ve downloaded, I’ll usually go out and purchase the actual CD or DVD, as I like to have a hard copy, something that’s tangible. It’s also a means of discovery. I’ve heard so much more music through filesharing than I would even have found on my own.
[quote comment="246203"]Those 2 who raised their hands are “M PA A” spies…[/quote]
lol, scary stuff!
The more i SHARE what i copied, the cleaner my conscience.
Why ?
I got the stuff for free, so everyone else gets it for the same price from me.
Why should i ask anyone else to pay
for something that came for nothing ?
Now, THAT would be immoral.
I’m of the opinion if you enjoyed it you should buy it. Most of the movies I download get deleted after one viewing. The few I enjoyed I own the dvd.
AMEN!
i completely agree with this article 3000%.
the industry needs to adapt and embrace current technology, instead of punishing its customers for going elsewhere to get what the cant get from them.
nice article, do not stop saying it, keep repeating the message
one aspect unexplored by the article is the free market capital efficiency perspective, the economic view says “that which can be copied at no cost has no value”
we all know it is not stealing, we all live in capitalist economies and hear the sirens wailing the capitalist credo. we understand what good economics is and what value is
then, because the MAFIAA is paying politicians to make laws and extorting citizens thru the US court system. and the global media cartels are pumping out the message “you are criminals! filesharing is illegal!”. there is created a dicontinuity
that discontinuity is exactly what has been highlighted in the article and why this is such a good blog. that discontinuity between message and reality is gonna grow, it will eventually break, it is the suicide pact of the media cartels, they MUST stop sharing technology or ultimately lose their abnormally high profits
Basically, the Entertainment Industry is scared to death about not earning enough profit$$$ to continue their expen$ive life$tyle. Therefore, they don’t want to embrace the new technology of the internet: p2p filesharing. That’s already the reality of the Web 2.0, and the coming of the Web 3.0. The truth of the matter, is that the internet and the technology behind it is here to stay. It’s not going backwards. It’s moving forward.
The MPAA and the RIAA is living the yearning of the past. They still are living the model of the mid-20th century, instead of the beginning of the 21st century.
One thing I love about libraries is that they are catching up with the current times of the internet. Yes. I am a heavy public library user. I can borrow DVDs, VHSs, and CDs from their brick-and-mortar library. But I also love their DIGITAL loan books. You can actually sign-in to their website, check the available download DIGITAL books, download them to your computer, and then upload them into your MP3 device. And, you have a “borrowed” book to listen to, along with an expiration date. Now, why can’t the Entertainment Industry embrace something similar to what the public libraries are doing? Yes. The profit margins for the companies will decrease, but at least they won’t have to “battle” the users, the p2p filesharers, etc. There is more I can say…but I will never finish saying it in this forum.
Suffice it to say that positive “morality” needs to begin with the MPAA and RIAA. If not, the battle between the MPAA / RIAA and p2p filesharers will never end. We’ll continue playing the game, and eventually the MPAA / RIAA will have to give in. The Internet, and the technology behind it is too creative and interesting to be stopped by that little empire of senile CEOs and managers.
The MPAA / RIAA are in denial, and don’t want to face the fact that the internet is another level of the human evolution of awareness. Yes. Read that again. One day something in the near future, that same phrase will be widely used.
How is this related to the internet, p2p filesharing, and entertainment? All you have to do is look at the history of mankind. You can even start looking since Homer’s and Shakespeare’s time. Human beings have a knack for entertainment. Except, in our times, it is all digital. And, the process of technological evolution continues…and we can either embrace it, and move along with it, or we can just passively watch how it’s going to evolve in the next stage…and like frustrated little kids…just stand there dumbfounded.
i am on a rant :-)
is it any surprise to you that 80% of all content shared has originated from the big media cartels? 100% of the content available in a shop is from the cartels! naturally, most of everything shared has some copyright legacy attached when almost everything in the world is out of the big 4
it is only now the free internet has the distribution technologies to enable truly independent self-publishing that we are gonna see an emergence of open-source software and privately created movies and music. it will take time for the adoption of the new technologies and for the distribution structures to settle into economic systems serving artist/creators and their public
it is happening and it is only a matter of time. thankfully God and time are on our side
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Self interest corpoRats are the problem everywhere not just the music or movie industry. We need to bring to heal these over sized fat cat abusers of the human will and even eliminate those that refuse to change so as to serve the people.
As the population of this planet increases to hard to manage levels. We either bring the greedy self interest individuals in line with popular thinking or they will be swallowed and consumed by violent revolution as history shows us… Do it now or the people will do it later, but it will get done…..
The blood of the workers lubricates the wheels of capitalism.
Filesharing is freedom, brothers & sisters…
Merry Christmas. =]
all these antipiracy companies want to do is make money on sueing inocent people who just want to watch tv/movies or listen to some music who harm no one and make no profit, they just make themselves happier and not as bored. What’s wrong with this? Noone I know has a problem with this and most actualy like the advatnagrs to downloading, also its not I’m never going to spend money on CDs/DVDs ever again! The general public loves bit torrent, its going nowhere soon!
oh btw I don’t think it should be called piracy anymore, I love pirates and all, but ninjas uckin own! So from now on its called ninjacy!
Excellent article, Ernesto.
And some excellent and equally intelligent comments too.
You know, I’d gladly use a program that allowed you to listen to songs for free (medium quality)and with a small ad every 5-10 songs, as long as the ad wasn’t at full volume or the most annoying thing you’ve ever heard of.
It not really a matter of it being an outdated business model.. it just that they don’t get to SELL us crap anymore at an outrageous profit, one person gets it for free, tells everyone how shit it is and then nobody buys it… THAT’S what the suits do like.
Me.. I torrent a shit load of stuff every month and only buy the highest quality of the stuff I like… no more random buying.. I’m not deluding myself as to what I’m doing, I’m perfectly aware that according to the laws I am commiting crime, but fuck it… I’ve had thirty years on this earth as “a good little consumer” (I’m not even a person to these bastards, just a wallet) buying shit after shit, simply because I have been forced to BUY BLIND!
No FUCKING more, I’ll buy what I do like.. but I’ll try everything to find out what that is!
why are there so many mpaa reading/commenting this forum? I think its becuase they have nothing better to do, they can’t stop us so they tell us its wrong, stealing, immoral, and you all should be ashamed. Well fuck you and get off this website, most people know that what we’re doing is right and is absolute freedom. I love it and will neverstop downloading! Btw if we had mpaa do something diferent then protect copyright laws(completly pointless, people still do, and other people/big companies still make money) maybe like figure ways to fix bigger problems like world hunger, global warming, and other shit maybe our world would be a better place. Oh yeah legalize marijuana as well as file sharing!! Great well written article ernesto!
It’s true that legally filling an iPod at current prices would break most people. But even big media finally woke up and started selling songs at 5c each and albums at 1$ each, which I feel would be reasonable, I still wouldn’t buy anything because I hate them so much. These companies have spent so many years doing things that piss me off more and more now I wont ever give them money out of spite. In this world of capitalism, I am going to let my money talk. And it’s not going to talk to them.
You know I agree, sort of. I think copyright is completely messed and needs a complete rework for the internet age. COPYRIGHT IS NOT A GUARANTEE FOR PROFIT. It is actually not even copyright that is abused though, it’s exclusive rights. Exclusive rights screw over the artist, creator, and original copyright holder. Those “rights” permit companies such as EMI, Universal, BMG, and Warner to own a song (that they had nothing to do with) alter it, promote it, and profit from it anyway they deem acceptable. Those guys are my enemy. Don’t get me wrong I LOVE MUSIC, and I really really want to support my favorite artists but I find it far too hard to buy a CD knowing that the artist will only see less than a dollar, maybe two if your Madonna. Then the loving record labels make the artists pay back everything they have done in the studio. Artists are forced to pay back recording costs (which is pure profit for the record labels) and music videos, otherwise their album will not get promoted on the radio, MTV, etc. Those costs soar in to the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars. This, in my account, is completely unacceptable, and therefore I will never buy another CD until something changes. I know that there are “Independent labels” but most are a scam, either owned (indirectly) by one of the big four, or only a matter of time until they get too popular and become mainstream and become bought out. Personally I don’t care if the whole industry dies, this is a harsh statement but it’s something that I believe in. The record labels are nothing but scum, look at what they do to people sharing music. If only they would open their eyes and see that people have been sharing music for decades. Sharing has been taking place through cassette tape recordings, inviting friends over to listen to a LP, etc. It is only now that those songs are stored on a hard drive and replicated in seconds that the industry feels they are being screwed over. They don’t see that they have screwed over everyone to the point where they are one of the most hated industries worldwide. Hell I’d rather live in a box under a bridge than work for those scum bags. The power for change is within everyone, if no one buys music, then maybe we can kill this monster and restore music to what it is; sharing human emotions, thoughts, and experiences.
