Your view on media piracy. How strongly are you against it?

[Locut0s]

I'm not talking large scale for profit piracy. I'm talking downloading the latest Miley Cyrus song to put on your iPod, torrenting the Hobbit, making a copy of a rented film etc...

When I was in my teens I pirated a lot of crap. I'm 31 now. Back then it was just cool to have CDs and DVDs full of the latest software I loved to look up to. I got a kick out of trying out 3D studio and photoshop etc etc.. Truth is I used very little of it, it was just a "cool" hobby collecting it. But after a few years I quickly outgrew that phase and now I mainly use freeware for everything. The only software I buy are operating systems and games. I still do download the occasional movie, piece of music and the like. And sometimes I'll rent a movie and realize I can't watch it in time, so I'll make a copy and watch it later.

I really have very little against most forms of small scale personal piracy that goes on day to day. From my person experience those who do the most pirating aren't potential customers of said software to begin with. An 18 year old teen who downloads 3D Studio would never have been a prospective customer in the first place. And ironically he may become a customer in the future if using it engenders an interest in 3D modelling. The same argument can't really be made for movies and music because many of these people might be potential lost customers. Even here though I know a lot of people resort to downloading a movie or song because they actually already have bought it for one device or another but don't wish to buy it again for another. The movie and music industry has made it very clear they don't want you to be able to easily move your purchased content around much. If you bought song X for you iPod they would like to force you to have to buy it again for your android. Another reason people pirate stuff is just lack of availability. Netflix, and iTunes have a lot of stuff but not everything.

Another example are TV shows. There are a lot of sites out there dedicated to torrenting whole seasons of TV shows. Some of these sites have thousands of series going back decades.

What's your view of the types of piracy described above?

[el_bryanto]

1. You know - I'll take grief for this - but it's just ripping people off

Music is more important to me than anything else; and I know that bands, with a few exceptions, need every penny they can get. And since i want my favorite bands to make more music, I want to support them and I want other people to support them rather than ripping them off.

Imagine a gun that allowed you to teleport anything you wanted back to your home; would you use it to shoplift? And if so would you simply say, "Well that's what technology demands."

Bryant

[Locut0s]

2. I don't think you should receive grief for it at all...

It's a very legitimate point.

Personally I don't listen to music much. If I did I would definitely purchase some music, especially from smaller independent artists. When it comes to huge recording artists I don't quite care as much. Not saying that's a morally correct attitude to have.

[zappaman]

11. I agree.

I have many friends who are in the entertainment business, both film and music.
Some of them you've heard of...some of them you haven't.
But they all are doing it cuz they enjoy it AND they are trying to make a living.
People who steal a film or song are thieves.

[Prophet 451]

18. No, they're not

This is an admittedly pedantic point but in order for it to be "theft", the original owner has to be deprived of it (no, potential income doesn't count). That's why the charge is "illegal infringement of copyright", not "theft".

As I said, it's an admittedly pedantic point but I think, when discussing legal matters, it's important to use the correct legal terms.

[99Forever]

121. Ummmm...

... I didn't realize this forum had become a court of law.

Golly, I guess us dumbass yokels best shut up and let you experts tell us what to think.

[Logical]

30. You are 100% correct! nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. Except the victim of the teleporter can point to an empty spot on his shelf.

Iron Maiden recently found that performing at locations with a high concentration of illegal downloads allowed them to sell-out their shows.

The primary victims are the recording companies.

[Nye Bevan]

78. More like a gun that makes me a perfect replica of something in a store,

leaving the original untouched.

[Taitertots]

95. Your analogy doesn't find the situation. Imagine your device is a 3d printer and it recreates....

a perfect copy at your house.

[JJChambers]

3. Well

Office Space

It's not yours?

Uh...well, it becomes ours.

How is that not stealing?

I don't think I'm explaining this very well.

If you have to ask something is wrong, it probably is.

[Locut0s]

5. Did you mean to lay that out like a poem?

Reads like a modern unstructured poem.

And I'm not asking if it's wrong for my own sake, I'm asking what others opinions are.

[Common Sense Party]

106. I believe this is a scene from the movie 'Office Space':

[trying to explain their plan of stealing from Initech]
Peter Gibbons: All right, so when the sub routine compounds the interest, right, it uses all these extra decimal places that just get rounded off. So we simplified the whole thing, we just, we round them all down and just drop the remainder into an account that we opened.
Joanna: [confused] So you're stealing?
Peter Gibbons: Uh, no. No, you don't understand. Uh, it's very complicated. It's uh...it...it's aggregate, so I'm talking about fractions of a penny here. And uh, over time they add up to a lot.
Joanna: Oh, okay. So you're gonna be making a lot of money, right?
Peter Gibbons: Yeah.
Joanna: Right. It's not yours?
Peter Gibbons: Uh, well it becomes ours.
Joanna: How is that not stealing?
Peter Gibbons: I don't uh...I don't think I'm explaining this very well.
Joanna: Okay.
Peter Gibbons: Um...the 7-Eleven, right? You take a penny from the tray?
Joanna: From the cripple children?
Peter Gibbons: No, that's the jar. I'm talking about the tray. The....the...you know the pennies that are for everybody?
Joanna: Oh, for everybody.
Peter Gibbons: Yeah. Well those are whole pennies.
Joanna: Right.
Peter Gibbons: All right? I'm just talking about fractions of a penny here, okay? But we do it from a much bigger tray and we do it a couple a million times. So, what's wrong with that?

