-
Website
http://consumerismcommentary.com/ -
Original page
http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2009/07/21/is-it-ever-okay-to-steal-entertainment/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Maybe I'm too strict on that issue for likes of many people, but I think that unless someone says that something is meant to be free, then it isn't and you should feel the obligation to pay for it - even if you can get away with not paying for it.
Music you've already paid for: The problem I see here is that one basically absolves themselves of any personal responsibility for caring for their own property by following this rule. With just about anything else you own, it's your responsibility to take care of it. And if you don't, you'll need to eventually purchase a replacement. One could make the argument that since there's no negative impact on the content producer that makes it okay. But I'm not sure that's entirely sound. There may be no direct impact on the content producer, but if by downloading a copy you're supporting a platform that others use for less moral reasons, then there is still arguably a negative impact.
Movies & TV from used/rental stores: This argument I find even more dubious. The problem here is that the amount of used sales (that the studio does not receive payment for) is directly tied to the amount of new sales (that they do receive payment for). At the end of the day, the amount of used copies available must be less than or equal to the number of copies that have sold new. By making a copy of a used DVD, you're breaking this rule. Here's an example. Suppose a studio has sold 200 copies of a DVD and 100 of those copies have been resold to the used market. If you have 101 people lined up to purchase used copies, the 101st person must instead buy it new. Now suppose the 1st person waiting on a used copy instead takes it home, copies it, and returns it. Now there are 101 used copies but still only 200 new sales. That person's actions have indirectly deprived the content holder of compensation for their work.
I've seen a lot of people make justifications for piracy, and have even tried to justify a lot of it to myself in the past. At this point in my life though, I don't believe that it's hardly ever really justified. The biggest problem I see that breaks most peoples' arguments is that there are just too many entertainment options available. If you can't find a particular movie/book/video game in your price range, there are thousands, perhaps even millions, of other options to fill your time that will fit your budget that do not require you to violate somebody's rights as a copyright holder.
That said, I do have one situation where I believe a person is perfectly justified in breaking the copyright. If content has digital restrictions on its usage that are undisclosed at the time of sale, and the point of sale will not take a return, then I think that the user is entitled to break the copyright in order to use the product as it was sold to them.
Nowadays, I don't listen to a lot of music, but when I do I use online radio sites, which I hope are legal (some of them are still figuring that out it seems) and occasionally my husband or I will buy a few songs from iTunes or Amazon.
DRMs are another thing pushing me toward piracy. There are a number of video games where the version you buy in a store is crippled by DRMs and the version you can get from bittorrent isn't. I know it's wrong and everything, but why would I pay for an inferior product? DRMs only punish people that actually bought the product legally so in effect, the only people you're treating like crooks are the ones that aren't breaking the law.
I realize none of this excuses breaking the law, but I'm only willing to jump through so many hoops.
That is just as if I were to buy an iPhone and pull it apart and copy (recreate) all the parts and create a clone off of it and give it to my friends. I bougth one of the devices and now that should give me a right to do whatever I want with it. It should be the same for entertainment, if I bought a cd I should be able to make 87 copies and give them out to my friends, now it is up to my friends if they want to take it or not, because they never paid for it in the past... If you paid for the original you should be able to get a copy of it for free.
1. Music you bought already - I have no problem with this. If I bought a CD, why should I have to pay again to enjoy the same music on a different medium? As long as I did purchase it in some form, it shouldn't matter. I believe there is something in the law where it is considered fair use to make a backup copy of a copyrighted work you already purchased, provided you own the original and it is for your own personal use.
2. Shows from other markets - Again I don't see the problem with this. You would buy the work if you could but they are too stupid to offer it to you. You downloading it online doesn't deprive the copyright owner of any money because they never offered you the opportunity to purchase it.
3. Rental DVDs - Yeah, I copy rented DVDs too. I typically copy them because I want to watch them but might not be able to get to it during the rental period. It is kind of like recording a TV show you like because you are out of the house when it comes on. This just allows me to watch it when it is convenient for me. Most stuff we only watch once, and if we like it enough to watch it again in the future my wife will insist I go and buy a "real copy". My view is copying is OK for a single viewing, but if it is going to be part of your permanent library you should purchase the real thing.
I don't do it anymore, mainly cause it slows down my computer and there are alternatives but I was a senior in HS/Freshman in College when Napster, Bearshare, and bunch of others busted out on there own, and boy did I partake just because I didn't think of it as wrong.
I'd like to ask the males above who has checked out the youtube like sites which broadcast adult material. There is no difference except that site steals without you having to download.
