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
201 Responses (Add yours or TrackBack)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 » Show All
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.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 » Show All
Add your response