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.
DRM would happen anyway with rampant piracy or not. DRM has never stopped piracy nor intends to. By its very nature, it is designed to fracture the market, allowing the entertainment industry to vary their pricing based on location and demand and squeeze every penny out of their consumers.
iTunes tracks won't play on 3rd party devices and vise versa. This allows 2 different prices for two different services. If a popular track sells for $0.99 on iTunes and $1.20 on the windows version, people will buy the iTunes copy and hardware. Next month, the windows store sells another popular song for $0.50 but you need to re-buy more hardware. The only way to consolidate your music os to re-buy everything on one device. Spend, spend, spend! That is all they want. I offer the DVD region code fiasco as an example of this preemptive strike against consumers.
Think about it, If there were only one solid DRM scheme that magically stopped all piracy and EVERYONE used it around the world, do you think the Entertainment industry would be satisfied for years to come? Nope. Their goal is to make more money than last year and "if everyone was happy" there would be no gain. That's a no-no!
groverat--I think you're hitting some really important points here, but you'd do better if you used a little less hyperbole. Telling someone that they're "in denial of reality" because they don't agree with you isn't considered a polite or effective way of making a case.
Here's what I think: there's a huge amount of middle ground here, and there are a lot of factors besides purchasing vs. stealing, most notably the purchase price. The iTunes Music Store is doing well, but I doubt that it would be doing well if it was selling songs for $2--I think that few people would argue with that. But doesn't that mean that many people are buying from iTMS because it's convenient, and not because it's more moral than piracy?
Yes--that's exactly what it means. I'd go so far as to say that morals have very little to do with piracy. iTMS is not primarily a moral force--just an interface that works for a lot of people, at a price that they feel OK paying.
To be clear--I don't use iTMS, because 1) I like owning albums, if only for the art, 2) 128 kbps encoding isn't worth it to me, and 3) it's easier to throw a CD in the stereo than worry about hooking up a computer (this is rapidly changing, though) For exactly the same three reasons, I don't download music at all--legally or illegally. I want the real thing. I know, however, that as soon as someone lossless files are available in a convenient manner, I'll start getting a lot more stuff online--whether it's legal or not. It's more convenient. That doesn't mean that I'm going to convert my whole apartment into a den of piracy and start selling stolen media, it just means that minor infractions will start to sneak into my currently scrupulous behavior.
I do occasionally get .mp3 files from friends. If I like the music, it's worth it for me to buy the album for the higher audio quality. If I don't like it, I'll delete it. I should add to that, however, that I have a decent job, and it doesn't hurt my well-being to buy a few CDs. But what if that wasn't the case? Should I shun my friends who offer to copy an album for me because they think I should hear the artist? Should I plug my ears when they play songs that I've never personally paid any money for?
There is a concept in intellectual property called "fair use." It may be rapidly dying, but the essential idea is that if you own, say, a book, you are allowed to make use of it in a reasonable manner--you can loan it to a friend, you can make photocopies for your own use, etc. The book is yours--it no longer belongs to the author, although its contents do. Nobody has quite figured out what will happen to this concept since it has become so easy to copy digital content, but the music industry seems to think that subjecting the user to harsh restrictions in use is the answer. An .mp3 file with DRM is NOT as good as a CD, because a CD is something that belongs to you, not the record companies. In the name of protecting intellectual privacy, individual rights of fair use have been stepped all over, even to the extent of the recent Sony DRM catastrophe.
Why don't people copy books to give to their friends? Because it is prohibitively difficult to do, not because it is immoral. In the case of books, fair use corresponds pretty well with the interests of the author. With digital music, though? As groverat said, it's not our responsibility to figure out how to make the music industry profitable, and a lot of anti-piracy sentiments amount to self-policing. I will obey the speed limit when it makes sense to do so and not otherwise--similarly with piracy.
I don't want to give the impression that I think that DRM shouldn't exist, or that companies shouldn't take anti-piracy measures. They should, but if those measures don't take into account fair use and the rights of the individual to actually, really own something, rather than just purchase a license to view it, people will ultimately keep using file sharing. If that ever gets shut down somehow, people will go back to making physical copies of their music and sharing them with friends. This absolutely has always been a part of the music business, and thinking otherwise, while not "in denial of reality," seems to me somewhat evangelical--it is easy to say "this is right" and "this is wrong" without any consideration for how people actually live their lives.
