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
[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?)
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 » Show All
Add your response