Download Illegally? You're no better than the looters.

MungBean

Truth be told I rarely download torrents. So whats the opinion on streaming ? Is it morally wrong to to look at something someone else has done?. They put it up, made it available to see. Yes I choose to see it but I'm not taking it for myself. I dont have it available after I leave this other persons website.

Is possession the problem or is the problem solely with the fact that the movie belongs to Warner Bros and Warner Bros doesn't want me watching it without getting money so I am morally corrupt to do so ?

Frank Black

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Anything I have watched or listened to has been freely availiable on the web.

You're in the wrong thread so.

Frank Black

colinod0806 wrote: »

I download tv shows all the time but only because I cant wait to see them. And i almost always watch them when they're shown over here anyway so I can't see a problem with that.

On the other hand I download a lot of music and I have no way to justify this. I can't even blame the price because tbh even if it was a lot cheaper I think I would still probably download it.

I still don't feel bad about it though.

Exactly - it's the people trying to construct some sort of moral argument to justify it that annoys me.

Mickeroo

Skunkle wrote: »

Truth be told I rarely download torrents. So whats the opinion on streaming ? Is it morally wrong to to look at something someone else has done?. They put it up, made it available to see. Yes I choose to see it but I'm not taking it for myself. I dont have it available after I leave this other persons website.

Is possession the problem or is the problem solely with the fact that the movie belongs to Warner Bros and Warner Bros doesn't want me watching it without getting money so I am morally corrupt to do so ?

AS far as I know there's some kind of loophole in the law where it's illegal for a site to host the streams but it's not actually illegal for you to watch them. I'm not 100% sure but I seem to remember reading it somewhere.

Capt'n Midnight might be able to clarify?

Dave_Kilkenny

I can guarantee not one person who actively uses the internet has not committed 'copyright infringement'.
Lets give some examples!!
Watching a song on youtube, if its just uploaded by any person you are downloading it (Albeit not saving the file) you are still committing copyright infringement.

You see a cool picture on google, you save it, you use it as your background - it more than likely has been copyrighted by the artist - WHAM YOUR NOT A WORTHLESS THUG.

Other examples include me downloading an image of say spiderman printing it out, making a stencil out of the image and painting a room with the stencil - Think I got permission off Marvel - Hell no cause I'm actually a closet rioter who loves to smash small businesses up.

You make a video and use some of your favorite tunes in the background - Unless you've permission from the record labels - Oh know don't you dare.

Say you write a blog, today's post is about the London riots you use a picture you find on Google, do you've the photographers permission?

And yes I am aware that creative commons licensing exists but not everyone uses it.
The practice of downloading copied music is perfectly legal in many country's such as Canada, Spain and the Netherlands

Chuck Stone

black francis wrote: »

You're in the wrong thread so.

I have reservations about copyright laws so why shouldn't I be here?

A song is not a finite resource like say wheat or steel. It costs absolutely nothing (apart from the price of the electricity and internet minutes that you pay for yourself) to make a copy of song.

You tell me why people should pay for music or books?

Mike 1972

Dave_Kilkenny wrote: »

Watching a song on youtube, if its just uploaded by any person you are downloading it (Albeit not saving the file) you are still committing copyright infringement.

Actually because of the way web browsers (and computers generally) work its impossible to look at anything on the web without copying it.

First off it gets copied from the server to the "temporary" internet cache on your hard drive. Then it gets copied from Hard disc to RAM

Dave_Kilkenny

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Actually because of the way web browsers (and computers generally) work its impossible to look at anything on the web without copying it.

First off it gets copied from the server to the "temporary" internet cache on your hard drive. Then it gets copied from Hard disc to RAM

That was my point but I was simplifying it in terms of saying "Not actually saved"

GLaDOS_old

While i recognise that copying software is technically illegal I don't see anything morally wrong with it.
If the government licensed the air over ireland to a giant corporation tomorrow allowing them to charge a cent for every breath people take what would you do? Pay them their due because it is a legal requirement? Avoid breathing? or just decide that the law is uneforceable and against the best interests of society and ignore it?
Laws are implemented by society to make it a better place for all concerned but laws only work so long as society in general agrees with them and abides by them. Copyright laws and intellectual property laws were once a useful and important legal concept but they have now been overextended so much that they are out of touch with the reality of todays modern technology. just as a blanket 5mph speed limit would be almost universally ignored people dont feel bad about music piracy because it is exactly the same principle as lending a cd to a friend just on a larger scale.