On that last point, I want to say, to be clear on my stance: If a poor family who can't afford $50 textbooks steals books from a bookstore for their children to learn from, are they immoral? Any arguments about intellectual property, theft, and morality should still apply in this case if they are valid. The point isn't that filesharing, or copying a friend's DVDs is as noble as this case--it isn't--but that there are many forces at work besides the archaic idea of "correct" behavior, and that sometimes things simply cost too much money.
I personally would buy ten times as many DVDs if I could download them easily and quickly, they lost no information in lossy encoding, I could do whatever I wanted with them, and they cost half as much. As it is, copying DVDs that I've seen in a theather and/or bought on VHS or laserdisc already, simply makes more sense--I will not pay more money for something that is less convenient and more restrictive; to do so would not serve the interests of the artist, but the interests of greed.
To the OP--if something makes you uncomfortable, you are not obligated to do it. That is the prerogative of any human being. That doesn't mean that you wouldn't be making a big deal out of nothing, but obviously I don't know you or your friend--any such judgment has to be a highly personal one.
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 agree with you 100%. But that doesn't change the fact that it is theoretically possible for someone to think it immoral to break the law. You stated something as fact when it demonstrably was not, and I called you on it.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
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.
Do you like music? Do you think it is right that singers, musicians, writers, recording engineers, publicists, managers etc. should be paid for their work? Do you agree that if everyone pirated everything these people would no longer have an income?
Your arguments seem to suggest that you pirate everything. If this is not the case, how do you decide what to pirate and what not to?
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
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.
This is a misinterpretation of what I was saying. Sometimes, if I am unsure of whether I think a particular act is acceptable or not, I think "what if everyone in the world did it? Would the world be a better or worse place? Or about the same?". When it comes to pirating something that I could otherwise pay for, I conclude that if I want it, I should pay for it, because if no-one paid for it, those who created it could not get paid. If I were to pirate it whilst others are paying for it, what makes me so special? Why should I get it for free when others are paying for it?
DRM would happen anyway with rampant piracy or not. DRM has never stopped piracy nor intends to. By its very nature, it is designed to fracture the market, allowing the entertainment industry to vary their pricing based on location and demand and squeeze every penny out of their consumers.
Yes, you have a good point. I could easily be wrong about this. DRM is total crap, it clearly does not work. The only thing is that most industry executives seem to be total idiots, so they could genuinely be using it in an attempt to stop piracy rather than segment markets.
Telling someone that they're "in denial of reality" because they don't agree with you isn't considered a polite or effective way of making a case.
I didn't say that because they didn't agree with me, but because the statement showed a distinct disconnect with reality. Pirates purchase media and software, not only that but pirates also purchase related hardware (iPods, new/faster computers, burners).
I could be more kind, sure, but I don't think I'm mean.
Quote:
I'd go so far as to say that morals have very little to do with piracy.
Do you like music? Do you think it is right that singers, musicians, writers, recording engineers, publicists, managers etc. should be paid for their work? Do you agree that if everyone pirated everything these people would no longer have an income?
You say this as if when you buy a CD or DVD, the income generated by that purchase goes directly to the artists. It is much, much different than that.
You say this as if when you buy a CD or DVD, the income generated by that purchase goes directly to the artists. It is much, much different than that.
I know that on an individual scale, it is different from that. For a start, when I buy a CD, it has already been bought from the record company by the retailer or the distributor who supplies the retailer. The fact remains that if no CDs were bought, record companies would have a vastly smaller income than they currently do, and could not employ all the people that they currently do.
btw, the questions I ask in my posts are meant to be genuine questions, not rhetorical.
The fact remains that if no CDs were bought, record companies would have a vastly smaller income than they currently do, and could not employ all the people that they currently do.
And if the Earth stopped mid-orbit we'd all be flung outward into the vaccuum of space.
Do you like music? Do you think it is right that singers, musicians, writers, recording engineers, publicists, managers etc. should be paid for their work? Do you agree that if everyone pirated everything these people would no longer have an income?
I was under the impression that most musicians made the bulk of their profits from their live performances. Of course, the label facilitates them becoming popular enough in the first place to make money from touring.
I'm enjoying reading the dialog here I did the same thing to a friend once (ripped a movie they lent me), I didn't mention it to him but I didnt feel right about it afterwards, I still have that movie on my hard drive.
I'm curious to see what this DRM built-in to hardware will do to the market, will it allow for a return to the "old" buisiness model or will the people simply refuse to accept it and simply purchase players that bypass DRM (like the ones that are region code free) are they even possible ?