[FreeJoe]

4. I pirate to the extent that I feel I have a right to do so

When I buy an e-book, I decrypt it so that it cannot easily be taken away from me and so that I can read it on whatever device I want to read it on. When I buy a movie, I decrypt it and re-encode it so that we can watch it via our media server or via the little media server in the van. When I buy a song, I copy it to my home server as well as our various MP3 players. When I buy a piece of software, I sometimes install it on multiple machines so that I can use it in different locations at different times. When I buy the kids a DS game, I copy the ROM to an R4 and keep the DS cartridge safe at home so that they don't lose it.

What I think we need in this country is a law similar to the first purchase doctrine for licensed IP. When I "buy" an MP3, movie, or e-book, I should own that copy. That means that I should be able to transfer it from device to device and even to re-sell it provided that I no longer keep my copy.

[Locut0s]

6. Agreed this is one of the largest sources of "piracy"

People removing harsh DRM to use what they have purchased more freely. I've been thinking of setting up a media server in the home for example and would do something similar with the films and songs we own. And I've heard many people do the same as you do with roms. Also people like to make copies of game discs so they don't touch the original.

[kcr]

12. I wouldn't call what you do piracy

We buy it, it should be ours to do with as we wish.

[FreeJoe]

13. I don't think of it as piracy...

...but media corporations claim that the law does. Sometimes, the law is an ass.

[kcr]

14. Indeed.

Particularly when it involves media corporations.

[Logical]

32. I do the same! But always buy it. Most do not! nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. A thief is a thief.

The difference is the size of the ill-gotten gain.

[Prophet 451]

19. It';s not theft

This is an admittedly pedantic legal point but, in order to be theft, the original owner has to be deprived of it. That's why the charge is "illegal copyright infringement" (or some variation thereof) rather than simply "theft".

As I said, admittedly pedantic. Blame my contract law professor who went off on a highly entertaining tirade on this subject.

[Agnosticsherbet]

116. When a person takes something that doesn't belong to that person

it is theft.

People can justify that anyway they want.

It remains theft.

[Locut0s]

119. But traditionally the definition of theft...

Traditionally the definition of theft involves depriving the original owner of the object in question. What's taken in this case is potential profit. If one can argue with 100% assuredness that profit would have been made then it's closer to theft, but I'm not entirely convinced the term still quite fits. And it's difficult to always argue the case that profit was lost. I too am talking semantics mostly though.

[theHandpuppet]

66. Agree!

How do people think artists, writers, musicians and other creative people make a damn living? Take money out their pockets for works they've created and you're a thief, period. All the rationalizations in the world won't change that. There seems to be a lot of people out there who think stealing from artists isn't the same as stealing from anyone else.

[Egalitarian Thug]

114. So you would have no problem with the various industries being forced to replace and

upgrade every piece of music anyone ever bought or buys?

When I bought Some Enchanted Evening in 1978, I bought the right to listen to that whole album as many times as I like for the rest of my life. By exactly the same "logic" that they use to justify their abuse of both artists and customers (and the court system), I have a right to demand that they provide me with as many replacements as I like at no additional charge, forever (or at least for 75 years).

[Agnosticsherbet]

117. You bought a recording, a copy, not an infinite number of copies.

You own your copy. If you want another, you can buy another coffee.

[Egalitarian Thug]

120. Not according to RIAA. You should learn about something before you decide whether

it is is good idea or not.

The whole basis for their stance is that they do not sell copies of music, that's only the medium. What you, I, and everybody else bought, according to them, is a license.

[onehandle]

8. The complexity surrounding media ownership muddies what is right and wrong.

Just get together and put it all out there, dammit.

We shared software and media when I was pre-30. It seems like something that was a necessity back then.

The 'pirates' of then should be customers once their career is established.

Adobe is the ultimate example of why to pirate when young. Too damn expensive for kids. Now they have their 'Creative Cloud' scheme. Which would be acceptable at half price. But because it is overpriced, upstart software (Pixelmator, Acorn, Pages etc..) will likely take them down.

The only reason I pirated anything since is because of lack of availability. Dark Shadows is exiting Netflix this week, and we are just now finishing Season 2.

[Incitatus]

9. When it comes to movies.

I rarely go to the theaters and will eventually see them on my cable service. So by watching them early online, they are not losing out on revenue from me. In fact, the good movies I do tell friends about who them buy or rent them when they might not have. I may be rationalizing theft, but I don't claim to be a boy scout. For music, I have copied some from youtube, just like I can copy them off the radio if I went through the trouble. The Internet has just made it so much easier. I do go to concerts and if more bands sold their music directly, I would just as soon pay them a dollar a song than the pittance they get from the recording companies. I'm not saying it is right, but I do see a difference than going into a store and tossing a dvd or cd into my pocket and walking out.

