Is piracy Wrong?

[FranklinX 37]

Do you think Privacy is wrong? People who download music online normally do not pay for it. The Music business has lost a lot of money because of piracy. However, some argue that copying music should be legal because they don't believe it is stealing. Is copying a purchased product and giving copies to people stealing?

 

Personally I buy all of my music and videos. 99 cents to a $1.99 is not much for one song. I don't mind paying for it. I buy all of my music on Itunes and at stores.

[Noob Saibot 38]

I own pirated music, but I did not download it; I simply got it from a friend who did the downloading. I feel a person can't steal if they did not actually take a physical item (CD for example). Plus when it comes to software I will admit I pirate it, but that's to just get past the crappy 14 day trials. I think it's based on the person overall out come (will they buy it later or not). Plus the down side with pirated music is you may end up with a crappy version someone decided to edit in some fashion or form.

[Marked 197]

That is an interesting question. The criminal law textbook I have starts off buy saying that a crime should involve some kind of social stigma, and the more serious the crime (in law), the more morally wrong it should be. It is even (part of) a defense if you did not know your actions were wrong.

 

For me, downloading software the requires payment is not morally wrong at all. The person who receives the money is not losing out because I'm not going to pay for it anyway. Secondly, what is a 'fair trade'? Sure a person should be compensated for his work, but what if that work, once finished, can be duplicated an UNLIMITED amount of times when they only did the work to create it once? Of course this did not hold for many things because the original author is not compensated fully until a great deal of sales is reached.

 

In terms of movies, I boycott theaters because of movie ticket prices and the industry's profit maximizing attitude. Apple too. Screw them. I've downloaded 20gb of movies in the last week and it feels gooooood.

[Noob Saibot 38]

In terms of movies, I boycott theaters because of movie ticket prices and the industry's profit maximizing attitude. Apple too. Screw them. I've downloaded 20gb of movies in the last week and it feels gooooood.

 

I'm currently downloading Season 3 of Fringe, but only cause I don't have the money to buy it yet. However, it is in my wish list at Amazon for when I do have the money. I mostly download movies in the Theaters and then if I like them I'll buy them when they come out or if they are really good I'll go re-watch them in the theater.

[Marked 197]

I see I see. I'm just not like that. I'd much rather have my stuff in folders on my computer.

[Noob Saibot 38]

I see I see. I'm just not like that. I'd much rather have my stuff in folders on my computer.

 

 

Not me, I'm old fashion and prefer a Blu Ray/DVD.

[Bob423 52]

well here's my view. would you buy sound? i wouldnt. no matter how much i like it. the only thing i see wrong with pirating is that the company's get mad. should it cost THEM money to make songs? no, and why should it?

money is just some useless piece of paper that people trade stuff for. sure, i dont mind there being some kind of currency, but i feel like it gets out of hand some times. one example being inflation, there is no need for inflation.

however, pirating is stealing, and i wouldnt call it stealing, therefore it is not pirating.

so yes, pirating is wrong. downloading stuff off the internet is not.

[Bigace360 38]

Well it depends espically for music

 

When a album comes out, I would download it first using torrents to see if it sounds good. If I like the album, I'll go to the store and pay for it. If only a few songs were decent, I'll go to itunes and download the tracks. If the album was plain garabage I'll delete off my computer as its a waste of space and I didn't pay for it. last if the artist is dead (tupac or biggie) no matter how good it sounds, I'm not buying it because the artist is dead. I'm just giving money to greedy producers who keep trying to release dead artists music.

 

For movies is kind of the same download it and buy later if good. I'll sometimes go to the theaters if one of those movies high up on my list.

 

Why go to the store to buy it, when you have the internet to download it in the first place to find out it sounds like shit (Watch the throne, Carter III). I should have to pay artists if there just going to release shit and not even try to make it sound decent. This isn't the 90's or before that where all you had was maybe AOL for internet and maybe that didn't work because it was crap and you had to guess if the album was good by wasting money to buy as today we can easily search for it on the internet see if its good or not. If artist want my money there going to have to actually try, I've bought some in the past and others I haven't.