I should hope that the entertainment industries have put some serious thought into perhaps changing their business model, currently ripping a DVD or TV show is still an art, it has yet to be automated to the point that while I am watching the DVD it is being transcoded and uploaded without any intervention on my part. This can and will most likely change, if there's one thing computers are good for, it's automation.
I think the movie and game industries have seen this already and are quickly trying to move to the subscription model, i.e. online games, and on demand movies. The music industry didn't see it coming and is still fighting it when they could have been investing in changing their business model, but the old way was easy money I'm sure it was hard for them to pull away from that teat.
To Mr H, you mentioned that if people didn't pirate stuff then iTunes wouldn't have DRM... actually if people didn't pirate stuff, there would be no iTunes music store and we would all still be occaisionally buying those CD's with two good songs and 11 crap ones. The only reason the iTunes music store was even allowed to be thought of was because the "pressure" put onto the music industry, not real pressure mind you (its still debatable whether online piracy hurt or helped them), but the pressure created by seeing a train moving slowly towards you, knowing that if it hits, it's all over. That's the only reason we have the iTunes music store, it was their last chance to save their inefficient and dated business model. They know it too, whining about wanting variable pricing but shutting up when Steveo says "No" - they can't afford to opt out of the music store these days.
Perhaps in the future when bootleg movies are a dime a dozen but nobody wants to watch them because in reality they are two hour long product placements, we will return to live performances, watching talented thesbians and musicians, earning fair pay for honest work.
Er, conservation of momentum? Unless you're picturing the Earth stopping its rotation slowly, in which case we'd all stop with it due to static friction, but if it stopped suddenly, well, we'd probably all have our legs broken, and then fly into space, as best as my experience with physics would suggest.
Think of standing on the Earth as standing on a 1,000 mile-an-hour conveyor belt--you don't want it to stop, believe me. Not to say that the original statement wasn't hyperbole, but I think it was pretty appropriate.
Er, conservation of momentum? Unless you're picturing the Earth stopping its rotation slowly, in which case we'd all stop with it due to static friction, but if it stopped suddenly, well, we'd probably all have our legs broken, and then fly into space, as best as my experience with physics would suggest.
Think of standing on the Earth as standing on a 1,000 mile-an-hour conveyor belt--you don't want it to stop, believe me. Not to say that the original statement wasn't hyperbole, but I think it was pretty appropriate.
Oops, yes, I was about to edit my post with "that's debatable". I realised that he did of course mean an instantaneous stoppage, which no doubt would result in some serious shit going down which would almost certainly kill us all. Whether we'd be flung into space or not depends upon many things, including the magnitude of our momentum relative to the earth's gravitational field (i.e. assuming we started to head off into space, could the earth's gravitational field decelerate us quickly enough to stop us.)
The original issue that started this thread still seems silly to me. You feel it is immoral for you to freely share with a friend something you participated in stealing. That is like participating in a bank robbery, growing a conscience yet keeping the money, and refusing to financially help a friend because you believe it is wrong for them to benefit from stolen money. Get real. You have already demonstrated that you have no moral problem with this stuff when it benefits you. Don't start quoting scripture when your friend asks to make a copy. That is exactly what being a hypocrite is all about... and scripture is very much against that.
As for the bigger issue of pirating and how the industry does and should make their money, that's what keeps me coming back to this thread.
I am presently ripping a rented DVD in the background. My brother rented a DVD that he had seen before specifically to watch with me. Unfortunately, I will not have time to watch it before it is due back at the store. Therefore, I am ripping it overnight and will transfer it to my ViP to watch on my TV with him at a more convenient time. There are lots of reasons one might want to copy media that have nothing to do with stealing. For the record, though, I am all in favor of doing whatever it takes (within limits) to kill off the entertainment industry as we know it. It is largely a pox on society and a parody of art, owned and operated by a den of thieves. SCREW THEM! What would happen if money stopped flowing to that industry? Believe it or not, the world was full of music and theatre and art long before our current system. It will continue to exist long after the current system has crumbled to dust.
Got to cut this short because I am running late for an appointment. Hopefully someone will pick up the theme of payment schemes. I'll be back in a few hours.
The original issue that started this thread still seems silly to me. You feel it is immoral for you to freely share with a friend something you participated in stealing. That is like participating in a bank robbery, growing a conscience yet keeping the money, and refusing to financially help a friend because you believe it is wrong for them to benefit from stolen money. Get real. You have already demonstrated that you have no moral problem with this stuff when it benefits you. Don't start quoting scripture when your friend asks to make a copy. That is exactly what being a hypocrite is all about... and scripture is very much against that.
