Illegal downloading

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Apparently he doesn't think so.

What's your position on this? You excel at unravelling others' statements -- which is fair enough -- but I don't know what you actually think about this topic.

I believe that piracy as in copying music in order to make money off it without the permission of the copyright holder is a criminal offence in most countries.

I do think that if you made multiple copies of a music CD and sold them to others it would be wrong.

I personally am unsure about the morality of downloading music. That is one of the reasons why I am discussing it in this thread. I quite readily use pirated software. I will pay for some software that I think is really useful - especially if the writer of the software seems deserving (probably not Microsoft). But I am questioning the morality of us making the decision as to whether or not we should reward useful work such as software or music. Why should a band that seems deserving be paid more than a large exploitatative record company - when what you are paying for is the product (the music).

Whether or not I do decide it is morally acceptable I am also questioning the response. If I choose not to download music and movies then I end up paying more than other people who are downloading them. If a lot of other people are objecting to the high taxes and evading them as a result, should I join them, or should I pay more tax than everyone else?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe that piracy as in copying music in order to make money off it without the permission of the copyright holder is a criminal offence in most countries.

I do think that if you made multiple copies of a music CD and sold them to others it would be wrong.

I personally am unsure about the morality of downloading music. That is one of the reasons ...[text shortened]... a large exploitatative record company - when what you are paying for is the product (the music).

I certainly wouldn't sell something I'd obtained through sleight of modem.

The band produces the music, so it stands to reason they should be rewarded before the record company, which merely distributes the fruits of their labour. No band, no music. In addition, I feel a sort of personal connection with certain creative spirits -- I'm genuinely grateful for their work, and I will lawfully obtain original copies when I can. Now bands are starting to distribute their own material and form their own labels (a case in point being Young God Records); I support them to the extent that I can afford it.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The band produces the music, so it stands to reason they should be rewarded before the record company, which merely distributes the fruits of their labour. No band, no music.

That is not entirely true. A large part of the result has to do with the producers and other people who improve the sound before it gets on the CD. Remember also that the record company often pays for all the things that are needed to record the sound in the first place. They also pay for the advertising etc.

In addition, I feel a sort of personal connection with certain creative spirits -- I'm genuinely grateful for their work, and I will lawfully obtain original copies when I can.
But would you apply that logic to anything else? Would you steal from Shoprite but not your friendly neighbourhood store? The service industry has such a concept - tips.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is not entirely true. A large part of the result has to do with the producers and other people who improve the sound before it gets on the CD. Remember also that the record company often pays for all the things that are needed to record the sound in the first place. They also pay for the advertising etc.

[b]In addition, I feel a sort of personal c ...[text shortened]... rite but not your friendly neighbourhood store? The service industry has such a concept - tips.

That's often the case, but it doesn't have to be the case. Producers are artists in their own right, by the way. Advertising is a nice-to-have.

If I had to steal food to survive, I probably would follow the familiar pattern of stealing from outsiders and not robbing from my own -- if I could identify them.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe that piracy as in copying music in order to make money off it without the permission of the copyright holder is a criminal offence in most countries.

I don't download from web sites that make money from advertising or cadge for donations.

What about my earlier question?

Say I download 100 things. Don't like 60 of them. I delete. I almost like 20 of them and do not delete but don't, to be frank, necessarily listen to them again, although they are there on the HD. I like 20 of them and buy them when I get the chance.

Would this make me a "100% criminal" for downloading? Simple as that.

Would I be "80% criminal" for only buying 20% of what I got to hear?

Or would I be "0% criminal" for going ahead and buying all the stuff that I found I wanted?

(For "criminal" please replace with immoral or whetever, as necessary.)

Originally posted by FMF
Would this make me a "100% criminal" for downloading? Simple as that.

I think that you might be a criminal because in most countries piracy is a criminal act - though I am not quite sure if it is only the seller and not the buyer that is criminalized nor am I sure what the implications are when nobody is making money off the deal.

Who does pay for the sites you download from and why?

Originally posted by FMF
Or would I be "0% criminal" for going ahead and buying all the stuff that I found I wanted?

You are implementing a 'try before you buy' policy without the permission of the seller. Would you find that equally morally acceptable for other things? I realize that it is quite a popular marketing strategy (software demos, browsing books in a bookshop). But in this case it is entirely up to you to police your behavior.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Who does pay for the sites you download from and why?

Who pays for free blogs? Good question -- I don't know.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are implementing a 'try before you buy' policy without the permission of the seller. Would you find that equally morally acceptable for other things?

What other things are like music?

We can read books before we buy them (in shops).

Who does pay for the sites you download from and why?

They are hobbyists. Blogs. Sharing their excitement. Spreading the world. Causing many people to buy music that they might otherwise not have known about.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Who pays for free blogs? Good question -- I don't know.

Advertisers, if anyone.

Sometimes people do sites as a hobby. People who want to build big sites however, with many hits, usually do so in the expectation that they will be able to sell ads.

If I build a site that can generate 500 unique hits a day because of free music that I post or whatever, I can make a lot of money selling advertising on my site. Google will even let you share advertising with them by putting Google ads on your site. You then get a % of Google's revenue from each hit that comes from your site.

Most of the free stuff you can find on the net are posted by people with an eye towards getting lots of hits and thus selling advertising.

Originally posted by sh76
Most of the free stuff you can find on the net are posted by people with an eye towards getting lots of hits and thus selling advertising.

This is true. Avoiding them provides some little vestige of idealism in this sorry world. But not enough to cover up our moral mons pubis.

On all the blogs I run, I choose the "no ads" option.

Originally posted by sh76
Most of the free stuff you can find on the net are posted by people with an eye towards getting lots of hits and thus selling advertising.

The only things advertised in the blogs I frequent are other blogs. Hey, man, it's file-sharing, not piracy!

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is not entirely true. A large part of the result has to do with the producers and other people who improve the sound before it gets on the CD. Remember also that the record company often pays for all the things that are needed to record the sound in the first place. They also pay for the advertising etc.

[b]In addition, I feel a sort of personal c ...[text shortened]... rite but not your friendly neighbourhood store? The service industry has such a concept - tips.

you don't have an accurate understanding of how the music industry works. The record company maybe pays for recording, producing and distributing up front, but it is no way a gift. The musicians have to pay it ALL back, if the musician or band is not touring by the time the album is out the band is in a huge debt. For many bands it is a revolving cycle of debt after each album if they don't get that mainstream "hit". I think you should research the music industry a bit before you make these moralistic statements, you will see it is not so romantic for the artists involved.

Originally posted by FMF
On all the blogs I run, I choose the "no ads" option.

The fact that there is a 'no ads' option tells us that the site that supplied you the blog makes money from advertising. Giving you a blog - even an add free one, is them advertising themselves to you in the hope that some of your friends or readers will sign up with advertising turned on. Somebody is making money off the fact that you share music.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The only things advertised in the blogs I frequent are other blogs. Hey, man, it's file-sharing, not piracy!

And some of those other blogs are making money - which is why they are advertising on the blogs you read.