[Agschmid]

10. I don't do it.

I pay for my online music/video spending... And I stream everything else on Hulu/Netflix/HBOGO etc.

[MattBaggins]

15. Perhaps this video will explain my thought on Piracy

[spanone]

16. if you're a professional songwriter that latest miley cyrus song download is stealing your living.

it's called theft.

[Prophet 451]

20. No, it's not

This is an admittedly pedantic legal point but, in order to be theft, the original owner has to be deprived of it. That's why the charge is "illegal copyright infringement" (or some variation thereof) rather than simply "theft".

As I said, admittedly pedantic. Blame my contract law professor who went off on a highly entertaining tirade on this subject.

[mythology]

17. I feel if I purchase an item, I don't need to repurchase it

For example, if I bought a VHS tape, I don't feel bad about burning a dvd version.

Likewise before I had a backup of all of my music, if I lost a cd, or damaged it, I don't mind getting another copy for free.

But I have also been known to copy music my parents own on cd rather than downloading an mp3 of it because the majority of my music is in loss-less quality and I prefer that to the quality loss in an mp3. If I could find a way to buy higher audio quality single songs, I would. I know Neil Young was working on that, but Amazon and iTunes just don't offer music in the quality that I want.

Also I will sometimes download live music if I can't find a live album from the artist. But that's pretty rare as most of the quality on those unauthorized recordings suck.

[Nye Bevan]

21. If it's available legally, I will pay for it.

But lots of times the owners choose to not make something available on iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, or anywhere else. And in this case I am not going to order a DVD and wait several days, I'm going to look for the torrent.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. I am a creator and have strong feelings against it.

Then again some of the companies we used to work with ripped us off too. So I say it is in the water.

But it is stealing from those creative minds. Since you mentioned your teens, this, song here, short story there, has driven small creators away from creative industries. Sure, the Hobbit, you will not do much damage, but you and a few million of your friends will.

To go back to those small companies who produced games (and ripped their creatives off) some have gone out of business, and you could not pay me enough to work for any of them these days. The effect, since I am not alone, is that if you play paper and pencil RPGs and you have noticed the crap being put out these days...it is because of fans tipping the companies, and the companies ripping of the creatives. It's toxic.


Mind you, in this new world copy right can't be protected really, so I foresee changes in the horizon. Some will be rather toxic to all concerned.

[Prophet 451]

24. But there are also ways to put out your own RPGs

I'm a regular user of a site called DriveThruRPG that sells electronic or POD versions of RPGs and they seem to make it a lot easier for creatives to put their work out directly to the audience without needing to bother with teh corporate bastards.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Yes and no' and I ran my own small company for a few years

Yes, there is drive through, but getting yourself to gama, gencon, let alone Comicon is down right prohibitive.

[Prophet 451]

27. How so?

Forgive my picking your brains but can you explain why it's prohibitive? Is it the money involved or the logistics or something else?

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Just getting a table is expensive as hell

Of course, Comicon has that problem of a waiting list.

You can do local/regional conventions, but even the LA con, within driving distance, you are talking of about 1000 just to get there for the weekend, and that is a low number. Most independent game companies don't have that cash.

Mind you, I ran it at the time we lived in Hawaii, so that would have been impossible. There us also the issue of getting into regular distribution. ACD, for example, wants something that sells, but if you cannot get it in there to sell. It's a catch 22.

Then there is marketing. A lot of this is done on the web, but you still need a physical presence at gama, to get stores and distributors, and at least gencon and a couple regional shows to bring a game into the attention of potential fans. Even then the failure rate is very high, and the piracy does not help.

[Prophet 451]

35. Thanks, that explains it

However, as I said downthread, I think Steam and the ability to buy software direct from teh creators, are changing things for the better.

[Locut0s]

28. I agree...

I don't pirate games or anything where I really respect the creators and artists involved anymore. You'd be surprised though, I've run into a number of people in the gaming industry, older friends of mind and friends of friends, who admit to still pirating the odd game themselves even though they are in the industry.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Believe me, no I would not.

That industry in particular is seriously ethics challenged. I can tell real horror stories. Why these days I play some games, but will never again even propose an idea, or post at insert company here website, or beta test.

When you see your ideas implemented, not get paid, or credit, preferable both, trust me. Nothing surprises me about the game industry. It is truly it's own worst enemy.

But in reality the way technology is going, the big boys will have the same issues protecting their wares, just as the small creatives that preceded them. My opinion, one of the reasons for the crap on tv and movie remakes is because that is starting to catch up to the big leagues. The ethics, or rather lack of them, are just as bad with the big leagues.

[Prophet 451]

34. I think Steam has moved things in the right direction

If you read my other posts on this thread, you'll see that I'm a big fan of buying stuff directly from the creatives rather than the corporate sharks. Well, Steam has made it a lot easier to do that and allows me to buy small, indie games direct from their creators.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. And so has drive through

But there are glaring issues still.

I was on the leading edge of the self publishing craze. I know these days, when I finish my short stories, novels, or even the occupy book, I no longer try the big guys. But the work involved in developing a new paper and pencil rpg and the returns are simply not worth it.