If I understood the original poster correctly, the pirated DVDs that they have are unavailable for purchase in their country. The DVDs that they do not wish to lend to their friend, however, are, and they have purchased them. I think that that makes a difference and therefore the original poster could be argued not to be a hypocrite.
And to answer the original poster's question about whether they should feel uncomfortable or not, it depends. Are you religious? If so, you should consult the appropriate religous text or religious leader in order to answer the question. If you are not religious, then it's up to you. Assuming that you are breaking the law in your country of residence by allowing your friend to copy DVDs, do you fear the consequence of breaking that law? And seperately, if you feel that morality applies, do you think your actions moral/acceptable?
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
There are lots of reasons one might want to copy media that have nothing to do with stealing.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
For the record, though, I am all in favor of doing whatever it takes (within limits) to kill off the entertainment industry as we know it. It is largely a pox on society and a parody of art, owned and operated by a den of thieves. SCREW THEM!
I would find this argument easier to accept if you did not consume the output of said industry. It seems a bit contradictory to me: "The industry sucks. Their product is crap". "But I'm going to consume said product anyway".
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
What would happen if money stopped flowing to that industry? Believe it or not, the world was full of music and theatre and art long before our current system. It will continue to exist long after the current system has crumbled to dust.
Yes, this is true. But what would you envisage the current system being replaced with? Live performance only? Do you think all recorded performances should be free? Surely, anything that would replace the entertainment industry as we know it would still require the same sorts of jobs to be done? Is all you really want a fairer distribution of the entertainment industry's income, and for an end to DRM*? Or is it more complicated than that?
* for the record, this is what I would like to see, but I don't think piracy is an acceptable way to achieve those goals
Oops, yes, I was about to edit my post with "that's debatable". I realised that he did of course mean an instantaneous stoppage, which no doubt would result in some serious shit going down which would almost certainly kill us all. Whether we'd be flung into space or not depends upon many things, including the magnitude of our momentum relative to the earth's gravitational field (i.e. assuming we started to head off into space, could the earth's gravitational field decelerate us quickly enough to stop us.)
Damn! You're right! 1,000 miles per hour isn't nearly escape velocity. *hangs head in shame, cries over money wasted on University of Chicago physics classes*
If I understood the original poster correctly, the pirated DVDs that they have are unavailable for purchase in their country. The DVDs that they do not wish to lend to their friend, however, are, and they have purchased them. I think that that makes a difference and therefore the original poster could be argued not to be a hypocrite.
And to answer the original poster's question about whether they should feel uncomfortable or not, it depends. Are you religious? If so, you should consult the appropriate religous text or religious leader in order to answer the question. If you are not religious, then it's up to you. Assuming that you are breaking the law in your country of residence by allowing your friend to copy DVDs, do you fear the consequence of breaking that law? And seperately, if you feel that morality applies, do you think your actions moral/acceptable?
The poster hasn't had anything to say in a while, but seeing as these directly address me, i'll say a couple things. The DVDs in question are three seasons of 'Gilmore Girls' that i either brought with me when i came here in 2004 or had people who were visiting me from the states bring, they are not pirated. I also mentioned that i have bought a handful of pirated DVDs off the streets here, with my justification being that I couldn't buy a legal DVD here if I wanted to. Obviously i wouldn't care if someone asked to copy some of the couple movies i bought off the street here, in fact, I would probably just give them the discs.
As an aside, why are people saying that religion is necessary for morality? I try to use the old 'treat others as you yourself would be treated,' and it certainly has nothing to do with religion.
I've pretty much decided to let my friend copy the discs, with my logic being that it is inconsistant for me to justify my own purchase of a few bootleg DVDs with the fact that they can't be had any other way, when in fact, the girl who wants them has no other way of getting the DVDs. The only thing that is stopping me at this point is that I am mad at her for not asking me directly. But that's petty, and I know it.
Finally, someone mentioned Amazon.com as a way to purchase DVDs. They do, in fact, ship to Macedonia at reasonable rates. However, experience has shown me that many things tend to dissappear in the mail system...even so, i might ship myself a couple lower-cost DVDs and see what happens.
As an aside, why are people saying that religion is necessary for morality?
