Illegally Downloading

Today · May 12, 2010

So I'm sure we've all done it.
Whether it was one song or an album. An art program or video editing software. We all probably done it at least once.

Even the younger generation is doing it. What's your opinion on that?

It's stealing, right?

Some say it's beneficial for music artists. You download something, show it to everyone, and people are wanting to buy it. More beneficial than harmful?

What if it isn't? What if you are taking money away? Then you're harming a family. The artist can't feed their family. Why? Because of you.

So like I said before. Do you think it's harmful or beneficial?
If it's harmful why do we continue to do it?

Maniclysane · May 12, 2010

Pirated music has no DRM.

If there is no benefit to paying for something you can get for free, there is no reason to pay for it.

Lore · May 12, 2010

There's a great thread on this subject already in the Debate Hall.

I have no problem with anyone pirating music unless it is for monetary gain. By that, I mean that they burn a cd of illegally downloaded music and sell it. That's making money off of someone else's work, and I can't stand to see that.

Unfortunately, the same argument of making money off of someone else's work is being applied everywhere. It seems that the music industry (or copyright groups in general) thinks that one download always equals a lost sale.

What if someone downloads something that they never intended to buy in the first place? That means that no money is lost by the record companies because they never would have gotten any in the first place. Not only that, but sometimes (I'm not going to be an idiot and say that most people do this) when people like a pirated album, they go buy it and other associated merchandise to support the artist.

Besides all that, the US government has actually recognized the benefits of piracy.
The actual report
A nice summary from torrentfreak

Deleted member · May 12, 2010

I'm not into musics that much, so I'll try to bring up my argument from a video game perspective.

When it comes to video games, that really depends. I'm really against pirating games on re-releases of old games, when remakes of older games are out, and newer games in general. Anything sixth generation and above should be considered illegal.

However, when am I fine with piracy? That exception are games that have not been released in any shape or form outside of original releases.

Take Earthbound for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System. Due to rumors of legal issues, it may not be made available on the Virtual Console. Plus Nintendo shows almost zero interest in the series, not to mention they have neglected it for fifteen years (In the United State). Europe didn't even get this game.

Legal issues shouldn't be the only reason why I'm fine with pirating of this game. Look at the prices. It is expensive. Loose copies can shoot for around $100, aim for a boxed one and you're handing out even more money. $100 is enough to buy half a Wii. As a matter of fact, you could spend the money on a Playstation 2. Scratch that, most successful retro systems cost a lot less then this game. The longer the game continues to be ignored, the higher the demand will get, and the higher it will cost. People who cannot afford to shake out the money will have no choice but to pirate the game, if they even have a computer. Legal issues on older games don't solve piracy issues, it makes them worse.

Would I support piracy on newer games, older games that are available on newer platforms, or older games that received remakes? Not at all.

But what about if they are old games that have been ignored for such a long time that we may never see it on another platform? Then let them do what they want.

Sieguest · May 12, 2010

Werekill said:
What if someone downloads something that they never intended to buy in the first place? That means that no money is lost by the record companies because they never would have gotten any in the first place. Not only that, but sometimes (I'm not going to be an idiot and say that most people do this) when people like a pirated album, they go buy it and other associated merchandise to support the artist.

I don't quite agree with this. If someone downloads something they never intended to buy, then they still come into possession of a unit they have not paid for which equals the loss of one unit of sale for the artist.

And while some people may go out and buy the CDs to support the office, there are still others who will just download more of the songs without paying a dime.

Besides all that, the US government has actually recognized the benefits of piracy.
The actual report
A nice summary from torrentfreak

This seems like a double edged sword to me, I'll edit in why later when I read a bit more of it.

Government Report] Some consumers may knowingly purchase counterfeits that are less expensive than the genuine goods and experience positive effects (consumer surplus) said:
The benefit of consumer surplus is shadowed by the fact that the money paid by the consumer for the counterfeit doesn't go to the one who truly deserves it. This still equates to a loss of money for the true producer. And in some cases we also jump into infringement of copyright laws.[/COLOR]

Government report said:

Efforts to estimate losses involve assumptions such as the rate at which consumers would substitute counterfeit for legitimate products, which can have enormous impacts on the resulting estimates. Because of the significant differences in types of counterfeited and pirated goods and industries involved, no single method can be used to develop estimates. Each method has limitations, and most experts observed that it is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the economy-wide impacts. Nonetheless, research in specific industries suggest that the problem is sizeable, which is of particular concern as many U.S. industries are leaders in the creation of intellectual property.

Click to expand...

This report also acknowledges that there are losses when consumers purchase counterfeit goods or pirate them. Even though they cannot accurately provide an estimate of this, it is acknowledge that it is a problem and a fairly evident one.

The cons outnumber the pros and the cons are also much graver consequences than the pros. Even with the pros listed, they are unsure of good this will do outside of the immediate time, while most of the cons can be felt in the immediate and long term sense.