[Prophet 451]

38. I self-publish too

I have about thirty short stories on Amazon and Smashwords (I'll save you asking: They're porn).

I take your point though. There are still big problems to be worked through.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. I have an occupy book on smash words

Now getting into the rhythm of fiction.

And hey, if you have fun writing those...hell, one of my concepts had to be cleaned up for the kids. I promised myself to rewrite it for a more adult audience. So it is intense, but torture should be. (And using some first hand knowledge from patients that we treated. Drug dealers are not quite kind)

[Prophet 451]

47. It IS fun to write them

Mainly because of the "what will people actually pay for?" factor. Actually writing the "insert Tab A into Slot B" fucking is pretty dull but seeing what my customers will buy is always fun. I have a few rules, I won't do rape, beastiality, scat or outright incest but even with those rules in place, the stuff they'll buy still leaves me dumbfounded. I wrote a "woman fucks centaur" story as a goof and damned if it isn't one of my best sellers.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. I actually am dealing with male rape

I fucked up the main character before the naval service. And then broke him so more. But combat should do that.

[Prophet 451]

23. I'm middling on it

It depends what and why you're pirating. Specifically:

Music: Buy, preferably direct from the artist so that the bloated tyrants who run the music business don't get anything. In the last three years, I've brought maybe half-a-dozen albums, all direct from the artist. For everything else, I use Spotify or YouTube.

Movies: As above.

Computer Games: As above. However, I'll point out that when I brought the latest SimCity, I ended up having to torrent a hacked version which removed the bloody "always online" requirement just to be able to play the fucking thing in the first week. Again, buy direct if possible (Steam has made this much easier).

Comic books: Buy legally (paper or digital) copies of either the issues or the trade. Comics are a pretty low profit business and titles get cancelled if not enough people buy them (this is true of other things but the margin in comics is so low that a difference of a couple thousand sales might well lead to a title being cancelled).

Books/stories: I have about thirty stories available for digital sale in most of the big ebook retailers (and I'll say right upfront that they're porn). I'd be very surprised if my work hasn't been copied and pirated at various times, it doesn't bother me at all. That said, I make maybe a couple hundred dollars a month at this. If I was making thousands, I might feel differently.

Other stuff:
- I have zero problem with people pirating stuff when there is no other way to get it. Example: "MiracleMan" was a ground-breaking, innovative comic-book series that featured the debuts of Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman, both now legends in the business. But because the rights were tied up between six parties, it was impossible to get the series for thirty years. So for about thirty years, pirating was the only way to get the series. I really don't see a problem with pirating in those circumstances. Same thing applies to some old video games, certain obscure tv shows or out-of-print music.

- I have no problem with people pirating copies of stuff they otherwise own. See my own struggles with SimCity. I've also downloaded many copies of works that I actually own because of the fucking ridiculous legal state of affairs that means you don't own X, you just have a license to view it as and when they see fit. For example, I've frequently downloaded copies of movies that I own dvds of because I want to be able to watch them on my pc and the dvd either won't play or demands I install some proprietary software.

- I think downloading copies of stuff you're definately, positively, absolutely going to buy is ok. That's just skipping the waiting period. Example: I'm a huge superhero fan and saw Avengers multiple times at the cinema. As soon as Amazon had it up for pre-order, I ordered it. However, in the time I was waiting for the dvd to be released, I downloaded a copy to watch.

EDIT: That said, the evidence that piracy affects actual sales is patchy, to say the least. And, where possible, always buy direct from the creators rather than the evil corporate assholes. Finally, I do think the ridiculously excessive punishments handed down for copyright infringement are insane.

Incidentally, the rights to "MiracleMan" did eventually get sorted out and the trade will be coming out next May. I already have it on pre-order.

[Locut0s]

26. Off topic. Being a big super hero fan...

I've also become a big comic book and super hero fan! However I never managed to get into the comics. I've watched most of the DC and Marvel animated movies and I'll read a comic here and there but getting into most series is daunting due to the amount of backstory. I'm thinking that now might be a good time with DCs new 52 reboot and Marvel doing much the same. What do you think? Got any suggestions?

BTW have you seen the latest marvel animated movie The Flashpoint Paradox? It's fantastic!

[Prophet 451]

33. New 52 is ugh

I picked up most of the New 52 books when they were released and frankly, most of them were pretty bad. The ones I did like ("Demon Knights", "Animal Man", a few others) have mostly been cancelled or will be in the near future. There's a few gems in there (which I'll get to in a second) but it's mostly just bad.

Marvel's "Marvel NOW" initiative is really just making an effort to allow for new readers via the .1 issues (special "bring you up to speed" issues). Marvel organises it's titles into "families". Of those, the Avengers titles are really incestuous and often dumb; the X titles vary wildly, the Spidey titles are generally pretty good and the MArvel Max titles (Marvel's version of Vertigo) are often very good.

That said, don't worry too much about backstory. For teh most part, it'll either be explained as you go or, in Marvel's case, every title now has a recap page to allow you to dive in.

