It's interesting to me how some people are such puritans about this. People break the law in minor ways all the time: We speed on the roads, we smoke some pot, fudge our taxes a bit, commit sodomy in the state of Georgia, etc. Letting a friend copy a disc seems to me to be about on the scale of going 40 in a 35 zone - not right, not legal, but hardly a capital offense. Copying a disc and going to China and selling it by the millions is a different story.
So you are saying that it is OK to smoke pot after giving oral to your same-sex partner while speeding around the Atlanta metro area in the car you called a "business expence" as long as your CD isnt bootleg?
No - he's saying you can smoke pot after smoking your same-sex partner, while driving around going 5 over the speed limit in your car you could afford because you didn't tell the government about your little $100,000/yr lawn business ALL while listening to your burned Backstreet Boys CD!! :-)
They are all little offenses...
The only reason I would get pissed about your friend copying the DVD is because you paid $20 for it - why should they get it free?
choosing to break a law is usually a personal decision. in reality, only the chooser truly understands his/her decision. the rest of us assign meaning to the decision using our own world view. therefore, all attempts to justify copying or not copying will never be fully reconciled.
The other thing (which was illuded to further up the thread) is that copying digital media is not illegal in every country in the world. So we cannot turn around to someone and say, "you are breaking the law", when they may not be....
Who was the last painter who charged everyone who looked at his paintings?
Painters make paintings in order to sell them. While paintings are harder to copy than most other art forms these days, they are still copyable, and forgeries are a big problem.
I dont know how it works in other parts but here you pay admittion at the door of any museum.
I've gone to the Met in NYC, and while there is a suggested admission price, they will let you in for free if you ask.
The Wadsworth Atheneum (1st public museum in US) has free admission days. Many other museums I've been to have allowed me in for free or a donation of my choosing. So not every museum requires payment to view art.
[edit]
On topic, the fight against pirating has accelerated due to online mega copying, IMHO. Here in the US we have the audio home recording act which basically gives us the right to legally make a copy for our friends. The spirit of the act is that the copier would be making a single copy for a friend, or even a couple copies for a couple of friends, not setting up a server so that thousands of anonymous people would be snagging copies day and night.
I don't know what it's like in Macedonia, but here in the US, it's OK to make a copy for a friend.
The only reason I would get pissed about your friend copying the DVD is because you paid $20 for it - why should they get it free?
$20 is sunk cost. It's not coming back. If the choices are the other fellow buying his own DVD for $20 and you loaning your own for essentially no cost to you and no cost to him, and you have no qualms about copying, and you choose to make him buy his own.. that's just spiteful. How can you act that way and still use the word "friend" in that sentence?
Note the assumption that there is no problem with copying. I'm not addressing the original post or copyright in general, only cuencap's post.
$20 is sunk cost. It's not coming back. If the choices are the other fellow buying his own DVD for $20 and you loaning your own for essentially no cost to you and no cost to him, and you have no qualms about copying, and you choose to make him buy his own.. that's just spiteful. How can you act that way and still use the word "friend" in that sentence?
I selected your post here because it's very typical and it hits on a very important point. Yet, it's very troubling to me how apathetic people are towards copyrights. There are two basic concerns.
At some point you have to determine your basic beliefs. If you're religious, most religions I'm aware of are anti-theft, even when you don't approve of the owner ("give to Caesar what is Caesar's," etc). Most governments are also anti-theft, on the secular premise that without ownership to ideas, even the slightest form of capitalism breaks down. I suppose that if you're an atheist and a communist, you have a very strong case to promote and encourage copyright violation. But most people are somewhat religious, somewhat capitalist, and try to be very helpful to their friends. That's really the issue at hand: do you want to "help out" your friends or do you have a higher motive not to.
I'd say that if you're even questioning yourself over the matter, then you shouldn't do it. I don't think your friend will hate you for it. If your friend gets in a tizzy over the fact that you don't let him borrow a DVD, then you have to wonder about how much of a friend he really is. I have been in the same position before, and have just said that I don't approve of this kind of thing, and am sorry. Not much really came of it.
Bringing the argument to economics is not productive. If you're a big believer in economics, you would fall into the 2nd belief category of the anti-theft crowd. Otherwise, it's just a tool to try to help people with a shred of reservations self-justify their DVD copying habit. In other words, if you can't afford DVDs, that's unfortunate, but it doesn't give you the right to copy them.