I went to film school, and I lived in Los Angeles (Hollywood, specifically). And I got caught up in the issues surrounding the writer's strike. To me, this all comes down to one thing: residuals (which are called "royalties" in most businesses outside of film/television). The big guys get paid from the initial profits of the movie, but everyone else (including the writers/songwriters, actors, artists, the guy who holds a boom mic) gets paid as people buy DVDs/CDs. They get a tiny cut - writers get about 4 cents when you buy a DVD. It doesn't sound like much, but that 4 cents per DVD feeds a family, over time (when you've written multiple things - it adds up). But it doesn't add up to much: the median salary for a Hollywood writer is only $40,000 in one of the most expensive cities in the country. (Believe me - I've seen Hollywood on a $30,000 salary. That literally only buys you a crappy apartment with a roommate and ramen to eat. Imagine trying to feed a family on $40,000 in that city!)
Another issue is that residuals/royalties feed into the health care plans and pension funds of these people. When you copy or download a movie that you would have otherwise bought or rented on DVD (yes, they sometimes get residuals from rentals!!!), you're basically depriving the pension fund of the writers, bit actors, lighting guys, sound guys, etc. etc. I can't, in my own conscience, contribute to a Roth IRA for myself and then turn around and download a movie instead of rightfully contributing to the creators' retirement plans as well.
I do, however, make allowances for things I already own. Federal law allows you to make a copy of entertainment you've purchased for backup/archival purposes (NOT to give to someone else). So if you've got something on vinyl, it is within your rights to convert it to MP3 and stick on your iPod. It is not, however, within your rights to give out that MP3 to people who haven't purchased the song in some way.
If you bought a cassette or record and then make a copy of that to another media for your own personal use then that is fine. If you bought a record then that does not give you rights to pirate a CD quality recording, the 2 are not the same. If the CD quality copy is no better or different then why would you need it?
Television is copyrighted just like everything else. Just cause something originally airs on broadcast TV does not make it legal to pirate it. By that logic any Network TV show in the USA would be exempt from copyright protection and they obviously aren't.
Foreign works are no different. Your link on the text "BBC content is produced without regard for sponsors" goes to the True Blood site so I think your intended pointer is broken. I'm not sure what you are meaning about BBC content and sponsorship and how that relates to copyright. BBC is generally commercial free but thats cuase they are state supported. BBC content is paid for by television license fees that everyone in UK is required to pay. So British tax dollars are paying for that program. I don't think there is anything saying you should be free to distribute their copyrighted works. And certainly just cause they don't release it as fast as you want doesn't justify theft.
Renting something, copying it and returning it is outright piracy with no legal or ethical justifications.
"sometimes it depends on the quality of the movie" No it never depends on the quality of the work. All copyrighted material has the same protections. The law has no "depends" if its "any good or not" qualifiers.
The TV and film industry is a major part of the US economy and they employ 100's of thousands of people and you're undercutting those peoples livelihood.
Pirating digital media for individual use is hardly a severe crime and I don't think 5 years in prison or $250k files are realistic for individuals. To me it seems more like jumping a turnstile to get a free ride on a subway and the punishments should be similar. Just cause you can do it, doesn't mean you should do it or that its legal.
If i take a rental DVD and record it via my TIVO is that stealing or fair-use time shifting??? What about by using TiVO-like software??? What if i watch an episode or movie on YouTube that should not have been uploaded??? I should maintain my items. What then when my CD case gets stolen??? The lines on this argument are so gray you can't see where the black fades to white.
I do all my renting via RedBox with promo codes. Not having to go rent the movie a second time only saves me the gas or foot power to get a RedBox machine as i am not spending anything on the rental. So my copy is not depriving media rites from anyone. You can argue that if was going to drive to a RedBox i am depriving the gas station of the gas i'd have purchased.
Things that are worth paying for will get paid for. I never try to argue that downloading is not stealing. But because i downloaded a couple of tracks i have spent tens of thousands (over $70,000 - i've added it up before) on media related purchases. I t may be stealing but if you would not have paid for it .... Even the RIAA knows this. Only 1 in 10 downloads equates to a lost sale. And likely that is really 1 in 10 downloaders would have paid for it. So am i taking away your 4 cents if i would not have paid for it via purchase or rental??? Plus your argument is a non-valid appeal to emotion.
What I was trying to explain was that it's really the other way around: writers get very little in the way of an upfront fee, and their livelihood actually comes from the individual purchases of tickets, DVDs, CDs, song downloads, etc. Many people justify downloading by saying it only hurts the studio, but what I'm trying to point out is that the studio already got their large cut. It's the little guys that are hurt when they are deprived of their residuals.
John, you've explained that paid or unpaid, legal or not, you are a huge consumer of media. Whether or not you care who gets paid for your consumption is your own decision. I just want to make sure people have all the information necessary to make that decision.
Plus i forgot to add earlier ... If you like it buy it.
