General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAccording to your values, is illegally downloading a song, TV show, or movie immoral?
For example, downloading a song off Youtube.
| 37 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
| Yes, illegal downloads are immoral. | |
17 (46%) |
|
| No, illegal downloads are not immoral. | |
19 (51%) |
|
| I used to be a pinball champion, but that was before...the incident. | |
1 (3%) |
|
| 2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bravenak
(34,648 posts)What is immoral is the sheer amount of wealth the top .1 percent hold.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)White House and many movies and other videos are public domain. Many channels at youtube ask viewers to download and share their work.
I download when a video takes forever to load for whatever reason and to prevent skipping. And to be able to change light values for playback.
Other than that, I don't download feature films unless they're PD.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I own so many DVD's though, I rarely watch anything online. Remember downloading songs a long time ago, but th quality was always off. No worth the stress.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)and want to get rid of as I don't want any more stuff. DVDs will be a thing of the past soon, like VHS, AFAIK. Everything is going to be digitized.
I converted all my VHS, either news, TV and personal videos to mp4s to get rid of the bulky cassettes. Never uploaded them online, though. My operating system isn't current. Everything online is becoming a hassle.
I can watch a DVD on my computer, but it takes over all the functions and I can't do other things. I prefer to buy CDs for the sound quality and let the computer convert them to mp3s and get rid of the CD. Last one I bought was a Linkin Park album. I used to buy from iTunes with those pre-paid cards, but it's not working for me as it insists it connect to my old computer.
As far as watching online, I surf too fast and don't want to make a virtual 'appointment' to see a film online, which is what viewing online is. Same as those movies you can 'buy' on Amazon but only view a few days.
I prefer hard copy and may not view it for months, and want to be able to stop it if I'm busy. The guys selling this stuff act like it's a live theatre performance complete with popcorn. Huh, uh.
It's just more data. I think they hurt their revenue stream with this platform as not everyone is able or wants to view within the limited time frame they want to confine us.
The White House videos are reference material that anyone can download...
Ms. Toad
(38,436 posts)All acquiring copyright requires is for a creative work of authorship (like this post, for example) be recorded in a form which is capable of copying. Ability to copy (i.e. not protected) does not mean it is legal to copy - or that the author won't decide to enforce his/her copyright rights against you.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Why would I need to download something I can view anytime? And if it is on YouTube and available to do anything with can't the public assume it is legal?
But, I have paid a lot of money to ITunes for music I have lost due to their incompetence. Are they the thieves you are after?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Don't lots of people get hit with data overages if they download too much? Let's say you want to hear that song every day. You could download it once, at 20mb or whatever, or play it daily, making it something like 600 mb a month.
Ms. Toad
(38,436 posts)It is no more legal to take material off YouTube because you can than it is to walk into a home the owner has left unlocked and take his belongings.
Licenses have to be affirmatively granted to rely on them - meaning the author has to say or do something to invite you to copy his/her material.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)and they aren't continually sued. I doubt you'd have much luck suing a viewer who wouldn't really be expected to know better.
Ms. Toad
(38,436 posts)That's the way the law works to protect hosts like YouTube.
As to third party materials (you post something you don't own the rights to): A decade or so ago the law so that You Tube (and places like it which allow others to post without controlling content) are presumed innocent until they are notified by the injured party. If they let it stay up, then they lose their presumption of innocence - which is why they take it down so quickly. That doesn't mean that anything still standing has been cleared and is free for the taking - it just means that YouTube has not been notified that it needs to cover its rear end by taking it down yet. (If it doesn't take it down once it is notified, it may be liable along with whoever posted it for infringement.)
As to material posted directly by the owner - posting material online is NOT a license to download it. That is the equivalent of saying that if a car door is unlocked, it is legal to drive off in it. You can admire the pretty car (or video), but it isn't legal to take it just because you can.
Viewing it is different - if you post your own work on an open website, you are granting a license to view it (even though the process of viewing it actually makes a copy on your computer).
People downloading stuff do get sued. I've defended some of them - although there is very little in the way of a defense which can be raised because downloading stuff (as opposed to viewing on the site where the owner placed it) really is against the law. Whether you get caught or not - that is a different question. But if you get caught, there aren't many defenses. And ignorance of the law isn't a defense that stands up in court.
countryjake
(8,554 posts)so I guess I'd have to say no, my morals wouldn't be involved if I did actually do such a thing.
If I made a living off of stealing artists' work, that might be a different story.
TM99
(8,352 posts)This is what I use.
http://keepvid.com/
Sometimes I want a video or audio file for offline viewing. I don't always want to be connected in order to consume my media.
countryjake
(8,554 posts)There's one video in particular at YouTube that I have viewed many times just these past few months. It dawned on me how I might feel if I went to watch it one day and the person's channel had been deleted. Many of my favorites at that site have disappeared over the years, as people come and go, or YouTube knocks them off for something they've done wrong, so my bookmarked links tell me the video is no longer available. Losing access to that specific video would make me very sad and it'd be nice to save it, if I could.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)sad TV face that says a given video has been deleted, or is no longer available 'in my country' or whatever.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,153 posts)lots come up.
I use Mozilla's Download Helper. almost 6 million people have downloaded this app.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/video-downloadhelper/?src=search
countryjake
(8,554 posts)And I thank you for the tip.
I just never knew that it was possible to snag something off of YouTube; shows how hep I am to the wonders of the Age of Information.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,153 posts)Surprising number of documentaries and older movies on YouTube.