At some point you have to determine your basic beliefs. If you're religious, most religions I'm aware of are anti-theft, even when you don't approve of the owner ("give to Caesar what is Caesar's," etc). Most governments are also anti-theft, on the secular premise that without ownership to ideas, even the slightest form of capitalism breaks down. I suppose that if you're an atheist and a communist, you have a very strong case to promote and encourage copyright violation. But most people are somewhat religious, somewhat capitalist, and try to be very helpful to their friends. That's really the issue at hand: do you want to "help out" your friends or do you have a higher motive not to.
Excellent post, Splinemodel. I'm surprised it took so many posts for someone to say this. I suppose Anders came close:
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Everybody sets his own standarts, it is never total law obedience, it is never total disregard of it either.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
Don?t try and turn this into a moral issue.
Why not? What do you think "morals" are? Morality is to do with behaviour, and whether particular acts are "right", "wrong", or somewhere in between, depending upon your system of morality.
Personally, I find the issue of morality a philosophically interesting point. Since I am an atheist, I don't believe that there is a GOD who has defined morality for me. Nor do I believe that a specific morality system just intrinsically "exists". I believe it is up to me to decide what is acceptable behaviour. Like most people, my view of morality is in shades of grey, so whilst there are many things that I consider to be unacceptable behaviour, I think some things are more "wrong" than others; for example genocide being more wrong than copyright infringement.
Wow, groverat, you've said a lot of thought-provoking stuff:
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
All it is is copying digital bits; there is no tangible harm, only perceived harm. I know that there has been no real negative impact on the music or movie industries from piracy. Many people don't, so they feel guilty.
I think that you are wrong about this. Both that there is no tangible harm in piracy, and that it has had no real negative impact on the music or movie industries. I can name one negative impact right now: both industries are totally paranoid about it, which has resulted in DRM. If people hadn't copied stuff so rapantly and blatantly, there would be no DRM and I could exercise my fair rights to stuff I buy on iTunes without me having to remove the DRM first.
But I assume that you meant economic impact? I don't know enough to strongly argue this point, but I'm sure it's probably true to say that both sides can "cook the numbers" to prove whatever they want. So the music and movie industries have a ton of evidence to show that you are wrong. And I'm sure you can provide links to evidence to show that they are wrong.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Legality has absolutely no causal relationship to moral propriety.
That would have to depend on your system of morality. If you believe that breaking the law is immoral, then legality does have a causal relationship to moral propriety, by definition.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
If I could show you a safe way to download high-quality rips of every song and movie ever made you would fill up your hard drive and burn DVDs faster than you think. All of you.
No, I wouldn't. You are wrong. Simple as that.
It is clear from your posts that you do not have a problem with online piracy. I'd like you to explain to everyone how you think the movie, music and software industries should be funded. If it's O.K. for you to pirate stuff, it should be O.K. for EVERYONE to pirate stuff, unless you think you are somehow more important than everyone else. So, if everyone is pirating stuff, no one is paying for it, and now there is no money to pay the wages for the people who created what you are pirating. Should everyone be taxed to pay these people's wages? Should they get different jobs, and create stuff in their spare time?
... either you are against breaking the law which means you need to pony up and pay for the real DVD you stole or you don't mind breaking the law so why should you care if your friend does it?
There are plenty of middle-ground scenarios here. I, for example, have no problem giving a copy of a DVD to family or very close friends. I do, however, ask them to keep the file private and not give that to anyone. If a friend of a friend came by and asked to copy something I wouldn't consider it. I do download movies and you know what, right now I can produce over $390 worth of DVD's alone as a DIRECT RESULT of my downloads. Sea Quest, Time Trax, and other early TV shows could add an EASY $200 IF they were available on DVD.
I am not a "pirate" at heart like the *AA's would like you to believe, but as a sensible consumer I will take precautions from getting screwed by them. Now, I rarely make these kinds of generalizations, but no one here can honestly say consumers shouldn't have some sort of purchasing protection. Products that don't work as advertised, fine print, yatta, yatta, yatta... (Sony DRM for example) Yet simple consumer rights, such as simply returning a Spyware-laden CD, are falling one by one. I fear our society is becoming a "purchase first, ask questions later" big 'ol can of worms. Contrary to the *aa's ever expanding definition of "Piracy", there is a HUGE group who preview with the intent to purchase. That was the way it USED to be!.
Quote:
Originally posted by Elixir
even if i could rip the best quality sound of music from my fav band i'd never do that. i would want to support them for what they do. especially since i listen to music that is not mainstream
As a Browncoat, I know exactly what you mean. I saw DVD rips of Serenity on the web well before the release date and sat there watching the link but never downloading them.
