The download issue

Remove all ads!

Come on then people, do your favourite pass-time. Debate on this one for a bit! What are your thoughts on illegal downloading?

 

Illegal downloading. 'Nuff said.

 

Even downloading a song or two from a new band to try them out? Even if, if you liked them, you would buy the CD afterwards? Do you guys consider this unfair?

 

I have a CD collection which probably cost 300quid+, the majority of them bought 3 years or longer ago before I discovered the wonders of internet downloading.

I must admit, I download because I'm cheap. I'm aware that the artists (the real ones anyway) deserve a cut of it but I don't want to fork out 15 pound+ everytime I want an album, considering the CD cost all of 1 or 2 penny to create.

The only time I pay for albums these days are if you cant get a proper version online, so EPs etc. Or, if I REALLY like the group in question.

I think what'll happen is in a few years, record companys will slice prices in half as many have done in the States. It'd definitely bring me back if I could pop out and pick up a CD for 5-7 pounds.

Could it also be argued that people being able to download music easily has increaed their music taste? There are bans I'm into now that I would never have been into before, simply because I would never have spent my hard earned cash on something like a CD. But when I get try bands out for free, it obviously makes thigns much easier and increases my range of music taste.

 

If you're getting them from the selling website, then it's a free sample as if you were in the store. Otherwise, no.

 

But honestly, do you think that downloading a band, say, like U2, is wrong? They have millions upon millions of dollars, who cares about 10-15 bucks here or there?

For smaller bands, absolutely, they deserve money for their hardwork. But for huge bands like U2, Rolling Stones, etc, come on.

Or how about bands in which the members are dead, or mostly dead?

 

To me it's a principle thing...it's not okay to steal even from a rich person. I don't go around lecturing my friends who do it, though.

 

It's wierd, because I would never steal from anyone in real life. The thought never even crosses my mind. I think I'm a good person and would never take anything that didn't belong to me. However, with downloads, I'll quite happily get albums, films, even games over bittorrent and I don't 'see it' as stealing for some reason. Obviously, it IS stealing, but it's not treated as 'real' stealing by like, 95% of people who do it... I wonder why that is when it obviously is theft... hmmm...

 

I generally support abandonware of products which you really can't get without searching through ebay or some such. Meaning games and software that are either hard or impossible to get otherwise. No one is harmed from that, I would have gladly bought the original ultima games and other similar classics if they were available, but alas I was born a bit too young to have them legally.

However, illegally acquiring products that are still available I'm fully against, since it's basically theft. My opinion is that it's not considered stealing simply because you can get away with it so easily without any risk what so ever. Generally I'm much more against illegally downloading games than anything else. It simply appals me when I see people who illegally downloaded games such as planescape torment (I'd understand if someone did it today since it pretty much falls to the abandonware cathegory allready). I partially blame these people of the fact that decent PC games are very few and far between these days.

 

I feel the same way...

Gotta go, MPAA's on to me!

 

Ownership and trade of copyrights and all the so called intellectual property is not the same as owning the fruits of one's labour, things received in exchange for it, gifts or what ancestors have left you (even if the latter may fall under the "system" category). I would never like to be the judge or prosecutor in the case of someone who copied or downloaded files not for profit. I believe it's ridiculous when the punishment for copying a game is harsher than for stealing an original one from the shop. I hate copy protection that prevents owners of legally purchased software from making back-up copies. I actually believe that if piracy is theft, then, logically, depriving you of your back-up copy that way is also theft or extortion of some kind. Especially if you end up buying a new copy because you scratch your CDs or whatever such. Or lose the license/box/whatever.

Companies, lawmakers and law enforcement are mixing up criminal and civil law. It's understandable that to a certain extent, the customer should be able to prove or make probable that he bought the software or music legally. But in a criminal trial, the prosecution should always be required to prove that he downloaded or illegally "burnt" it. Where the heck is the presumption of innocence and the benefit of doubt? Even in lawsuits, the plaintiff is normally (by any civilised law) to prove his claim, not the defendant to disprove it. Ordering the defendant to destroy the CDs or confiscate them could perhaps be reasonable in some cases, but any sort of damages should be awarded only if the company lawyers manage to prove that your software or music is pirated. Bad for corporations? Pity. It's better to make big corporations suffer a little in the name of fair trial and civil rights than to make civil rights, fair trial and citizens themselves less important than corporate interests.

Next, prices are obviously too high. It's a myth that you can buy or abstain from using. Corporations create and stimulate the market, advertise, inspire the demand. Then, they manipulate the supply for their own benefit (i.e. further stimulating the demand and teasing). All the ties between various local markets and various branches of the universal, global market, make certain things necessary. Those who govern those things are at an advantage and can and will make sure they squeeze that last dollar out of it. I don't think any country, state, society, which is after all a collection of individual citizens (who are also customers) and laws which are the emanation of the will of such a collection of citizens, should be forced or required to uphold and protect that kind of selfish motives with exploitative tendencies.

This is why, with regard to the software and musical industry, we need to ask the question: who benefits? Who gets screwed? Benefits are stashed by the publishers, distributors and other kinds of middlemen. Artists and developers are not exactly amongs the wealthy citizens, are they? It's not the artists or developers who set up retail prices, either. And how much do they get? Do they always get their due in due time and without difficulties on the part of the publisher? Hell, no. It all too often needs to be sued out of them, as they will try to turn down almost any and all claim the artist makes.

The same way customers are screwed. Prices and copy protections are tied together. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but are console games really more costly to make than PC games? They are more difficult to copy and they are more expensive. If copying were impossible, how much would publishers and distributors charge? Just why don't they cut copy protection research and implementation expenses and lower the retail price by that same amount? Isn't scratching your CDs and buying a new license part of the intended sweet profit, really, even if technically a side-effect of copy-protection? Just why if you dowloaded songs and are caught, you aren't charged triple each invidual song's calculated price (e.g. 3 times total playing time of the album divided by the song's playing time times the album's retail price), or even triple the price of all CDs involved, but actually thousands of dollars? You would never be ordered to pay that much to the shop's owner if you stole it!

People and especially those who aren't proficient in copyright laws, ask themselves why can't I send the song I'm listening to to a friend? Why shouldn't I record the song I like from the radio to listen just to that one song later on, as many times I like. Why one copy per computer (per person sometimes)? There are many things which is believed that should be legal because many people do them. In the case of some countries, downloading or copying is something which is illegal despite the fact that the majority of citizens does it. Very democratic... Of course, apart from the fct that something is wrong with piracy. But still, corporations rule us even politically. It sucks when the authorities (have to) side with corporations despite their primary duty being towards the citizens.

I'm not saying that piracy should be made legal and publishers forced to deliver, but corporate interests must be at least balanced against the citizens' interests. Corporations should not be allowed to dictate prices as they see fit (as high as they can get away with), let alone dictate the law! Software and music needs to be cheaper, artists and developers need to get more, EULAs can't be the law, for decency's sake... Patents need to be limited as well. They should serve to make sure the inventor is rewarded. Not to restrict the particular solution to the first guy that comes up with it so that others can't anymore because someone else has already come up with it and patented it before them. Plagiarism is bad but it's also bad if you're forced to pay someone who came up with the same ideas as you but before (company and product names excepted, within reason).

I also feel obliged to point out that not everything which is illegal is automatically wrong or evil. Downloading and/or copying relies on taking something you don't pay for, which is bad, but it isn't always so clear. In past centuries, artists were paid by sponsors and there was no such thing as copyrights or even patents. So it's not really the natural order of things, doesn't need to be like that and hasn't always been. There *are* different solutions and they *can* work. Capitalism is not innate common human morality, either. Plus, no one should be the judge in his own case, so one shouldn't listen to corporate representatives and lawyers as if they were ethical oracles. Same goes for those who download or copy, though, so the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. It's all the unilateralism characteristic of the current approach to copyrights which really pisses me off.

 

Bloody hell chev, lol, I'll read that when I have about 5 hour spare .

 

i don't have any problem with downloading. I do it all the time, so i can't complain about it. My thing is that if you really like the artist then you should buy their cd, but if there's only a couple songs you like why waiste your money on a cd if you could just download them?
I don't really consider it as theft. I mean, there's plenty of websites like purevolume and myspace where you can go and listen to the artist on your computer... so what's the difference if you download it instead?
And from the artist's perspective, honestly, what's so bad with people downloading your songs? it's a great way to get your music out to the masses. So provided that they buy your cd if they really like you, what's there to complain about? it's a win-win situation if they do that.

 

I don't like big corporations at all. It's just that in the current situation the only ways to support the artists are buying the cd's and going to the concerts, maybe buying some merchandise too - and sadly, numerous middle men get hefty slices from all of these.

As it is, I don't think corporations are going to lower their prices or anything like that. Also I think there are lots of people who will never pay for something they can get for free, no matter how cheap it is or how much they like it.

Illegal downloading, ideally, should be stopped. But the way to stop it is not copy-protections. If record companies focused more on creating legal online marketbases and laws were tweaked to serve the consumers better, this whole thing might actually be getting somewhere.

That's a big if. It's a win-win only for an unsigned band, really. If an artist doesn't mind being stuck at McDonalds instead of playing their music anywhere outside their home town, doesn't mind recording their stuff with modest home equipment and incompetent amateur engineers, getting the music to the masses through free downloading is indeed enough.

If you download your favorite smalltime band instead of buying their cd's, don't hold your breath for them coming to play in your town.

 

Illegal downloading is. 'nuff said about the legality. It's also wrong. Whether or not it causes material harm or not (there're some fascinating arguments backed with some evidence available at the Baen Free Library's website) is irrelevant. So long as the creator and/or company of the product you are downloading would rather not have you download it, you're in the wrong.

Of course, I do illegaly download on occasion (very rare at this point; not for, oh, eight months or so), though I tend to end up purchasing, sooner or later, those products I enjoy.

On the other hand, corporations are in part to blame for the problem of piracy. $20 for a CD that cost pennies to make? DVDs costing $30 (of course, to combat piracy, the film industry is contemplating $1 DVD releases in parts of Asia simultaneous to a film's theatrical release in America/Europe, which says something about the product's value...)? And so on. Software prices tend to be justified, but only to a point; $60 console games have inflated prices, pure and simple.

 

That's why it borders on a stinking lie when corporate anti-piracy speakers call upon ethical arguments such as pay the artist or compensate the manufacturer, without giving numbers. There's a concrete reason why they are not being concrete about numbers, isn't it? If shipping CDs or DVDs to Asia for a couple of bucks each (let alone one dollar) is worth it, then why not sell the same for even $10 in Europe or the US? Because if you threaten people with jail, you can extort more?

 

I hold to the theory that the reason the recording industry in particular is having such difficulties is godawful management; the Mariah Carey incident ($80 million to sign record deal, $20 million a year or two later to end it early) stands out as a rather breath taking example of that. This also true of the film industry, but to a lesser degree.

Of course, arguments about practical harm don't address theoretical morality...

 

Well, Bono needs that money to *not* pay the third-world debt he keeps foisting on power gov'ts and for those bloody sunblockers he wear. The Stones, heck, *how* many ex-wives and paternity suits do these guy have now? David Bowie is right out because he *is* the corporation!

I don't d/l that often to begin with and the music available online is not stuff I want anyway. Like others said before, it's called illegal downloading for a reason.