 

To summerize, it just depends on certen facters; if the artist is dead or the album is half decent and sucks then I'm not buying it, but if its good or excellent then i'll buy it.

[vincestick 13]

I will admit, I do download songs and software without paying for them. I don't think it's wrong if you're only doing it for yourself and not making mass-copies and selling them. Like Marked stated above, the companies aren't losing money on the digital side because they just duplicate the item an unlimited number of times. Because of that, they can only gain money and not lose, unless they are going for the money gained to compensate them for the cost of making said product.

 

Reasons for downloading can also be because the item in question is really old and can't be found in the market anymore. For example, where the hell am I going to find a PC copy of the original Deus Ex? Stores don't sell used PC games, so I'll have more luck finding it on thepiratebay or something.

 

And Music, most of my songs are downloaded from somewhere else. iTunes, for example, has every Nightwish album EXCEPT for Century Child, which is one of my favorites. And when I download Alestorm songs, It's because I find it funny and ironic because I'm pirating Pirate music.

Edited August 30, 2011 by UrHappyPlz

[madanchi 18]

I pirate loads of stuff, simply because I cannot afford it normally -_-, but there's so many discussions weither it's stealing or borrowing etc

 

I personally don't think companies become massively in loss due to people pirating, there's usually a feww thousand leechers/ seeders for popular torrents, and over time (when the torrent is released) I'll estimate another few thousand leechers have passed. But this is no way near enough to criple companies of profit... a few thousand is nothinc compared to the 100s of thousands even million sales they recieve. Even if there's roughly a total of 20,000 leechers (and that's crazy high for one torrent) i still don't feel it would significantly harm that company

 

edit: and I too download games to see if it's owrth buying, usually play first 20 mins/ section of the game as by then I have a good idea. Now some games i'll buy/ pre-order without downloading because i'm simply looking forward or I know that it's going to be good

Edited August 30, 2011 by madanchi

[Polraudio 122]

I don't really think its to wrong. I usually download products that have limits to trials(IE limits what you can and cant use). Then if i like the product i buy it. I think piracy is ok if you buy it further down the road.

 

Games are a big deal to me. I dont want to pay $60 for a game i don't like and only play for 10min and find out its crap. EX: Metal of Honor. I bought that game and played it for a good 30min and then didn't care for it anymore. To me that was a waste of $60 that i could have spent on a way better game.

 

Most of the time reviews are not always a good thing to go off of when buying a game.

 

I think all games should have a 30-60min trial. It will greatly reduce piracy in that area.

[Chief 30]

Not me, I'm old fashion and prefer a Blu Ray/DVD.

 

Old fashioned would be VHS, definitely not Blu Ray. I've never even watched a blu ray because I dont give a crap about the extra "quality" lol

[madanchi 18]

Old fashioned would be VHS, definitely not Blu Ray. I've never even watched a blu ray because I dont give a crap about the extra "quality" lol

the quality is immense compared to low res dvd, once i started watching bluray 720p and up, i can't go back to such a painfully low resolution that is dvd

[Kiriashi 117]

Do you think Privacy is wrong? People who download music online normally do not pay for it. The Music business has lost a lot of money because of piracy. However, some argue that copying music should be legal because they don't believe it is stealing. Is copying a purchased product and giving copies to people stealing?

 

Personally I buy all of my music and videos. 99 cents to a $1.99 is not much for one song. I don't mind paying for it. I buy all of my music on Itunes and at stores.

 

No it doesn't.

 

=/

[ShinkuAura 15]

Piracy is illegal but many people do it.

Like polraudio said thier should be trials.

 

and thus Quality doesn't matter for me and for some others, entertainment is entertainment. bad or good quality.

Pirate or original product.

 

but yeah downloading songs shoudn't be illegal for me though.

[Chief 30]

I really couldnt care less about quality. I would watch a VHS over a DVD because VHS's last forever without worry of scratching or damaging the underside, lol.

[Ragnyrok 3]

Every movie I own I never purchased nor do I have the intent of purchasing.

Same for my music.

 

I could care less what it does to the movie industry, honestly.

 

And as far as the music industry...