Super Smash Bros. Fan said:

I'm not into musics that much, so I'll try to bring up my argument from a video game perspective.

When it comes to video games, that really depends. I'm really against pirating games on re-releases of old games, when remakes of older games are out, and newer games in general. Anything sixth generation and above should be considered illegal.

However, when am I fine with piracy? That exception are games that have not been released in any shape or form outside of original releases.

Take Earthbound for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System. Due to rumors of legal issues, it may not be made available on the Virtual Console. Plus Nintendo shows almost zero interest in the series, not to mention they have neglected it for fifteen years (In the United State). Europe didn't even get this game.

Legal issues shouldn't be the only reason why I'm fine with pirating of this game. Look at the prices. It is expensive. Loose copies can shoot for around $100, aim for a boxed one and you're handing out even more money. $100 is enough to buy half a Wii. As a matter of fact, you could spend the money on a Playstation 2. Scratch that, most successful retro systems cost a lot less then this game. The longer the game continues to be ignored, the higher the demand will get, and the higher it will cost. People who cannot afford to shake out the money will have no choice but to pirate the game, if they even have a computer. Legal issues on older games don't solve piracy issues, it makes them worse.

Would I support piracy on newer games, older games that are available on newer platforms, or older games that received remakes? Not at all.

But what about if they are old games that have been ignored for such a long time that we may never see it on another platform? Then let them do what they want.

Click to expand...

Even if it is still outdated and ignored, you still come into possession of something you haven't paid a dime for, which is essentially stealing. If I stole an old Windows 97 computer and justified myself by saying "It's outdated and ignored, why does it matter." I'd still be subject to arrest for stealing.

I usually buy CDs and stuff of the music I want, if I do download a song, I usually end up deleting it later.

Lore · May 13, 2010

I don't quite agree with this. If someone downloads something they never intended to buy, then they still come into possession of a unit they have not paid for which equals the loss of one unit of sale for the artist.

And while some people may go out and buy the CDs to support the office, there are still others who will just download more of the songs without paying a dime.

How can they lose money if they were never getting any in the first place? This isn't like stealing a car or any other physical object.

If you steal a car, then the owner no longer has a car. If you copy a song, the owner of the song still has the song.

With that in mind, how can they count that as a lost sale if the person never planned on ever buying the song? They wouldn't have gotten money either way.

And while some people may go out and buy the CDs to support the office, there are still others who will just download more of the songs without paying a dime.

Did I say that everyone did it? No, I even directly stated that I wasn't going to be an idiot and say that.

This report also acknowledges that there are losses when consumers purchase counterfeit goods or pirate them. Even though they cannot accurately provide an estimate of this, it is acknowledge that it is a problem and a fairly evident one.

The cons outnumber the pros and the cons are also much graver consequences than the pros. Even with the pros listed, they are unsure of good this will do outside of the immediate time, while most of the cons can be felt in the immediate and long term sense.

This is true, but I just wanted to throw that report out there for future reference in the thread.

Sieguest · May 14, 2010

Werekill said:
How can they lose money if they were never getting any in the first place? This isn't like stealing a car or any other physical object.

This is the situation you've given.
This person never plans on getting the product.
At the moment they are neither in possession nor want it.
Now this person downloads a product that is $12.95 on retail without paying anything. They never planned on having it, but they're in possession of it via the download.

So now someone has something that is worth $12.95, but no money has gone to the producer. Therefore, the producer is short $12.95 owed to him/her.
Even if the downloader never intended to come into possession of the product in the first place, if they download it, then they have come into possession of the product, and legally owe money to the producer. While either party may not know the difference, the difference is still there.

If you copy a song, the owner of the song still has the song.

But the owner does not have the money owed for having the song.

With that in mind, how can they count that as a lost sale if the person never planned on ever buying the song? They wouldn't have gotten money either way.

Because that person has possession of the song without paying for it. By legal means of coming into possession of the song, that person would have to pay a price to get it, even if they never intended on getting it. To have it without paying for it, is money owed to the producer.

Did I say that everyone did it? No, I even directly stated that I wasn't going to be an idiot and say that.

My apologies then.

Jam Stunna · May 14, 2010

Guest438 said:
This is the situation you've given.
This person never plans on getting the product.
At the moment they are neither in possession nor want it.
Now this person downloads a product that is $12.95 on retail without paying anything. They never planned on having it, but they're in possession of it via the download.

So now someone has something that is worth $12.95, but no money has gone to the producer. Therefore, the producer is short $12.95 owed to him/her.
Even if the downloader never intended to come into possession of the product in the first place, if they download it, then they have come into possession of the product, and legally owe money to the producer. While either party may not know the difference, the difference is still there.

That may be true, but it's not the same thing as saying that a sale would have been completed if not for piracy, which is what organizations like the RIAA are basically arguing.