I download while doing other things, makes for faster watching, cause I have a slow connection for streaming.
countryjake
(8,554 posts)It's a personal one. My daughter's dear old woofie died this year and there's a video of her running around, digging holes, and playing like a pup.
JonLP24
(29,893 posts)but it isn't of any use to me. Trying to find quality TV shows or movies on the internet for free is harm to come by and just usually end up running into virus traps and junk. I don't listen to music much but since I can hear any song I want through Youtube I have no use for downloading.
Plus I'm able to watch DirectTV streaming online which gives me access to shows & movies on HBO, Showtime, etc that are available to watch online so if I want to watch quality TV shows, I don't have to look far to find it.
Only time when I break the rules is to catch Arizona State games at front row sports, I really only use that site to catch local teams though I did watch USC @ Arizona game (South implications). I can use Sunday Ticket and near future NBA League Pass & NHL Center Ice available so sports shouldn't be much of a concern. I have yet to use Big 10 Network or SEC Network but they are available.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)download/install Vuze in a couple of mouseclicks (literally) and then head to www.thepiratebay.se (there are others; this is a better one) for content.
About the only thing to be careful of, assuming you get internet access from a cable/dish tv provider like most do, is they may send you a nastygram if you download anything that eats into their revenue stream, like HBO shows if you're not a subscriber. Basic TV shows and music they couldn't care less. It's not very hard at all to download an anonymizer like getprivate if that concerns you.
get the red out
(14,007 posts)If someone gets a traffic ticket that doesn't make them immoral, though what they did was illegal.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Hulu, CBS Sports, etc. simply don't stream outside of the US, so by definition they aren't losing my business if I torrent something from one of them. iTunes doesn't offer a Linux client, so any music that can only be bought there and not on Amazon, etc., isn't losing my business if I torrent it (I only have Linux computers). Ditto Netflix.
That said, if the artist and publisher are making a good-faith effort to let me buy the product, I consider it wrong for me to circumvent that.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)to download and copy all you want. My favorite is http://www.jamendo.com There are some great acts there.
hunter
(40,530 posts)Get your art out there, and maybe you'll become well known enough that the money machines can't ignore you.
If not, your art is still out there.
http://creativecommons.org
Creative Commons, attribution, non-commercial is an excellent tool for this purpose.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)If you are asking if it is wrong to use, in any way, copywrited material without compensating the copywrite holder for it, yes, that is theft, which is also immoral.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Music that was never reissued on CD-lots of obscure old albums.
I have downloaded tons of ebooks of stuff I already own in print.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Moral if the content owner chooses not to sell legal downloads. Also moral if you already have bought the content.
tblue
(16,350 posts)I used to download using napster but as soon as Apple offered a mechanism to purchase, I never used Napster again.
Mugu
(2,888 posts)badtoworse
(5,957 posts)If you take something that's not yours, what difference does it make how you do it?
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)The OP was giving Youtube as one example, not saying one was better than another.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)So go pound sand buddy.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)That's brilliant!
DanTex
(20,709 posts)from the owner. If you steal something from the house, the object goes missing. If you steal an mp3, you're actually just making a copy of the mp3, so the owner gets to keep his or her original also.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)I'm a decent photographer. I'm fine with people looking at my pictures and I like it if they enjoy them. I would be upset, however, if someone copied my work regardless of what they did with it because I want it to remain unique. Is that not my prerogative?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)and making an unauthorized copy. That doesn't mean it's right, but it does mean that the moral question is different.
As far as your photography remaining unique, that's different also from downloading a song. It's closer to a privacy issue (though not exactly that either). Songs that are recorded for sale are obviously not meant to be kept unique. But even in your case, I imagine you would much rather someone (particularly someone anonymous on the internet) made an unauthorized copy than someone stealing the original so that you couldn't enjoy it either.
Intellectual property is simply not the same as physical property. Laws exist to protect intellectual property, and they exist for a reason, but it's not the same moral question as breaking into someone's house and stealing physical objects.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)IMO, doing something you know to be wrong is immoral and that was the OP's question. If the owner of the IP doesn't want his work copied, you taking (stealing) something by doing so. The fact that you consider what you are taking to be of little or no value is irrelevant.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The moral question is more complicated. IP in general is more complicated than physical property. Once it is created, the supply is infinite. Legally, the creator is given a temporary monopoly as a reward, and in order to incentivize people to invent things. The point is to mimic physical property in such a way that society as a whole benefits.
When you pirate songs, you are violating the law, sure, but are you harming society? Are you harming the person who created the IP? That depends. One one hand, you can copy IP with the intention of selling it for your own profit. This is clearly immoral. On the other hand, you can find a copy of an old song that is no longer being sold for profit anywhere but is still under copyright. Copying this song is a violation of copyright law, but it is net beneficial to society -- you get to listen to the song, and nothing else changes. And there are other scenarios. It's not as simple as stealing a physical object from the owner.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)You don't have to twist yourself into an ethical pretzel justifying why not doing so is OK.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Here's an article I read by Lawrence Lessig on the topic. He brings up a lot of interesting points.
What about used books or libraries, for example? In both cases, people are getting benefits from IP without compensating the creator.
http://www.authorama.com/free-culture-8.html
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)I'll read it on the way home tonight and get back to you.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm not trying to advocate rampant piracy here. Just saying that IP is tricky and the analogy to physical property is poor in many ways, both from an ethical point of view but also from the point of view of economic efficiency.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)I'd say you're correct in that illegal and immoral are not necessarily synonymous in this context. The article identified four different scenarios and noted that three of the four are technically illegal, but not all are harmful. To be immoral, it seems to me that the copying would have to be both illegal and harmful. Assuming that is the case:
Scenario A (copying to avoid paying) is clearly immoral.