If you are refering to me, I did not say that; and I would add that I find it highly irritating when people do. I don't think anyone else has said this in this thread, either. What I did say is that if you are religious, that should define your morality system for you, rather than you having to decide it/work it out for yourself.
Quote:
Originally posted by progmac
I try to use the old 'treat others as you yourself would be treated,' and it certainly has nothing to do with religion.
Comments
Originally posted by Mr. H
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.
DRM would happen anyway with rampant piracy or not. DRM has never stopped piracy nor intends to. By its very nature, it is designed to fracture the market, allowing the entertainment industry to vary their pricing based on location and demand and squeeze every penny out of their consumers.
iTunes tracks won't play on 3rd party devices and vise versa. This allows 2 different prices for two different services. If a popular track sells for $0.99 on iTunes and $1.20 on the windows version, people will buy the iTunes copy and hardware. Next month, the windows store sells another popular song for $0.50 but you need to re-buy more hardware. The only way to consolidate your music os to re-buy everything on one device. Spend, spend, spend! That is all they want. I offer the DVD region code fiasco as an example of this preemptive strike against consumers.
Think about it, If there were only one solid DRM scheme that magically stopped all piracy and EVERYONE used it around the world, do you think the Entertainment industry would be satisfied for years to come? Nope. Their goal is to make more money than last year and "if everyone was happy" there would be no gain. That's a no-no!
EDIT:
Here's what I think: there's a huge amount of middle ground here, and there are a lot of factors besides purchasing vs. stealing, most notably the purchase price. The iTunes Music Store is doing well, but I doubt that it would be doing well if it was selling songs for $2--I think that few people would argue with that. But doesn't that mean that many people are buying from iTMS because it's convenient, and not because it's more moral than piracy?
Yes--that's exactly what it means. I'd go so far as to say that morals have very little to do with piracy. iTMS is not primarily a moral force--just an interface that works for a lot of people, at a price that they feel OK paying.
To be clear--I don't use iTMS, because 1) I like owning albums, if only for the art, 2) 128 kbps encoding isn't worth it to me, and 3) it's easier to throw a CD in the stereo than worry about hooking up a computer (this is rapidly changing, though) For exactly the same three reasons, I don't download music at all--legally or illegally. I want the real thing. I know, however, that as soon as someone lossless files are available in a convenient manner, I'll start getting a lot more stuff online--whether it's legal or not. It's more convenient. That doesn't mean that I'm going to convert my whole apartment into a den of piracy and start selling stolen media, it just means that minor infractions will start to sneak into my currently scrupulous behavior.
I do occasionally get .mp3 files from friends. If I like the music, it's worth it for me to buy the album for the higher audio quality. If I don't like it, I'll delete it. I should add to that, however, that I have a decent job, and it doesn't hurt my well-being to buy a few CDs. But what if that wasn't the case? Should I shun my friends who offer to copy an album for me because they think I should hear the artist? Should I plug my ears when they play songs that I've never personally paid any money for?
There is a concept in intellectual property called "fair use." It may be rapidly dying, but the essential idea is that if you own, say, a book, you are allowed to make use of it in a reasonable manner--you can loan it to a friend, you can make photocopies for your own use, etc. The book is yours--it no longer belongs to the author, although its contents do. Nobody has quite figured out what will happen to this concept since it has become so easy to copy digital content, but the music industry seems to think that subjecting the user to harsh restrictions in use is the answer. An .mp3 file with DRM is NOT as good as a CD, because a CD is something that belongs to you, not the record companies. In the name of protecting intellectual privacy, individual rights of fair use have been stepped all over, even to the extent of the recent Sony DRM catastrophe.
Why don't people copy books to give to their friends? Because it is prohibitively difficult to do, not because it is immoral. In the case of books, fair use corresponds pretty well with the interests of the author. With digital music, though? As groverat said, it's not our responsibility to figure out how to make the music industry profitable, and a lot of anti-piracy sentiments amount to self-policing. I will obey the speed limit when it makes sense to do so and not otherwise--similarly with piracy.
I don't want to give the impression that I think that DRM shouldn't exist, or that companies shouldn't take anti-piracy measures. They should, but if those measures don't take into account fair use and the rights of the individual to actually, really own something, rather than just purchase a license to view it, people will ultimately keep using file sharing. If that ever gets shut down somehow, people will go back to making physical copies of their music and sharing them with friends. This absolutely has always been a part of the music business, and thinking otherwise, while not "in denial of reality," seems to me somewhat evangelical--it is easy to say "this is right" and "this is wrong" without any consideration for how people actually live their lives.