It keeps artists on their toes when most of their revenue comes from doing concerts and demonstrating their natural talent as opposed to selling a CD which has been ran through several sound filters(and yes I realize that is done alot in conerts, but still).

If the artists were ARTISTS and not TOOLS they wouldn't give two fucks about the money anyway.

 

Look at Trent Reznor. NiN's past two CDs were available FREE FOR DOWNLOAD.

There's an artist who cares about music. Not like Metallica who bitched and whined because they only got 9 billion of the 10 billion dollars they could've gotten for their shitty ass 80s power rock music. Fuck that.

[Noob Saibot 38]

money is just some useless piece of paper that people trade stuff for.

 

I don't know for other countries, but in the US paper money or coin money is suppose to represent how much gold you have the right to claim. It is said that if a person wanted to they could go to a bank a withdrawal their share of gold they have the right to claim. I have never tested this, but this is the purpose of paper money to represent how much gold a person or persons have the right to claim.

 

A form of currency was created that way people did not have to carry gold or silver coins.

 

A little history: http://www.ronscurrency.com/rhist.htm

 

Games are a big deal to me. I dont want to pay $60 for a game i don't like and only play for 10min and find out its crap. EX: Metal of Honor. I bought that game and played it for a good 30min and then didn't care for it anymore. To me that was a waste of $60 that i could have spent on a way better game.

 

It's called research, any gamer knows this. Watch trailers, read previews, rent the game (yes this can be done even for new releases), etc. If you do what you say it is your own fault for not using all means to see if you would like the game!!

 

Most of the time reviews are not always a good thing to go off of when buying a game.

 

Actually the opinion of MANY is better then just ONE or TWO. Any gamer could tell you this, but at the same time renting games is an option.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Noob Saibot

[Ragnyrok 3]

I don't know for other countries, but in the US paper money or coin money is suppose to represent how much gold you have the right to claim. It is said that if a person wanted to they could go to a bank a withdrawal their share of gold they have the right to claim. I have never tested this, but this is the purpose of paper money to represent how much gold a person or persons have the right to claim.

 

A form of currency was created that way people did not have to carry gold or silver coins.

 

A little history: http://www.ronscurrency.com/rhist.htm

 

The US got rid of the Gold Standard quite a very long time ago.

I think around the time of the big stock market crash in the '20s.

The Federal Reserve Bank decides how much currency our notes are worth based on how much money we have in the system and how much the US gov't wants to borrow.

Every dollar given printed for the US is already worth way less than a dollar because of the interest we pay back to the Fed.

 

But that is very off topic.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Ragnyrok

[Zeriab 9]

The problem with saying (software) piracy == stealing is that stealing sorta implies the removal of stolen goods.

Whether it should be illegal or not, should 'officially' be illegal but officials turning a blind eye except for big fish or whatever I am not really sure. It just should not be as bad as physically stealing something.

 

As for the other kind of piracy, yes, that is definitely wrong.

 

I really couldnt care less about quality. I would watch a VHS over a DVD because VHS's last forever without worry of scratching or damaging the underside, lol.

No they don't. VHS's deteriorate over time. As a pure analog media the deterioration has a direct impact unlike digital media which are way more resistant to deviations.

[Ragnyrok 3]

As for the other kind of piracy, yes, that is definitely wrong.

 

Hey now. There's nothing wrong with getting some friends together, dressing like we were in Waterworld, taking a boat and some uzis and striking terror into fishermen's hearts over the course of a weekend.

 

Sorry. It was in the 60s when we got rid of the Gold Standard. During Nixon's presidency.

[Joko 1]

Eh, the only thing i've really ever pirated was most of my music. And like 2 or 3 games that i had either bought another version of.( Minus the exception of minecraft and rmpgmaker xD.)

I guess in a way i feel bad for it but then again there would be no way atm i could afford it.