All it is is getting the newest material first without too much effort on the users part. Nothing wrong with that although that part about only 2 people of 500 saying it’s wrong is troubling.
http://paidandpopular.blogspot.com
Morality?
What has P2P filesharing have to do with that? Just the music industry trying to brainwash people with stupid commercials designed to somehow make you feel bad.
Very much like your favorite sports team. the ownership advertises it as “your team”, our game etc. (play to your feelings and loyalties about the team at every opportunity). But the only thing their management really cares about is profit.
Big companies get away with murder little people are made to feel somehow guilty about copying a song or movie. Give me a break, pay no attention to a stupid question like that. It’s a subtle reverse advertisement.
the only way to win, is to stop desiring stuff put out by big media companies.
as long as you desire their products, they OWN YOU.
great comments. great people. fine minds thinking outside the box and discovering a world liberated from dogma. i can feel the general understanding shift and finding a language to express itself (journalism by nature looks backwards, it is tied to the printed page and belongs those who would educate us to respect them. a good blog looks forward and establishes islands we may yet reach. and we are reaching … )
old style economists looked at their statistics and they said “look after the average Jo” play to the mean (the average)
today, we say “look after the fanatics and the terrorists … the rest will follow” it remains strictly a statistical science only it is better driven). in conclusion, if filesharers are the terrorists then who are the fanatics?
this is an invitation to the FANATICS to defend the actions of specifically the MPAA. we want to hear from you and we want answers to the following questions:
1. explain how free market capital efficiency theory, the basis of our moral society, is wrong by stating “that which can be copied without cost is valueless”
2. justify the practice of extortion in the USA where downloaders of mp3’s are offered a deal of “pay $15,000 or face irrecoverable legal costs of $250,000″
3. tell us why intellectual copyright exclusivity is morally correct in excluding 90% of the world’s population because they live outside of the affluent euro/dollar economies
you make me so fukin mad do not doubt that you are on the h8list
you can find us. we can find you. there are more of us than you
test us
Spread the sharing love!
*gief US chicks* x)
Is it moral to go against the peoples interest and make new laws to keep their profits without having to change their old dinosaur ways?
great article man, thx
I find it funny that these people that make millions of dollars, complain about the lose of what, maybe a few cents that make it back to them from the sale of a single song, and even worse when they can sue for thousands of dollars per song. And I have to agree with the article, many artists I listen to now I would have never started listening to if I couldn’t have downloaded a song or two to sample them first. I think a great idea would be for record labels to do something like “look at these ads then you can download a song” and use the ads to make their money, and make it free to the consumer. They could make the same money, and eliminate the need for “piracy” altogether.
I’m actually sick of hearing these old people saying it’s stealing.
It’s NOT stealing.
[quote comment="246102"]stealing is stealing. you ppl steal music, you don’t buy it.[/quote]
Thats right, and if i ever have the chance i’ll steal yours too.
Merry christmas @sshole :)
money is for girls
“Personally I think it is all about alternatives. Movie, TV and music companies should put their content onlin and make it available in high quality for a reasonable price without restrictions such as DRM”
Online, not onlin…
sry.
[edit Ernesto: fixed]
[quote comment="246317"]It’s true that legally filling an iPod at current prices would break most people. But even big media finally woke up and started selling songs at 5c each and albums at 1$ each, which I feel would be reasonable, I still wouldn’t buy anything because I hate them so much. These companies have spent so many years doing things that piss me off more and more now I wont ever give them money out of spite. In this world of capitalism, I am going to let my money talk. And it’s not going to talk to them.[/quote]
I would have to agree with you 100% on this. I feel the same way.
I hate them so much, the arrogance, their outright greed and disrespect for the public.
I will never give them anything.
I’ll always support artists that I like.
And at the same time, I’ll _NEVER_ support the music/movie industries and their business models.
I download and now just stream from sites, but the majority of consumers do not do this… YET.
The majority gets it content via paying the insane cable TV bill, because they are not savvy, in the know or our generation. As the cable TV distribution becomes a drag on profits then we will have a legal content utopia via the Internet(Hulu.com rocks, so does Joox.net … JOost not so much i have to load it up – blah).
Funny, though when this happens the cost of broadband will surely increase – bill by the byte!
So everyone enjoy what we are doing now while it is cheap. What we are doing is forcing a change of content distribution and in turn the economies of this, where we will only have ourselves to blame for increasing the cost of our ISP bills.
I think that, until an alternative is provided, people’s only option is to download stuff illegally. Richard Stallman, founder of GNU, came up with a brilliant idea: everyone pays a flat rate to the music companies, and then they can legally download music from bittorrent, etc. This is a really great idea, kind of like an all-you-can-eat buffet of music and videos, and the record and movie companies would make a fortune. I don’t know why such a model is not put into use.
I am not a supporter of the current music industry business model, but to say that file sharing should be allowed because you are not taking something physical from the producer (i.e. a CD) is an invalid argument for the modern times. It would be like saying anything and everything that exists in a software format should be free once it is created. It is logic based on the old paradigm of a product, just the same as the file sharing proponents think that the music industry is using an outdated business model.
What really needs to happen is that file transfer can become a strong business model when tied to advertising. Free broadcast television and Google are strong examples of this. I would not mind if when I download a movie, television show, music etc., I had to also prepend an advertisement to the beginning of the file, and maybe for the next 5-10 viewings/listenings I had to see the advertisement (otherwise it would get stale and annoying). The centralized distribution model could be eliminated, but I don’t think every artist/producer/director etc. would want to have to manage their own file sharing site, so we would still have some sort of distribution system.
People say if I want music I should pay for it or do without. I say to record companies if they want to be paid for everything they produce and aren’t then get out of the business. Close your doors cause I promise you you won’t be missed. There’s a revolution going on in music and independents are developing a whole new system because the old one is bullshit. I couldn’t care less if old money bags Paul McCartney never produces another album.
67, see http://blog.brokep.com/2007/12/06/the-problems-with-a-flatrate-system/
Agree with the channels. I watch shows that I love on the CBS and NBC site and I’ll be happy to pay for them.
Be nice if there was a way to pay the artists directly. I download an album and theres a pay the artist button or something. I’d like to see something like this although I don’t think you could make this safe.
[quote comment="246110"]*hands booga1134 a box of tissue.[/quote]
You “steal” from the earth when you eat anything, so “stealing” doesn’t apply to everything. You’re a piece of sh!t, so stealing from you doesn’t really count as stealing.
I still don’t understand why people cannot see the morality in this, and think it should be free. It is fairly simple:
1. Something exists which I did not create, and it cost money to create (regardless of who paid for it)
2. I want it.
I either take it or pay for it. It doesn’t matter what product we are talking about here.
I do think that the music industry does need to adjust their business model for the new technology, but users need to understand the implications of the new technology on current business practices.
(By the way I enjoy a number of jam band music which make most of their money from touring, and allow listeners to freely tape their shows and post them on the internet for free distribution)
I still want to be able to donate/pay the Artists directly.
I have listened to afew artists i’ve not heard about before BT, and wanted to pay something to them but can’t find any way to do it, only goes to the damn record label sites with a buy the cd button.
Why can’t we pay the Artists and not the labels?
RE: ju
You “steal” from the earth when you eat anything, so “stealing” doesn’t apply to everything. You’re a piece of sh!t, so stealing from you doesn’t really count as stealing.
Do you pay farmers and grocers for that food you are eating?
Do you pay farmers and grocers for that food you are eating?
I’d like to pay the farmers, and JUST the farmers, not some association inbetween.
The business model for the big old time music executives has collapsed. The average Wall Mart employee makes $10.00 an hour. He or she is lucky to take home $7. CDs cost $15 to $20 for something that costs a few cents per unit to produce. They are just not worth the money. iTunes has the model closer to right in that they are trying to charge for the convenience of their service. Pay the artists and eliminate the record labels.
I totally agree
By the time they realize what it will take to stop piracy, they will also realize how costly it will be to prevent it.
If they pursue every person that has downloaded anything illeagaly, they will have taken a larger loss to the company than to not persue it. They probably already know that but won’t say anything hoping conversations like this will turn the tide. Which it totally will not do.
Besides, in the case of record companies, if they would change thier models to support legal downloads by offerring new artists three song deals instead of 12 for a cd then they would be able to cut costs immensly and turn a profit easily from online sales and burning kiosks.
But no one ever wants to change thier buisness model until it is too late. I haven’t seen one movie trailer that made me want to go to the theater and deal with other people’s bad habits. for the most part the last two or three years have been hum drum and most people just rather download it than to pay 10-20 bucks and deal with people at a movie they may not like.
In essence, it’s the company’s fault that they are bleeding money not pirates. Let’s call a spade a spade here and turn that pointing finger right back at you!