On that last point, I want to say, to be clear on my stance: If a poor family who can't afford $50 textbooks steals books from a bookstore for their children to learn from, are they immoral? Any arguments about intellectual property, theft, and morality should still apply in this case if they are valid. The point isn't that filesharing, or copying a friend's DVDs is as noble as this case--it isn't--but that there are many forces at work besides the archaic idea of "correct" behavior, and that sometimes things simply cost too much money.
I personally would buy ten times as many DVDs if I could download them easily and quickly, they lost no information in lossy encoding, I could do whatever I wanted with them, and they cost half as much. As it is, copying DVDs that I've seen in a theather and/or bought on VHS or laserdisc already, simply makes more sense--I will not pay more money for something that is less convenient and more restrictive; to do so would not serve the interests of the artist, but the interests of greed.
To the OP--if something makes you uncomfortable, you are not obligated to do it. That is the prerogative of any human being. That doesn't mean that you wouldn't be making a big deal out of nothing, but obviously I don't know you or your friend--any such judgment has to be a highly personal one.
Originally posted by groverat
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 agree with you 100%. But that doesn't change the fact that it is theoretically possible for someone to think it immoral to break the law. You stated something as fact when it demonstrably was not, and I called you on it.
Originally posted by groverat
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.
Do you like music? Do you think it is right that singers, musicians, writers, recording engineers, publicists, managers etc. should be paid for their work? Do you agree that if everyone pirated everything these people would no longer have an income?
Your arguments seem to suggest that you pirate everything. If this is not the case, how do you decide what to pirate and what not to?
Originally posted by groverat
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.
This is a misinterpretation of what I was saying. Sometimes, if I am unsure of whether I think a particular act is acceptable or not, I think "what if everyone in the world did it? Would the world be a better or worse place? Or about the same?". When it comes to pirating something that I could otherwise pay for, I conclude that if I want it, I should pay for it, because if no-one paid for it, those who created it could not get paid. If I were to pirate it whilst others are paying for it, what makes me so special? Why should I get it for free when others are paying for it?
Originally posted by Ebby
DRM would happen anyway with rampant piracy or not. DRM has never stopped piracy nor intends to. By its very nature, it is designed to fracture the market, allowing the entertainment industry to vary their pricing based on location and demand and squeeze every penny out of their consumers.
Yes, you have a good point. I could easily be wrong about this. DRM is total crap, it clearly does not work. The only thing is that most industry executives seem to be total idiots, so they could genuinely be using it in an attempt to stop piracy rather than segment markets.
Telling someone that they're "in denial of reality" because they don't agree with you isn't considered a polite or effective way of making a case.
I didn't say that because they didn't agree with me, but because the statement showed a distinct disconnect with reality. Pirates purchase media and software, not only that but pirates also purchase related hardware (iPods, new/faster computers, burners).
I could be more kind, sure, but I don't think I'm mean.
I'd go so far as to say that morals have very little to do with piracy.
I agree.
Good post.
Do you like music? Do you think it is right that singers, musicians, writers, recording engineers, publicists, managers etc. should be paid for their work? Do you agree that if everyone pirated everything these people would no longer have an income?
You say this as if when you buy a CD or DVD, the income generated by that purchase goes directly to the artists. It is much, much different than that.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
You say this as if when you buy a CD or DVD, the income generated by that purchase goes directly to the artists. It is much, much different than that.
I know that on an individual scale, it is different from that. For a start, when I buy a CD, it has already been bought from the record company by the retailer or the distributor who supplies the retailer. The fact remains that if no CDs were bought, record companies would have a vastly smaller income than they currently do, and could not employ all the people that they currently do.
btw, the questions I ask in my posts are meant to be genuine questions, not rhetorical.
Originally posted by Mr. H
The fact remains that if no CDs were bought, record companies would have a vastly smaller income than they currently do, and could not employ all the people that they currently do.
And if the Earth stopped mid-orbit we'd all be flung outward into the vaccuum of space.
Each of these two scenarios is equally likely.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Do you like music? Do you think it is right that singers, musicians, writers, recording engineers, publicists, managers etc. should be paid for their work? Do you agree that if everyone pirated everything these people would no longer have an income?
I was under the impression that most musicians made the bulk of their profits from their live performances. Of course, the label facilitates them becoming popular enough in the first place to make money from touring.
