Content Downloading - Right or Wrong?

[Sam_SemaJ 0]

I'm doing a little bit of research on the topic of whether or not things like P2P, file sharing, counterfeiting and other ways of getting media (music, TV, movies) without buying the media devices (CD's, TV's, DVD's)...are morally/legally wrong. just wondering how this community feels about it.

 

Please don't get too mean, angry, opinionated here. I'm just looking for people to state facts and opinions for either side of the debate. -Thanks

 

-Sam's Player

 

As for my own opinion. I feel that because of the time and money spent on production, there is an obligation to buy the content in its physical form, or buy the media and information from something like iTunes. I have pirated material on my computer, but try to keep it to a minimum out of respect for the creators, and for legality's sake.

[STSF Seiben 0]

::looks at all the torrent files on his computer:: Err.. ahh.. Pirating is bad. :lol:

[STSF NDak 0]

Okay, depending on what you're pirating. The music I pirate, I am not going to pay for it anyway, so no one is losing anything, and most of the software I pirate, probbably the same.

 

Now from a legal point of view, it's a little more complicated and I can launch into the whole thing. But basically I don't have a problem with it.

[Guest STSF_Amnor]

Having been a writer and software designer, I wouldn't want my work to be shared without my permission, so I am dead set against piracy. That said, the one area where I do see an 'exception' is if you have purchased the music already, I see no problem with making a copy of it in order to protect the original disc. (Having had to purchase a second copy of some because the first was broken... I perfer to think I'm purchasing the license to have a copy, not so much the disc itself.)

[WesleyMustDie 0]

I'm not sure I want to touch this one...

 

I don't download a lot of stuff...I have a few mp3s that a friend emailed to me, and I've got a ton of pictures that I've found all over the web that I can use as avatars or signature images. Other than that...I'm not a downloader.

[STSF NDak 0]

I think that the pictures have a better claim to copyright claim than mp3's or software. Mostly because I don't think software is really the same intellectual property rights as opposed to creations of art etc. but that's just me.

[Atragon9 0]

Okay, depending on what you're pirating. The music I pirate, I am not going to pay for it anyway, so no one is losing anything, and most of the software I pirate, probbably the same.

 

Now from a legal point of view, it's a little more complicated and I can launch into the whole thing. But basically I don't have a problem with it.

Hmmm, "depending on what you're pirating," eh? You migt want to change your language there, since the act of pirating something is, by its definition, illegal. And your logic of only pirating what you wouldn't buy anyway ... ::shakes his head::

 

Legally, it is not complicated at all. If it is someone else's intellectual property and they do not make it available to others for free, then it is against the law. You may not like the methods used by the music or software industry, but they have made deals with the original creators (for money, I might add) and they have the right to sell it to others as opposed to having it stolen.

 

I agree with Amnor that your purchase of an item should allow for a "backup" copy made, if possible, as long as the copy is not given or sold to someone else.

 

[Dumbass 0]

While pirating anything is both illegal and unethical there are a lot of security measures that the producers of music and other entertainment *could* use to protect their property - passwords and activation codes for example - that they don't use. I'm not saying that the lack of protection makes it OK to steal but the legitimate entertainment industries shouldn't be surprised when it happens.

 

Personally I've always found that pirated material is of lesser quality than the original anyway.

[Dumbass 0]

What is really interesting is half of us are voting "go for it" or "sometimes it is OK". And yet these are probably the same people who complain about the lack of ethics of big business.

[Col. C.E. Harper 0]

Interesting question.

 

Is it wrong to tape something off the radio? Or to burn a copy of a CD you bought for a friend? Those are things we've been doing for ages before MP3s were invented (substitute tapes for CDs as needed). And yes, it's a fair bit easier today, and thus more prolific -- which is why it's become an issue.

 

I agree with NDak that often times, the music I download is stuff I wouldn't buy anyway -- particularly since buying a single is a rip-off and I don't usually like an entire album. I don't mind buying them through a legal music download like iTunes, though I don't buy many. Mostly I ask friends for copies of this or that , stuff I've heard while over at their place and liked.

 

Now, most people seem to think swapping music with friends is ok -- as I mentioned above, we've been doing it for years. So what about file sharers like Napster makes us feel ethically slimy? The fact that we don't know the people we're trading with? The sheer volume of transfer?