I agree, but sometimes the creator does not have the distribution network to get it to the consumer. This is the classic division of labor idea, and why the labels exist in the first place. They had the capital and knowledge to distribute an artist widely.
Please don’t get me wrong. The current business model is not working. With creators being able get their own recording studio time, and create their own music without much assistance from a label, the model will change. When the subset of the 500 students who are future musicians enter the music business, their distribution methods will be different. We can look at the recent release of the radiohead album where they released it online, and allowed the consumer to determine the price they wanted to pay (including free). The difference is that Radiohead was a band that was made popular through the old business model.
I do not think downloading movies or music is immortal. You see the people like the MPAA make things up. They insist that the movie industry losses so much money from the illegal downloading of movies. I don’t understand why. Lets say i downloaded Pirates of the Caribbean III. I would not go see that movie in the cinema or i would not buy it when it came out on DVD therefore they have not lost a dime. Thats why i do not see downloading illegal movies bad.
[quote comment="246457"]I think that, until an alternative is provided, people’s only option is to download stuff illegally. Richard Stallman, founder of GNU, came up with a brilliant idea: everyone pays a flat rate to the music companies, and then they can legally download music from bittorrent, etc. This is a really great idea, kind of like an all-you-can-eat buffet of music and videos, and the record and movie companies would make a fortune. I don’t know why such a model is not put into use.[/quote]
There’d be no incentive to the record companies to support new artists. The consumer would lose under this model, receiving lower quality music. Would we have to sign up for certain “clubs”? subscribe to one label or another?
It’s definitely a really cool idea, I’m just skeptical about the incentive this would apply to a record company to produce quality music.
the corporate media influences the politicians who make the laws that tell folks that downloading is illegal.
the people making the money is the politicans and the media corporations.
where are the artists in the mix above.
I purchase a few DVD’s a year, but in most cases, I wouln’t bother spending the money. If it’s free, it’s free, but for $20, you can keep it. Ahh, gee… You only made $400 million on this film at the box office?
What does it cost a family of 4 to go to the movies (including popcorn and drinks?) $30? More?
Here’s a thought: why not charge the product placement advertizers a fee based on downloads – Kinda like commercials in the movies. The mechanism is already in place – No sense in giving away free advertizing.
Why not charge the DNC a fee for spreading propaganda on their behalf?
CD’s are another matter altogether. The music industry found itself with one insurmountable issue with online music – Why spend $15 on 12 peices of crap to get two decent songs? Stop recording crap and people will buy more.
What would be really cool is a Last.fm-like site where you can buy a subscription (with several tiers — $5 a month if you’re a student, $200 if you’re rich, or something in between). Half the money is given to artists, split among your most listened-to artists during that month.
I’d sign up.
Okay, one thing.
This article, as most of the “anti-anti-piracy” articles, demands that artists/labels put their records online for “reasonable price”. Question: would that eliminate piracy? would all these college students suddenly pay for something they could still get for free? Yeah, the “moral” value would be lower since price would be “reasonable”, they could also get it easily… But suspecting that all/most of “pirates” would suddenly turn into paying customers is the same naivity that keeps big labels grasping for old methods.
Be honest, what’s the percentage of someone downloading, listening to it, and then buying it? It’s a nice, naive dream, but hey, society doesn’t work like this. Even if that 5% who buys it after all, is more than nothing, this system won’t work like that. Digital information can be transferred for free, and nobody can do nothing about that. It’s like forcing someone to pay for air. It can be done with some rude method, but it wont be quite succesful, especially not on masses.
I could only suggest something more shocking: with the advent of digital data transfer, every art that could be distributed this way (still/moving picture, music) can not be furter charged for distribution itself (since that costs nothing) – to get to the point, on the long run, artists have to accept that their revenues will come from concerts, events, etc. instead of record sales. There will always be a fan base that will buy records (whether off or online – with small online prices, this base is bigger, but not that big) Small bands already feel this. As time goes on, the whole industry will be consumed.
Nothing will change here people. If torrenting becomes impossible, another way to share stuff will appear. Likewise, if the big companies actually change their business model, it will be to take money from suckers in another way. ancient roman and greek markets had vendors who knew how to get sell shit at outrages prices, and other people knew how to seek out quality, and pay the source a fair wage in order to survive and continue. The only thing that has changed, is that now we use the inernet and fiberoptic cables as our markets. But humans are still humans.
Bottom line as long as there are suckers, they will buy shit and lose money. As ong as there are suckers, other people will take advantage and get rich. And as long as there are human beings around, there will always be suckers…..
So why are we still talking about ancient history like it is going to change? Next we’ll be talking about ways in which to stop war and hunger!!!!
I think this is old hat— More and more of my friends watch and delete— they wouldn’t dare soil their hard-drives with something that can easily just be downloaded again when they wanted to watch/listen to it again.
It’s all about streaming content— files that pass through your computer and and having a fast connection—
I gave up on downloading films and just let them stream on the screen— that way if I get bored in the first 10 minutes I just click to the next—
What will come about in the next few years will be these complete overlooked films that are gems and will start pushing aside many of the better marketed films.
i wonder?…are the peeps in here that say file sharing its stealing..are they from the MPAA..RIAA..or similar organization…cause why would they be here in the first place? right?…just wondering…
cause it seems like a waste of time for them to be posting you are stealing bla, bla, bla, bla…hmmmm???
There is a free legal site that does this with commercial songs: http://www.we7.com
[quote comment="246294"]You know, I’d gladly use a program that allowed you to listen to songs for free (medium quality)and with a small ad every 5-10 songs, as long as the ad wasn’t at full volume or the most annoying thing you’ve ever heard of.[/quote]
Woah, just because you download people think we don’t buy? Wow…ignorance.
I don’t buy without hearing it first. I download, take a listen, if I don’t like it, I don’t listen. If I do, I buy it, or support the artist in some way.
Try live in some of the more isolated cities in the world and see if you have any luck finding certain artists or songs.
A lot of the time I go online to get what I want because stores here just cant supply items.
I dont have a moral problem with downloading a song that I can no longer get in this country.
[quote comment="246155"]well am from a third world country,having to pay ridiculously high prices for software,music,media Etc,is out of the question.i know its wrong but i cant help it,coz otherwise i will be living in the stone age deprived of all the goodies offered by File Sharing[/quote]
Well,this is where you are wrong. Being from a third world country is not an excuse. I come from one as well. All these things, movies, music etc. “goodies” as you call it are not necessities in life. You can live without them and no, you will not” be in the stone age” if you are deprived of them. If you have internet to do P2P then you have other free or cheap alternative “goodies”. I live in a first world country now. I still can’t afford a Ferrari, should I just go out and steal one. This is one justification for P2P that is asinine.
[quote]I either take it or pay for it. It doesn’t matter what product we are talking about here.[/quote]
Right, but in the case of something like music or film, if it can be digitally transfered it can be had for free without stealing it – you only need to copy it.
[quote]This article, as most of the “anti-anti-piracy” articles, demands that artists/labels put their records online for “reasonable price”. Question: would that eliminate piracy? would all these college students suddenly pay for something they could still get for free? Yeah, the “moral” value would be lower since price would be “reasonable”, they could also get it easily… But suspecting that all/most of “pirates” would suddenly turn into paying customers is the same naivity that keeps big labels grasping for old methods.
[/quote]
Eliminate piracy? No, but it would lower it.
[quote]It’s all about streaming content— files that pass through your computer and and having a fast connection—
[/quote]
I much prefer downloading over streaming.
I still can’t afford a Ferrari, should I just go out and steal one.
??
What’s with the stealing again?
How much materials does it take to make a ferrari?
How much materials are used in a copy of a song ?
It’s not stealing, the song is still in your hands, you just made a copy, you take the Ferrari it’s missing.
Bi difference, if you can’t see that you’re too old
And for the Ferrari argument, what if i made my own replica of a ferrari? It’s a copy, should I get sued by Ferrari for stealing ?
[quote comment="246102"]stealing is stealing. you ppl steal music, you don’t buy it.[/quote]
omg you people are thieves omg omg.
Seriously. Thats all I hear. This article isnt about theft. Its about how to profit from a better system.
I buy a lot of CDs. I also download a lot of music. Certain torrent sites have opened up my eyes to artists I didn’t even know existed. If I like the music, I typically buy the CD, but not always.
When I do download music I know I’m not going to buy (which seems to be happening more often lately), I know I’m stealing. I know it’s illegal, and I know that it’s no different than walking into a clothing store and taking a shirt off the shelf and walking out with it.
I can’t justify it, because it is stealing, and it is illegal. No matter how much money one makes, it’s still wrong to steal from them. Even if they’re multi billion dollar corporations, it’s still stealing.
I’ve always thought it would be a good idea to have a download-all-you-want subscription service with several bit rates to choose from, sort of like Oink, or What or Waffles. I’d gladly pay $20 a month for a service like that. Imagine… Guaranteed quality, fast downloads, no DRM, and you can share it with whomever you want.