I'm enjoying reading the dialog here
I'm curious to see what this DRM built-in to hardware will do to the market, will it allow for a return to the "old" buisiness model or will the people simply refuse to accept it and simply purchase players that bypass DRM (like the ones that are region code free) are they even possible ?
I should hope that the entertainment industries have put some serious thought into perhaps changing their business model, currently ripping a DVD or TV show is still an art, it has yet to be automated to the point that while I am watching the DVD it is being transcoded and uploaded without any intervention on my part. This can and will most likely change, if there's one thing computers are good for, it's automation.
I think the movie and game industries have seen this already and are quickly trying to move to the subscription model, i.e. online games, and on demand movies. The music industry didn't see it coming and is still fighting it when they could have been investing in changing their business model, but the old way was easy money I'm sure it was hard for them to pull away from that teat.
To Mr H, you mentioned that if people didn't pirate stuff then iTunes wouldn't have DRM... actually if people didn't pirate stuff, there would be no iTunes music store and we would all still be occaisionally buying those CD's with two good songs and 11 crap ones. The only reason the iTunes music store was even allowed to be thought of was because the "pressure" put onto the music industry, not real pressure mind you (its still debatable whether online piracy hurt or helped them), but the pressure created by seeing a train moving slowly towards you, knowing that if it hits, it's all over. That's the only reason we have the iTunes music store, it was their last chance to save their inefficient and dated business model. They know it too, whining about wanting variable pricing but shutting up when Steveo says "No" - they can't afford to opt out of the music store these days.
Perhaps in the future when bootleg movies are a dime a dozen but nobody wants to watch them because in reality they are two hour long product placements, we will return to live performances, watching talented thesbians and musicians, earning fair pay for honest work.
Originally posted by groverat
And if the Earth stopped mid-orbit we'd all be flung outward into the vaccuum of space.
No we wouldn't.
Originally posted by groverat
Each of these two scenarios is equally likely.
Who cares if it's unlikely? It doesn't stop it from being true.
Originally posted by Mr. H
No we wouldn't.
Er, conservation of momentum? Unless you're picturing the Earth stopping its rotation slowly, in which case we'd all stop with it due to static friction, but if it stopped suddenly, well, we'd probably all have our legs broken, and then fly into space, as best as my experience with physics would suggest.
Think of standing on the Earth as standing on a 1,000 mile-an-hour conveyor belt--you don't want it to stop, believe me. Not to say that the original statement wasn't hyperbole, but I think it was pretty appropriate.
Originally posted by Duckspeak
Er, conservation of momentum? Unless you're picturing the Earth stopping its rotation slowly, in which case we'd all stop with it due to static friction, but if it stopped suddenly, well, we'd probably all have our legs broken, and then fly into space, as best as my experience with physics would suggest.
Think of standing on the Earth as standing on a 1,000 mile-an-hour conveyor belt--you don't want it to stop, believe me. Not to say that the original statement wasn't hyperbole, but I think it was pretty appropriate.
As for the bigger issue of pirating and how the industry does and should make their money, that's what keeps me coming back to this thread.
I am presently ripping a rented DVD in the background. My brother rented a DVD that he had seen before specifically to watch with me. Unfortunately, I will not have time to watch it before it is due back at the store. Therefore, I am ripping it overnight and will transfer it to my ViP to watch on my TV with him at a more convenient time. There are lots of reasons one might want to copy media that have nothing to do with stealing. For the record, though, I am all in favor of doing whatever it takes (within limits) to kill off the entertainment industry as we know it. It is largely a pox on society and a parody of art, owned and operated by a den of thieves. SCREW THEM! What would happen if money stopped flowing to that industry? Believe it or not, the world was full of music and theatre and art long before our current system. It will continue to exist long after the current system has crumbled to dust.
Got to cut this short because I am running late for an appointment. Hopefully someone will pick up the theme of payment schemes. I'll be back in a few hours.
Cheers.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
The original issue that started this thread still seems silly to me. You feel it is immoral for you to freely share with a friend something you participated in stealing. That is like participating in a bank robbery, growing a conscience yet keeping the money, and refusing to financially help a friend because you believe it is wrong for them to benefit from stolen money. Get real. You have already demonstrated that you have no moral problem with this stuff when it benefits you. Don't start quoting scripture when your friend asks to make a copy. That is exactly what being a hypocrite is all about... and scripture is very much against that.
If I understood the original poster correctly, the pirated DVDs that they have are unavailable for purchase in their country. The DVDs that they do not wish to lend to their friend, however, are, and they have purchased them. I think that that makes a difference and therefore the original poster could be argued not to be a hypocrite.