Scenario B (copying to sample) is not immoral, provided you either buy the item or delete the copy if you don't buy. If you do neither, B defaults to A.
Scenario C (copying out of print material) is in a grey area. The IP is still owned, but since it's no longer being sold, the owner is not being harmed. At the same time, the owner may wish to reissue the material, and rampant copying could deprive him of that opportunity.
Scenario D (copying material for which the owner has given permission) is neither illegal or immoral.
The OP said "illegally" copying, so I interpreted that as meaning only Scenario A. I agree it's not that simple and you need to know more in order to make an informed determination.
Once again, thanks for a good link.
Ms. Toad
(38,436 posts)The fact that the supply is limited only makes the price the author can charge infinitesimally small compared to the effort required to create it.
I can charge tens of thousands of dollars for the single intricate physical table I craft - because whoever buys it gets the enitre benefit of all of the hours I put into crafting it - and we are used to paying for the entire cost of the hours it required to create it.
If I had to charge a reasonable hourly rate for the novel I write, of which there is a single copy, it would never sell because in order to make a living i might need to charge perhaps $20,000 (a year's work at $10/hour). So my time investment is recouped by selling multiple copies at a lower cost. If you replicate my book for your own personal use, you decrease my ability to recover my costs because I have to bump my costs up for the remaining books I need to sell to cover my time investment - and when I bump my costs up, it makes them harder to sell.
If a book (or song) is no longer in print - you are free to find an existing copy and buy it (under the first resale rights). I'm free to let you make a copy - perhaps because I've made back my investment and I just want to share out of the good of my heart. But it is my choice - not yours.
The point isn't that you are depriving the owner of the object - it is that you are depriving the craftsman of payment for his labor. The only difference is that a physical craftsman is paid by a single sale; the intellectual craftsman typically is paid by making multiple sales.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)If you pirate a book or song that you wouldn't have been willing to pay for, then you aren't depriving the creator. In such a situation the piracy is net beneficial to society, because an extra person gains the benefit of the work, but nobody loses anything.
It's similar in a way to the issue of illegally importing prescription drugs. Researching the drug costs a lot, producing it costs much less. Companies charge a lot in the US because Americans, by and large, can afford to pay. But some Americans can't. Is it unethical for those people to purchase those drugs from other countries, where the price is set lower? Perhaps. But it seems kinda harsh to tell a person that the ethical thing for them to do is suffer or even die because to heal themselves would mean violating the international pricing structure that the pharma company has set up.
One very annoying example of IP protections is that most academic journals are behind paywalls. That means that the general public can't access research, they can only read about research secondhand in the media. To make things worse, the prices are very high, because the places that need to have subscriptions (universities and research labs) are willing to pay a lot of money for them. Some researchers disagree with this, and post copies of their research for free on their websites, which is a violation of the copyright agreement with the academic journals. Do you think these professors are behaving unethically?
As I see it, from the point of view of economic efficiency as well as fairness, there is a dilemma. Once a book or song or study is created, given that reproduction costs are basically zero, preventing some people from benefiting from them is an economic loss. But without this economic loss, creators can't be compensated and eventually people would stop creating things. I don't know how to resolve this dilemma, but I think there is a better way than labelling 99% of college students thieves.
Ms. Toad
(38,436 posts)It belongs to the creator (or whoever that person has assigned the rights). It is not the cost of reproduction that is the issue - it is compensation to the person who created the work.
If there really, truly, is no market (the scenario you are posing by suggesting you wouldn't pay of the book or song) - then the author will not be compensated. It is one of the risks any person creating material accepts - but the flip side of that bargain is that once they create something they get to control whether they give it away, sell it for next to nothing, or charge an arm and a leg for it. It is their choice - not yours.
If you think someone is using a foolish model, and you would be willing to pay them something (but not what they are offering), contact them. If you think they would benefit from your using their product for free as an advertisement - contact them. Bottom line - not your property, not your decision. If you don't like it, work to change the laws (which implement the protections granted to creative works of authorship in the Constitution). And if 99% of college students are infringing copyrights, then perhaps someone earlier in their educational career (or their parents) ought to have taught them enough about copyright that they don't believe that if it is on a website they can just go grab it.
As to drugs - that is more drug regulation than IP.
As far as academic journals, whether the professors are behaving illegally depends on the agreement they signed with the publisher. Some allow professors to retain rights - others don't. Unless you're privy to the agreement, you have no idea whether they have the right to put their material on the website or not.
mythology
(9,527 posts)People want to not acknowledge that they are stealing because they understand stealing is wrong, but they want to justify their actions.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)None of them would have stolen stuff from a store or someone's home, even if there were no chance of getting caught (OK, maybe one or two of them would have...). And it's not just that it "feels" different, it actually is different.
If you pirate a song, the only way you are hurting anyone is if you would otherwise have paid for the song if you couldn't have gotten it for free (or if you intend to sell pirated copies for profit yourself). But if your other option were to not listen to the song at all, then by pirating it, you are increasing your well-being without reducing anyone else's. In this case, pirating the song even helps the artist, because their work gets more exposure.