[madanchi 18]

I don't think twice about pirating music, it's become second nature to me but for games, it's an instant thought to download via torrent, and THEN I think maybe I should buy but only after I've downloaded it and feel it's worth me buying it when i'm short on money

 

If there's a demo I'll jump to it and play it that way and I'll most likely buy it if I enjoyed it, which has happened a fair few times. Although occasionally I torrent even if I enjoyed the demo :P (money as usual)

Edited September 2, 2011 by madanchi

[vincestick 13]

Yeah, I mostly -ahem- download my music either from converting Youtube videos into mp3's, BeeMp3 and sometimes iTunes, and I pirate software when I can't be bothered with paying for it or I think the price it's selling for isn't worth the product you're getting (e.g. JumpCraft, UNITY, etc...) BUT I did pay for RMXP and since then, with the user-friendly interface and community it has with its resources and support, I personally got way more than my money's worth.

 

As for games, well, as far as retail games, though...I hate PC gaming (don't want to start a war, I just do) so I don't buy -or torrent for that matter- games for PC, I only buy games for my handheld and console.

[Heretic86 25]

I think the Law has blurred the lines of what is piracy. The copyright holders want to squeeze as much money out of the products the publish as possible. But at the same time, they hype the shit out of everything they expect to make money, regardless of quality. Please bear in mind that the Publisher is not the same as the person or group that created the product. Every Publishers wettest dream would consist of charging every person that hears even a portion of any song that they've published every single time they hear it, unless it is on the Radio.

 

I believe there is a big difference between their definition of Piracy and the common man's definition of Piracy. They would have Piracy defined as recording a song off of the Radio using an 8-Track Tape (if any of you even know what that is, dont raise your hands all at once). However, the Common Man would define Piracy as someone claiming to be the Creator of said content, and distributing it for profit. I take a Final Fantasy game, maybe hack it, take out everyone's name but my own, slap my name on it, then try to sell it as being MY product, that in my definition is Piracy.

 

I think most of us agree that Piracy is benefiting somehow from the distribution of a product that isnt technically yours. I download a movie off of some website while it is still in theaters, burn several DVD's of the movie, then sell them, I dont pay the Studios any money, the content creators a dime, and tell the Publishers they can go piss into the wind. That is what I believe is Piracy. Downloading a song off the internet for Personal Use, I.E. you don't sell it, to me, is the same as listening to it on the Radio. You can listen to a song on the Radio, if you are willing to put up with commercials, or pay a subscription fee to Satellite Radio, but for all practical purposes, you are listening to it for free. The Radio Station can not guarantee that you will listen to the Commercials. The Radio Station affords its operating costs by either Commercials or Subscriptions (Satellite). From the Commercial percpective, the Advertiser would prefer that you listen to their Commercials rather than the content that attracted you to that station to begin with. Same thing goes for TV.

 

Now, something has changed in the last century. But lets think about what changed. Content Producers still want people to view or listen to their content. The Consumer wants to view the Content that the Content Producers produce. But getting that media (visual, audio, book, or game) from the Content Producer to the Consumer used to require a Middle Man. A TV station. A Radio Station. A Satellite Radio Station. A Game Publisher. A Book Publisher. A Cinema. Theater. Etc. Etc. Etc. What has changed in the last several years is that we have found ways to cut out the Middle Man, and the Middle Man is not happy about that.

 

Another topic to focus on is that Media used to be a One Way Street. Publishers were the ones who controlled which bands played, which movies made it into Theaters, which books and games got published. With the Internet, the Media has shifted from being completely controlled by the Publishers to being nearly entirely controlled by the Consumers, which is what allowed us to cut out the Middle Men. We self generate the response and demand for the content. We utilize social networks, forums, chat rooms, text msgs, and every other advantage the Interwebs have to offer us to communicate with each other as to what kinds of content are worth half a squirt of piss and what is the best content out there. We no longer listen to Movie Critics to tell us to go see movies that suck while they pan and criticize anyones product that hasnt bought their influence. We all know that the Major Middle Men are so heavily influenced that their reviews and recommendations can not be trusted. We know that you and I have nothing to lose or gain by giving a good movie a good review and a shitty movie a shitty review. We are as completely honest and unbiased about calling something what we feel it really is. And that is a massive threat to the Middle Men.