And to answer the original poster's question about whether they should feel uncomfortable or not, it depends. Are you religious? If so, you should consult the appropriate religous text or religious leader in order to answer the question. If you are not religious, then it's up to you. Assuming that you are breaking the law in your country of residence by allowing your friend to copy DVDs, do you fear the consequence of breaking that law? And seperately, if you feel that morality applies, do you think your actions moral/acceptable?
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
There are lots of reasons one might want to copy media that have nothing to do with stealing.
Agreed.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
For the record, though, I am all in favor of doing whatever it takes (within limits) to kill off the entertainment industry as we know it. It is largely a pox on society and a parody of art, owned and operated by a den of thieves. SCREW THEM!
I would find this argument easier to accept if you did not consume the output of said industry. It seems a bit contradictory to me: "The industry sucks. Their product is crap". "But I'm going to consume said product anyway".
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
What would happen if money stopped flowing to that industry? Believe it or not, the world was full of music and theatre and art long before our current system. It will continue to exist long after the current system has crumbled to dust.
Yes, this is true. But what would you envisage the current system being replaced with? Live performance only? Do you think all recorded performances should be free? Surely, anything that would replace the entertainment industry as we know it would still require the same sorts of jobs to be done? Is all you really want a fairer distribution of the entertainment industry's income, and for an end to DRM*? Or is it more complicated than that?
* for the record, this is what I would like to see, but I don't think piracy is an acceptable way to achieve those goals
Originally posted by Mr. H
Damn! You're right! 1,000 miles per hour isn't nearly escape velocity. *hangs head in shame, cries over money wasted on University of Chicago physics classes*
If I understood the original poster correctly, the pirated DVDs that they have are unavailable for purchase in their country.
Amazon.com
Originally posted by Mr. H
If I understood the original poster correctly, the pirated DVDs that they have are unavailable for purchase in their country. The DVDs that they do not wish to lend to their friend, however, are, and they have purchased them. I think that that makes a difference and therefore the original poster could be argued not to be a hypocrite.
And to answer the original poster's question about whether they should feel uncomfortable or not, it depends. Are you religious? If so, you should consult the appropriate religous text or religious leader in order to answer the question. If you are not religious, then it's up to you. Assuming that you are breaking the law in your country of residence by allowing your friend to copy DVDs, do you fear the consequence of breaking that law? And seperately, if you feel that morality applies, do you think your actions moral/acceptable?
The poster hasn't had anything to say in a while, but seeing as these directly address me, i'll say a couple things. The DVDs in question are three seasons of 'Gilmore Girls' that i either brought with me when i came here in 2004 or had people who were visiting me from the states bring, they are not pirated. I also mentioned that i have bought a handful of pirated DVDs off the streets here, with my justification being that I couldn't buy a legal DVD here if I wanted to. Obviously i wouldn't care if someone asked to copy some of the couple movies i bought off the street here, in fact, I would probably just give them the discs.
As an aside, why are people saying that religion is necessary for morality? I try to use the old 'treat others as you yourself would be treated,' and it certainly has nothing to do with religion.
I've pretty much decided to let my friend copy the discs, with my logic being that it is inconsistant for me to justify my own purchase of a few bootleg DVDs with the fact that they can't be had any other way, when in fact, the girl who wants them has no other way of getting the DVDs. The only thing that is stopping me at this point is that I am mad at her for not asking me directly. But that's petty, and I know it.
Finally, someone mentioned Amazon.com as a way to purchase DVDs. They do, in fact, ship to Macedonia at reasonable rates. However, experience has shown me that many things tend to dissappear in the mail system...even so, i might ship myself a couple lower-cost DVDs and see what happens.
Originally posted by progmac
As an aside, why are people saying that religion is necessary for morality?
If you are refering to me, I did not say that; and I would add that I find it highly irritating when people do. I don't think anyone else has said this in this thread, either. What I did say is that if you are religious, that should define your morality system for you, rather than you having to decide it/work it out for yourself.
Originally posted by progmac
I try to use the old 'treat others as you yourself would be treated,' and it certainly has nothing to do with religion.
do unto others as you would have them do unto you
Me too.
Originally posted by Mr. H
If you are refering to me, I did not say that; and I would add that I find it highly irritating when people do.
i guess i thought that's what you were inferring, but i didn't read your post close enough. point taken.
yeah, do unto, that sounds better.