And the thing is, many people who pirate songs are in the situation I just described.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)If the record company sued you for piracy, do you think your argument would hold up in court?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)What happens in court and what is moral are two different things. Breaking the law is not always the same thing as doing something immoral, and following the law isn't always the same thing as doing something moral.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Looking at where technology is taking us, it seems clear to me that more and more of what people value will exist in non-physical form. I believe our sense of what is right and wrong needs to evolve in order to deal with that. My own view is that we should be highly protective of these non-physical assets and that the owner's wishes regarding those assets should be respected at all times. That is easier than trying to draw the line between what you can and can't do with the owner's permission.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)is that people are MORE likely to put cash in artists' pockets when they can download for free, because they get exposure to artists they might otherwise never have listened to, and then go on to go to concerts or buy cd's, dvd's, or related merchandising.
Ms. Toad
(38,436 posts)that is a perfectly valid model.
But the choice of the sales model belongs to the artist, not you.
phil89
(1,043 posts)like a painting? Is that theft too?
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)I was in a gift sop in Alaska once and there were some beautiful, framed prints of various scenes of Denali Park on sale. The prices for the prints were in the $300 - $500 range. I saw a photographer with a high quality digital camera carefully photographing the prints. Was he stealing? In my opinion, definitely.
In the case of a museum, if photography is prohibited, then I believe that fits the definition of stealing (see Post 150 for the Merriam-Webster definition), even though the painter or sculptor is probably long dead. Obviously, if photography is allowed, the question is moot.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)and I eat their porridge as well.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)stealing means you take something that's not yours without owners consent. Copying is not that!
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)If you make unauthorized copies of someone's IP and get sued, your "copying is not stealing" statement would get laughed at in court.
Kaleva
(40,294 posts)No crime was committed because he apparently had no intention of selling it.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)Copying does not deprive the owner of the property.
Carpenters are not paid every time someone uses a door they installed either. Silly analogies work both ways.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)whatthehey
(3,660 posts)It is absurd to enact laws that mean somebody who played an instrument or sang into a microphone controls and is paid forever every single time that music is played, with no discrete effort of theirs required.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)They're disagreeing with you as to what they believe they SHOULD be.
I'm a coder, but the only 'proprietary' code I've done was and is owned by companies I worked for. Anything I code up for my own use I put a 'free for any use' license on.
And really, most of the people who are down on IP aren't down on IP held directly by the original creator. They just don't think IP should be able to be owned by anyone BUT the original creator, or that the length of protection should be nearly as long before it goes public domain.
I'd put a non-renewable 50 year max protection on any fiction book, for instance, and a 25 year one on any non-fiction book. I wouldn't even allow the silly sorts of patents granted along the lines of 'photographing items for sale against a white background' or 'buying things online with very few clicks' or 'online shopping carts'.
spanone
(141,269 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)If I break into a store and steal a record, the store has lost inventory. If I download a torrent, nobody has lost anything; there are just more copies of that file today than there were yesterday.
The copyright holder's rights have been ignored by me, so it's wrong, but "theft" is just a silly analogy for it.
spanone
(141,269 posts)if i stole your income, how would you feel
Recursion
(56,582 posts)... that don't require a UNIX sysadmin.
It's just not theft. The copyright holder has exactly today what he had yesterday.
It's wrong, and it's illegal, but calling it theft is just dumb. Theft deprives someone of something that they have now, not of something that they hope potentially to get.
phil89
(1,043 posts)would have bought the music if he couldn't get it for free?
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)steal - verb \ˈstēl\
: to take (something that does not belong to you) in a way that is wrong or illegal
: to take (something that you are not supposed to have) without asking for permission
: to wrongly take and use (another person's idea, words, etc.)
The last definition of stealing is particularly relevant. In that situation, the person still has their idea, words, etc. (IOW, their IP).
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Study suggests pre-release file sharing may not hurt a known artist; industry might be another story.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/05/29/report-album-piracy-may-help-musicians-sell
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)...which said "movie pirating is a crime". I said to my girlfriend (a little louder than I intended), "charging $13 per movie ticket is also a crime".
About 20 people who heard me started clapping.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)That sounds like something I'd say. So funny.
I live outside the US and happened to be back home this summer and went to see a movie. It was $11.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)
Beaverhausen
(24,692 posts)I'm one of them.
Not only the studio, but the people who make the equipment used for pre and post production.
The people who work in distribution.
the people who work at the theatre where the film is shown.
the people who support all those other people.
People really need to think about the bigger picture of this issue.
TBF
(36,178 posts)all the rest are associated details.
Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)
johnp3907
(4,267 posts)You said it best.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)Scarlett Johansson and Matt Damon and Kanye West should be paid a specific salary that is in line with the camera operators and sound editors and makeup artists.
No one should be able to become a 1%er from playing make-believe.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)There shouldn't be 'categories' of work that can make you obscenely wealthy that get a 'pass', while other categories go ignored. The Beatles wrote the rather bitter song about the taxman taking 95% of what they made, but even as high as their taxes were, they still became incredibly rich. And the government benefited as well.
First, I believe they should be paid in line to what they draw for the movie. A-list actors would rake in millions & billions overall for the government while on a sound editors' salary? More likely the best directors, actors, and writers will take their talents to other countries to have their films produced.
I'm not opposed to government contributing to art but has to be reasonable and in-line with the revenue the art generates.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Well said, TBF.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)And totally live off the grid.
TBF
(36,178 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)Ripping the soundtrack from a YOUTUBE music video? Go for it. The quality isn't the same, it's like taping something off the radio.
Swiping a pitch-perfect copy of a song? Maybe not so cool.