 

::tosses $0.02 into the bucket::

[Grom 0]

What is really interesting is half of us are voting "go for it" or "sometimes it is OK". And yet these are probably the same people who complain about the lack of ethics of big business.

Ooooh ouch. :lol:

 

 

Sam, it's always better to follow the laws. When in doubt, don't do it.

[Cptn Corizon 0]

I have an issue with calling it piracy.

 

If all I am doing is ripping a copy of it for my own benefit, I am really not..."pirating" it because I am not going to make profit off of it, which is actually what copyright is designed to protect, artists ability to be the ones making money off it.

 

The way I look at it is, I am using it for my own personal thing, not making money of it, if I were, I'd expect to pay royality fees. It's like using the word and character from Startrek for our site, should that to now classify as "pirating?"

 

El no. But that's just me. :lol:

[LoAmi 0]

Personally I've always found that pirated material is of lesser quality than the original anyway.

There are also content providers who go way too far in attempts to prevent piracy: Recently, it was revealed that Sony/BMG was installing hidden spyware on the computers of people who legally purchased their CD's. It was around for about eight months before it was discovered. New Digital Rights/Restrictions Management (DRM) software actually claims more rights for IP owners than IP owners have ever had. One End User License Agreement for a music CD actually required you no to use the CD if you declare bankruptcy. Protecting their own property (which is their right to do) should not involve violating everyone else's.

 

One reason digital music downloading and swapping is increasing is because with digital music, there should be no loss of quality. Digital recordings copy bit-for-bit with full fidelity. The music industry is still stuck in an old business model that hasn't kept up with the advance of technology.

 

The industry reaction has been to try to kill off the advantages of digital content. Hence, the whole illegal music downloading thing. If people think they're getting a fair deal, they would be willing to pay for content.

 

Col. Harper brings up some interesting points. In the US, "time-shifting" (read: using a VCR) was upheld to be a legal use of copyrighted material. (In other countries, that's not the case.) And, making a single copy for personal use is considered to be fair use. (same caveat: some countries' copyright laws don't have a concept of fair use). The legal trend, though, seems to be towards handing more rights over to content owners, and for content owners to use technology and licensing to restrict what consumers can do with their products. For better of for worse, most consumers don't think about the details of intellectual property law. They think that if they buy something, it should be theirs. The corrolary is that if they are licensed something, it should at least feel like it's theirs. And, the industry wonders why people don't like them :-)

 

N'Dak,

 

I'm curious as to what type of rights you think should be assigned to software. Software can't be handled as physical property, because it has no physical existence. Of the three forms of "intellectual property" (copyright, patents, and trademarks), copyrights seem to be about the best suited to it. (I would argue that software patents, which are allowed in some countries, do more to stifle innovation than they do to encourage it.)

[FredM 0]

Hey there,

 

I'm just going to focus on the TV issue here...

 

I hold a very...unique view that many non-Americans may also share on this. After spending extensive time overseas and finding many popular shows on the tele one season behind (aka: Boston Legal, Desperate Housewives), I did have a question. Why, in a universe when I can pick up a phone and within five seconds have an international call placed to the other side of the planet, can stations not show current information or now have "global" release dates that are...well...global?

 

The answer to this is, of course, industry mechanics and deals. However, I can say that not everyone is buying it anymore. I recall reading an article in the New Zealand Herald wherein the government of that country is now contemplating changing their copyright laws. What to you might ask? To make it perfectly legal and acceptable for citizens within it's borders to download content from the Internet as long as there is no intent to sell it. The reason? We're talking about a situation were Hollywood is not able to properly explain why they (New Zealand) must wait so long for shows that often they can be purchased on DVD before hand.

 

I remember during a sci-fi convention I went to over there, guests from Stargate Atlantis and Battlestar Galactica were present. Torri Higginson was shocked when she landed in Auckland to learn the show had yet to even arrive. She was afraid no one would have a clue who she (or Rainbow Franks) were. Wasn't the case at all. Everyone was current with what was going on, current with what had happened up til the Sci-Fi Season 2 mid break. This very issue came up and the answer from the actors was...happy downloading.

 

Now I don't know if it'll actually go thru, but I will say this. When I returned to the United States, I was current on the adventures of SG-1, Stargate Atlantis and Battlestar Galactica even though I did not have a subscription to the appropriate BBC station...plus the fact the seasons didn't start until October (and Atlantis isn't even on the air). Did I feel guilty about this? Not at all. Why? Because I know that back where I am now, a cable television was setup and was being paid for. My view was that I had indeed "paid" for the programming, was simply choosing a method of viewing it.