Kepti

Us pirates are merely misunderstood environmentalists. Think of all it takes to produce, transport, store and sell hundreds of millions of books, games and DVDs.

If you buy your media in a store then you're backwards, filthy, coal-burning scum. You're desperately clinging to quaint but antiquated physical media, enriching already wealthy businessmen, at the expense of the planet.

And then you have the absolute gall to call us the criminals. Shame on you.

IQDENIED

Reading a couple of posts (warner bros and happy birthday etc) got the old brain rattling, any one seen demolition man? with the fines every time sly stallone curses? this will be the future çept for copyrights, you wont be able to offer some one an apple w/o paying a fine to steve. =/

anywhoo... GO WILDCATS!!!!!

Frank Black

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I have reservations about copyright laws so why shouldn't I be here?

A song is not a finite resource like say wheat or steel. It costs absolutely nothing (apart from the price of the electricity and internet minutes that you pay for yourself) to make a copy of song.

You tell me why people should pay for music or books?

Seeing as you've already admitted that you do pay for such things, I honestly don't see the point or need for an explanation.

johnmcdnl

is it wrong to download a song to save a bit of bandwidth/you have crap internet so saving time to load if your going to listen to a song that's available for free on youtube???

why the difference in opinions.. the entire album could be listened to on the youtube but actually going and downloading it is considered the work of the devil...

and if I didn't listen to it for free well I'd definitely not be splashing on the CD anyways so the artist isn't loosing any money in any case... in fact if there good they might even make a couple quid of me if I decide to go to see them live or if I buy a tshirt or some other memorabilia

The only people I see getting hurt ar the likes of Simon Cowell who market music and fill the airwaves with music that has been manufactured to make money...

and at the end of the day - the artist isn't loosing money because they wouldn't have gotten my money in any case.. i can't see how it's considered stealing if no one looses anything...

artist still owns song - I possess a copy of the song which is all I would have had anyways... I still wouldn't have owned the rights to the music...



is downloading the same as looting...

OP - say I just downloaded 10 albums...
now I looted those same 10 albums...

case 1 - no one looses any money as I wouldn't have bought the CD anyways
- artist may even make money if I like them enough and I go to a gig or actually buy the CD
if I didn't listen for free (and yes that includes youtube) you needn't think I'd go and buy them because I liked the CD cover or the name of the album :rolleyes:

case 2 - shopkeeper has broken windows/doors... shopkeeper doesn't own physical media anymore hence either insurance company or shopkeeper takes a loss..
- artist may even make money if I like them enough and I go to a gig or actually buy the CD
if I didn't listen for free (and yes that includes youtube or looting) you needn't think I'd go and buy them because I liked the CD cover or the name of the album :rolleyes:

iguana

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You tell me why people should pay for music or books?

Because if artists don't have some way of being remunerated they won't continue to produce. Musicians make a lot of money from touring so even without sales of single and albums we will always have new music. But other artists, novel writers or those involved in tv and film, etc, almost all need to be paid for their work in some way. Some movies and shows make plenty in merchandising but others only ever make money in the traditional ways.

If people don't pay for books in some way then nobody will write them and even if they do, nobody will edit them so will they will mostly be shíte. Or worse, they will be full of characters taking the time to think about how much they love the refreshing taste of Coca Cola and that when they drink it they Open Happiness. Then they will leave the house and get in their beloved and trusty Honda car which is not only 100% reliable but super comfortable and guarantees Blue Skies For Our Children.

books4sale

^^^^^^^^^^

People will always write books and people will always make music, it's inbuilt in our nature.

Nobodys going to stop doing the above just because they can't make a quick buck out of it.

Not everything in life is about money you know. Some people do it for fun, it just so happens they get paid for it. If the money wasn't there they would still do it.

Best.

ebixa82

I haven't bought a CD in at least a decade. I download everything I can get my hands on.

Do I feel guilty?
No!

Why not?
Why would I pay money so the suits at Sony etc. can make buckets of money. The internet has shown that anybody can produce and distribute music independently. Bands make very little money from record sales, it's mainly through their live gigs.

So I spend zilch on buying music, however I love going to gigs and festivals, both home and abroad and easily spend over a grand a year on them. That's how I support the artist and their music.

So yes, illegal downloading is exactly the same as looting, arson and murder! :rolleyes: FFS

CrazyRabbit

jme2010 wrote: »

This was a debate I had with a co-worker.