Back in the day when we stole music from AM radio, we had to deal with the pop and hiss of airwaves transmission, and some jerk DJ cutting the song off at beginning and end (until WBCN 104.1, the Rock of Boston, made the "silent DJ" meme popular--too bad they didn't play a wider variety of music).
"Stealing" music is something kids do. When they're older they might be more likely to buy the music if they can afford it. People who 'stole' music off the radio as kids have probably bought it two or three times over on cassette, CD and now digital download.
I do think that if music was offered at a better price, people would be more likely to buy a good copy. There's a saying that "Fast dimes are better than slow dollars," and it applies here. Sell that music for fifty cents--people will buy it. Sell that song for the irritating price of a dollar twenty nine, and people will steal it.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)and nothing that is on TV in the US is available legally where I live unless it is picked up by one of the television stations one to two years after it airs (and even then there is no guarantee). Movies there is a quota and if they are from outside the country only run a week (a few weeks if it is something extremely popular with the locals).
Even Hulu, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, etc. are blocked.
So anyone who's going to lecture me about downloading, save it and go jump off a bridge.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)It's a fine point, I admit. In general, yes, downloading/sharing is unethical. I still do it because it's the only way I will ever experience the songs and movies I want.
My life changed dramatically in Napster's heyday. I would never have plunked down thousands of dollars for, say, classical music, on the off chance that I might find something I like.
It's just the way things are today.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
liberal N proud
(61,185 posts)One needs to define what is legal and what is not.
Was the video posted illegally?
Was the video originally intended for resale or to share?
Is the video from someone's personal device or professional?
What is my purpose for downloading it?
Truth be told, if it is on You-tube, I would just link to it vs. downloading.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)If it is something that is not available through any legal method then no.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
gvstn
(2,805 posts)But despite his criticism of the workings of the industry during his speech on the subject of "free music in a capitalist society", Pop said he empathised with people struggling in a time of financial hardship.
"I think people are just a little bit bored, and more than a little bit broke. No money. Especially simple working people who have been totally left out, screwed and abandoned. If I had to depend on what I actually get from sales I'd be tending bars between sets."..."The lecture was broadcast live on the digital channel and will be screened by BBC4 on Sunday." [font color=brown]Might be interesting to find a "copy" of the lecture and give it a listen in its entirety.[/font]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2791947/Iggy-Pop-attacks-music-industry.html
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)...is that so many of us rail against the Capitalist system, yet seem to think it should be front and center in this instance. Is that a disconnect or hypocrisy or am I reading too much into that?
Personally, I think Capitalism is sort of 'hard-wired' into our brains, much like kindness and other attributes.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)... but they support free enterprise and many look forward to starting their own businesses?
http://time.com/2974185/millennials-poll-politics/
~ snip ~
There are other areas in which language doesn’t track neatly with boomer and Gen X definitions. Millennials have no firsthand memories of the Soviet Union or the Cold War. Forty-two percent say they prefer socialism as a means of organizing society, but only 16% can define the term properly as government ownership of the means of production. In fact, when asked whether they want an economy managed by the free market or by the government, 64% want the former and just 32% want the latter. Scratch a millennial “socialist” and you are likely to find a budding entrepreneur (55% say they want to start their own business someday). Although they support a government-provided social safety net, two-thirds of millennials agree that “government is usually inefficient and wasteful,” and they are highly skeptical toward government with regards to privacy and nanny-state regulations about e-cigarettes, soda sizes and the like.
For all the attention lavished on the youthful, anticapitalist Occupy movement a few years ago, it turns out that millennials have strongly positive attitudes toward free markets. (Just don’t call it capitalism.) Not surprisingly, they define fairness in a way that is less about income disparity and more about getting your due. Almost 6 in 10 believe you can get ahead with hard work, and a similar number want a society in which wealth is parceled out according to your achievement, not via the tax code or government redistribution of income. Even though 70% favor guaranteed health care, housing and income, millennials have no problem with unequal outcomes.
~ snip ~
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 14, 2014, 09:10 AM - Edit history (1)
panader0
(25,816 posts)I've always enjoyed breaking the law. But I've never downloaded any music or videos, mostly because I don't know how.
I don't steal (that isn't the law I break), I consider stealing to be the main immoral act- if you lie, you steal the truth, if you kill, you steal a life, etc. I check the names of who voted which way and I believe those who voted that illegal downloading was immoral
are older DUers and that those who voted no are younger. (maybe)
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)'Not if I have already bought that song on some prior media'.
I feel no qualms about downloading a song that I have previously bought as a cassette, LP, 45, or CD in the past, so that I don't have to invest in extra hardware to convert that song into something I can play from my harddrive.
I believe in buy it once, buy it forever, not 'lose it as soon as the technology is changed so that your old versions won't be playable as soon as your old hardware breaks'.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)It is wrong to steal, including works of art.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)if the artist or company doesn't make it available, or a song is only available if you buy the entire album, or the price is way out of line, then I have not issue downloading it from other sources.
I think most people are willing to pay a fair price, but price gouging or lack or availability push folks to do otherwise.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)This was back in 2000 so a lot has changed in the music industry since. But I used to follow a band around, and I went to a show about a week before this paper was due, so I asked them their opinions on Napster (controversy at the time) for the paper.
They (had a major record label completely fuck them over) told me that they were lucky to see $0.50 per album sale and that most of their $$ came from their shows and merchandise sales (t-shirts, etc). They said if people were downloading their music via Napster and then seeing their shows, they were coming out ahead.