A similar situation is the various second-hand markets. Automakers don't count used cars as lost sales. It's not a perfect analogy, but a consumer is still receiving goods without making payment to the producer.

LLDL · May 14, 2010

http://www.eatliver.com/img/2008/3428.jpg

Piracy is unethical. For major things such as games and movies I completely agree that it is theft, because nobody downloads a movie that they never intended to watch. However, if it is something such as an album or an individual song, these can be recorded right off of your music channel, radio, and streamed BY the owners to download. You can obtain most songs for free without downloading a single song, so I don't see why downloading the mp3 is considered piracy.

Lore · May 14, 2010

Guest438 said:
My apologies then.

No problem, everyone makes mistakes.

Jam Stunna said:
That may be true, but it's not the same thing as saying that a sale would have been completed if not for piracy, which is what organizations like the RIAA are basically arguing.

A similar situation is the various second-hand markets. Automakers don't count used cars as lost sales. It's not a perfect analogy, but a consumer is still receiving goods without making payment to the producer.

I couldn't have said it any better. You should consider that my response to the rest of your post Guest.

CHAiN-ACE said:
http://www.eatliver.com/img/2008/3428.jpg

Piracy is unethical. For major things such as games and movies I completely agree that it is theft, because nobody downloads a movie that they never intended to watch. However, if it is something such as an album or an individual song, these can be recorded right off of your music channel, radio, and streamed BY the owners to download. You can obtain most songs for free without downloading a single song, so I don't see why downloading the mp3 is considered piracy.

...What? Recording from a radio or a stream is just as illegal as using a torrent. Besides that, how is downloading a movie or game worse than getting a song for free? Pirating music is still copyright infringement.

Also:

because nobody downloads a movie that they never intended to watch

Unfortunately, that has nothing to with the argument of "no money intended to be spent = no lost sale." If you download something, it is generally assumed that you want to watch it.

Following your logic, any viewing of a borrowed movie or a movie that you watched with a friend's legal copy counts as a lost sale. What if you never intended to buy the movie because you thought that it was going to be terrible?

Sieguest · May 14, 2010

Jam Stunna said:
That may be true, but it's not the same thing as saying that a sale would have been completed if not for piracy, which is what organizations like the RIAA are basically arguing.

A similar situation is the various second-hand markets. Automakers don't count used cars as lost sales. It's not a perfect analogy, but a consumer is still receiving goods without making payment to the producer.

Hmm now I see what you two mean, That makes sense, but why download it if you didn't want it in the first place?

Pertaining the car example, would that mean that buying a used car is inadvertently illegal? If I understand your example right, then the money from buying a used car does not go to the producer?

CHAiN-ACE said:
However, if it is something such as an album or an individual song, these can be recorded right off of your music channel, radio, and streamed BY the owners to download. You can obtain most songs for free without downloading a single song, so I don't see why downloading the mp3 is considered piracy.

V

because nobody downloads a movie that they never intended to watch.

This same logic can be applied to music situation as well.

Lore · May 14, 2010

Guest438 said:
Hmm now I see what you two mean, That makes sense, but why download it if you didn't want it in the first place?

No, you just don't want to spend money on it. I usually do this when I hear about a new album and I'm not sure if I want to buy it. If I don't like it, I didn't waste any money on it.

Although people like me who buy music after downloading are in the minority, that's the general attitude of people who don't intend to buy something but download it anyway.

Sieguest · May 14, 2010

Werekill said:
No, you just don't want to spend money on it. I usually do this when I hear about a new album and I'm not sure if I want to buy it. If I don't like it, I didn't waste any money on it.

I have to admit that I do that too. But I take it that if you didn't like the song that you would delete it from your computer correct?

Although people like me who buy music after downloading are in the minority, that's the general attitude of people who don't intend to buy something but download it anyway.

Today said:
So like I said before. Do you think it's harmful or beneficial?
If it's harmful why do we continue to do it?

I won't deny that. But look back at the above section of the OP and the part of your post I've highlighted in red. If I've read correctly, the OP asked whether piracy is a problem or not. Given that people who download a song to test whether or not they buy the CD are in the minority. Can you then deny that Piracy is a problem? (At least concerning the other facets that you did not say you had a problem with earlier.)

Lore · May 14, 2010

Guest438 said:
I won't deny that. But look back at the above section of the OP and the part of your post I've highlighted in red. If I've read correctly, the OP asked whether piracy is a problem or not. Given that people who download a song to test whether or not they buy the CD are in the minority. Can you then deny that Piracy is a problem? (At least concerning the other facets that you did not say you had a problem with earlier.)

I'm sorry, crashboards got rid of an edit that I put in between the two paragraphs.

I don't remember the exact wording, but I said something along the lines of usually people just download stuff that they are unsure about and never worry about buying it. Also, a lot of them have the attitude of "download and never care about buying."