Series that I think are worth reading: Constantine (morally ambiguous magical con-man, continuation of the long-running "Hellblazer&quot ; Justice League Dark (JLA for the magical and morally complex characters); Swamp Thing; Suicide Squad (super-criminals pressed into government service); Batgirl (Gail Simone's writing is fantastic); Uncanny X-Men (Cyclops is now a mutant terrorist/freedom fighter); New Avengers (deals with the Illuminati, a group of Marvel's power players, dealing with stuff behind the scenes); All New X-Men (the original five, brought into the present day); Uncanny Avengers (a mixing of X-Men and Avengers squads) and Wolverine & The X-men (Wolverine is now running the school, it's often hilarious). The Batman books are often also worth the time but writer Grant Morrison likes to do really long arcs so make sure you're not jumping in the middle of one.

I haven't seen the movie yet for the simple reason that LoveFilm (British version of NetFlix, sort-of) doesn't have it yet.

[sweetloukillbot]

43. A few other decent New 52s...

I'm enjoying Phantom Stranger. Wonder Woman looks good but I haven't dug into them yet. Dial H was brilliant but ended too soon (fat geek finds a telephone dial that lets him turn into random superheroes). Despite the controversy, Harley Quinn looks like it might be fun. Gail Simone's Movement is interesting - sort-of superpowered Occupiers.

Animal Man is really good, Swamp Thing is starting to hit its stride - but the changes to it are kind of bugging me. JLD is good, but again the changes kind of bug me - still its got some great potential and features a lot of my favorite characters. There was a Batman title that Grant Morrison did that looked good, but I haven't checked them out yet. Most of the straight superhero stuff doesn't appeal to me.

I just discovered "The Unwritten" and am impressed, but that's been around for a few years. I'm hearing good things about the new Hawkeye series too.

And Sandman is back for a miniseries - so I'm happy about that.

[Prophet 451]

45. Oooh, hadn't heard about a new Sandman mini

Thanks for the heads-up.

[sweetloukillbot]

54. It's a prequel to the original series

Neil is writing and JK Williams is doing the art. It's pretty jaw-dropping so far. Issue 1 is out, 2 is out in Feb. and it's supposed to be bimonthly after that - but issue two has already been delayed.

[Prophet 451]

55. And just ordered it from Amazon

I'll almost certainly get the trade when it comes out but I want to read this as it goes. Thanks.

[ZombieHorde]

37. I view it as easy shoplifting.

Shoplifting takes more skill and courage, so I have more respect for it.

Something I enjoy reading is justification for stealing electronic media. Many people wish to simultaneously wish to steal and look down on thieves/criminals, so the justifications are fun.

All crime is just a social construct anyways, and doesn't really "exist," so steal away.

[lumberjack_jeff]

41. I'm old enough that most of my music is on record albums.

When I bought the album, I thought I was buying the music on it. I copied my records to cassette tapes to prolong the life of the vulnerable vinyl... and to enable me to play the music in my car.

I wasn't buying a revocable license to Dark Side of the Moon, I was buying "a copy".

Corporations won't be happy until they can maximize the profit stream from every sensory input that reaches your ears, eyes or... mark my words... nose and tongue.

[sweetloukillbot]

44. I have 1000s of records, CDs, DVDs, books and comics....

I live in a small house with no storage space. I'm paying $75 a month for a storage unit to keep the stuff safe and don't have access to it for daily use. I have no qualms about downloading a digital copy of something that I've already purchased, especially since said digital copy will likely be much poorer quality. I'll also use downloads to check out bands I might be interested in but don't have a good way to listen to - obscure prog or metal bands and the like. If I don't like it, I delete it and don't have to burn money to check it out.
I also buy a lot of Ebooks, digital comics, ITunes, etc. I don't pirate software at all - I don't trust it for the most part.
I will also choose Netflix or Hulu over downloading a TV program, but will occasionally download a show I miss (like the most recent episode of Top Chef).

The other thing I do is collect bootleg concerts and again I have no qualms about downloading a bootleg show - 90% of the bands I download are either taper friendly or broke up years ago. An audience recording of Led Zeppelin at LA Sports Arena in 1975 isn't going to harm Robert Plant's bottom line one bit. In fact, by downloading that bootleg I'm NOT giving money to people who are trying to profit off him by selling copies on ebay or at record fairs.

[Prophet 451]

46. This is why there's been a big push to PPV

What bugs teh corporates is that, once you buy something, you can watch it as many times as you like. They hate that. They want you to have to pay every time you watch/listen/play/read/sacrifice. That's why all the new movies go to PPV before they go to DVD, that's why all the new digital boxes have movies on PPV.

[Vashta Nerada]

42. I really don't care if people pirate stuff.

I do it myself, occasionally. I'm not going to pay $15 for a shitty movie that I'll have to keep forever.

[liberal_at_heart]

48. I have to pay for anything else I buy. Why wouldn't I buy the movie or song I plan on

watching or listening to? The internet has made it way too easy to steal. You wouldn't walk into a grocery store, grab a loaf of bread and walk out without purchasing it.

[Gravitycollapse]

53. ...

[RedCappedBandit]

75. If there was essentially an infinite amount of bread

and my consumption of it did not deprive anybody else of doing the same.. then yes, I would.