 

The thing is, the industry is figuring it out. A large part of the reason for downloading isn't that people aren't willing to pay for the shows, it's that that's all they want to pay for. They also want to be able to view it when they want...when they have time. Thus, you can now download Battlestar Galactica for what...a dollar or something...the day after it's aired. You have the FCC contemplating ordering cable/sat companies to unbundle all channels. This would mean that you choose, per channel, what you want and don't have to pay for the "How To Cook With Eggs" channel if you don't want to.

 

My point is I think, in the area of television, it is finally starting to come to terms with the global society that is much more demanding timewise. We don't want to wait for our photos to be developed, we have digital copies. We don't want to wait on the postal service, we use e-mail. We don't want to spend money talking to someone on the phone, we use IMs or now digital calls. We don't want to wait to find a phone, we have cell phones. Eventually, the same will hold true for TV. I think it'll be better for all involved too. You won't have shows being cancelled due to incorrect ratings, you'll know how successful one is just like you do a movie.

 

And you know what? While content downloading will still exist, I think you'd find a lot less of it because people would likely be willing to spend .99 to see a high quality, commerical free copy of this week's CSI....a copy they can watch over and over, whenever they feel like it.

 

Oh, and just a note about copyright laws and the "user agreements." While courts do hold that it is upheld the user has read the terms of the agreement (aka: if you click okay, a court says that means you're saying you read it regardless if you actually did), a content owners ability to force into effect many of those agreements is often in doubt. Some agreements can often be found to violate basic contract law, making them void.

[Cptn Corizon 0]

My views on software are a little less formalized and formed. I have very strong opinions on other type of content, a by-product of working in and around the media.

 

But generally my views remain the same. I believe firmly in the concept of the free exchange and usage of information.

 

If someone buys a software product, and then decides to share that product, I have no issue with downloading it for free, meaning the person recieves no return of profit. By that situation, I don't think that by downloading anything I am stealing anything, so long as I have no plans to use the software to make money.

 

However, if you're going to use the software, to for example, create advertisments that will generate profit, you should and need to pay a royality "liscening" fee to use it, since I am making profit I should share that. But the way I look at is, if I am not actually making, or attempting to make, profit, it should classify under "fair use."

 

That said, I am probabbly on the most "left" side of copyright law. :lol:

[LoAmi 0]

My views on software are a little less formalized and formed. I have very strong opinions on other type of content, a by-product of working in and around the media.

 

But generally my views remain the same. I believe firmly in the concept of the free exchange and usage of information.

...

That said, I am probabbly on the most "left" side of copyright law. :lol:

Such an informal arrangement would never satisfy the lawyers. What mechanism would be used to enforce that a for-profit user paid? If there's no mechanism to enforce it, then it will be disregarded.

 

Copyright law can be used very flexibly through the concept of licensing. By default, all rights (use, distribution, sublicensing, modification) are reserved to the copyright holder. The content creator can then put either additional restrictions (read any proprietary software EULA) or permissions (read any free software license) into the licensing. The license is a grant that gives you some rights with regard to the software that you wouldn't otherwise have (no rights at all). I also prefer that information be free to exchange, particularly software. I think I should be able to know what's running on my machine (philosophical), and I think I should be able to fix bugs myself, rather than waiting on the good will of some large company (practical). That's why I prefer to use free software, and about 95% (made up statistic. The non-free programs I can think of that run on my machine are: Matlab, Sun Java, and Windows/Office running under emulation for those rare times when they're needed) of the software running on my machine is "free" in the sense of this type of freedom. Notice that copyright law can be used as the mechanism that keeps free software free. In your "proposal," nothing assures that the status of software stays the same as its authors intended. I would presume that most software would stay proprietary, because source code would be kept as a trade secret.

[knlwtchr 0]

But generally my views remain the same. I believe firmly in the concept of the free exchange and usage of information.

I agree with Corizon here. I share files, too. Not that often, maybe once every 2-3 months? But, its only because I like to hear one song from an album over and over. I dont sell the songs, I only use them for my personal use. Its just like taping your favorite show off the TV or song off the radio, in my opinion. Are we going to go around and arrest everyone who has done that? We'd all be in jail. Or are we all going to pay a royalty everytime a song is played on the radio or shown on TV? Im not. I already pay out the nose for cable and internet and phone and cell phone, etc, etc. Anyway, the files you get from filesharing are all shared files. If you want to make someone pay, you have hit the first person who got the file. Where did he get it? And are you going to now make everyone liable for receiving stolen property, if it was infact originally stolen? Can you follow that paper trail?