 

The Middle Men gained so much power, money and influence before the Internet when the could tell us what to pay for and what not to pay for that they ended up being the ones who funded most of the products. That influence still lingers, but is quickly diminishing. They've resorted to trying to assert themselves as being important in the industry by Lobbying for stricter Anti Piracy Laws and DRM to try to persuade us to continue to think that they are still important. The Middle Men are no longer important in the Age of the Internet. They are going the way of the Dinosaur and the Dodo Bird and Print Media. They are Extinct. They just havent realized it yet. The Age when the Middle Men controlled your content is Over.

 

The Future is the Consumers. We control which companies sink and swim based on our unbiased opinions. The Content Producers dont need the self-important Middle Men to distribute their content. We have a direct line of communication with the Content Producers to tell them what we want, what we dont want, and what our opinions are of their content. In that respect, absolutely nothing has changed in regards to the relationship between the Content Producers and the Consumers. Content Producers still want to produce content, and consumers still want to consume their content. The consumers will still pay for content when they believe that the Content Creator will be the one to benefit from paying for it. However, most of us could really give a shit less if the Publishers get paid. We dont need Publishers any more to get our content. But, the Publishers, the Middle Men have continued to try to maintain their importance in the relationship between the Creators and Content Producers and we the Consumers.

 

The Publishers are usually the ones that suffer the most from Piracy, when in fact I believe it is the Publishers that are committing the greatest Piracy of all. They have twisted the law to turn us into Criminals and themselves into Heroes. They get paid for distributing content that they did not create. They claim that any content that any Content Producers produce is their Intellectual Property. I believe the Middle Men are the REAL Pirates. They take our money, money that we want the Content Producers to have. They steal the Content from the Content Producers, claim it as their own, and "sell rights to License" the use of that material. They steal both the Content and the Money. The Publishers and Middle Men are Parasites. They are the Criminals. They are the Real Pirates. I would be tempted to say that there is only ONE fact that makes what they do as being Legal, and that is the Agreement between the Content Producers and the Publishers, but alas, I can not even say that. The Content Producers are so desparate and the Publishers (Middle Men) are so greedy for even more money that they bully and pretty much force the Conetnt Producer to give them absolutely everything that they work to create.

 

We always complain that DRM screws over the Consumer. But what we dont gripe about is the Content Producers point of view, where in order for them to get funding from the Publisher, they have to sign over 80% of the profits of their Intellectual Propert over to the Publsiher, as well as the rights to the Intellectual Property as well. So we have DRM on the side of the Consumers there to screw us over, but the Content Producers get just as screwed over. The Consumers outnumber the Content Producers, so often their voices are drown out in the sea of DRM rants. However, look at the real cause of the problem. The Real Cause of the problem is neither the Consumer or the Content Producer, but the Middle Men. The Publishers. Both DRM that screws the Consumer and Legalized Theft frmo the Content Producers are inventions of the Publishers in order for them to maintain a fading presence in a fully digital world.

 

I went to a Nine Inch Nails concert about ten years ago, where I stuck around after the show to get Trent Reznor's autograph. When I met him, I shook his hand, and gave him twenty bucks. I told him that I pirated his last CD, but since I knew he was coming to town, I'd rather give Trent the money personally and his Publisher didnt deserve a bigger chunk of the profit for the Content he created. He was a little puzzled, but graciously accepted the money, said "Thank you", gave me the CD (which I already pirated) and he autographed, and moved on to sign his next fan's CD. He didn't seem to troubled by the fact that not only I flat out told him I pirated his music I think because not only did I buy that CD right then and there, but he got an extra twenty bucks on top of me now having a legitimate copy of his music. I dont know if that had anything to do with Trent's decision to try a different method of distribution and changed his stance on Piracy or not, but it might have. Now, I just referred to buying his music to be legitimate, however, that is the Legal Definition, and not my opinion. As far as I am concerned, that so called "legitimate copy" is about as illegitimate as you can possibly get. Trent got screwed, and I got screwed out of my effort to pay Trent for the copy. Now, I wont deny that a CD is physical media and someone has to produce a CD, then go through the effort of copying the music onto that CD. The CD producer does deserve a share for having done some work, but when I can just go to NIN's website, make a financial exchange for me to have a copy of his music, I call that a Legitmate Copy. The CD's were usually produced and manufactured by the now defunct Publisher. The Publisher that overcharges NIN for the production of their CD's. Then, the Publisher who creates the CD wants to put screwy software on those CD's (Sony Rootkit) to keep us from "Pirating" what they've already stolen from the Content Producers. That to me is NOT a Legitimate Copy.