I will also add that copying music is nothing new. As a teen in the 90s, my friends and I used to make copies of our CDs (on tapes) to share with our friends. We also spent hours making mixtapes.
Also is backing up music illegal? I had to go to great lengths to rescue my hard drive (and music) from my old computer just so I can update my ipod and I vowed never to do that again. I have a 64GB flash drive that is reserved solely for music and regularly add files to it. Is that illegal? (I just don't want to buy songs twice).
randome
(34,845 posts)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)with limited impediments, then yes, I believe the act would be immoral. I feel that those who can justify cheating artists are called republicans.
I would have to think further on the topic if something were difficult to purchase yet readily available for free.
Throd
(7,208 posts)hunter
(40,530 posts)If someone wants me to pay them for their art, I do. I especially like to buy art directly from the artist. That has more meaning to me than mass-market corporate owned art.
I will occasionally make personal backup copies of media I've purchased, maybe because I lived through so many years of kids and machines destroying audio and video cassettes.
Our family also tends to share physical media like books, CDs, and DVDs, which probably reduces in a small way the total sales of this media.
On the other hand we buy a lot of books and other physical media to give away as gifts or specifically for lending. I have a couple of books I won't lend out because of sentimental attachments or notes written in them, but I'll usually have another copy of the same book that I will lend out.
I suppose I could copy a movie I rented from the RedBox, or record music from YouTube, but why would I do that? I often think all the anti-piracy messaging is a subtle marketing ploy.
This stuff is so valuable people steal it!!! Don't steal it or we'll call the FBI!!!
And good consumer-person thinks, Oooh, this must be really valuable! That $29 I spent wasn't wasted!
And that's bullshit most of the time. That DVD is going to end up in the $5 bin at Wal-Mart, and then it's going to be a $1.50 at the thrift stores, and then your grandkids will be digging through your dead old person crap thinking "What the hell? Someone paid money for this?"
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)But they are all crimes. particularly when it comes to music, you are often taking from people who can't afford it in many cases (yes there are big stars who are doing quite well, but there are plenty who aren't).
That said, this is one of those issues where people don't like to be made to feel guilty so I expect there has been some strong pushback.
Bryant
Dr. Strange
(26,058 posts)Somewhat lost in the discussion here is that simply viewing a video on Youtube can be copyright infringement.
For example, if you view the video below:
you are downloading a copy (albeit temporary) and unless this video was put up by Laura Branigan and/or VH1, you're likely violating copyright by watching it. (After all, you haven't paid for it.)
Is that immoral?
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)its immoral but far less immoral than many other things
Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)
La Lioness Priyanka This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)
La Lioness Priyanka This message was self-deleted by its author.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)I've never bought into the whole "piracy is theft" argument. It's clearly a violation of your legal rights, but there's no automatic link between the law and morality.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I pay Spotify $10 per month, and I can listen to virtually any song, anytime I want to. For the handful of songs they don't have, I can add songs from my local library. Whatever I want to listen to, whenever I want to listen to it--that's worth $10 per month. No, I don't feel at all bad about having downloaded music when my other option was to listen to the garbage spoonfed to me on the radio. Get the right business model, and they will come.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)TV show, or movie.
If there truly is a just God - than there is a special place in hell for those monsters and human devils.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)YES, ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL AND IN THIS CASE IT IS THEFT WHICH IS IMMORAL.
Are you thinking there are some held "values" which perceive theft as NOT immoral?
KentuckyWoman
(7,385 posts)Depending on where you live downloading from Youtube for personal use may or may not be legal. Depriving an artist of a paycheck to get a free download is another conversation.
Forget free...... BUYING a legally made and sold product that you know deprives a worker of a fair wage has questionable morals as well.
Sometimes the choices are limited or are ones we don't want to make. I know simply sitting here using the internet requires the use of electronics made in places with very poor wages transported to me via the use of burning fossil fuels and uses electricity created in some environmentally questionable ways.
So this post can be argued as immoral. I would rather my immorality than to be unconnected in the world I live.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)
Thank you. vi5
(13,305 posts)Was it illegal or me to record TV shows on my VHS all those years?
Was it illegal for me to make duped copies of my friends cassettes in high school?
Is it illegal for me to borrow a movie from the library and copy it to watch it later? Or even just to watch it at all without paying?
Is it illegal for my friend to let me borrow their copy of a Blu Ray?
Bottom line is that I try to never pirate. My first choice is to either stream something on Netflix or Hulu, and then if not available in either of those formats, to buy or rent it on Itunes.
Have I or do I on occassion pirate something? Sure. Usually it's either something I have or had on another format and want a digital copy of. Or if it's something that the content owner is making it prohibitive for me to see without jumping through hoops. And by taht I'm pretty much only referring to something like Game of Thrones for which my option is to either pay for HBO to watch only that show for 10 weeks, or to wait a year to get it on DVD or itunes. Network shows or even basic cable shows are available to purchase or stream the day after in most cases, and when they are I'm more than happy to use the legal methods.
I know that doesn't make it morally correct or even justifiable, but the industries we are talking about here engage in all manner of shady, consumer-unfriendly practices that are just as immoral in some ways. If we're going to play the morality game then pretty much the only solution is for all of us to boycot most forms of entertainment. I don't think Hollywood wants us doing that either.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)Much like open source software, not every artist has the same vision of how to record and sell their work. Some choose Public Domain as a way to reach a larger audience. Even artists who are bound in contracts with publisher, use one week free downloads and the like to reach that bigger audience. For a performing artist, the real money gets made at live shows. A band like U2 or the Stones routinely get 90% or more of the gate plus something on concessions. Compare that to 2-cents per copy royalty on a song -- one fan who will pay $85 to come to a show is worth about 16,000 downloads on iTunes.