I dissaprove of the rioting and looting, but I download illeaglly: songs, games, dvds, iphone apps etc.

He saw this as somewhat of a contradiction.

Are those who download illegally "criminals" as he put it? Or is it "not the same thing" as I put it.

Total grey area in my opinion.

I pirated your post by making a copy of it. Much better than stealing the boards.ie servers I think.

Capt'n Midnight

GLaDOS wrote: »

If the government licensed the air over ireland to a giant corporation tomorrow allowing them to charge a cent for every breath people take what would you do? Pay them their due because it is a legal requirement? Avoid breathing? or just decide that the law is uneforceable and against the best interests of society and ignore it?
Laws are implemented by society to make it a better place for all concerned but laws only work so long as society in general agrees with them and abides by them. Copyright laws and intellectual property laws were once a useful and important legal concept but they have now been overextended so much that they are out of touch with the reality of todays modern technology. just as a blanket 5mph speed limit would be almost universally ignored people dont feel bad about music piracy because it is exactly the same principle as lending a cd to a friend just on a larger scale.

First of all the 30Kph inner city limits and the 50Kph limits on urban link roads are almost univeraslly ignored (NRA measured up to 98% speeding in free flow traffic) as are the prohibition on driving on hatched white lines where it's the only thing stopping people getting into a right hand turn lane.
Few people respect laws that aren't enforced.





It's hard for the entertainment industry to claim the 70 + life copyright periods they do when thirty year old media is being given out free on newspapers and most countries where copyright is enforced most have social welfare systems to provide for the children of the "artist"

it's also hard for them to justify the prices for media when cost of distribution and replication is close to zero - check out the concept of a container for downloads so they can still gouge artists for putting a sleeve on a song

it's hard for the to justify the old model of costs that dated from the time when only the elite could afford media and the size of the market was very small, nowadays you have a potential market of billions with near zero cost (apart from marketing )

iguana

books4sale wrote: »

People will always write books and people will always make music, it's inbuilt in our nature.

Nobodys going to stop doing the above just because they can't make a quick buck out of it.

Not everything in life is about money you know. Some people do it for fun, it just so happens they get paid for it. If the money wasn't there they would still do it.

Music yes, as there are other ways to make a living from it.

Books, not likely, writing a novel is a huge amount of work, people may still write stories but not actual novels or series. Nobody on earth makes "a quick buck" out of writing a book. Books generally take years of work, without a chance of making a living out of it, very few people will actually complete one. Because while the initial idea of writing is exciting and the end result of having people read your stories is fantastic there is a long, long middle of slog which is mostly tough and extremely boring. And as I said, nobody will edit them and without professional, third party editing most books would be poorer.

And as for tv and film, you are off your head if you think they will be made without remuneration. Even the cheapest dramas cost 10s of 1000s to produce. 100s of people work 60-100+ hour weeks in the making of television and film. The majority of them get treated like crud at the beginning of their careers and have to work extremely hard to get out of what is basically, incredibly boring but necessary, technical and admin support roles. Exactly who do you think will do that for free? And without those people tv and film is nothing more than a collection of amateur youtube clips, with the very occasional film being actually worth watching. because everyone involved will have full-time day jobs.

Now fair enough if we move to a much more socialist type of society. If people get enough remuneration for a comfortable life for any reasonable contribution to society. We'd see a somewhat slower output of many arts the types of hours that are currently the standard in the film/tv industry would never be maintained. But for the most part, people of artistic vocation will keep working. But they have to be able to make a living from it.

That said they way we pay for intellectual property will change completely over the next few years. I suspect we will see more and more situations where you will pay a subscription to a service for "all you can consume" options. Like the way Cineworld has Unlimited cards or LoveFilm/NetFlix rental services. So you'll pay €15pm to Amazon to download whatever books you like for 30 days each. That way the people who make the services can still make a living but consumers have more choice. Sadly though, imo, we will definitely more and more product placements too.

books4sale

^^^^^

Thats why I didn't mention TV & Film

...but yes you're correct, point taken on the books.

MagicSean

My own philosopy is that I think I should only have to pay for something once. If I've seen it in the cinema or on Sky then I've already paid so I'd have no problem downloading it. If I've seen the artist in concert it's the same for music. As for games, I only download games that have no demo so I can see if it works on my computer and if it's a game I'd like.

briany

The fact is that you can have the theft vs. copyright infringement arguments all day long and not get anywhere. These arguments are tiresome, counterproductive and will only polarize opinion on the matter even more.