As I live in Australia it is all about availability for me. In the US they have a few Tv networks that offer full tv show to view online. Networks like CBS which has more content to view online for free then Australia has to offer online all together. We do have something called Catch-Up TV. But you have to pay $1.95AUS per episode. But the content available is very limited. We have nothing compared to CBS. So for me Torrents are the best way to get the programs that I enjoy. They leave us with no other option.
If a device existed that could copy any object, would it be right to take the design (digital format) of that object and create the copy. For example, if I could create a ferrari from a printer, do I have that right?
[quote comment="246539"]If a device existed that could copy any object, would it be right to take the design (digital format) of that object and create the copy. For example, if I could create a ferrari from a printer, do I have that right?[/quote]
Yep . Why wouldn’t you have that right?
Why doesn’t anyone lay blame on the record media companies that continue to change the technology we rely on for our music. First 78’s, then 45’s and 33’s, then 8-tracks, then cassettes, then CD, mini-CD’s…. How many times do we as consumers have buy and re-buy what we already paid for? I believe that once I buy it, it’s mine.
What’s the difference from recording something off of the radio or TV and replaying it? It’s broadcast on the free airwaves…. is it free?
Let’s face it, it’s all about the mighty dollar….. that’s why restaurants can’t even sing you Happy Birthday anymore!
[quote comment="246102"]stealing is stealing. you ppl steal music, you don’t buy it.[/quote]
Who are ‘you people’ anyway?
I download alot of music and I agree it does make you want to buy more cd’s.
However it doesn’t help when you goto 3 different record stores and the cd is sold out at all of them.
I got better things to do than waste my time tracking down a sold out album.
RD: I think you are trapped in the old frame of thinking, where what you created is only for you to benefit from and become rich.
I believe creation of art, design or anything should be for the benefit of humanity, to extend our knowledge.
I imagine the true artists would still scramble at the chance of expressing their art, to be known as great artist.
A real artist doesn’t just want riches, he/she wants to be recognised and appreciated.
What if Rembrant owned the copyright to all his works and wouldn’t allow you to make a copy of his print, and that copy right still existed today.
You really think a Brilliant artist like Rembrant would care about copyright?
Ask a true artist, not Britney $pears or the other crap out there. Ask a true artist what their inspiration is for their creations, you’ll find it’s not for riches.
it just about money….
[quote comment="246542"][quote comment="246539"]If a device existed that could copy any object, would it be right to take the design (digital format) of that object and create the copy. For example, if I could create a ferrari from a printer, do I have that right?[/quote]
Yep . Why wouldn’t you have that right?[/quote]
Because you stole the design (a.k.a. a component of value). Would you print money? All it is a piece of paper which represents value as determined by an external entity (government). If you took the design, you are stealing the value (or a compenent of the overall value minus physical components) and that value is also determined by an external entity (corporation).
Printing money can’t really be compared to this argument. Because you’re adding the value of capital gains.
I copy music, i get no capital gain from it, so it’s not stealing.
[quote comment="246551"]RD: I think you are trapped in the old frame of thinking, where what you created is only for you to benefit from and become rich.
I believe creation of art, design or anything should be for the benefit of humanity, to extend our knowledge.
I imagine the true artists would still scramble at the chance of expressing their art, to be known as great artist.
A real artist doesn’t just want riches, he/she wants to be recognised and appreciated.
What if Rembrant owned the copyright to all his works and wouldn’t allow you to make a copy of his print, and that copy right still existed today.
You really think a Brilliant artist like Rembrant would care about copyright?
Ask a true artist, not Britney $pears or the other crap out there. Ask a true artist what their inspiration is for their creations, you’ll find it’s not for riches.[/quote]
I try to be a true artist myself. I draw, paint, and play terrible guitar, but I do try to be acess the creative side of my brain (and honestly do not want to be recognized or appreciated; I do it for my own internal balance). One issue is that I am not good enough to support myself. If I told myself I wanted to be an artist full time, I would have to live without an income. This is exactly the same as Rembrandt. Rembrandt received commissions to provide pieces of art. This allowed him to make a living out of it. If he did not receive commissions, he probably would have had a completely different occupation.
I believe the industry needs to change, but stealing is not what needs to occur. I look at the computer software industry where users add featrus to open source programs (e.g. Linux, GNU etc.) and make them better without profit. I don’t think this paradigm would work for classical art forms (music, images (-into moving images)) as the artist creates a non interactive output.
Haven’t we all heard about the recent event where Radiohead offered up its own CD for its own fans to acquire at the fans’ chosen price? Isn’t it an odd thing that 60% of Radiohead’s own fans chose to “buy” the CD for free? Note that this is a band without a record label, allowing their music to be accessed and downloaded from the Internet — this sounds like the “business model” so many people on this site are in favor of.
[quote comment="246555"]Printing money can’t really be compared to this argument. Because you’re adding the value of capital gains.
I copy music, i get no capital gain from it, so it’s not stealing.[/quote]
Okay…would if you theoretically printed gold? You would simultaneously be creating wealth for yourself, but would be degrading the value of gold overall since the supply of it would increase?
Honestly – I am playing a bit of devils advocate, and I do believe the business needs to change (as I indicated earlier in poste 68). What is going to happen is that this increase of users (insert your choice: stealing, temporarilly borrowing, or denying the current distribution method of the music labels ability to) music changes the system. I think an advertising based distribution system makes the most sents. Think GoogleMusic.
[quote comment="246555"]Printing money can’t really be compared to this argument. Because you’re adding the value of capital gains.
I copy music, i get no capital gain from it, so it’s not stealing.[/quote]
And is there only capital gain. What about the concept of artistic gain?
Actually, I’d like to see a propper discussion about this. Not just a slinging match on this is stealing blah blah.. ’cause it just gets you no-where.
So, the recording industry says it’s fighting for the artists rights, I don’t believe it and not many do. They are just fighting for thier control and money. Times are changing and like times of the past, industries come and go.
What really needs to happen is for an easy secure and safe way for the community to pay the artists directly.
Maybe the Recording industry should setup a web hosting service, try this as a test. Free downloads of the latest music, with a pay if you liked it button. But, now here’s the big but, no money is to go to the recording industry, it should go to the artists directly.
The industry can get income from advertisements hosting the web site.
Radiohead are on a good idea, and it should be built on.
I would offer my time to discuss with the recording industry on what other approaches to take, but they have damaged their reputation so much that it would be very hard to get the public to ever trust them again.
[quote comment="246102"]stealing is stealing. you ppl steal music, you don’t buy it.[/quote]
Bullshit, you dont steal anything as the original copy doesn’t disappear, stealing is taking away someone’s personal propery, you don’t do that with sharing, you create a free costless clone for yourself. The original owner still has the original file, unlike when you steal a car, the car disappears, the previous owner doesn’t own it anymore, you can’t ”just create” a clone of a car costing nothing. You can with music.
I only go towards torrenting if 1. they don’t have my movie on dvd or cd in my area, which tends to be often, I’m not from NY or LA neither is most of the country; 2. I don’t want to do the searching on Amazon or Ebay putting credit card information or any type of information connected to me on the net. It’s not that I don’t trust those companies I don’t trust the people who could steal my information from shopping online.
Booga1134 is right. If I read a newspaper or magazine I found laying around in a laundrymat or coffee shop and leave it behind for the next person to read, have I infringed copyright laws to any lesser extent? After all, the newspaper industry is dying as a result of the internet.
Say, as long as we are free to speak our minds here…
Merry Christmas!!!!!
Stealing is still stealing.
I cannot afford to buy the stuff I download, that’s why I download the software in the first place. But when it comes to TV shows, I cannot see the problem with downloading US TV shows which will be available on my Sky (UK) in a couple of weeks later, I am still having access to it through this package, I’m just watching it a little bit earlier.
Music is a bit different. If I like it, I’ll eventually buy it. I like my CD collection, I like to have real versions of stuff like that.
However, the newer end of my DVD collection is entirely pirated. Its Free vs. £15 ($30) for a DVD, I’d not be able to see anything if I went legal..
With the way this article sounds, your telling the corporations to start charging us money to share their stuff. Not a great alternative, if you ask me.
Downloading/Sharing music (and other things) is “stealing”, but not morally wrong. On the other hand, stealing in general is viewed as morally wrong. In a sense it could be a paradox, but stealing isn’t necessarily the correct term for downloading/sharing things.
Downloading/Sharing has become it’s own category. Where you commit this crime and get caught, you’ll probably wish you just mugged some lady and then bought it with that money.
[quote comment="246472"]I still don’t understand why people cannot see the morality in this, and think it should be free. It is fairly simple:
1. Something exists which I did not create, and it cost money to create (regardless of who paid for it)
2. I want it.
I either take it or pay for it. It doesn’t matter what product we are talking about here.[/quote]
The fallacy of your argument is when downloading anything less than a complete lossless copy you have not achieved the original product. Or do you think you should pay every time you hear a song on the radio too?