[Rex]

49. I wish China would follow copyright laws.

So easy to get a fake Windows OS for nothing.

[Xithras]

57. China had no concept of copyright until the 1980's

Throughout most of human history, people would have thought you insane if you claimed to "own" a song, or a story, or a concept. Then the profiteering capitalists stepped in and decided that the most fundamentally human of all concepts, the sharing of stories and songs, was somehow "theft" and a criminal act. Copyright laws only work in societies that put profits before people.

China was one of the last parts of the world that still embraced the older model of human sharing. Ideas should be shared and dispersed widely for the good of all. Songs should be sung and resung for the benefit of human happiness. Art should be shared to make the world more beautiful.

China only implemented copyright laws in the 1980's when international trade organizations threatened to isolate it if they didn't. The Chinese people, on the other hand, still don't accept the laws. It took generations for these laws to become accepted as "normal" in the rest of the world, and it will probably take generations for the Chinese as well.

[Gravitycollapse]

50. My music collection is approximately 130 gb. Most of it was torrented

I support lesser known bands if I like their stuff.

If you can afford it and really like a band, pay for it. Otherwise, I see very little wrong with torrenting.

[KitSileya]

51. I am divided in my opinion on it.

I pirate tv shows, but not movies or music. I pay for tv (both the tv license which is mandatory where I live and for the channels) even though I never actually turn it on. I download the shows I watch instead. Increasingly, I just buy them on iTunes instead (for example, this Fall, I have bought Agents of Shield and Almost Human on iTunes rather than pirate them, because now I can pay for them where I couldn't before.) I could just as easily dvr the ones I pirate off my tv, I suppose, but then I'd have to do all the work of converting the files etc. I guess I feel like I have already paid to access tv shows, and so whether I record them or torrent them it's the same difference. However, now that I can more easily buy them through other services, I'll do that. It's just that I hate actually having to watch tv on tv, mostly because they air the shows I like very, very late- late both in terms of time of day, and usually a year after the episodes aired in the US. I remember them showing ST:TNG at 1a.m. back in the mid 90s...the first seasons. The Norwegian cultural elite has always been very dismissive about sci fi shows, but pressure has made them relent somewhat. Now they're only 3 months late, but still has wacky show times.

Films and music, on the other hand, I don't pirate. Those I can go buy in shops or in iTunes. The movie companies aren't doing themselves a favor, however, by clinging to the outmoded region system, and releasing films at different times in different regions. I remember being able to buy the Hobbit on American iTunes in early March, when it was released on dvd on April 8th here in Norway. I believe Japan was even later, May, I think. The movie companies are stupid if they think that that won't lead to pirating - if you know that half the world can buy the film on dvd two to three months before you, but you can't even buy the dvds from internet stores in those regions because they won't play in your dvd players....

[MannyGoldstein]

56. I think it doesn't matter how we feel - it's here.

We need to figure out how to make it all work, because it's not going away.

[davidpdx]

60. Very true

Until there is some kind of middle ground worked out piracy will continue. They can squash sites left and right, but more will pop up. I know of several sites that were shutdown, but for everyone they do about five more pop up.

One of the problems is that almost all content is blocked from outside the US. That means unless a local television station is broadcasting your show, you are just shit out of luck. Even when they do, it's about season behind (sometimes more). In my opinion this just encourages pirating. Shows that are popular are going to be followed in many different countries. On Facebook I see people talking about US shows all over the world. Limitations on the content is a limitation on how it can be obtained legally.

Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu are all inaccessible. 95% of the networks are inaccessible (Comedy Central is one of the few exceptions, but we'll see how long that lasts. There probably are a few other minor networks that can be viewed online).

[KitSileya]

65. Media companies have shown an amazing unwillingness to accept reality.

It amazes me how backwards they are. Pretty much none of my students pirate music anymore - they use Spotify pretty much exclusively. But films and tv? ANyone connected to the internet and interested in media, won't wait for the stuff to hit their regions any longer. Gone are the days of buying copies of copies of Japanese animes on VHS; today, they torrent it. They're not going to wait 4-6 months for some local shop to decide there's enough of a demand that they will import it - if there ever is enough of a demand to justify importing it in a town of 250,000. The get around content-blocking by proxying - this is a globalized world, something the media corporations are desperately denying with their regions and different premiere and release dates. Fans of something from all over the world want to discuss their obsession on equal footing, and they're not going to respect arbitrary divisions anymore.

[davidpdx]

70. Yep

I know people in The Philippines and China who follow US television shows. US television and movies are very popular here in Korea. A very funny story: I started watching the show Gossip Girl and got hooked on it. So I started to use it as a way to get my students to talk. They thought it was funny that this old guy (I this was a few years ago so I was about 40) was watching a show that is basically tailored and marketed toward younger people. Yet I could talk about the characters as if they were my own family (ah, scary I know!).

I actually lived in China for an academic year teaching and without a proxy server I would have seriously took a leap off a tall building that's how bad censorship is. Of course that's a totally different thread.