Content providers can sue everyone they like but suing your customers, your customer's friends, family, coworkers etc. is unlikely to create goodwill toward your business in the long run. Short of shutting down the internet or controlling it in every aspect, how can the entertainment industry hope to win what's looking to be a losing battle? I only say losing battle on the terms that they're currently fighting it overall.


If I listen to a song on Youtube, one of those "videos" where it's a pic of the album cover and the song plays, am I liable to pay for that? What about the flash file in my temp folder? Am I liable if I extract an mp3 from that?

Is copyright infringement only an issue if it is done large scale? The film industry had huge concerns about the VCR in the early eighties. What if everyone started taping their movies off the TV?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.

And of course, the infamous "Home taping is killing music" slogan that is now widely parodied.....

Of course, nobody would necessarily brag that they had taped all of their favourite music/movies/TV shows off the radio or TV because it's kind of low rent and cheap but that taboo has not yet significantly affected online copying methods. That's what the entertainment industry needs to do, to make today's unlawful media copying socially frowned upon by the wider population not just a (relative) few. 'Til then it's just pis*ing in the wind I think.......

(Can't resist link to Knock Off Nigel, an early but beyond laughable attempt at the kind of social engineering I'm talking about. Actually, the ad sort of makes you hope that Nigel will at least chin all of the people singing to him and then continue downloading. Ugh)

Let's all sing.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlhdK5Yl8u0

RichieC

iguana wrote: »

Books, not likely, writing a novel is a huge amount of work, people may still write stories but not actual novels or series. Nobody on earth makes "a quick buck" out of writing a book.

not true

http://righttruth.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c49a69e20120a6f2050a970b-800wi

iguana

RichieC wrote: »

not true

http://righttruth.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c49a69e20120a6f2050a970b-800wi

Fair enough. Celebrities who attach their name to a ghostwritten books do make a quick buck off it. But they couldn't do that without the ghostwriter who would certainly not write the book if they weren't going to receive a pay-cheque.

CiaranC

iguana wrote: »

Fair enough. Celebrities who attach their name to a ghostwritten books do make a quick buck off it. But they couldn't do that without the ghostwriter who would certainly not write the book if they weren't going to receive a pay-cheque.

You realise the worlds most popular books are all produced and given away for free? The Bible, The Koran, Mao Zedongs little red book?

iguana

CiaranC wrote: »

You realise the worlds most popular books are all produced and given away for free? The Bible, The Koran, Mao Zedongs little red book?

Cos nobody ever made a penny out of religion!:pac:

Toby Take a Bow

CiaranC wrote: »

You realise the worlds most popular books are all produced and given away for free? The Bible, The Koran, Mao Zedongs little red book?

But they're out of copyright, so it doesn't really apply.

I would say illegally downloading books will hurt that industry far, far more than illegally downloading music. Although I spend far more money on live shows than cds/vinyl, I spend relatively little on author events than I do on the actual books. I would say I'd never download a book (I don't have - and can't see myself having in the near future - an eReader) but then I have bought second-hand, which in many ways is the same thing.

CiaranC

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

But they're out of copyright, so it doesn't really apply.

Course it applies. The suggestion was that there was no reason to produce a book without the profit motive. Thats nonsense.

Mickeroo

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

But they're out of copyright, so it doesn't really apply.

I would say illegally downloading books will hurt that industry far, far more than illegally downloading music. Although I spend far more money on live shows than cds/vinyl, I spend relatively little on author events than I do on the actual books. I would say I'd never download a book (I don't have - and can't see myself having in the near future - an eReader) but then I have bought second-hand, which in many ways is the same thing.

There's an interesting point on 2nd hand books actually. Sorry if it's come up in the thread before, but wouldn't selling 2nd hand books, and indeed the likes of Gamestop and Xtra-Vision selling used games also be in breach of the laws?

Toby Take a Bow

Mickeroo wrote: »

There's an interesting point on 2nd hand books actually. Sorry if it's come up in the thread before, but wouldn't selling 2nd hand books, and indeed the likes of Gamestop and Xtra-Vision selling used games also be in breach of the laws?

Yeah, the artist isn't getting any money whatsoever (and neither is their publisher, jacket-designer, sales-rep, etc) so I can't see a huge difference in buying a second-hand copy and downloading something illegally. Bar the second-hand bookseller making a couple of quid.