It also doesn't really help that I took some sleeping meds right after that post. Hopefully you can get what I'm saying from that bit, but if you can't I'll post more if I can remember it tomorrow.. >_<

And yes, I do delete the songs that I don't like.

Sieguest · May 14, 2010

Werekill said:
I'm sorry, crashboards got rid of an edit that I put in between the two paragraphs.

I don't remember the exact wording, but I said something along the lines of usually people just download stuff that they are unsure about and never worry about buying it. Also, a lot of them have the attitude of "download and never care about buying."

It also doesn't really help that I took some sleeping meds right after that post. Hopefully you can get what I'm saying from that bit, but if you can't I'll post more if I can remember it tomorrow.. >_<

And yes, I do delete the songs that I don't like.

I think I get what you're saying. A form of legitimate piracy which one could equate to test driving a car, compared to the illegitimate piracy of someone downloading for their personal want without intention of buying which could be equated to someone stealing an item.
Was that what you are driving at?
If so then I ask you again: If those who participate in the illegitimate piracy outnumber those who participate in legitimate piracy, then do we have a problem?

Deleted member · May 15, 2010

Guest438 said:
Even if it is still outdated and ignored, you still come into possession of something you haven't paid a dime for, which is essentially stealing. If I stole an old Windows 97 computer and justified myself by saying "It's outdated and ignored, why does it matter." I'd still be subject to arrest for stealing.

I usually buy CDs and stuff of the music I want, if I do download a song, I usually end up deleting it later.

Stealing a old computer phsycially is a lot more obvious then someone downloading a old game off the Internet. People that had that old computer will get concerned about it because it probably had important stuff on it that they would probably eventually need, especially if it still magically works.

Big corporations like Nintendo obviously do not care about older games like Earthbound that much because they haven't released it in any form. They have completely and utterly ignored the piracy issue regarding the game. Nintendo hasn't lost a dime out of someone illegally downloading Earthbound because it is no longer in production. Add it to the fact that it was a SNES exclusive, which is a dead console, and I really don't how pirating it can be a problem that will hurt anyone.

Sieguest · May 15, 2010

Super Smash Bros. Fan said:
Stealing a old computer phsycially is a lot more obvious then someone downloading a old game off the Internet. People that had that old computer will get concerned about it because it probably had important stuff on it that they would probably eventually need, especially if it still magically works.

Regardless of how conspicuous or inconspicuous it is, it's still stealing.

And just how those people will care about that computer, an artist will care about his or her work.

Big corporations like Nintendo obviously do not care about older games like Earthbound that much because they haven't released it in any form. They have completely and utterly ignored the piracy issue regarding the game. Nintendo hasn't lost a dime out of someone illegally downloading Earthbound because it is no longer in production. Add it to the fact that it was a SNES exclusive, which is a dead console, and I really don't how pirating it can be a problem that will hurt anyone.

You can't substantiate that. If Nintendo truly didn't care and utterly ignore them, then how come we have Ness and Lucas in brawl?
Nintendo still has their ownership of the game. As such, it still belongs to them, no matter how old or under used it is. Downloading without paying a cent to Nintendo is direct infringement of their copyright.

Lore · May 15, 2010

Guest438 said:
I think I get what you're saying. A form of legitimate piracy which one could equate to test driving a car, compared to the illegitimate piracy of someone downloading for their personal want without intention of buying which could be equated to someone stealing an item.
Was that what you are driving at?
If so then I ask you again: If those who participate in the illegitimate piracy outnumber those who participate in legitimate piracy, then do we have a problem?

That's basically what I was driving at, but I also meant that the illegitimate piracy still wouldn't count as a lost sale.

Now that we're on the same page, I agree that there is a problem if (and because) the illegitimate ones outnumber the legit ones.

Another problem is the blatant abuse of copyright law, but that's another debate entirely.

Sieguest · May 16, 2010

Werekill said:
That's basically what I was driving at, but I also meant that the illegitimate piracy still wouldn't count as a lost sale.

That makes sense. After re-reading this thread and turning it over some, I understand a bit more why it wouldn't be a lost sale. You can't really lose what never was going to happen, but it is that much less money the producer would have earned if the person came into possession of the product legally.

Now that we're on the same page, I agree that there is a problem if (and because) the illegitimate ones outnumber the legit ones.

So now the OPs second question: Why do we continue to do it?

Another problem is the blatant abuse of copyright law, but that's another debate entirely.

Agreed.

Lore · May 16, 2010

Guest438 said:
So now the OPs second question: Why do we continue to do it?

We do it not only for the fact that it's free, but there isn't an acceptable, inexpensive alternative.

$20 to buy an album with only 10 songs and only 4ish that I usually like? No thanks.

Sieguest · May 19, 2010

Werekill said:
We do it not only for the fact that it's free, but there isn't an acceptable, inexpensive alternative.