Some PD music is pre-copyright and some is put there intentionally by current artists. This site preserves many early recordings by distributing them in PD:
http://publicdomain4u.com/
Chan790
(20,176 posts)As a creative worker, I have great sensitivity to copyright and protection of intellectual property. I don't download music or TV or movies because there is a way to obtain access to them that protects the copyright holder/artist and doesn't cost me anything or at-least not more than a low subscription fee.
I use Spotify for music.
I get my TV from the provider's website or Hulu or Amazon or Redbox or Netflix.
I get my movies from the same.
I get other visual media from places like YouTube, Vimeo and other sites more specialized to the subject matter. (Okay, I mean porn.)
You would think that would put me solidly in the "No/Immoral" camp. It largely does. I do however believe it is perfectly-moral to download or pirate content that is not widely available but may still be under copyright. This often includes rare or b-sides, material out of publication, indie films that did not get a wide release or DVD, old or rare books...it actually serves a purpose to pirate these materials, one of preservation. If you can take something and thus use the fruits of that piracy to bring attention to it, you're doing a net-good in my book...that act of preservation not only keeps the work available, it can lead to republication or reprint or rerelease which may enrich the owners of that intellectual property. Minimally, you're keeping the work from being lost to history or time. More than 100,000 cultural artifacts of this type are lost to us forever everyday.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I downloaded Transformers and Jerry Bruckheimer got hit by a bus.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)
LostInAnomie
(14,428 posts)My prime for music purchasing was that sweet spot for the music industry when CDs ruled but Napster hadn't been invented yet. In regard to screwing over the consumer, this was the halcyon days for the industry.
Here's just a few examples of their prickery:
1. Price gouging. ($24 for a cd)
2. Collusion. (cds cost less than a cent to make but were ALWAYS priced similarly)
3. Listening to a cd prior to purchase was difficult so albums would be 90% filler songs. This allowed them to spread good songs over multiple albums.
4. Double and Triple cds. So you had to pay +$50 for an album that was 90% filler.
5. Not releasing singles for one hit wonders, so you had to buy the full album.
6. For popular artists, only including a remix version or their popular song on the full album. Forcing you to buy the song you want as a single (usually for as much as you bought the whole album for).
I could go on, but suffice it to say, I do not care one bit if almost every music exec goes bankrupt.
Beaverhausen
(24,692 posts)Do you not understand how business works?
LostInAnomie
(14,428 posts)Technology has taken the away the choke-hold the industry had over the process. Adapt or die.
Beaverhausen
(24,692 posts)but whatever helps you sleep at night...
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)
kentauros
(29,414 posts)
unblock
(56,111 posts)right now our society effectively tolerates this behavior, and as such it's you can't overrule that and unilaterally take what isn't yours.
but the real immorality lies with those refusing to provide something when its marginal cost is effectively zero.
then again, that, in turn, is a problem with our general economic system, which doesn't otherwise compensate artists appropriately.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)If not, why not and in what ways does it differ from downloading? This is an old argument.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I'd wager that "illegal" downloading is killing music industry profits, if anything.
Rex
(65,616 posts)
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)erates.
Now, that doesn't mean I think everyone should go out and download everything all the time and no artists deserve to be paid for their work...but at the same time, companies many times are making things MORE difficult to obtain legally, when technology is evolving and things should be getting EASIER. I believe it is up to the consumers to put forth a good-faith effort to obtain music, tv, and movies legally and at a fair price, but if things are not available or are not at a fair price, the consumer may choose to bypass traditional means of acquiring media content.
ProfessorGAC
(76,315 posts)Those very may well be somebody's living. If it isn't explicitly stated that the download is free, i have a problem with doing it.
tuhaybey
(76 posts)I don't think it is really a moral question at all. Corporate profits are a practical, economic, issue more than a moral one IMO.
But, even on that front, I don't think it is bad at present. Right now, the media industry just isn't offering anything comparable. Torrent has a wider selection, titles are available earlier, a smarter network design and obviously wins on pricing. If the media industry really can't offer something comparable, then we shouldn't use laws to prop up an outdated model. If that's the case, they will just need to retool and focus on product placement more and paying viewers less or some such thing. The better approach for them in the short run though, IMO, would be to try to come up with a more competitive offering. Services that have more titles, get them quicker, and are available at a more reasonable price. The media industry needs to offer a Netflix-type service, for a Netflix-type price, but with a far, far, larger catalog of content. Right now, the only services with that kind of catalog charge many times as much as cable tv did despite not having even a small fraction of the infrastructure costs. That's just not going to hold water.
If traditional media distribution mechanisms only survive because we force people to use them, that means they shouldn't survive. I think they can find a profitable role in the modern content distribution world, but frankly, a lot of these companies grew so huge because they had a lock on distribution models that are no longer relevant like getting physical CDs into stores and whatnot. They do probably need to downsize significantly to reflect their new role in a world where distribution isn't the problem that needs solving.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)If I have a legit copy of a game or movie or song and I download one without the anti piracy crap on it ABSOLUTELY NOT.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)What is your take on the legality of purchasing music secondhand. My local thrift store has a pretty good selection of CDs for about $1-$2 and I have purchased them there before. Am I ripping off the artist by buying the CD used (where someone else already paid the royalties) as opposed to new?