 

Let me change the subject for a minute. There is a Big Difference between what I will start referring to as Static Media and Dynamic Media. The difference between the two is that Static Media is something like a Movie, a Song, a Book, or something that you can NOT interact with. Dynamic Media would include Games and Software. I think there is a big difference between the definitions of Piracy for each. The examples that I provideded earlier where I listen to a Song (Static Media) on the Radio is not considered Theft or Piracy, as I can listen to it for free. However, when I play a Game (Dynamic Media) that I download, I have no other way to interact or observe tht type of Media than to be directly involved with it. I can't listen to a Video Game on the Radio, or watch it on TV. I can only play it on my computer, or what ever electronic device I need to play said Media. That to me does meet a definition of Theft, but not necessarily Piracy. Piracy is to benefit from the distribution of someone elses content. Essencially Pirates act as the Middle Men where they act as Publishers, but never agreed with the Content Producers to give them one Red Cent.

 

This is where I think a lot of people are not making the association of what really is theft, based on what type of Media they are observing or interacting with. I dont feel that if you download a song off the internet for free without paying either the Content Producer or the Publisher that it constitues Theft because you can observe that Media without having to pay for it. The Content Producers still get paid regardless if we pay for a subscription to Satellite Radio, or just listen to it on the Radio subsidized by Commercials. Dynamic Media on the other hand can ONLY be interacted with as that is its ONLY form of entertainment. Game Makers dont get paid if someone watches a video of someone else playing their game on YouTube, they only get paid when we the consumers buy the content they produced, and even then, they dont get their fair share, unless they've figured out that they dont need the Publishers any more.

 

Thus, Downloading Songs, Movies, and TV Shows = Not Illegal, Downloading Games = Illegal, but not Piracy. The Real Pirates are the Publishers who steal the Content from the Content Producers as their own, and profit from it.

 

Thoughts and reactions? Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? Debate.

Edited October 23, 2011 by Heretic86

[Arkbennett 16]

Rep+ for agreement Heretic.

[rgangsta 43]

@Heretic

That post is way too long to read but I will read it later.

 

Ark's back?!

 

I pirate loads of stuff. I pirated Photoshop CS5 only because I didn't want to pay to upgrade CS4.

Though, I find pirating to be wrong, I oddly do not feel bad about it.

 

The reason I think it's wrong is because we're wasting the person's time whose program or music we downloaded. If their time is constantly being wasted and they're not being compensated for it, then why should they continue making more products?

 

The reason I don't feel bad about it is because it happens everyday. Somewhere in the world, someone has downloaded something illegally. Maybe the person who made the product has downloaded something illegally, too. It's just how the world works. But the thing that bothered me the most was this: If I worked my ass off to make a program or game, and someone downloads it, copies it, and gives it off for free, how would I feel?

 

In today's world where prices are beginning to rise, pirating has become something that's just second nature to us. For example, Netflix, who rose it's prices a few weeks back. I wouldn't want to pay a whole load of money for some movies I can just download for free online.

[Heretic86 25]

@Heretic

That post is way too long to read but I will read it later.

 

...

 

Ok, read later if you want. Or, go for the last paragraph. Basically the point was you can listen to a song on the radio for free and that isn't considered piracy, but to experience a game, you have to PLAY it, so downloading a Game off the internet is more wrong than downloading a Song. The REAL Pirates are the Middle Men, or the Publishers who dont actually create the Content we was consumers want to consume.

 

Thoughts?

 

---

 

Thanks Arkbennett for the +rep! Right back at ya!

Edited October 23, 2011 by Heretic86

[Kiriashi 117]

Rep+ for agreement Heretic.

 

 

You lazy little boy. <3

[rgangsta 43]

@Heretic

Awesome points you have there. The middle man gets paid even if we do pirate their products. Nice observation. I never thought of it that way. :alright: