The download issue

Remove all ads!

heh, I can't believe that nobody mentioned yet that actually downloading is not illegal. What is illegal (in the sense that it violates copyright) is distributing copyrighted works (which is no theft, either; is copyright infringement).

Of course, it might not be ethical... but then, what's the copyright period now? 90+ years? It started with 7, went on to 14, 50, somehow now is longer than a lifetime. That's not quite right either.

Is called illegal downloading because people are mostly clueless, and would rather swallow the line the recording industry pushes, rather than educating themselves a little on the matter.

 

The difference is between listening to the radio and making a bootleg CD. Websites get views, which translates into advertising, which translates into money they can pay the musicians to play their songs; radio stations get listeners, which translates into advertising, etc. Something downloaded on your computer which you can listen to any time you want to without having to support the artists in even the slightest way is stealing unless you paid to download it.

I'm firmly with BTA on this one; it's just plain stealing. You may think that 10-15 bucks doesn't amount to much, and that's true...for YOU. All YOU have to pay is 10-15 bucks; all the artists miss out on is thousands or millions. And of course they then raise the prices to make up the difference, and the people you really end up stealing from is your friends, who have to pay twice as much for the next CD because you cheaped out. You want to listen to one of their songs, you have to pay for it one way or the other. A guest star on the Simpsons may have said it best...

Of course, splitting up the songs on a CD so that you could pay to download them separately would be a good idea, but it would still have to be from a licensed distibutor website.

EDIT:
Here's another idea. A song with advertising at the beginning could pay for itself but be extremely annoying.

 

Huh. How about buying a used book, Felinoid? Is that stealing, too? After all, the artist (writer) does not get anything from this.

Somebody mentioned above the Baen free library. Here's a link. Read the "Prime Palaver" part; that's where the editor makes the case that free dissemination of work is good, since it leads to exposure for the authors. An excerpt

Also, from the same site, read Macaulay's essay on copyright.

 

It's coming along; iTunes would be one example. From what I hear, there's still plenty of kinks to be worked out yet, but we can hope


And I've never...EVER d/l a song without full permission of the rights holder. The closest I've come to even downloading ANY music is a couple of 20-30 sec snippets out of curiousity. Yes I've got a sizeable chunk of my hard drive taken up with .wma's but they were all ripped from my CD collection
(since I'm lazy and hate fiddling with the effin' jewel case - creation of satan! )


Now software...two things, one morally impeccable, the other...erm.

The first sort of d/l I'll make is a demo or OPEN-SOURCE s/w. Former is to investigate whether purchasing, the latter is if I find the freeware fulfills my needs (since again, lazy as well as cheap )
Each of these instances is completely legal (you cannot steal that which the owner is freely giving to you).

The second...is abandonware; I salve my troubled conscience with the knowledge that I WOULD pay for the s/w, but the rights holder does not distribute it anymore (Ultima has been cited as an example, old Microprose games are another) Most a/w sites will remove any title that the rights holder asks to not be distributed, so that makes me feel better...

Note, I have NO tolerance for 'wArEz' and their purveyors - if it's in the stores, I'll go get it there (and save time by asking for a proctological exam while the vendors have me at their whim...but that's a different issue than my obeying the law...)

 

Yes they do; they get the original purchase money. The only way this would hurt the author is if it was a used pirated book; citing a standard transfer of ownership is a pretty weak example, IMO. If you want to get further into the book analogy, loaning your book for someone else to read would be akin to lending a music CD and then getting it back; a permanent gift would be transfer of ownership again. What these illegal downloads would be is someone printing off new copies without permission and giving them away. I imagine there would be considerably fewer writers in the field if a bestseller amounted to a few dozen books that then get reprinted by everyone else.

I assume all those writers in the Baen Free Library gave permission? They get paid with exposure; those who don't need exposure tend to prefer money. And by the enormous ruckus they're raising, I'm guessing that the big name bands aren't just handing out permission to copy.

People can buy and sell originals all they want because someone payed for the original, and they can then sell or give it as they want (Fair Use / Ownership). The problem is when you get into copying, and giving more than one person the ability to use something at the same time when you only paid for one. (This also gets into installs of a game from a single game disc onto multiple computers, but that gets only slightly hazier if one person owns all of the "multiple computers". Otherwise, it's still definitely wrong, and the main reason why now most games require the actual disc to play.)

 

Well, the artist also gets some initial money for music which is traded on the net. After all, we may assume that some CD have been sold to people who put the music up for download. And if that music is popular (i.e., dwnloaded many times), we might moreover assume that there have been quite a lot of CDs sold .

Of course, it is much easier to copy music than books. But then I would say it is just a matter of degrees; a book gets transfered maybe 5 times, a song 100 times (and I don't buy the time shifting argument- that is, is okay if multiple persons enjoy the same book/CD, as long as they do not do it at the same time - it makes no difference from the artist's perspective).

And come on, does anybody want to seriously argue that there would be no music being produced if somewhat freer sharing were permitted? It is true, big name bands won't make so much money (probably a smaller number of people would want to pay the money to get a original CD), but then, would that be so bad?

 

True: I read somewhere that of the 16 dollars you pay, only 1 or two actually get sent to the artist. Sucks for them. In a fair society, the artist would get most of it. Of course, in a fair society, we wouldn't be run by greed, and the corporations would not have as big of a deal with sharing (since downloading is illegal, the sharing part isn't).

*sigh* In anycase, for the people who find it immoral, or whatever, so be it. You don't have to do it. For the others, let us go ahead and do it: if we get caught, sucks for us. Personally, I think the law should be changed. I think the law should be changed so that the corporations don't run the law, and that the punishment isn't paying extreme amounts of money: I think the offenders should either have to paythe equivilent amount of money that they owe, or just delete all of their downloaded stuff. So far, all of these extreme punishment cases have done nothing to stop sharers.

I will try to reform, I'll start deleting my downloaded movies... Anyways, I don't want the MPAA on my ass. I'd rather not pay 25 dollars for a movie worth 5, but hey, I live in ****ing America.

EDIT:

No, that would be great. What would be even greater is if the huge record companies got 10 %, the producers/mixers 30%, and the band got 60%. But noooo, that would at least be semi-fair. Those companies need 90% of the money, because they need to ruin smalltime bands.

Note: those percentages were made up.

 

So one would assume, but, as it turns out, one would be in error. Yes, a number of the authors in the Free Library absolutely need more word of mouth. Others (David Weber and David Drake come to mind), most emphatically do not--at least in terms of maintaining an income that is above what most Americans will achieve in their lifetime.

Even for the them, the benefits outweigh the downsides. I can only suggest you read the essays in the library (and, uh, the books too, obviously--I recommend David Drake ), as they contain all the pertinent information, links to additional resources with additional evidence (yes, even from musicians, and not no-name types either. Not the likes of Metallica, but also not ye olde garage band) supporting the case. As it turns out, exposure leads to money--even if one is already established in one's field.

 

In my opinion buying most CD's is wrong.
What the record companies don't need is more money to fund their jihad against consumers. Their sales going down is their fault and their fault only, the scene had nothing to do with that. I'm not buying something from a huge organization whose aim is to press more money out of me no matter if I warez or not.

They say warez is risky. I've gotten one virus from warezed software. I've gotten my machine needing a reformat countless times from perfectly legal software. In addition warezed software tends to work better most of the time.

For some reason, all the games I tend to play a lot except Civs I have as legal versions, though. Civs because I tend to just throw the CD away when I'm frustrated at not being able to easily stop.

But at the current prices I won't buy the games/applications/music unless I'm suddenly a millionaire - and if the copyprotection schemes keep going in the same direction, I wouldn't buy them even then.

I have no problem with illegal downloading. In my opinion warezing shouldn't even be illegal as long as it's not for profit.

(My current stance is a result of the new copyright law they pushed trough in Finland recently. Result? More people who have sworn that they won't buy a single CD anymore.)

 

Ahh... someone's mentioning used stuff. Publishers and distributors would ideally make your license intransferrable. Just look at Microsoft. They've only recently okayed selling "used" licenses.

IMHO, when publishers put restrictions of all kinds on you (one computer, no copying etc etc) but at the same time force people to buy from them instead of each other, in order to get double the money rather than just the original price of what they sell, it's really close to extortion in the moral sense, even if it's legal for them.

 

Check out this site
http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000420067137

there are other sites that are stating that the creator of the final fantasy series is one of those that is really pushing for this to be in the ps3. If sony does it , the other console makers won't be far behind. On a seperate but related issue , when i got my psp i could download and play most of the old nintendo games but after the psp upgraded with grand theft auto it will not allow you to play any of these games.

 

If anything is the theft in this industry, that kind of thing is. It's worse than piracy. It's a great shame that something like that happens in full daylight. It also means that you can't lend your games or borrow from friends even without charging. What is worse, if your console goes poof or is stolen or you lose it, you have to re-purchase all games. This is theft, plain and simple. If they implement it, they should go to jail for it. I wouldn't shake hands with filth like that.