$20 to buy an album with only 10 songs and only 4ish that I usually like? No thanks.

Well yeah, that's true. The only solution (more like half of a solution) I can see to this is if somehow artists would be willing to sell individual songs. Not sure how that would work though...

Dre89 · May 21, 2010

The other issue though is that by pirating you are making a lack of contribution.

If A and B are watching a TV, but only A paid for the TV, is it fair that B watches it?

B can only watch TV if A pays for it. The music industry only survives because people pay for their music. The problem is B's position cannot be universalised because if everyone pirated then there would be no industry to pirate from, then you have to develop a criteria to distinguish between who can pirate and who can't.

Better yet imagine a communtiy of only 100 people. In that community, pirating would severely hamper the artist's income and probably hinder his or her financial welfare, so the discrimination issue would be far more apaprent.

Pirating is practical, but the question was whether ti was ethical or not. I think the fact that it can't be unviersalised and it is dependant on people attaining the good another way suggests it is unethical.

Lore · May 22, 2010

Guest438 said:
Well yeah, that's true. The only solution (more like half of a solution) I can see to this is if somehow artists would be willing to sell individual songs. Not sure how that would work though...

Or if an online store appeared that offered cheap prices, no drm, and a fair amount of money payed to the artist, that would work too.

A complete and fair rewrite of the US copyright laws would be very welcome as well.

Dre. said:
The other issue though is that by pirating you are making a lack of contribution.

If A and B are watching a TV, but only A paid for the TV, is it fair that B watches it?

B can only watch TV if A pays for it. The music industry only survives because people pay for their music. The problem is B's position cannot be universalised because if everyone pirated then there would be no industry to pirate from, then you have to develop a criteria to distinguish between who can pirate and who can't.

Better yet imagine a communtiy of only 100 people. In that community, pirating would severely hamper the artist's income and probably hinder his or her financial welfare, so the discrimination issue would be far more apaprent.

Pirating is practical, but the question was whether ti was ethical or not. I think the fact that it can't be unviersalised and it is dependant on people attaining the good another way suggests it is unethical.

This is true.

To be honest, I think that the one thing that REALLY hurts legitimate downloaders (those who download to try then buy or delete) is the fact that copyright groups have no way of telling whether someone who downloads something eventually buys it or not.

Although this is no excuse for the blatant abuse of copyright law that is going on right now, it does make you think.

BSP · May 24, 2010

Dre. said:
The other issue though is that by pirating you are making a lack of contribution.

If A and B are watching a TV, but only A paid for the TV, is it fair that B watches it?

For me, yes. Since A paid for the TV, he owns it correct? Since A, the owner of the TV, has given consent for B to watch, I don't see the problem.

I don't think it's ethical. When you get right down to it, you are aquiring someone else's creation without rightly paying for it. Practical? Of course. Right? No.

Dre89 · May 25, 2010

mariobrouser said:
For me, yes. Since A paid for the TV, he owns it correct? Since A, the owner of the TV, has given consent for B to watch, I don't see the problem.

I don't think it's ethical. When you get right down to it, you are aquiring someone else's creation without rightly paying for it. Practical? Of course. Right? No.

Of course in the case of the TV A normally gives consent to B for watching it, but the greater point is that piraters can only pirate if other people attain the good in another, more costly manner (ie. paying for it).

Roxas M · May 26, 2010

The definition of stealing is taking something that is not yours. So, "technically" pirating in ANY way is wrong. But now and days, depending on what is being pirated, people seem to look over it.

Using the OP's example of music piracy. It is so easy to get music of the internet for free it isn't even funny. They even have browser apps for the purpose of downloading songs & videos off the internet with no cost to you.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/220/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6584/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5229/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3006/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/13990/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/12984/
http://www.real.com/realplayer/video-downloader

and this is only a few of the more popular ways of getting music & videos for "free".

As the price of the items being pirated goes up the stronger the laws, penalties and punishments get however.
But it is still done and still relatively easy to do. If you really wanted a program, like Adobe Photoshop that normally cost $300+ or a recently released Wii game all you would have to do is work google for 10-20 minutes if that.

According to the law, you should get punished for piracy in any way or downloading anything for free without proper clearance or consent from the owners or whoever distributes said items or programs. But most small things like music or the occasional movie uploaded on youtube and downloaded are often overlooked even though there are laws against doing so.

tl;dr

Legally it is wrong to pirate but for things like music it is probably common practice if you know how to use a search engine.

Also, some people have said that they download a song from a album too see if they like it then if they do they delete the song. Legally you have broken the law. even if you have deleted it. To use a example, that is like walking into a store, opening a six- pack of soda, drinking the soda, then going back into the store, buy the other 5 and using the excuse of wanting to "try before you buy". Even if you do plan on buying the album, once you download the song the deed has been done. If someone wanted to hear a song or 2 of a album before you bought it most popular music buying sites have samples of albums to listen to before you decide to buy.

Sieguest · May 27, 2010

marthshadow said:
The definition of stealing is taking something that is not yours. So, "technically" pirating in ANY way is wrong. But now and days, depending on what is being pirated, people seem to look over it.

Using the OP's example of music piracy. It is so easy to get music of the internet for free it isn't even funny. They even have browser apps for the purpose of downloading songs & videos off the internet with no cost to you.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/220/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6584/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5229/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3006/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/13990/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/12984/
http://www.real.com/realplayer/video-downloader

and this is only a few of the more popular ways of getting music & videos for "free".

As the price of the items being pirated goes up the stronger the laws, penalties and punishments get however.
But it is still done and still relatively easy to do. If you really wanted a program, like Adobe Photoshop that normally cost $300+ or a recently released Wii game all you would have to do is work google for 10-20 minutes if that.

According to the law, you should get punished for piracy in any way or downloading anything for free without proper clearance or consent from the owners or whoever distributes said items or programs. But most small things like music or the occasional movie uploaded on youtube and downloaded are often overlooked even though there are laws against doing so.

tl;dr

Legally it is wrong to pirate but for things like music it is probably common practice if you know how to use a search engine.

Also, some people have said that they download a song from a album too see if they like it then if they do they delete the song. Legally you have broken the law. even if you have deleted it. To use a example, that is like walking into a store, opening a six- pack of soda, drinking the soda, then going back into the store, buy the other 5 and using the excuse of wanting to "try before you buy". Even if you do plan on buying the album, once you download the song the deed has been done. If someone wanted to hear a song or 2 of a album before you bought it most popular music buying sites have samples of albums to listen to before you decide to buy.

Despite how common place it is, it is still breaking the law, as you've said.

As to your comparison of try and buy, you can consume consumable items pre-purchase, as long as you have the money to pay for it whenever you check out. Also downloading a song to see if an album is worth buying is like test driving a car. You have the possibility to run off with it, but your return it (eg. delete it). You come into and out of possession of something of monetary value. Then if you choose to buy it, you make the monetary investement that will go to the producer.

Lore · Jun 1, 2010

marthshadow said:
To use a example, that is like walking into a store, opening a six- pack of soda, drinking the soda, then going back into the store, buy the other 5 and using the excuse of wanting to "try before you buy". Even if you do plan on buying the album, once you download the song the deed has been done. If someone wanted to hear a song or 2 of a album before you bought it most popular music buying sites have samples of albums to listen to before you decide to buy.

This example, although it appears to relate to the discussion, really doesn't. Drinking one can of soda out of a six pack removes a physical object, and piracy copies something that already exists without any direct consequence to the owner. They may both be illegal, but the soda no longer exists after the "deed is done" while the song still does.

Itunes and other stores may have samples, but it's difficult to form an opinion on a song after listening to a 30 second sample. Besides that, most music stores have DRM that restricts what you can do with your music and punishes everyone in the name of stopping piracy.

megapup · Jun 1, 2010

Today said:
So like I said before. Do you think it's harmful or beneficial?
If it's harmful why do we continue to do it?

I don't think its particularly harmful. Considering I don't actually know the ratio of people who buy music to people who illegally download it, I've never heard of an artist struggle because people illegally download their music. Any artist popular enough to have people download their music is most likely earning enough from the people that DO buy to feed their family etc.

As for "why do we do it?" I think even when people consider stealing wrong, they dont consider it stealing because they don't know who they are stealing off. The way your brain works means that you cant consider people you don't know as actual "people" so you don't feel bad about stealing off them. Who feels bad about stealing off a big corporation?

The point being, people would feel bad if they knew the person they were stealing off personally, and saw the potential hardships caused by their lack of income or w/e. But because they don't, they feel that its fine.

Dre89 · Jun 1, 2010

megapup said:
I don't think its particularly harmful. Considering I don't actually know the ratio of people who buy music to people who illegally download it, I've never heard of an artist struggle because people illegally download their music. Any artist popular enough to have people download their music is most likely earning enough from the people that DO buy to feed their family etc.

As for "why do we do it?" I think even when people consider stealing wrong, they dont consider it stealing because they don't know who they are stealing off. The way your brain works means that you cant consider people you don't know as actual "people" so you don't feel bad about stealing off them. Who feels bad about stealing off a big corporation?

The point being, people would feel bad if they knew the person they were stealing off personally, and saw the potential hardships caused by their lack of income or w/e. But because they don't, they feel that its fine.

I don't know about you, but the reason why I don't steal isn't just because I won't witness the hardships, or because I'll feel guilty. That's just egoism.

Pirating is selfish. When you pirate, you're relying on honest people to do the right thing, which is legally buy their msuic. The fact that the pirater's position can't be universalised means that what they are doing is selfish.

Deleted member · Jun 1, 2010

I'll just drop in on the discussion here.
Yes, I have pirated a lot of things. mostly music, but also TV series, expensive programs (Photoshop and such), and to a lesser extent, games.

The first question that comes to mind is "Would I have bought it if I couldn't pirate it?".
In general the answer is "no". no I would not have spend almost 800 bucks on photoshop, no I would not have paid for all the music I have.
So, how many people would actually have bought the music/program if they had to pay for it? I honestly wouldn't know, and neither does anyone really.
so I'd rather have this point being left out of the discussion since both sides could either say "but the artist make huge losses!" or "but nobody would buy their music anyway!".

I also mentioned downloading TV series.
Now most of these come from the USA. and here they are either broadcast a year later or not at all. for these series I don't consider what I am doing wrong. I have cable TV so I could watch them a year later a no extra cost for me. I just could watch them earlier.

as for music/photoshop, yes I consider it wrong what I'm doing, but I honestly don't really feel bad about it since it's so commonplace and here it also technically isn't law-breaking (Netherlands has strange digital copyright laws).

Cyn · Jun 1, 2010

Vi veri veniversum vivus vici said:
The first question that comes to mind is "Would I have bought it if I couldn't pirate it?".
In general the answer is "no". no I would not have spend almost 800 bucks on photoshop, no I would not have paid for all the music I have.
So, how many people would actually have bought the music/program if they had to pay for it? I honestly wouldn't know, and neither does anyone really.
so I'd rather have this point being left out of the discussion since both sides could either say "but the artist make huge losses!" or "but nobody would buy their music anyway!".

You may have never intended to spend the money on it in the first place, but a lot of people that would have, now don't. Why buy it when you can get it for free? It hurts many up and coming artists, because it would appear they aren't making many sales. But regardless, people that download illegaly are infringing on the creator's or artist's intellectual property. I could never understand how digital piracy and music piracy isn't considered wrong with most people. I'm guessing because it's impersonal; you can't see who you are hurting. Pirating music threatens the livelihood of the all the people that go into making the music, from recording engineers to the music retailers, people that are involved with manufacturing the CDs, and everyone that works at the retail end. When it comes down to it, money is lost along the pipeline in many different areas.

I also mentioned downloading TV series.
Now most of these come from the USA. and here they are either broadcast a year later or not at all. For these series I don't consider what I am doing wrong. I have cable TV so I could watch them a year later a no extra cost for me. I just could watch them earlier.

So why don't you wait? It's also possible to order seasons online. I'd agree with you if there was no other way to be able to view our fine programming. Be that as it may, there are many ways to view them; you can go the the network stations, and alot of the time you can watch the re-runs without the cost, and it's free (without breaking the law).

Deleted member · Jun 1, 2010

νοχ τωιz said:
You may have never intended to spend the money on it in the first place, but a lot of people that would have, now don't. Why buy it when you can get it for free? It hurts many up and coming artists, because it would appear they aren't making many sales. But regardless, people that download illegaly are infringing on the creator's or artist's intellectual property. I could never understand how digital piracy and music piracy isn't considered wrong with most people. I'm guessing because it's impersonal; you can't see who you are hurting. Pirating music threatens the livelihood of the all the people that go into making the music, from recording engineers to the music retailers, people that are involved with manufacturing the CDs, and everyone that works at the retail end. When it comes down to it, money is lost along the pipeline in many different areas.

The point I was making is that we don't have any numbers on how much is actually lost. So unless you give me a legit source on this, you can't tell me that everybody is losing a lot of money (or money at all) due to piracy.

So why don't you wait? It's also possible to order seasons online. I'd agree with you if there was no other way to be able to view our fine programming. Be that as it may, there are many ways to view them; you can go the the network stations, and alot of the time you can watch the re-runs without the cost, and it's free (without breaking the law).

Why don't I wait? Because there is not a single benefit to waiting. If it's going to be on cable TV in 6 months which I paid for anyway, the company will get his money regardless of me pirating it, I'm not breaking the law in the first place (look up dutch law on this), and I get 6 months early, the very reason I downloaded it in the first place).
If it's never going to be broadcast here, yes, you could argue I was wrong in not ordering the legal version online. but then I first had to look up if it will be broadcast here in 6 months (which I doubt is easy to find out), and if not, go search the web where to actually buy it.
call me a bad person but I just find it more conveniently to just download it.

Lore · Jun 1, 2010

νοχ τωιz said:
It hurts many up and coming artists, because it would appear they aren't making many sales.

Unfortunately, a record company's policies hurt up and coming artists more than pirating.

When an artist signs a record deal, the company basically agrees to publish the album and pay for all expenses, but the artist has to pay them back with the money that they earn with the album.