"That is just as if I were to buy an iPhone and pull it apart and copy (recreate) all the parts and create a clone off of it and give it to my friends."
And that would also be illegal. There are these things called patents which apply to things like iPhones.
As for copies of stuff you already own, I have no problem with someone digitizing their old vinyls or ripping CDs they own. However, it would be unethical to digitize/rip them and then sell or even give away the old vinyls or CDs -- which is not to say that even I wouldn't consider giving away my old hard copies just because I hate to see things end up in the dumpster. However, the most ethical thing would be to buy the files you want and then sell or giveaway the hard copies without any guilt -- or just keep the hard copies for back up if you digitize/rip them but don't want to send them to the landfill.
However, regardless, I would NOT recommend using illegal websites or file-sharing programs to get copies of stuff even if you have hard copies. That promotes illegal piracy, especially if the pirate receives any money -- which may be in the form of advertising on their website even if you do not pay them directly.
Look at it this way... If I go to a restaurant and order a sandwich, pay for it and walk out of the door. Right before I get in my car I drop it. I go back in and tell them what happened. Should I have to pay for another sandwich or should the restaurant give me another one for free, since I just paid for one?
You think you're entitled to a new sandwich if you drop one?! If they want to make you another sandwich to keep you as a loyal customer, that's very nice of them, but they don't owe you one because you're a klutz.
But what about the time-honored tradition of giving a mix tape/CD? I will admit to giving and receiving these as well as many individual copies of albums/CDs over the years.
U2's Bono told Rolling Stone that only teenage girls and really honest people still buy music. Guess I'm pretty close to honest.
Personally, I find it a scary symptom of a larger entitlement disease that's infecting our generations and causing deeper problem. Would we have had this recession if people hadn't felt entitled to have houses they couldn't afford? Entitled to have all sorts of other things they couldn't afford but could put on credit? "But I deserve it! But I work hard!" Personally, I'm sickened by the whining of my impatient, greedy generation over wanting stuff they shouldn't have when they shouldn't have it because they feel entitled.
Anyhow, I hope to hell I'm cured of it. Goodness knows, I've been far from perfect - especially when I was a kid. But I do know better now, which is part of becoming a mature adult, imho.
Smithee, back in my old job at the WSJ I once talked to my old colleague, WSJ.com Real Time columnist Jason Fry about an article he wrote about the death of the CD. The very argument you're making came up re: unwanted songs. If you're interested, it's here and starts at ~7:23 in.
http://podcast.mktw.net/wsj/audio/20080128/pod-...
Jason's related article can be found here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120119822271713...
These pieces are from Jan 27-28, 2008 so they're only slightly dated.
My biggest grip is songs bought off iTunes and other digital downloads only. Me personally, I like having a physical tangible product that I can hold in my hand. IF my PC crashes or I uninstall/reinstall my OS too many times I will lose me songs. Sorry...that doesn't fly. If I bought them I should be able to redownload them ALL AGAIN. I think it is BS that I have had to rebuy songs because they got deleted and were not backed up. Things like this is what forces people to download stuff illegally.
So, call me unethical or immoral....I don't care. I think the media companies need to change their ways and be more understanding. Sadly...they are only looking to see how many more pennies they can squeeze out of people.
1. Someone else owns this.
2. I want it.
3. Why should I pay for it?
4. So I won't.
Music - I agree that music is "immortal" in a sense. To that extent, I see no problem downloading music I already own so that I can put it on my ipod or whatever. But your example of having lost the CD I think is not quite the same - if you lose your favorite t-shirt that you've had since college, then you'd have to go without it or try to find a similar one somewhere. Downloading something that you could just as easily rip seems fine, because you're not really taking something you don't already have, but downloading something you no longer possess seems a bit disingenuous.
Rental movies/TV - If you're not going to watch it right away, why bother renting it now? I don't have a problem doing this every once in awhile because some unforeseen circumstance prevented you from watching it during the rental period, but I would have a problem doing this constantly and holding the recorded movie for an extended period of time or for multiple viewings. The point of a rental is that you can only claim limited ownership for a specific period of time - how you use it during that time doesn't matter. Whether you watch a rented movie/TV show or not, your title to watch it only is valid for the period during which you rented it.
By the way, there's a "Copyright 2003-2009...All rights reserved" at the bottom of this blog ... anyone else find that a funny twist of irony in this all?
"By the way, there’s a “Copyright 2003-2009…All rights reserved” at the bottom of this blog … anyone else find that a funny twist of irony in this all?"
I did a few hours ago.
If you're singing to someone in a private setting, that's not illegal. There's nothing special about "Happy Birthday". You can sing that or anything you want among friends and family and no one gives a damn (unless you sing terribly, in which case your audience might). That's very different from a public, commercial performance.