 

I read in PCGamer that you can hak that back in if you know how, but I'm not going to tell you. Buy a PCGamer (I think it was the November issue, but I may be off by a month or two) if you really want to know.

@khaavern et al.:
The problem is still copying. "Sharing" is okay because you still only have the one copy you paid for; several people listening to a song at a party is okay because of Fair Use, but they can't all take a CD home unless the host was generous enough to buy one for each of them. Getting two (or more) when you only paid for one is wrong unless there was some sort of sale in the store. And again, if the artist has not okayed free stuff, then guess what? It's not okay! (What is so f***ing hard to understand about this?)

Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? More free downloads means they don't have to buy the CD, so why would they shell out the ridiculous price (which they indirectly caused with previous theft ) when they've already got what they want?

@Saber:
Don't even get me started on downloaded movies.

 

I wouldn't worry Fel: As soon as I can get over to my dad's house (he is away right now), I'm going to sack all of my downloaded movies for two reasons: I reeeallly don't want the government/corporations/MPAA on my ass; and I have found that my apparent illegality of downloading movies has lowered the respect that I recieve (or so it seems). While I don't care what most people think, I would prefer it if all of you respected me, as I do you.

 

So you argue that the artist should have complete control on his creation. It is not an unreasonable position to take... however, one might argue that the artist has a debt to the public, too. After all, it is public appreciation which makes his art meaningful. Otherwise he could simply create his song, or book, or whatever, and keep it in his attic. Nobody is making him share it.

Of course, this is not what's happening. The artist shares his art with society, and society gives something back. Copyright is a mechanism of enforcing this give back; the ideea is that the artist would have the unique right of distribution for a certain time, so he can make some money. But this is a right which society gives him; not a natural right. So once he made his money, his art should pass into the public domain, and be free for others to copy, and distribute. After all, the artist benefited himself from this public domain too; his art was not created in a vacuum, either.

Do you seriously believe that the high price of music is due to piracy? I think is very unlikely, to say the least .

This being said, I think is very good for you that you take this ethical stance regarding copying . It is very well and good to rememeber that we have an obligation toward the people which create our art/enterntainment. However, one in general should not forget that they also have an obligation toward us. One which the movie and record companies have tended to disregard lately (see the extension of copyright limits, the shenanigans which the software companies play with their software... licensing, indeed).

 

Art and getting appreciation for it, gaining renown and celebrity status is like flirting with the public. In flirting you shouldn't give control to just one party. You aren't responsible just for what you do but also for what you inspire, what you create craving for.

They say they are raising the prices all the time because of piracy but the truth is that they are rising them because they can. Extremely high piracy could in fact mean the necessity to raise prices to make it pay off, but not just piracy. Compare with Playstation, where piracy is practically impossible for individual users and still hard for organised groups of pirates, and prices are much higher than for PC games.

 

The artist has a debt to the public? They're enriching our lives with their art, and some people just aren't satisfied until they've taken everything they can. This is just another symptom of taking what you have for granted; you should be glad that they share their gift, not asking them to give it away for free so that everybody else's got a couple more bucks while they starve. (Well, that wouldn't happen even with piracy, but I hope you get my point; I know it's in there somewhere. )

Unless 'the public' has some sort of contract saying that each of these artists must produce, they don't owe us squat. The seller is not endebted to the buyer, and the only part of that transaction that entails obligation is that if the buyer pays for something, then they had better get it. Nowhere do we pay them in advance to make more songs.

Regardless, any sort of public obligation you think they may have is more than balanced out by the slander and smut of the tabloids and "celeb" sites, looking to degrade them for a quick buck. If you really want to scr*w them more than everyone else already has, that's your business, but I hope you can look at yourself in the mirror after that. They don't owe us, we owe them.

 

Maybe if they lowered the price, there wouldn't be as much piracy. They raise the prices and less people will buy it. Dumbass-corporations, with their greed and stupidity...

 

This is simply untrue. Go back and check CD prices from the years before downloading became in vogue (or even practical, given dial-up restrictions). Prices were just as high, if not higher.

 

The real problem is the middle men. They buy the music for next to nothing, tack on their cut, and after a few steps, they have more than doubled the price. The problem is that these media are more expensive than they need to be. Corporations create a culture where we are to want everything they make, but then get pissed off when people find ways to get them without them getting the money...

I suspect that if these middle men were to cut their profits, the porblem of piracy might be reduced.