Have you ever wondered why t-shirts are so expensive at concerts? Merchandise is one of the few ways that bands can make money while under a recording contract. In other words, one shirt sale usually equals one meal for the band. Even if I don't buy the album, I still try to support bands that way.

Besides all that, there's no way to tell just how much piracy damages artists because:

Vi veri veniversum vivus vici said:
The point I was making is that we don't have any ACCURATE numbers on how much is actually lost. So unless you give me a legit source on this, you can't tell me that everybody is losing a lot of money (or money at all) due to piracy.

Fixed, but this.

Cyn · Jun 1, 2010

Dre. said:
I don't know about you, but the reason why I don't steal isn't just because I won't witness the hardships, or because I'll feel guilty. That's just egoism.

Pirating is selfish. When you pirate, you're relying on honest people to do the right thing, which is legally buy their msuic. The fact that the pirater's position can't be universalised means that what they are doing is selfish.

This.

@Werekill & V: You are implying that even though no one has accurate numbers on whether piracy hurts anyone it's ok. Stealing is stealing regardless of what numbers and statistics (or lack thereof) state. Until law changes regarding this, then I consider it morally wrong. I feel like people are trying to justify their theft by stating there is a lack of information on the subject, or "T-shirts are expensive to help earn money to pay back record labels"; that's unacceptable to me. Just because something can't be proven doesn't make it acceptable.

call me a bad person but I just find it more conveniently to just download it.

I'd never. But convenience doesn't make it right. If it isn't against the law where you are from, then more power to you.

Lore · Jun 1, 2010

νοχ τωιz said:
This.

@Werekill & V: You are implying that even though no one has accurate numbers on whether piracy hurts anyone it's ok. Stealing is stealing regardless of what numbers and statistics (or lack thereof) state. Until law changes regarding this, then I consider it morally wrong. I feel like people that illegally download music are trying to justify their theft by stating there is a lack of information, you can't prove anything.

No, what we are saying is that it is impossible to say how much piracy hurts the industry without accurate data. Although it is very likely that it harms the industry, there's no way to say just how much it hurts it.

That's the whole point of the argument about what counts as a lost sale.

Deleted member · Jun 1, 2010

I never said it was acceptable, I wanted to make clear that bringing up the "hurts artists" argument can't be defended since you can't actually proof the artists are suffering, not the other way round.
This discussion should be more about the morally right/wrong side IMO.

Cyn · Jun 1, 2010

Vi veri veniversum vivus vici said:
This discussion should be more about the morally right/wrong side IMO.

Agreed.

Then I'd say its morally wrong.

No, what we are saying is that it is impossible to say how much piracy hurts the industry without accurate data. Although it is very likely that it harms the industry, there's no way to say just how much it hurts it.

That's the whole point of the argument about what counts as a lost sale.

This is true, and it is near impossible to get impeccable data on this.

The Times online reports research that the average teen has about 800 illegally downloaded tracks on his or her listening device out of an average of 1,770 . The Times also quotes: "The research also showed that half of 14 to 24-year-olds were happy to share all the music on their hard drive, enabling others to copy hundreds, or thousands, of songs at any one time". Assuming that a person gets the file for free instead of paying a dollar at itunes, that is $800 per person that the music industry misses out on. Once that said person shares his hard drive with a friend, that becomes $1600 , $2400 for three people etcetera.

Whether or not they wouldn't have even bought the track in the first place isn't the point.

Just food for thought.

Deleted member · Jun 1, 2010

I disagree that every dollar downloaded is a dollar missed for the industry.
is that was the case figures could probably be at least reasonably estimated by measuring traffic of torrents.

Cyn · Jun 1, 2010

Vi veri veniversum vivus vici said:
I disagree that every dollar downloaded is a dollar missed for the industry.
is that was the case figures could probably be at least reasonably estimated by measuring traffic of torrents.

Then let me assume it's only a fraction of that, say 50-100 songs out of the 800 the person might have actually paid for had there been no other alternative way to obtain the tracks. That still becomes quite a sizable sum for the amount of illegal file sharing. 50-100 dollars is equal to roughly 4-8 CDs depending on the retail price.

Illegally Downloading

ლ(இДஇლ)

Smash Lord

Infinite Gravity

Deleted member

Guest

Smash Master

Infinite Gravity

Smash Master

Writer of Fortune

Smash Hero

Infinite Gravity

Smash Master

Infinite Gravity

Smash Master

Infinite Gravity

Smash Master

Deleted member

Guest

Smash Master

Infinite Gravity

Smash Master

Infinite Gravity

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Infinite Gravity

Smash Legend

Smash Hero

Smash Master

Smash Master

Infinite Gravity

Smash Apprentice

Smash Hero

Deleted member

Guest

Sith Archivist

Deleted member

Guest

Infinite Gravity

Sith Archivist

Infinite Gravity

Deleted member

Guest

Sith Archivist

Deleted member

Guest

Sith Archivist

Information

Network