If people hadn't copied stuff so rapantly and blatantly, there would be no DRM and I could exercise my fair rights to stuff I buy on iTunes without me having to remove the DRM first.
Blame the victim logic doesn't work here.
Quote:
But I assume that you meant economic impact? I don't know enough to strongly argue this point, but I'm sure it's probably true to say that both sides can "cook the numbers" to prove whatever they want.
Sales are flat for the music industry even though legal downloading is growing. I know plenty of people who are not buying CDs and not pirating. The industry is stagnant and their only idea is to provide expensive downloads ($.99 for one song is a rip-off, that's CD price) with ridiculous restrictions and file thousands of lawsuits. That industry deserves to die.
The video game and movie industries, both also "victims" to piracy, are growing like crazy because they actually work to provide innovation and fresh ideas to consumers.
If those two operated like the music industry, we'd still be watching VHS tapes and playing Doom I.
Quote:
That would have to depend on your system of morality. If you believe that breaking the law is immoral, then legality does have a causal relationship to moral propriety, by definition.
If one believes that breaking the law is inherently immoral then one's moral framework is childish and/or insane. What if a law is passed saying you must kill anyone you see who says "waffles are good"?
Quote:
I'd like you to explain to everyone how you think the movie, music and software industries should be funded.
It's not really my problem to figure out how others should make money. It is also not my problem if an industry cannot adjust to reality.
Why is this an either/or proposition? Piracy is a supplement to a normal consumption of entertainment. You are simply in denial of reality if you think people who pirate spend no money on these things. As in denial of reality as the industries who freak out over piracy.
If this insane view of things was anywhere close to reality, why hasn't the music industry collapsed?
Which of these is dumber:
- If you pirate something you never buy CDs, DVDs or software.
- If you pirate something you have to copy everything you have for anyone who asks.
If one believes that breaking the law is inherently immoral then one's moral framework is childish and/or insane. What if a law is passed saying you must kill anyone you see who says "waffles are good"?
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
It's interesting to me how some people are such puritans about this. People break the law in minor ways all the time: We speed on the roads, we smoke some pot, fudge our taxes a bit, commit sodomy in the state of Georgia, etc. Letting a friend copy a disc seems to me to be about on the scale of going 40 in a 35 zone - not right, not legal, but hardly a capital offense. Copying a disc and going to China and selling it by the millions is a different story.
So you are saying that it is OK to smoke pot after giving oral to your same-sex partner while speeding around the Atlanta metro area in the car you called a "business expence" as long as your CD isnt bootleg?
They are all little offenses...
The only reason I would get pissed about your friend copying the DVD is because you paid $20 for it - why should they get it free?
Originally posted by progmac
Does my ownership of a couple illegal DVDs obligate me to participate in future copyright breaches or make me some sort of hypocrite? [/B]
The short answers are no and no.
It's called "Charity Case", the first song off his new (only) CD, Nerdcore Rising.
it's true
frontalot's destitute
I need you
to buy my CD so I could buy food
Originally posted by groverat
Who was the last painter who charged everyone who looked at his paintings?
I dont know how it works in other parts but here you pay admittion at the door of any museum.
Originally posted by groverat
Who was the last painter who charged everyone who looked at his paintings?
Painters make paintings in order to sell them. While paintings are harder to copy than most other art forms these days, they are still copyable, and forgeries are a big problem.
Originally posted by a_greer
I dont know how it works in other parts but here you pay admittion at the door of any museum.
I've gone to the Met in NYC, and while there is a suggested admission price, they will let you in for free if you ask.
The Wadsworth Atheneum (1st public museum in US) has free admission days. Many other museums I've been to have allowed me in for free or a donation of my choosing. So not every museum requires payment to view art.
[edit]
On topic, the fight against pirating has accelerated due to online mega copying, IMHO. Here in the US we have the audio home recording act which basically gives us the right to legally make a copy for our friends. The spirit of the act is that the copier would be making a single copy for a friend, or even a couple copies for a couple of friends, not setting up a server so that thousands of anonymous people would be snagging copies day and night.
I don't know what it's like in Macedonia, but here in the US, it's OK to make a copy for a friend.
Originally posted by cuencap
The only reason I would get pissed about your friend copying the DVD is because you paid $20 for it - why should they get it free?
$20 is sunk cost. It's not coming back. If the choices are the other fellow buying his own DVD for $20 and you loaning your own for essentially no cost to you and no cost to him, and you have no qualms about copying, and you choose to make him buy his own.. that's just spiteful. How can you act that way and still use the word "friend" in that sentence?