[Guest STSF_Amnor]

Or are we all going to pay a royalty everytime a song is played on the radio or shown on TV?

Actually, you do... it's in the form of having to put up with commercials. The stations have to pay to air the song or show. They make their money by selling commercial slots.

[eagle 0]

If you purchase the disc,music,dvd,game,etc. from a reliable vendor you

have done two things,#1 you have complied with and have not broken the

law,#2 you have greatly reduced the chance of receiving a virus from a shared file you downloaded from xyz web page(aka fly by night ,inc.),and

as far as non compatibility issues go,most disc,be it gaming software or

other types of system software usually have printed on the packaging in

clear printthe minimum system operating requirments necessary to load

and run the software...this alternative although more expensive at times

does in my experience belay,or eliminate a vareity of problems in the long

run... :lol:

[Zephrah 0]

I will admit that I have very strong opinions about this topic. I am a theatrical artist, and have written a few plays myself. I have a friend that has fully published her work, and my brother is in the music part of this. The laws regarding royalties are there for a reason, the majority of the time the art/music... is the source of income for the individual and when you "Pirate" Then you are not just taking some sandome song,but something that the artis has worked on. It is no different then walking into a museum, and taking a beautiful vase, becouse you like it. If I didn't have the Royalties coming into me from my work, i would have to find another job, and then I wouldn't have as much time to devote to my art.

[eagle 0]

I must agree with zeph on this matter,although i cannot live and survive on

royalties generated from my poetry,to see it taken or stolen by a seedy non

caring,monentary driven individual would not be a good thing,an artist in any

arena of creativity deserves to be rewarded,not ripped off.

Edited January 10, 2006 by eagle

[Guest STSF Muon]

Welll my question is this.... If everyone is downloading music from the internet without paying for it, how are the artists supposed to make a living? I mean, what would be the point to producing music if no one is going to buy it?

 

::shrugs:: I don't claim to have the answers but I know this problem started with the advent of "digital" technology. It's technology that caused this problem. We are creating, ourselves, more and more ways to pirate stuff as technology advances. Just look at Microsoft and all the patches they have to continually put out to protect their software.

[LoAmi 0]

Welll my question is this....  If everyone is downloading music from the internet without paying for it, how are the artists supposed to make a living?  I mean, what would be the point to producing music if no one is going to buy it?

 

::shrugs::  I don't claim to have the answers but I know this problem started with the advent of "digital" technology.  It's technology that caused this problem.  We are creating, ourselves, more and more ways to pirate stuff as technology advances.  Just look at Microsoft and all the patches they have to continually put out to protect their software.

You are thinking in terms of old business models: Example: a consumer who wants one song thing goes to a store and is forced to buy a whole album or (sometimes) is given the option of an overpriced single.

 

The solution to this problem can't be found in banning technology; the advance of technology is not the fundamental problem here. The music/recording industry's lack of foresight created their own problem. The recording industry could use digital media to its own advantage. Digital technology is supposed to increase choice, lower price and make distribution easier. iTunes and other legal file downloading services show that if people are offered what they want at a fair price, they'll pay it. On the flip side of big media, artists who would rather distribute their own work than sign away most of the money they would make to a label have a business *advantage* with digital media. Some have even made themselves known via those "evil" P2P networks. The technology is disruptive (like electricity, personal computers, and the Internet itself before it), but not bad.

 

As for Microsoft, they're attempting to hold on to their own dying business model. But, most of the patches they put out have nothing to do with copyright infringement -- they have to do with fixing flaws that they designed (some intentionally, some unintentionally) into their software. Although Microsoft uses the word "security" to equal "digital rights management," these are not the same thing.

Edited January 10, 2006 by LoAmi

[Nemesis 0]

It is no different then walking into a museum, and taking a beautiful vase, becouse you like it.

You act like there is something wrong with that... ::looks at the vase::

[Guest STSF Muon]

The solution to this problem can't be found in banning technology; the advance of technology is not the fundamental problem here. The music/recording industry's lack of foresight created their own problem.

And I have to agree totally with Loami here. The music industry did create this problem but has, as of yet, to find a viable solution. Well said Loami!