Stupidigy is the only excuse I can imagine for such ignorance. Go home MAFiAA.. you cannot win this argument.
We believe in supporting artists. We do not believe in supporting greedy middlemen who have for decades striped artists of control and rights to their own productions for the sake of your distribution. Your distribution is no longer needed, the fans will do it for the artists, and you all will have to find real jobs. Sorry, sucks to be you, but every technological revolution leaves someone bankrupt and balling. I’m just glad it’s you, you’ve been due for a good ass-kicking since the 80s.. rememember, the decade of the manufacturered artist? Yeah, we remember Milli Vannili too… this is your comuppance, and it is everything you deserve.
Hiro81 said:
Or do you think you should pay every time you hear a song on the radio too?
Hiro, you are a moron. Back away from the keyboard before you hurt yourself. You pay for EVERY song on the radio EVERYTIME you hear it through advertising. Everyone does. Would you like an internet blanketed with law enforcement and advertising? KEEP STEALING. IT’S COMING you a-hole. Anyone who doesn’t understand the basic dynamics of the marketplace shouldn’t be allowed a computer to post such ill-informed drivel here.
at $1 per song and an average of 5meg per song(yes the legal ones are all low quality) it would cost $32000 to fill a 160gb ipod!! HOLY SHIT!!
[quote comment="246658"]Hiro81 said:
Or do you think you should pay every time you hear a song on the radio too?
Hiro, you are a moron. Back away from the keyboard before you hurt yourself. You pay for EVERY song on the radio EVERYTIME you hear it through advertising. Everyone does. Would you like an internet blanketed with law enforcement and advertising? KEEP STEALING. IT’S COMING you a-hole. Anyone who doesn’t understand the basic dynamics of the marketplace shouldn’t be allowed a computer to post such ill-informed drivel here.[/quote]
Ad Hominem. FAIL.
I think I have a bit of a unique perspective on the filesharing thing… As far as music goes, I literally stopped buying CDs the moment I downloaded my first mp3 in 1998. I’d spent virtually every cent of my disposable income up to that point on music; when I found this free alternative I embraced it, wholeheartedly.
Over the years, my musical taste has changed to the point where I no longer listen to modern music; the overwhelming majority of my collection is music originally issued on 78rpm. The majority of the artists I listen to are dead. In fact, a good portion of my collection could even be public domain, for all I know.
Now – who is being ‘wronged’ by my filesharing activities? Certainly, by not buying CD compilations of old music, I am reducing profits of record companies, which adversely effects their employees. And I suppose publishing companies, heirs of the artists, etc. are being short-changed, to a degree. But who are they to say that if filesharing didn’t exist, that I would even consider buying their product? Are movie theaters entitled to compensation if I choose to wait until I can rent a movie at Blockbuster? I’m reducing their profits, aren’t I? What if I wait to see a movie on broadcast TV for free? Should I expect cease-and-desist letters from a slew of conglomerates crying poverty? It really makes no sense.
The record companies aren’t really losing significant profit from me, because I would not buy their products in any case. If filesharing didn’t exist, I would be scouring flea markets and yard sales for my beloved old music on 78’s – which I do, sometimes.
I feel like I don’t fit too well into the typical profile of a p2p user; but I’m sure I’m just as guilty in their eyes.
(this brings something else to mind – are there any classical music file sharers out there? what’s your take?)
Luke,
Charging people money to see Shrek III is stealing.
“it’s more about availability than the fact that it’s free”
Indeed. The tv show example is one of the main things that got me into torrenting. Some shows give them out for free but I have cable… if I missed it, I don’t see it being a problem for any show to offer it after it airs :/
at least for a little while.
[quote comment="246632"]Stealing is still stealing.[/quote]
Great Point. To build on that id like to point out:
Not stealing is still not stealing.
Also, no adds on my radio. Stop listening to corporate radio.
To all of the people chiming in how great it is to take creative content from other people without paying for it: How many you have content of your own somewhere on the web for free?
I know that if any of you proponents of “free” content had anything of value to offer, you’d be whining about copyright theft by bit torrent users right now.
The fact that you aren’t complaining and are advocating taking everything in sight speaks volumes about your creative abilities and marketability.
“My favorite example of doing it right is the Saul Williams album:
http://niggytardust.com/saulwilliams/download”
Absollutely right. This is how art has worked for AGES. If you like it and can afford to, you donate. This is the way music will have to go again (and film). And this method will also generate lots of great art, instead of crap albums that are so over marketed and pounded into our head that my little siblings end up spending their pocket money on a 30 buck album that has 1 song they like.
[quote comment="246674"]To all of the people chiming in how great it is to take creative content from other people without paying for it: How many you have content of your own somewhere on the web for free?
I know that if any of you proponents of “free” content had anything of value to offer, you’d be whining about copyright theft by bit torrent users right now.
The fact that you aren’t complaining and are advocating taking everything in sight speaks volumes about your creative abilities and marketability.[/quote]
http://www.socwall.com/
I’ve spend a great deal of time creating some desktop wallpapers on there.
I’m happy to give it free. If people enjoy it, that’s great.
I’m not being a tight ass about it claiming copyright.
There are a lot of examples of community spirit where people spend their time creating things for a community. It’s about time corporate attitudes change from the me me me .
How about being a benefit to the community.
Fuck dudes i’m actually going to say something sensible…
I’m in a band (not saying who i am or what band cause it could kick up a whole shit storm) and we broke away from our first label because we felt like both us and the fans were getting fucked up the ass paying $18.98 for CD’s that cost dimes to produce. We saw no profit from the sales despite the mother fucker selling loadsa copies and us getting a grammy nomination (check 2003 nominations and you may work out who i am/we are). So we decided to get the fuck out. The whole thing among record labels is that they love you music stealing mother fuckers because you tell them how popular an artist is. But then they fuckin’ cry when they see a 1% drop in sales. The feeling inside the industry is one of total loss. They know they can’t win so they resort to bullshit tactics to try and stop you guys. We kicked up a shit storm when one of our CD’s was encoded with a anti ripping device. The way my band and me see it is…share the fuckin’ music. If you fucks share our songs you spread the word about us and more people come to see us and buy our T-Shirts and shit. But we don’t hold the strings that choke nearly every fuckin’ artist on a major label and we can’t cut ‘em. But if you guys keep doin’ what you’re doing those strings get slacker and we get more freedom to fuckin’ give you mother fuckers what you desrve for supporting us.
It it actually really insulting when you go to Internet, download something which you would never buy (perhaps your first anime?), see that you love it, you buy it and the next day some politician or lobbyist says that all pirates are criminals and leeches – makes you want to buy more, eh. I have lost all of my sympathy to copyright and it’s clear that the industry is chancing or dying. Either way it’s all good.
Live by morals and if you get to trouble from it just take it like a man.
if stealing = stealing
then sharing = sharing
to the person who said that
you’re retarded
right or wrong
for or against us
their is nor right or wrong
their is no such thing as stealing
morality is for retards
we don’t play by that rules
whoever make the laws do so to benefit themselves not others
whoever controls money
controls you
how stupid can we be???
??
?
Wow,
there is nothing that gets honest people on the roll more than corporate hypocrits and their lackies.
:)
@Scrooge .
Are you really in a band ;) None the less, what you say is what most of us think also. I think the majority of bands/artists and fans are both being screwed by the labels.
If a band is good, they get fans, fans will buy their merchandise, and cd’s at the concert.
A bonus is if the cd is signed or special edition. It just bought for the item itself.
The more the band gets known, the more its music gets shared around, the bigger the fan base and more $$$ for the band.
That’s the way I think it should be.
Real bands that do the hard knocks first of covers and pub gigs to get somewhere are the ones worth supporting.
1) saw news article on pete doherty
2) got some of his music off TPB
3) went to a gig 3 days later 2x£30 tickets
4) profit for the band!!!!
[quote comment="246506"] on the long run, artists have to accept that their revenues will come from concerts, events, etc. instead of record sales.[/quote]
The vast majority already DO…
[quote comment="246551"]RD: I think you are trapped in the old frame of thinking, where what you created is only for you to benefit from and become rich.
I believe creation of art, design or anything should be for the benefit of humanity, to extend our knowledge.
I imagine the true artists would still scramble at the chance of expressing their art, to be known as great artist.
A real artist doesn’t just want riches, he/she wants to be recognised and appreciated.
What if Rembrant owned the copyright to all his works and wouldn’t allow you to make a copy of his print, and that copy right still existed today.
You really think a Brilliant artist like Rembrant would care about copyright?
Ask a true artist, not Britney $pears or the other crap out there. Ask a true artist what their inspiration is for their creations, you’ll find it’s not for riches.[/quote]
HEAR HEAR!!