Note the assumption that there is no problem with copying. I'm not addressing the original post or copyright in general, only cuencap's post.
Originally posted by Gon
$20 is sunk cost. It's not coming back. If the choices are the other fellow buying his own DVD for $20 and you loaning your own for essentially no cost to you and no cost to him, and you have no qualms about copying, and you choose to make him buy his own.. that's just spiteful. How can you act that way and still use the word "friend" in that sentence?
I selected your post here because it's very typical and it hits on a very important point. Yet, it's very troubling to me how apathetic people are towards copyrights. There are two basic concerns.
At some point you have to determine your basic beliefs. If you're religious, most religions I'm aware of are anti-theft, even when you don't approve of the owner ("give to Caesar what is Caesar's," etc). Most governments are also anti-theft, on the secular premise that without ownership to ideas, even the slightest form of capitalism breaks down. I suppose that if you're an atheist and a communist, you have a very strong case to promote and encourage copyright violation. But most people are somewhat religious, somewhat capitalist, and try to be very helpful to their friends. That's really the issue at hand: do you want to "help out" your friends or do you have a higher motive not to.
I'd say that if you're even questioning yourself over the matter, then you shouldn't do it. I don't think your friend will hate you for it. If your friend gets in a tizzy over the fact that you don't let him borrow a DVD, then you have to wonder about how much of a friend he really is. I have been in the same position before, and have just said that I don't approve of this kind of thing, and am sorry. Not much really came of it.
Bringing the argument to economics is not productive. If you're a big believer in economics, you would fall into the 2nd belief category of the anti-theft crowd. Otherwise, it's just a tool to try to help people with a shred of reservations self-justify their DVD copying habit. In other words, if you can't afford DVDs, that's unfortunate, but it doesn't give you the right to copy them.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I suppose that if you're an atheist and a communist, you have a very strong case to promote and encourage copyright violation.
So online piracy makes Jesus and Adam Smith cry?
Bringing the argument to economics is not productive.
I agree, because piracy has little to do with the economy. I'd say, really, it has nothing to do with the economy.
One could argue that piracy actually has a net positive effect on the economy.
1 - Neither the music nor movie industries have suffered in the wake of online piracy.
2 - Many different types of computer hardware sell like crazy to keep up with demand created by piracy (iPods, burners, computers, etc...).
Originally posted by Splinemodel
At some point you have to determine your basic beliefs. If you're religious, most religions I'm aware of are anti-theft, even when you don't approve of the owner ("give to Caesar what is Caesar's," etc). Most governments are also anti-theft, on the secular premise that without ownership to ideas, even the slightest form of capitalism breaks down. I suppose that if you're an atheist and a communist, you have a very strong case to promote and encourage copyright violation. But most people are somewhat religious, somewhat capitalist, and try to be very helpful to their friends. That's really the issue at hand: do you want to "help out" your friends or do you have a higher motive not to.
Excellent post, Splinemodel. I'm surprised it took so many posts for someone to say this. I suppose Anders came close:
Originally posted by Anders
Everybody sets his own standarts, it is never total law obedience, it is never total disregard of it either.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
Don?t try and turn this into a moral issue.
Why not? What do you think "morals" are? Morality is to do with behaviour, and whether particular acts are "right", "wrong", or somewhere in between, depending upon your system of morality.
Personally, I find the issue of morality a philosophically interesting point. Since I am an atheist, I don't believe that there is a GOD who has defined morality for me. Nor do I believe that a specific morality system just intrinsically "exists". I believe it is up to me to decide what is acceptable behaviour. Like most people, my view of morality is in shades of grey, so whilst there are many things that I consider to be unacceptable behaviour, I think some things are more "wrong" than others; for example genocide being more wrong than copyright infringement.
Wow, groverat, you've said a lot of thought-provoking stuff:
Originally posted by groverat
All it is is copying digital bits; there is no tangible harm, only perceived harm. I know that there has been no real negative impact on the music or movie industries from piracy. Many people don't, so they feel guilty.
I think that you are wrong about this. Both that there is no tangible harm in piracy, and that it has had no real negative impact on the music or movie industries. I can name one negative impact right now: both industries are totally paranoid about it, which has resulted in DRM. If people hadn't copied stuff so rapantly and blatantly, there would be no DRM and I could exercise my fair rights to stuff I buy on iTunes without me having to remove the DRM first.
But I assume that you meant economic impact? I don't know enough to strongly argue this point, but I'm sure it's probably true to say that both sides can "cook the numbers" to prove whatever they want. So the music and movie industries have a ton of evidence to show that you are wrong. And I'm sure you can provide links to evidence to show that they are wrong.
