Illegal tunes vs. other media products debate

[Sentient]

I'm very interested to hear how people justify the downloading / watching online of copyright films, television shows etc.

 

Do any of the aforementioned people detest others downloading copyright music?

 

What are the salient differences?

 

I'll jump in after others have expressed their views.

 

Apologise if this has been covered (at length) elsewhere.

[thr339z]

re·lease (r-ls)

tr.v. re·leased, re·leas·ing, re·leas·es

1. To set free from confinement, restraint, or bondage: released the prisoners.

2. To free from something that binds, fastens, or holds back; let go: released the balloons; released a flood of questions.

a. To issue for performance, sale, publication, or distribution.

b. To make known or available.

a. The act or an instance of issuing something for publication, use, or distribution.

b. Something thus released: a new release of a software program.

c. The condition of being available, in use, or in publication: a movie in wide release

 

public domain

n.

1. Land owned and controlled by the state or federal government.

2. The status of publications, products, and processes that are not protected under patent or copyright.

 

 

Copyleft is a play on the word copyright and is the practice of using copyright law to remove restrictions on distributing copies and modified versions of a work for others and requiring that the same freedoms be preserved in modified versions.

 

Copyleft is a form of licensing and may be used to modify copyrights for works such as computer software, documents, music, and art. In general, copyright law allows an author to prohibit others from reproducing, adapting, or distributing copies of the author's work. In contrast, an author may, through a copyleft licensing scheme, give every person who receives a copy of a work permission to reproduce, adapt or distribute the work as long as any resulting copies or adaptations are also bound by the same copyleft licensing scheme

[Pakage]

just saw this thread.

 

personally my guilt is proportional to how much money has already been made off said media item.

 

If its a block buster film thats earned millions of dollars at the box office or a pop/rap song that again has made the artist millions or a tv series thats been bought by networks world wide then i wouldnt feel guilty about downloading that at all. Theyve already made their fair share of cash, im not gonna feel guilty that because of me their rolls royce doesnt have diamond studded rims.

 

Underground music is a different story as the artist dont make fuck all off it and need every cent they can get hence why i dont mind paying out the ears for it. I would feel guilty about a musician i enjoy listening to being unable to feed his kids because i was pirating his music.

 

Another way i can justify downloading specifically movies is that eventually theyre gonna come out on TV anyway, so all im doing by downloading them is actually time travelling to the future!

 

[gozu]

"Do any of the aforementioned people detest others downloading copyright music? "

 

 

yes.

 

this is interesting. i think that one shouldnt be into this "for the money" BUT, i will do EVERYTHING i can to support said people because i know how much effort is put into this, and whole heartidly bealive that they need as much support as they can get. i know many bands from NZ that have split up soley because they cannot afford to keep doing it and live a normal *insert definition of normal*, life style (tadpole, a band that you'd think was quite big in nz, this was one of the reasons, thats just one example)

[perceptualChaos]

I think the unlawful sharing of any media or software, etc is definitely immoral because it was provided under the condition that it would not be shared, and then it was. Similarly, knowingly acquiring media/software through unlawful methods implies using something (playing, installing, etc) without the permission of the owner/creator, and is also immoral from my perspective.

 

In a perfect world, that would be the end of the matter; it's immoral so it shouldn't be done.... But in the real world, people only have so much disposable income which they can budget towards media. With the invention of the mp3, and file sharing networks like Audio Galaxy and Napster in the 90s, the option of having access to more than what one can afford opened up, and it even became the norm for most of the generation from this period to not pay for some, or even all of their media.

 

In this situation where it is almost considered normal to take part in some amount of piracy, I think the idea of right and wrong takes on a new dimension. People have the option of having something even if they cannot afford it. Consequently, if the price is deemed unaffordable by someone, they will probably just go and download it. Similarly, if they can only afford four albums per month, and they like ten, they might pay for their favorite four, and download the other 6. I think this provides a much needed market force, which tends to shift the power balance back towards the consumer.

 

Personally, I believe that while it is still immoral to participate in file sharing, as long as people spend a reasonable out of money on the work that they appreciate most (and to the creators that need the money the most), and that they don't make money off what they didn't pay for, then the file sharing is pretty innocuous.

 

I basically stopped pirating dnb music completely since beatport etc became a realistic alternative to vinyl several years ago. And anything that I play as a DJ I will absolutely pay for, regardless of the genre. Tbh I do still download some stuff, but it's usually music that I don't listen to all that often, or is not available online for me to pay for, and/or when I only like a song off an album, etc.

 

In terms of movies, I used to be a fiend, but I'm getting a bit better now and I tend to go to the video store most of the time when I can be fucked. With TV series I still find that some of them are rip off bastards where you only get a few episodes per DVD, and I don't pay for that shit. Amazon and Itunes let you buy some TV series, but for most of the ones that I want, I've found they have regional restrictions which don't let me buy them, so I just download.