And what about if I rent a movie as opposed to buying it? What about taking media out of the library?
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Person A buys the license and listens to and enjoys the music. They then sell it (and retain no copies) to the music store. Person B then picks up the album for a few bucks. Basically Person A has sold their use rights to Person B.
Renting is the same thing, you are purchasing a temporary license to view the material. The holder of the copyright still has control over their exclusive rights. This would be covered under compulsory licensing where a copyright holder is compensated for the use.
What about cover bands or other music in general playing in a club? The club owner does (most do) pay royalties for performances of material that is covered under copyright. This is why businesses pay more per month for satellite radio than the average home user.
KentuckyWoman
(7,385 posts)If you buy the CD used or rent a movie then the original owner no longer has the benefit of the product.
My husband and I have a particular CD we both like to listen to in the car. Sometimes I hoard it for awhile and sometimes he does but we don't COPY it so we can avoid buying a 2nd one.
Netflix basically rents movies for "free" with a membership..... but they pay contracted fees (royalties) based on the consumption. Same with Pandora. Same with libraries that now have digital media available.
As long as the publisher and artist are getting paid for every copy consumed then it's all good.
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)It's *only* immoral for the new-release entertainment -- i.e., my friend who hasn't been in a movie theater for 6-8 years and always holds viewing parties for the latest X-Men or Avengers movie like two weeks before the "official" premiere, which is usually some pirated pre-release, unfinished, unedited proof copy with shitty sound and loose lines and polygons in place of refined CGI...I saw a pre-release "Wolverine" like this, and it was unwatchable (but I was the only one at the party who thought so)...
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)We were never signed to any label. Everything we produced we paid for out of pocket. This included studio time, engineers, equipment rentals, cover art, etc... We spent about 14 days in the studio to create our first album.
We sold our CDs at our shows (mostly college venues) for $5. Our first album paid for itself about 5x over throughout the course of a year before sales fell off. This was not bad. Not great, but not bad. We held back about 20% from each CD sale to produce our second album, and us band members kept the remaining money after taxes and concessions (we paid the drummers wife to sit at the concession stand and sell the CDs).
Here is where that $5 went.
Sales tax = $0.28
Printing, stamping and packaging = $1.00
Drummers wife = $0.50 (average)
Kitty fund = $1.00
Band Member (each) = $0.45
So, on a good evening of sales each band member could stand to make about $40 or so from the CD sales. Not too shabby.
Our second production did not have the same result. We had been working out songs throughout the year, and decided to put together a new album that winter. We again produced it ourselves. We used a different studio (much better setup), but the same engineers, and album artist. Production on this album cost a little bit more, but the product that came out of it was awesome.
We decided to sell it for the exact same cost of $5 (college students are not known for having money). What we did not know at the time, was that someone (not sure who) who was part of the production team had already decided to put the album out there on a file sharing service. This was not a decision of the band. Now on average with our first album we would sell about 100 or so CDs in an evening. We picked up touring again at the start of the spring semester. I remember having an ugly pit in my stomach when we played the first show and started playing one of our new songs and I saw a handful of folks singing along.
The first 3 shows we had really strong CD sales. About 150 to 200 or so copies per evening. However, after that there was a sudden and dramatic drop off to the point we would be lucky to sell 5 copies. All said and done we lost about $1,400 each on the album.
We had the misfortune of being right at the collegiate epicenter of file sharing. Who knows how much we would or could have made if it were not for file sharing? Perhaps it was file sharing, or perhaps the album was a steamy pile of crap?
Now on a technicality, music / movie / TV / etc. piracy is not theft, it is an infringement of the exclusive rights (copy / print / distribute / etc.) that the holder of the copyright has.
All said and done, I would do it differently if given a second opportunity. Production costs are way cheaper, and distribution methods are far more favorable to the non-signed musicians these days. But, in the end, I still create music, I still love it deeply, but I choose exactly when and with who I share it.
I look at it like this. Imagine a visual artist, pours their heart and soul into a painting. After they are done they hate how they felt, they hate the painting and do not wish to share it. She then throws a party and an uninvited guest finds the painting, and they take a picture of it and then post it on the internet. Is that immoral?
bemildred
(90,061 posts)
Chimeradog
(83 posts)If downloading stupid youtubes is immoral, then what do we make of war criminal Donald Rumsfeld, Cheney, et. al.
I am personally sick of the lame discourse in "US msm" and "free social media" like fakebook, owned by In Q-Tel/cia.
....Producers make tons of "immoral" money off Hollywood garbage. as do war criminals.
Youtube is the LEAST of Americas problems.
I sorry but the fact that stuff like this is discussed in our nation these days is just , extraneous. Its what corporate media wants. weapons of mass distraction, and garbage reality trash tv
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)I don't have all the songs for many of these bands and like to "get into the mood" before the show. I download some songs I do not have & listen before the show. I spend between $20 & $150 for a show (not including the merch, food, and parking ).
If they would rather me spend $10 on a CD instead...well.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)If I understand correctly, the label makes the money on the CD, the band largely makes their money on the tour. The record label might very well make more on the $10 CD than they do on the $150 concert ticket. A few artists own their own label.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)He sent the new CD to everyone who bought a ticket.
Times are a-changing for the music "industry". There are many bands that have their own label & there are many good independent labels that have come around. So all is not lost for the old model.
Since CD sales are down, I like to get my $$$ to the artist. I still purchase hard copies of my faves.