There are about nine shows I currently keep up with on a regular basis depending if they are on hiatus or not. Generally you can get a show with in a few hours after it is shown. I gave up on football when I moved over here because they don't show the games and they are on in the early morning on Monday. It's like, ok I like football but not enough to get up at 3 am. Last season I was able to watch a few on my 32" inch flat screen and it actually FELT like I was back home (in the US) on Sunday which just was so neat (I of course had to dodge all the scoreboards so as not to ruin the outcome). As Dorthy from the Wizard of Oz once said, "There's no place like home".

[KitSileya]

94. Oh, don't I know what it's like to live in different time zones!

I split my year between Norway and the US, and the 9hr difference sucks. As does the - you can watch this here, but not there. I have two iTunes accounts, and in the US I have Netflix, but in Norway, where Netflix is pretty new, it doesn't have the dvd borrowing, and the material you can stream is anemic, to say the least. The zone thing is one of those things that just aggravates me a lot. When I got a dvd player in 2000, there were instructions in the store on how to make it region free, so I can at least watch dvds from everywhere, but the blu-ray player I got for Christmas last year isn't even unpacked, because there's such a hassle to get it region-free. As a result, I watch a few movies in the theater, but much fewer movies than I used to watch before - and I don't buy as many dvds either. The aggravation is causing me to avoid giving the companies money unless I really, really want to watch the movie. They're losing out because they're alienating their customers - I may be an aberration for not pirating movies, but my irritation is hardly singular.

[NoOneMan]

58. If you can prove damages, its too bad for the songwriters. You can't though

Nothing is being stolen. Its being copied. No money is being lost, unless those people would hypothetically purchase the album otherwise. Some business may be generated by viral advertising in part from the downloaders (yes, people tell their friends what they are listening to).

[goldent]

59. I used to think it was wrong

Now, I just accept it. And I don't really distinguish between pirating for private use, and large scale pirating for profit.

I think pop music is changing in that relatively successful acts are not becoming multi-millionaires like they did 20-30 years ago. They will have to make more money from touring. It may be that people will look back on the 2nd half of the 20th century as a special time when you could get rich quick on record sales.

For films, they continue to raise the price at the box office, and seem to be doing ok. For a lot of people, the cinema experience is so much better than the home experience, that they will pay for it.

[davidpdx]

61. Being outside the US I have a different take on piracy

When I first got to Korea I bought a DVD player and all 7 seasons of the West Wing as I never had anything to watch. They do show some programs on networks, but the offering is limited and the times are all over the place.

One of the problems is that almost all content is blocked from outside the US. That means unless a local television station is broadcasting your show, you are just shit out of luck. Even when they do, it's about season behind (sometimes more). In my opinion this just encourages pirating. Shows that are popular are going to be followed in many different countries. On Facebook I see people talking about US shows all over the world. Limitations on the content is a limitation on how it can be obtained legally.

Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu are all inaccessible outside the US. 95% of the networks are inaccessible (Comedy Central is one of the few exceptions, but we'll see how long that lasts. There probably are a few other minor networks that can be viewed online).

I don't listen to music or play games.

That leaves television shows, movies, and books. The television shows have made their money from advertisers in which commercials run about 9 minutes for a 1/2 show and 18 minutes for a 1 hour show. I feel very little pity toward the movie companies these days that charge upwards of $10 a ticket for a movie.

Again I have to be very lucky if the movie actually comes here, I see that it's playing, and catch it in the week or two it runs in the theater (generally they don't run long unless it's a very popular movie). Of the three books are the ones I have a twinge of guilt on. Those I generally can get from an overseas shipper, though it does take as long as three weeks.

My solution is find a way people outside the US can purchase content legally at a fair cost. I don't think any of the networks or movie companies want that.

[Locut0s]

63. I blame the content distributors who...

Who have parcelled the globe up into distribution zones. Movie X doesn't play or get released in zone Y till such and such a date. DVD and Blu-Ray players are similarly zone locked. Part of the reason behind this is undoubtably ironically to stem the tide of piracy. They milk each zone for as much money as they can before releasing it in the next one. Hopefully this way they can saturate each market in turn and not have to worry as much about pirated copies of the content making its way from places where piracy is rampant to places it's not. Release stuff in Asia last cause that's where it will get pirated the most. Of course this has never worked from day one. Like you I've lived in Asia, and traveled back on several occasions. Street stalls always have the latest titles available for purchase regardless of where or when it's released. Even funnier is to see the odd title released before they even appear in theatres.

[davidpdx]

71. The pirated DVD stands have become rare in Korea

When I first got here they were common in foreigner centric areas. A combination of a crackdown by police and torrents have made them obsolete. There is a lot of stuff is not released at all. Most documentaries, forget about it. There have been plenty of great ones in the last dozen years or so and I would have never seen them. Occasionally a movie gets released here before it is in the US. We went and saw Die Hard 5 before the US release (unfortunately it sucked big time).

[Locut0s]

72. Thanks for the info...

My experience comes from China, and to some extend Malaysia.

[davidpdx]

74. I can believe the DVD stands still exist in China

They are a bit behind the curve. Never been to Malaysia, but hope to make it there some day.