 

For software, I'm still pretty bad... but I have a legit copy of windows, and am about to buy a legit copy of Cubase. There are so many more important things I'd rather spend my money on than having all my plugins legit, but eventually I'd like to have everything totally legit. Most software has tended to be outside of what I can afford, but the reality is I'd feel more guilty to myself for not learning how to use this software to do something constructive with my life than I feel guilty for not paying the developers. The stuff that I use a lot, I will end up paying for.

 

But yeah, it's all still immoral IMO

 

[thr339z]

hmmmmmmmmmm.........

 

im a wee bit hesitant to state my subjective point of view as my position is and always has been radically left of almost every person on this site....and as the past will show my opinion is almost not welcome...

 

so..................

 

I think my position can be easily quantified in my first post on this thread....

let me repost so you can read between the lines

 

 

re·lease (r-ls)

tr.v. re·leased, re·leas·ing, re·leas·es

1. To set free from confinement, restraint, or bondage: released the prisoners.

2. To free from something that binds, fastens, or holds back; let go: released the balloons; released a flood of questions.

a. To issue for performance, sale, publication, or distribution.

b. To make known or available.

a. The act or an instance of issuing something for publication, use, or distribution.

b. Something thus released: a new release of a software program.

c. The condition of being available, in use, or in publication: a movie in wide release

 

public domain

n.

1. Land owned and controlled by the state or federal government.

2. The status of publications, products, and processes that are not protected under patent or copyright.

 

 

Copyleft is a play on the word copyright and is the practice of using copyright law to remove restrictions on distributing copies and modified versions of a work for others and requiring that the same freedoms be preserved in modified versions.

 

Copyleft is a form of licensing and may be used to modify copyrights for works such as computer software, documents, music, and art. In general, copyright law allows an author to prohibit others from reproducing, adapting, or distributing copies of the author's work. In contrast, an author may, through a copyleft licensing scheme, give every person who receives a copy of a work permission to reproduce, adapt or distribute the work as long as any resulting copies or adaptations are also bound by the same copyleft licensing scheme

Subvert sample download share unless its unrealesed then dont! otherwise you WILL get owned by everyone case in point remember dj carnage...Fuck that....I do not apoligise for being militant on this and depending whom you talk to its all subjective jargon .In the real world IE in court ,if it even got that far theres some many loop holes and grey areas its not funny...its kinda like weed...if for personal use..chur if ur moving shit loads o gear..well? u play with fire u get burnt. Its the 21 c peeps we have the tech so... why the fuck not? multinational companies fuck us on the daily ...once again if its the crew dont do it ..any major label outside of our country FUCK THEM

[Pakage]

as the past will show my opinion is almost not welcome...

 

aww ben come on bro, you know we got love for you

 

If everyone had the same views, life would be boring as fuck. Even though your ideas sometimes can seem quite extreme from my perspective i still value your input just as much as anyone, if not more so.

 

I get way more out of talking with someone with differing opinions to mine than someone who nods and smiles to be honest

[perceptualChaos]

Redstar309z sees perceptualChaos' post

 

Internal dialogue: "ZOMG, someone posted something longer than my post for the first time in history!!! what do I do? fuck fuck fuck. OK calm down, must write longer reply.... but nobody here takes my ultraleftist opinion seriously..... shit..... shit..... OK so I just say I'm so left that I'm not going to write what I really think, and then repost my random dictionary definitions of release, public domain, and copyleft and tell them to read between the lines! yeayah!"

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously though Ben,

 

If you were to distill your rants into a set of coherent core ideas, I don't think the people here would be all that opposed to the basic premises of what you're saying. You're definitely further left than most of us here, but I don't think that's the reason why you don't tend to get good reactions... it's more because people don't understand what you're trying to say. Instead of becoming more mysterious and telling people to read between the lines, I think you just need to work on presenting your views in a more digestible and logical way.

 

For example, I'm sure most of us agree that pirating local NZ stuff from within the "extended crew" is bad, and pirating from big corporations is not as bad because they're already filthy rich, overcharge us, and are trying to take over the world anyway. That's more or less a significant part of what both pakage and myself said.

[Grind]

Copyleft is a form of licensing and may be used to modify copyrights for works such as computer software, documents, music, and art. In general, copyright law allows an author to prohibit others from reproducing, adapting, or distributing copies of the author's work. In contrast, an author may, through a copyleft licensing scheme, give every person who receives a copy of a work permission to reproduce, adapt or distribute the work as long as any resulting copies or adaptations are also bound by the same copyleft licensing scheme

 

lol, how do you think the authors/artists/producers/writers etc would feel about all their work being made completely worthless and distributed for free? can't see that one taking off sorry bro.

[thr339z]

chur@ pakmangsz and pchaos......

[Sentient]

Been following comments on a status update today - someone got flamed for illegally 'recording' tunes from Soundcloud. Stupid, yes. But - many still seem to have this 'holier than thou' thing going on, when they rape other entertainment industries (and by extension, the millions of people who work in them and create for them) left right and centre.

 

It's becoming a gripe of mine.

 

It's as if some don't believe that individuals have had a hand in creating things for large companies - and that large companies just store up all their cash or something Uncle Scrooge style, as opposed to employing more people and making more products.

 

I may be wrong but I'm willling to discuss it!