[quote comment="246632"]Stealing is still stealing.[/quote]
& being a clueless n00b is _still_ being a clueless n00b.
Now go eat the sweetcorn outta my shit, fuck off, & get a clue, before you post such asinine drivel again…
[quote comment="246696"][quote comment="246674"]To all of the people chiming in how great it is to take creative content from other people without paying for it: How many you have content of your own somewhere on the web for free?
I know that if any of you proponents of “free” content had anything of value to offer, you’d be whining about copyright theft by bit torrent users right now.
The fact that you aren’t complaining and are advocating taking everything in sight speaks volumes about your creative abilities and marketability.[/quote]
http://www.socwall.com/
I’ve spend a great deal of time creating some desktop wallpapers on there.
I’m happy to give it free. If people enjoy it, that’s great.
I’m not being a tight ass about it claiming copyright.
There are a lot of examples of community spirit where people spend their time creating things for a community. It’s about time corporate attitudes change from the me me me .
How about being a benefit to the community.[/quote]
Fuckheads like ‘Marv’ CANNOT grok words such as ‘creativity’ or ‘community’ because they imprint everything they see with the holy dollar sign.
The really hilarious part is that these types invariably call themselves ‘christians’, all the while genuflecting to that golden calf, Mammon.
Truly, the MPAA, etc. are the REAL evil in the world…
http://www.supertorrents.org/filesharing.html
Another point these corporate moguls don’t get is filesharing isn’t just college students and under 20’s. I’m 39 and been sharing since the 80’s swapping floppies with friends.
Now with the internet it’s become a movement. A community movement where we share, communicate and be part of something.
Copyright and Intellectual property do nothing more than stifle human progress.
I’ll bet my left testicle there’s a working engine that runs on water out there but some corporate pigs decide they might loose too much from their oil profits so just sit on it.
This whole movement of sharing will and is better for humanity. We can ll experience art and creativity and everyone can express their art and creativeness without corporate filtering.
We’re all coming together now. It’s happening, times are changing.
If you are a good artist, you have nothing to worry about, you will succeed. If you’re Britney Spears, prepare to look for a real job .
As you said, in many cases the quality, formatting, and ease of use available through piracy often can’t be matched by content available for money. If I could paypal the artist of something I dl and like a reasonable amount of money for their product I sure as hell would.
I download all the time. Truckloads of movies and music.
The advert supported movie model wouldn’t work for people like me. Who wants to watch a bunch of boring adverts when you don’t have to? I even torrent my favorite TV series, because usually the adverts have been removed.
All you corporate shills can bleat and moan as much as you like (it’s stealing! It’s stealing! Etc. blah blah …. Yawn). I don’t give a sh*t. There is no way I am going to stop ….. ever.
I have all the software that I need to rip music to mp3. Re-inflate mp3’s and put them on CD. Compress movies that I hire from Blockbusters to high quality XVID. Re-inflate XVID and put it on a DVD, and of course download as much content as I want.
The only media related purchases I make these days is buying huge NAS drives to store all my newly acquired content
Do I feel guilty? No. I don’t feel any more guilty than you @ssholes do when you sell a CD for $20 and give less than a dollar to the artist, or force the artist to sign over all the rights to their work in exchange for “backing”.
I do what I do for very the same reason that all you media cor-prat tossers have been bleeding your customers and artists dry for the last 50 years, whilst profiteering to the point of obscenity.
BECAUSE I CAN! : )
That which is moral is absolute whereas that which is moralising is relative. Most humans have an innate sense of absolute morality, like feeling abhorrent about drinking urine or killing, say, and yet are not conscious and thence aware of the absolutes surrounding them. When you do not know what and why you are born for, you will have little sense of the absolutes. In this “blind to the absolutes” mode of existence, we exist in a state of relativities. Instead of acknowledging what and who we are and accepting that Truth is what It is, we rationalise and live according to the, “Don’t get caught”, universe. Of projecting fantasy by being an addicted hypocrite. Those whose maturity is defined by being able to corrupt, copulate, and rationalise.
Sure, it is immoral to steal but the digital fallout, which is based on greed for perpetual income streams, is vastly immoral for it is veiled and subtle. Forget about the idiotic and lunatic rationalities and excuses that commerce offer about “digital rights”, it’s about open season “Viking Raids”. Economies of scale is Nature’s lesson about limits to greed, not about some pre-ordained right to plunder with mesmeric junk. Gymnastic deployment of “lawyers”, aka the klepto’s buddy, will not turn immorality into amorality.
Materialism has only ONE role within humanity and that is to elicit unconditional love, a detached quality, through the act of generosity, whereas its blind relative, materialistic behaviour, exists to form attached love through acts of indulgences, achievements and worship. Which is worse, making an error and learning from it or repeating the same error ? Errors form the boundary [envelope] of proper behaviour whereas addictions widen that error envelope. That’s what these “digital rights” monkeys are doing. Milking addictions and to cap it all, they make criminals out of people. Those who are moral [of absolute intelligence] can see the subtlety whereas those who are merely intellectual [of relative intelligence, finger-pointing moralisers] can only see the cruelty and rebel against it with the only tool that they have. The weapon of theft, a relativity as defined by the laws of Ali Baba. Business/commerce is not about plundering but about service in exchange for a comfortable living, not a “killing”.
[quote comment="246810"]That which is moral is absolute whereas that which is moralising is relative. Most humans have an innate sense of absolute morality, like feeling abhorrent about drinking urine or killing, say, and yet are not conscious and thence aware of the absolutes surrounding them. When you do not know what and why you are born for, you will have little sense of the absolutes. In this “blind to the absolutes” mode of existence, we exist in a state of relativities. Instead of acknowledging what and who we are and accepting that Truth is what It is, we rationalise and live according to the, “Don’t get caught”, universe. Of projecting fantasy by being an addicted hypocrite. Those whose maturity is defined by being able to corrupt, copulate, and rationalise.
Sure, it is immoral to steal but the digital fallout, which is based on greed for perpetual income streams, is vastly immoral for it is veiled and subtle. Forget about the idiotic and lunatic rationalities and excuses that commerce offer about “digital rights”, it’s about open season “Viking Raids”. Economies of scale is Nature’s lesson about limits to greed, not about some pre-ordained right to plunder with mesmeric junk. Gymnastic deployment of “lawyers”, aka the klepto’s buddy, will not turn immorality into amorality.
Materialism has only ONE role within humanity and that is to elicit unconditional love, a detached quality, through the act of generosity, whereas its blind relative, materialistic behaviour, exists to form attached love through acts of indulgences, achievements and worship. Which is worse, making an error and learning from it or repeating the same error ? Errors form the boundary [envelope] of proper behaviour whereas addictions widen that error envelope. That’s what these “digital rights” monkeys are doing. Milking addictions and to cap it all, they make criminals out of people. Those who are moral [of absolute intelligence] can see the subtlety whereas those who are merely intellectual [of relative intelligence, finger-pointing moralisers] can only see the cruelty and rebel against it with the only tool that they have. The weapon of theft, a relativity as defined by the laws of Ali Baba. Business/commerce is not about plundering but about service in exchange for a comfortable living, not a “killing”.[/quote]
Tat tvam asi.
PROPERTY IS THEFT
[quote comment="246102"]stealing is stealing. you ppl steal music, you don’t buy it.[/quote]
Sigh, stealing requires that you actually remove/take something leaving the owner with nothing eg: If I came up to you and took your phone, I’d now have your phone and you wouldn’t.
If on the other hand I came up to and used something are other to make an exact atomic copy of your phone we would now both have a phone. You still have what you paid for and now I have a copy. This is NOT stealing, it is NOT theft. It’s illegal yes, but don’t misuse words.
“I suggest that the movie and movie industry make their content available online for a reasonable price.”
As long as the content distributors care more about money than art, they do not deserve any money.
[quote comment="246674"]To all of the people chiming in how great it is to take creative content from other people without paying for it: How many you have content of your own somewhere on the web for free?
I know that if any of you proponents of “free” content had anything of value to offer, you’d be whining about copyright theft by bit torrent users right now.[/quote]
I’ll bet the owners of these netlabels feel terrible about it:
http://thepiratebay.org/user/musictrade
http://thepiratebay.org/user/oceanbase
my computer wont play the downloads, i can only hear them. can anyone help im new and dont know if i need to download new software to be able to see video. i appreciate the help
Booga said:
“it is NOT theft. It’s illegal yes, but don’t misuse words.”
Fair enough. So how about this? “The taking of a commercial product created through the work and good faith of others, intended and offered legally by them for sale, but taken willfully and illegally with no proper payment by you…….. makes you a true, ethics-free scumbag.”
