-
Website
http://consumerismcommentary.com/ -
Original page
http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2009/07/28/stealing-entertainment-revisited/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
You have a legal copy of the Cake album; you don't need to pay for it, and you don't need to feel guilty for owning it.
There are two items that were not mentioned and which may amongst the biggest thefts of all: software and wi-fi signals. I can almost guarantee that the vast majority of people out there either have some form of pirated software on their PC or have inquired about getting it. More than likely it's a high ticket item like Microsoft Office or Adobe Photoshop. And, believe it or not, using someone's wi-fi signal without their consent is illegal. There was a man in Michigan who, in 2007, was fined $400 for sitting outside of a coffee shop in his car (sans coffee), surfing the net on his laptop. Not to keep plugging my old Wall Street Journal podcasts, but Paul Herrmann and I discussed this last September (it's about 9:35 in, http://podcast.mktw.net/wsj/audio/20080926/pod-... ). And I'm fairly certain that just about all laptop owners reading this post has, at one time or another, jumped on an another wi-fi network without consent or have at least *attempted* to. Usually it's for purely innocent reasons...you don't want to hack into someone's computer, you're not trying to dodge a monthly internet access bill by riding your neighbor's network...you just want to surf the net. And those infrequent occasions usually happen while on vacation, at a friend's house (who doesn't have a wireless router), maybe while at the car dealership getting your car worked on, etc...
Much the same is happening now with content and intellectual property. There is a clash of the old way vs the new way or de facto way. I don't know who is right or wrong. I support artists to make a living from their creations since many of my friends are artists. I purchase their work when I can. But I know I have burned copies of CD's more than once to try and turn on a friend to music I really enjoy. Whence do we cross the line into criminality is more the question. Is stealing some content ok or tolerable under 'fair use'? Do artists devalue their content by making some of it free? Do they devalue the content of other people who cannot afford to give it away? Perhaps.
Each person has to decide their own personal ethics here. While I don't bother with file-sharing networks, I will gladly watch a movie at a friend's house without asking if they pulled it off of Pirate Bay or not. I think everyone would. But what if your host offered you cocaine? What would you do then? At the heart of this is that someone has illegal possession of something and invites you to use it. That sounds like the same thing, but I think lots of people would argue that a movie and drugs are not the same.
Nice exercise of situational ethics.
Personally, a public library system is a real driver for a community. I'll just keep right on using it.
As for only buying one song out of an album, the listener misses out on songs that she/he might like better than the ones that she/he already knows. I've found some of my favorite songs this way.
I don't download music at all, hate MP3's because the sound quality is not the same as on a CD. So I buy mostly used CD's and transfer what I like to my MP3 player. Cheaper, better sound quality, and easier to experiment with new artists.
If every time someone didn't like a movie/song/service they purchased, they got to take action on that belief, the monetary system would reduce to chaos. The movie industry alone would owe me a thousand dollars for all the chick flicks my wife has made me sit through.
This isn't as hard as most people make it seem. If when you do something you get a tickle telling you it may be wrong, and you then rationalize it somehow, and do it anyway, you are wrong.
It doesn't matter if it is technically illegal yet. You know when you are infringing on someone's intellectual rights.
A lot of people say that illegal music turned them on to music they wouldn't normally buy. That may be the case for a few, but with downloads soaring and sales plummeting, I'd say most people don't operate that way.
As for the DVR issue, unless you're stealing your cable/dish service, I don't think it's a problem to skip the commercials. Although I say that as an analog holdout (yes, there are a few of us left) so I can't skip the commercials. But if I was paying what some of you pay to watch TV, I doubt I'd feel like a thief doing so.
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
**SPLASH**
That sound you hear is me jumping off the bridge.
P.S. NPR's Morning Edition had a couple of interesting stories on the entertainment industry this morning that sorta relate to this discussion. Check them out:
Hollywood is struggling -- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st...
Hulu -- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st...
Wrong as far as I'm concerned. There are many ways to get entertainment without directly paying financially for it. There is nothing wrong with those methods.
The problem is when you are crossing the line of breaking actual laws. Making unathorized copies of something or downloading pirate versions is explicitly illegal.
There is nothing explicitly illegal about not watching commercials via a DVR or otherwise. That is not stealing and is not breaking a law. Its no different than flipping to another radio station when the ads come on.
I understand your preference to have an album full of good songs or your preference for creative commons. Those preferences have nothing to do with the laws.
Break law = not ok. Simple as that.
No thats not allowed under the legal definition of "fair use".
"fair use" means you can quote something or refer to it, use it in parody, Its not a license to give a free copy of the entire work to a buddy.
These entertainment for free issues are not so black and white. What I do know though is that if people don't pay for any entertainment, then there is less incentive for artists to create new material. Even if you download songs for free, you should try to buy some occasionally to keep the industry going.
I am one of those people. I give away music to other that i think they will enjoy. It is the reason i found some bands i love. It is the reason i've been to almost 200 concerts. It is the reason i buy EPs and Mix albums. My music consumption before downloading was the radio (or internet radio) and over the last 3 years i've spent more on media than rent. I no longer download everything i can (i can't afford it - as downloads increase purchases increase)
The DVR Problem
When Dish Network put out its original DVR it had the feature to skip commercials. Push a button and the box got back to your show. No fast-forwarding. Dish Net got sued and almost went bankrupt because of this feature. Skipping commercials is illegal. Fast-forwarding commercials is not.
The “Album Only” Problem
The problem i see is more when only two or three songs are good. Spending $12 for an album with 15 track and 12 good ones is $1/good track. Spending $12 for an album with 15 tracks and only has 3 good ones is $4/per good track. That is the rip off. The latter was becoming more common so people did not want whole albums. Every track from Metallica's albums through the black album still get air play because they are good. Load/Reload combined have 5 good tracks. Even within a band album only can be a problem.
Entertainment in the 21st Century / A Larger View
Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) recently published an article about this concept and what to do for new bands. He gives away an album like Ghosts I or The Slip and still sells enough copies for it to hit the Billboard charts. If something is good people are willing to buy the whole album. The media industries are changing. "Adapt or die"
I couldn't care less about the letter of the law if it's unenforced 99%+ of the time, and it's generally accepted that no one really cares very much if you break it.
Is that fair? maybe not, but people aren't going to pay for things they could get for free just because they feel bad for poor old Britney Spears, who's obviously been dealt such a harsh deal in life with the lack of royalty checks she receives.
It's all a numbers game -- the record companies are betting on being able to scare enough people into buying music that it justifies the cost of their scare tactics, and individuals are betting on the low odds of getting caught. It's pure risk assessment, and the entertainment industry is losing.
I can't find any record of DISH being sued over commercial skipping on DVRs. DISH has been sued a lot by Tivo for patent infringement which is entirely different.
I think you might mean ReplayTV. They were sued for commercial skipping and later went bankrupt. The case was never settled though due to the bankruptcy. ReplayTV was later bought by DirectTV.
Skipping commercials is not illegal.
And any product I buy that I am not 100% satisfied with, that means they are stealing from me? Should I call 911, or just file a civil claim?