Originally posted by groverat
Legality has absolutely no causal relationship to moral propriety.
That would have to depend on your system of morality. If you believe that breaking the law is immoral, then legality does have a causal relationship to moral propriety, by definition.
Originally posted by groverat
If I could show you a safe way to download high-quality rips of every song and movie ever made you would fill up your hard drive and burn DVDs faster than you think. All of you.
No, I wouldn't. You are wrong. Simple as that.
It is clear from your posts that you do not have a problem with online piracy. I'd like you to explain to everyone how you think the movie, music and software industries should be funded. If it's O.K. for you to pirate stuff, it should be O.K. for EVERYONE to pirate stuff, unless you think you are somehow more important than everyone else. So, if everyone is pirating stuff, no one is paying for it, and now there is no money to pay the wages for the people who created what you are pirating. Should everyone be taxed to pay these people's wages? Should they get different jobs, and create stuff in their spare time?
Originally posted by TekMate
... either you are against breaking the law which means you need to pony up and pay for the real DVD you stole or you don't mind breaking the law so why should you care if your friend does it?
There are plenty of middle-ground scenarios here. I, for example, have no problem giving a copy of a DVD to family or very close friends. I do, however, ask them to keep the file private and not give that to anyone. If a friend of a friend came by and asked to copy something I wouldn't consider it. I do download movies and you know what, right now I can produce over $390 worth of DVD's alone as a DIRECT RESULT of my downloads. Sea Quest, Time Trax, and other early TV shows could add an EASY $200 IF they were available on DVD.
I am not a "pirate" at heart like the *AA's would like you to believe, but as a sensible consumer I will take precautions from getting screwed by them. Now, I rarely make these kinds of generalizations, but no one here can honestly say consumers shouldn't have some sort of purchasing protection. Products that don't work as advertised, fine print, yatta, yatta, yatta... (Sony DRM for example) Yet simple consumer rights, such as simply returning a Spyware-laden CD, are falling one by one. I fear our society is becoming a "purchase first, ask questions later" big 'ol can of worms. Contrary to the *aa's ever expanding definition of "Piracy", there is a HUGE group who preview with the intent to purchase. That was the way it USED to be!.
Originally posted by Elixir
even if i could rip the best quality sound of music from my fav band i'd never do that. i would want to support them for what they do. especially since i listen to music that is not mainstream
As a Browncoat, I know exactly what you mean. I saw DVD rips of Serenity on the web well before the release date and sat there watching the link but never downloading them.
Originally posted by Mr. H
If people hadn't copied stuff so rapantly and blatantly, there would be no DRM and I could exercise my fair rights to stuff I buy on iTunes without me having to remove the DRM first.
Blame the victim logic doesn't work here.
But I assume that you meant economic impact? I don't know enough to strongly argue this point, but I'm sure it's probably true to say that both sides can "cook the numbers" to prove whatever they want.
Sales are flat for the music industry even though legal downloading is growing. I know plenty of people who are not buying CDs and not pirating. The industry is stagnant and their only idea is to provide expensive downloads ($.99 for one song is a rip-off, that's CD price) with ridiculous restrictions and file thousands of lawsuits. That industry deserves to die.
The video game and movie industries, both also "victims" to piracy, are growing like crazy because they actually work to provide innovation and fresh ideas to consumers.
If those two operated like the music industry, we'd still be watching VHS tapes and playing Doom I.
That would have to depend on your system of morality. If you believe that breaking the law is immoral, then legality does have a causal relationship to moral propriety, by definition.
If one believes that breaking the law is inherently immoral then one's moral framework is childish and/or insane. What if a law is passed saying you must kill anyone you see who says "waffles are good"?
I'd like you to explain to everyone how you think the movie, music and software industries should be funded.
It's not really my problem to figure out how others should make money. It is also not my problem if an industry cannot adjust to reality.
Why is this an either/or proposition? Piracy is a supplement to a normal consumption of entertainment. You are simply in denial of reality if you think people who pirate spend no money on these things. As in denial of reality as the industries who freak out over piracy.
If this insane view of things was anywhere close to reality, why hasn't the music industry collapsed?
Which of these is dumber:
- If you pirate something you never buy CDs, DVDs or software.
- If you pirate something you have to copy everything you have for anyone who asks.
If one believes that breaking the law is inherently immoral then one's moral framework is childish and/or insane. What if a law is passed saying you must kill anyone you see who says "waffles are good"?
++