Does that work better for you?
ok so sharing is wrong if there are “cheap” “legal” alternatives? don’t give me this hypocrisy.
piracy is about freedom of speech, freedom of information. if you like something and want sequels you buy the dvds/donate.
i’m so tired of all the copyright fascists and their talk about stealing, they have the right to call it [unauthorized sharing of copyrighted media] whatever they want but if they keep misusing the word like that it won’t be associated with something bad anymore and it’ll lead to a lot of confusion.
Digital files have no value. Movies, music, literature, doesn’t matter. The physical product has value. People will pay for that. A downloaded digital file I will never pay for, nor would I expect anyone to pay for a digital download of anything I produce.
Eventually all information will be free. There’s no way to stop this with the evolution of the internet. Musicians will be forced to perform to earn a living. Admittedly, this will mean fewer musicians (and fewer pre-packaged product “performers”)but the quality would have to improve and innovation would return.
What we are going through are growing pains as we move into the “Information Age”. There are going to be much more devastating and far reaching effects than copyright issues before it’s over but the entertainment industry will have to adapt. They have no long-term option and they know it. What they’re doing now is wringing as much profit as they can and trying to get laws enacted that will help preserve the status quo as long as possible. They are all temporary measures though and our children will look back and chuckle and roll their eyes at how long we took see the obvious.
If the Mpaa and the Riaa had not fucked it up that could of probably been the head of the revolution! But they fucked around with copyright lawsuits and all that $h!t making us hate them. Now they are on a downward slope. They can arrest more people but that will just make us all STOP buying music completely. Then they will be totally out of a job. Way to fuck it up mpaa and riaa! way to rock 50 cent, Saul Williams and all the rest with some backbone! You will lead the way and be remembered for years to come!
Let Freedom Ring!
Sharing is not immoral. When we pirate ANYTHING, we take NO money away from the creator. We don’t take their discs, we don’t take their DVD case, we don’t take their booklets or their artwork.
What do we do? We circulate their product and give them free advertising. When do you see an artist complaining about torrents or P2P? You don’t. Recently we’ve heard artists happy about their music being downloaded so much, with their record sales through the roof AT THE SAME TIME. Torrents create buzz for products that result in HIGHER SALES.
If you buy a book, can you lend it to a friend to read it? ZOMG, they didn’t pay for it someone shield their eyes quick before they read copyrighted material without paying! No…that doesn’t happen. If the friend likes the book, she will go out and buy more books by that author.
What is one of the most pirated and downloaded file ever…think. Windows XP Operating System. I bet you can sure tell how Microsoft’s profits are plunging and they have to file bankruptcy because of it right? WRONG. Even if pirate XP’s abd Vista’s affect their profits, all it does is balance out their overpricing. I think they are happy with their billions and billions in profits. And since Gates gives so much money to charity anyways, it’s not him doing all Microsoft does to circumvent pirates.
Is it immoral to borrow a friend’s CD and put the songs into iTunes, then give him the CD back? If you like the artist, most likely you’ll try and find more music from them. Once again, pirating only helps get names out there and gets products off the shelves.
Our government and law making system needs more input from the most active and opinionated minds of our country, us. People need to wake up and realize the truth about torrents and P2P.
“The taking of a commercial product created through the work and good faith of others, intended and offered legally by them for sale, but taken willfully and illegally with no proper payment by you…….. makes you a true, ethics-free scumbag.”
If they care more about the money than the product they create, then they are filthy scumbags, and they deserve nothing. How could creating a product for the purpose of the money rather than goodwill possibly be of “good faith”? The whole industry is only wanting money and don’t care about the things they create. I will never give a single cent to those scumbags.
restrictions on everything i buy is theft in my eyes im paying for something i cannot use as i desire.
and the likes of DRM is removing all my rights pysically not morarly.
If i buy something expensive like a cd or dvd of a game or movie i expect to be-able to make a duplicate as i own the disc not the copyright, they stop me protecting my investement so now when i take it back to the shop scratched GASP! they wont replace it, but when i try to use my own brains by making a copy so i dont have to damage my original i’m restricted from doing this?
And you call us Pirates? and what we do illigal … i pay money for something i cant use or it dissables itself or deletes itself and you wonder why we choose to be pirates?
i’m really sorry for using comon sense and wanting a content/product that i can use how i please once i bought it without jumping through hoops to use it
When you provide me a way to do that legally then you’ll see my money.
You know I what want for xmas? A debate. A serious open discussion with and about MPAA and RIAA and artists and torrent site leaders. Everyone go to vegas for a weekend and just talk about it. Let the MPAA et all make their statements and let torrent leaders address their distro concerns. I like what I see here, but it’s been too often and it’s become rhetoric. I just wish the other side would step up and respond instead of their rhetoric of “illegal, pirating, condemn, blah”.
Seriously, there must be someone like us on the inside of these organizations pushing the same points we are. Speak up!!
Agreed, completely.
[quote comment="247092"]Sharing is not immoral. When we pirate ANYTHING, we take NO money away from the creator. We don’t take their discs, we don’t take their DVD case, we don’t take their booklets or their artwork.[/quote]
Except that you do. That whole album or movie thing that you share, that’s taking away from the creator.
[quote comment="247092"]When do you see an artist complaining about torrents or P2P? You don’t.[/quote]
Prince doesn’t seem that happy. And I think I heard of this Metalica group that wasn’t too happy.
[quote comment="247092"]If you buy a book, can you lend it to a friend to read it?[/quote]
I think you can do that with a CD too. You might have noticed all those signs at Kinko’s that say don’t copy copyrighted books. Hmm, that seems similar to something else, but can’t think of it right now.
Amazingly well said, I did a nearly identical speech at school for my Argumentative Speech project. Well said man.
I think people would be willing to pay for a higher quality product over a cheaper product, if they deem the product worthy to begin with.
Take for example a high definition version of a regular TV episode you watch versus a lower resolution/quality version.
Either way you get to watch the content but more people would most likely buy the high def version if they found the lower version enjoyable.
I agree piracy is bad but pretending you can stop by shoving the RIAA down our necks just pisses people off and doesn’t solve anything.
The only artists I pay for are the ones who need to money to continue outputting good work.
I think 50 cent said it nicely by saying that major artists have to adapt to the new generation.
People are willing to pay 50-200$ to go see concerts so obviously the bulk of the money they make are outside of CD sells.
So I guess more artists are going to have to go on tour a lot more to get the money they deserve versus being a one hit wonder with a CD… I thought that was originally the dream of an artist? To play to millions of fans and have their music felt on many levels.
Fuck it dude… i still say legalize marijuana before copywrite
1. I download. Movies, games, music.
2. I BUY. Yes, mr. MPAA or Canadian MPAA i dunno what ur sucking-money company’s name is called. I buy shit too. I download games, I play offline – thus I can see if I like the gameplay, the graphics, the storyline and to make sure it works fine on my computer. Thus, I dont spend $50-$70 on some game that I mite not like! If i really like it, I buy it because I want to play it online.
Music…well, how am I supposed to get Romanian music in Canada? Enlight me. We don’t have that fancy iTunes store in Eastern Europe.
Movies. I rent movies most of the time. BUT I first download the shit on my computer, I look it over, usually I look at the whole thing, YES, I LOOK AT THE WHOLE MOVIE. Then, if I like it, I go rent it to watch it in HD on my nice widescreen monitor. Or if I really love it, I GO AND BUY IT FROM BLOCKBUSTER!
3. I am not against buying your shit. But I am AGAINST PAYING FOR THINGS I DON’T LIKE. Enlight me again Uncle Sam, why should I give a good portion of MY MONEY to you, on something I don’t enjoy?
[quote comment="246110"]*hands booga1134 a box of tissue.[/quote]
ahahahaha couldnt have put it better :P
Similar thoughts on another blog.
Laws should adapt to people morals. The current laws need change
http://tech-talk.biz/2007/12/22/the-new-generations-do-not-see-an-moral-issue-with-file-sharing/
Sooner or later the music & film industry will adapt to the times.
Their fight to keep the status quo is a nonsense. It is like pretending Internet did not exist, and forcing us to purchase DVD and CDs at the infamous price they used to charge.
Forget it. See what iTunes and Amazon are doing. This is the right way.
Music and movies is culture and should be available to everyone…
I agree that artist should be paid for their work, and so they are. When they preforming live they get money… Movies earn money in theaters…
Big corporations should not get money for culture! Only those who create it should… end of deal…
Copyright is stopping the sharing of culture… Sharing culture can never be wrong…
I’m quite sure, that’s why all the libraries was build in the first place, to get culture to everyone… At least in earlier times, people thought that it was a good idea to share culture…
i use filesharing to get music / videos. if i think the product is worthwhile i then go and buy it. i used to just go and buy the product but got fed up of big companies making great trailers / demos and the actual product being a massive disappointment.
It is going to be very difficult to convince people not to steal music. <$0.45 USD per song, lossless quality, no DRM. I will buy that music. Until then, I torrent my music.
Times change.
Horse and carriages used to be the main transportation for the masses. Then, when the auto came along, the poor makers of carriages went out of business – possibly some of them began to make cars!
The internet is the car – and the record companies are the carriage makers. They need to adapt or go out of business.
sharing is giving to the world
its the opposite of stealing!
those that say stealing
you’re retarded.
ok, wait a minute. with ungodly profits from concert ticket sales that the true fans cannot even afford to attend, (ebay tickets for hanna montana going over $1000 each. what kind of ten year old girl has that money?) millions of dollars from large corporations to advertise their product, is it really the artists getting screwed? No, the fans, the ones who enjoy music (not some pre fab wannabe gangsta shit from some dude that grew up in the new jersey suburbs) are the ones getting screwed. For every pampered, multimillion dollar artist, there are hundreds of MUSICIANS playing in bars and clubs around the world. People who put their emotions into their music (and for that matter write their own music) who are getting paid next to nothing. Download all the music you want. Cause the huge record labels to run themselves to the ground. Revitalize the whole music scene. Put some people in the spotlight that deserve it. go out and see a live show at your local bar. expose yourself to what music is supposed to be.
Think it’s a coincidence that the #1 contributor to U.S. politicians is the entertainment industry? It used to be a toss-up between the unions and foreign lobbiests, but for the last few years, the combined “might” of the film, television and music industries has lined the pockets of both Dems & Reps in Congress with more money to push their facists agendas. It’s a wonder they haven’t passed the use of the death penalty for pirates in the U.S.!
I have no intention of paying for music that is downloaded it’s my dime to the ISP that take care of that for me.The new business model will be the live concerts nothing beats it no video no tape no CD/DVD.There is magic in live concerts being there is the whole experience that I wouldn’t want to miss for the world.Believe me the net will always try to be free and no government(not even china)is going to stop the world from being online now.To hell with paying apple 99 cents for a song it should be free you already bought the damn ipod.If you want to pay the artist go to the concert.If they don’t like to hell with them then.BTW fuck you riaa.
the best post ever! It’s insane how people see an ad on tv about piracy and think: ” that lazybones youth that just don’t wanna buy for all their products, what a shame, fucking thieves”… people are just stupid at all… Watch something on TV and that’s it they create a opinion with only an ad… here in brazil, there’s a kind of RIAA and they put a lot of propagandas about it and people just say: “yeah, that’s it, fucking thieves”
riaasuxdix said:
“To hell with paying apple 99 cents for a song it should be free you already bought the damn ipod.”
YEAH. And we pay a lot for a car, too, the gas oil and tires should be free!! STEAL GAS. STEAL OIL!! STEAL TIRES!!
You people are truly morons. Truly.
Piracy is the new ways to get music just get over it and find new ways to distribute the music if you want t make money but I don’t care about the money,I’m in it for the music!
is not piracy you dumbshit
its called sharing
piracy = pirates who sail on the ocean sunk ship, rape women and loot someone’s stuff
its not piracy you dumbshit
its sharing!!!
get that right
what a bunch of dumbshit sheeple
[quote comment="249453"]riaasuxdix said:
“To hell with paying apple 99 cents for a song it should be free you already bought the damn ipod.”
YEAH. And we pay a lot for a car, too, the gas oil and tires should be free!! STEAL GAS. STEAL OIL!! STEAL TIRES!!
You people are truly morons. Truly.[/quote]
Your the real moron, you’ve compared digital data to a commodity…there is a major differance.
this is why
pro file sharing
pro liberty
pro freedom of speech, religion etc
anti prohibition
anti net regulation
these are all fundamental rights that we should have, any reason why a goverment takes them away would be in direct agression to the general public, or they have been tricked into doing so, via advanced propaganda techniques.
only once they have a true one world goverment, one world currency, one world army, will they have a chance at completely taking over the internet. this is the only way to stop file sharing.
so if you dont all stop getting on the anti-globalization movement we are all fucked.
Stealing is stealing. Just because someone can get away with it, doesn’t mean it should be legalized. And no, morality is not, and should not be defined by simple majority rules. Especially when, deep down inside, we all know the only reason we steal is because we can, as you say, it’s as much about convenience as it is free. If I “shared” my neghbors bike because it is conveniently there and free, then I am still a thief.
I don’t care if they charge 1 penny per song. I’ll always download for free. And I won’t sit there and look at ads. I’m tired of being brainwashed and manipulated by all of these corporate cocksuckers. They do nothing good for society they just sit there and make money to support their lavish lifestyles. The real people making contributions to society do it and expect nothing, not even a thriving business in return. Our capitolistic system needs an overhaul. We don’t need choice, we need shit that actually works. We need less crap. We need more time for ourselves. We need a chance to do something for the world rather than being stuck in a dead end wallmart job. We need an economy of co-operation, not one of exploitation (which is just economic slavery). We need fewer useless human beings that have no means of survival with their own two hands. We are too dependent. We need less chemically fed crap in our diets. We need less government regulation over our lives. Pure socialism would indeed work today. I’d gladly give it a try. Kick out the damned capitolists, get rid of the politicians, and let us manage our own fuckin lives instead of shoving this fake bs existance of slaving 40 hours a week for pretty much nothing down our throats because we ain’t that dumb, are we? Seems like we are collectively dumb as a people.
Corporations can kiss my hairy cornhole and suck on it, I have no use for them since clearly they are corrupt. We’d all have more by expanding the public domain. Instead these greedy cocksuckers have figured out ways to do almost nothing and get us to be subserviant to them, and they’ll kill all of earth just to keep it that way. They’ll get politicians to rob you of rights that are the spirit of a democracy. All this corruption makes me sick, I’m tired of this elitist bs. Everybody that wants to learn should be-able to get educated, and demonstration of that education should be what it takes to prove that you can do it, not some stupid $30,000 piece of paper from a school but actual demonstration of knowledge, actual testing, which shouldn’t be raping our lives getting us to pay with slavery time. Let’s face it sooner or later they’ll discover ways to make us all trapped, and to make us all into total slaves. They just ain’t gunna do that till we’ve blindly given them all the technology and resources needed to make an airtight implementation of it, air tight as in there will be no means for us to fight their agenda. We are all screwed already and we don’t even know it yet.
StealthC said:
” We are all screwed already and we don’t even know it yet.”
Well. YOU SURE ARE, thinking and ranting that way. It’s always entertaining to see someone rant about how Socialism “works” in spite of a 1000 years of documented, repeat failure. Socialism runs counter to human nature. It will fail everytime. It’s an argument with reality. Those who work within the laws and profit, support the laws. And those who cannot figure out how to make the system work for them? They rant about the need for Socialism, so the proceeds of someone elses work and success must be handed over to them, too. (I don’t think so.)
Poor StealthC. Can’t profit from the system. Hang in there little buddy.
Please keep in mind that infringing copyright is not stealing.
it is a common misconception caused by the abuse of the term contained in the entertainment industries anti-piracy ads helped by the lack of copyright and criminal law background of the people involved in the discussion.
no matter where you are from you can easily pick up a code and check: under the definition of the criminal offence you will notice that:
The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another’s property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
it is hardly possible to “permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use” in intellectual property.
gaetano
Hey Gaetano, you are correct abut this important distinction. It would be good for everyone to understand the true nature of their “taking without paying.” But still.
If you take something you know is created by someone else and intended for proper sale and yet you use technology to hide while taking it for no payment, thereby willfully circumventing their compensation, I hope the ISP’s filter it all and I hope they kick the thieves off the network. Human decency and fair business ethics require nothing less.
Pay as you go wireless broadband internet is going to be big! and very anonymous as well. Will the ISP’s shoot their own feet off! I dont think so. The old make the money from distribution model will not work for the big entertainment companies any more and the should already be competing with itunes by offering 10p a track downloads.
The network is expanding, wimax is coming symmetrical is coming, wireless sharing, bluetooth,open source,
I am a new artist and will not be distributing my art through the current distributers, I will be like Man U dealing direct with my customers, downloading is a lot easier then going out and finding the phsyical product.
The rights and wrongs of copyright are a slight red-herring. What is really happening is a war over the control of distribution of digital data. Record companies make their money using an outdated business model. The younger generation doesn’t want to go to record stores and buy CDs, it wants to point and click, listen and then possibly delete. There is really no need for old-style CD-duplication and marketing campaigns. A musician doesn’t NEED a record company that takes 95% of the price of a CD away from the artist. More bands should leave their labels and follow the Radiohead/Trent Reznor/Saul Williams blueprint. If I had a band right now, I’d upload all my songs to MySpace and just have a “DONATE HERE IF YOU LIKED THIS MUSIC AND WANT US TO MAKE MORE” button. If we get music from its source, we’ll find out its true value. Most of the money spent on CDs goes to fat cat execs and lawyers. THEY are the ones doing the stealing: stealing from the musicians.
8 references to this post
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.