[treestar]

68. I kind of get that, in that I like to watch foreign shows

people put on you-tube. I go to the foreign show's site and am not authorized to watch it. Every once in a while they scrub the account of the you-tube person who was uploading them to you tube. Which is silly, in that they are getting people watching their show who ordinarily would not, so it seems stupid they are trying to keep us from watching it. They lose nothing. What it might be is that the show is sold in other countries, where it is behind a couple of weeks, and the people in those countries might watch the latest episode. Still they could make it available to them online.

When it's something you can't buy anyway, and that isn't even for sale as a DVD, what are they even gaining? They wouldn't have made money off of some people anyway. Or, I'll watch your local ads.

[davidpdx]

73. It is getting harder to limit the content

and even then it pops back up.

Korean dramas are very popular abroad. They are a bit different from the soaps in the US where they continuously run forever. If you go to the Asian Group on DU some of the users posts links to Asian movies with subtitles that are on Youtube.

The great thing is I never miss the Christmas ads. I happened to be watching Maddow a few weeks ago and they run ads and I got one for a retailer and I suddenly remembered why I hate watching TV around the holidays (Elections are another matter though, I actually go hunting for commercials. I know it's a sickness).

I've watched stuff on Youtube as well and that is the same as torrents except it is the uploader who gets in trouble. I found They Live on there and watched it one night. I remember seeing it in the theater 25 years ago. So in that case I paid for my ticket (I was only 17 then). Every time I see it I love it more. The film flopped at the box office, but has a following that is very strong.

[joshcryer]

62. Piracy is inherently sharing.

And I can't be against sharing.

Bootlegging is BS though.

[Locut0s]

64. We'll the question is. Do you have the right to share it?

It's true you can't share an apple. And taking an apple from the local fruit stand is depriving the owner of a possible sale, to say nothing of his own purchase cost of the apple.

Media is different though. It costs nothing to make a billion copies of the content. Nor does distributing the content cost all that much. But someone's livelihood still depends on the content itself and the sales of it. The artists behind it makes his living based on sales of his creation. When I copy a DVD and give it to a friend that friend could be seen as a lost customer, lost revenue. And certainly if only a single person bought the DVD and everyone else in the world only got copies then the artists would be starving. But is ever lent copy a lost sale? That's a greyer area. Every apple stollen is lost money, every DVD copied, well that's hard to say.

[Vashta Nerada]

90. Do I have the right to share my potato chips after I buy them?

Of course I do.

The same should apply to downloaded music, movies, and games.

[Glassunion]

100. Only if you can un-eat them.

As long as you don't retain the chips while you have shared them with someone else.

[Vashta Nerada]

103. Where in the law does it say that?

[Glassunion]

104. I was using your analogy.

Buying a bag of chips and sharing them is not illegal. It is a bad analogy when comparing them to piracy.

Sharing music is not illegal as long as you follow copyright law. If you buy a CD and loan it to a friend, that is fine. However if you make a copy and give it to your friend, that would violate the copyright. As you have essentially made two copies from one. When you buy a CD or DVD or whatever, you own that copy and can listen to, read or watch that copy. However, the creator still owns the copyright, so depending on the rules of the particular purchase, you cannot legally make copies and share them. That is copyright infringement.

[joshcryer]

108. This is where bootlegs come in.

If you sell a copy of something you have taken away a potential monetary economic transaction from someone else. If you share something, however, for free, without monetary cost for the transaction between the two parties, the economics are a bit more weird.

There is an economic benefit from sharing media, as Iron Maiden shows. What Iron Maiden did was looked at the geographies that pirated their music the most, and then had sell out shows in those regions: http://www.theverge.com/web/2013/12/25/5244204/iron-maiden-responds-to-piracy-by-planning-tours

Of course, the media companies denied this is true, because they didn't want to give the impression that Iron Maiden supported the piracy, but it's clear that piracy has a net economic benefit as it allows a group or individuals to spread their media effectively and grow a fanbase.

[Glassunion]

109. See post 101

It's all well and good if you are already set financially. But if not you can lose your shirt. In our case about 600 shirts.

[joshcryer]

111. That presumes you would've sold those copies without Napster.

Which there exist no evidence for. Cassette tapes existed then too.

[Glassunion]

112. You're right I guess.

We should have never made the attempt as we were not wealthy enough to give it away for free. The struggling artist should not produce their own albums if they cannot afford to give it away for nothing. We were also stupid to market to colleges.

[joshcryer]

113. I think there are always unfortunate side effects.

But I think if my media was being copied freely I would take advantage of it and build a fan base, encouraging people to pay, but not chastising them or hating on them for failing to do so. I also think that middlemen are part of the problem and going direct means that the losses on you are less if you fail to succeed or become popular.

The most visceral artist doesn't care about popularity. They do it because they want to and do everything they can to do what they want. It's fortunate that it is increasingly easier to do it as time goes on.

[Glassunion]

115. You are correct, that most viceral artists do not care about popularity.

I have however found a universal truth that they do like food.

We had no middleman. We produced, printed and distributed the album ourselves. We only sold it at our shows. We never chastised, nor hated them. We were pissed at the situation.

There are two things that always kept me going as an artist.
The first was the creative process. This was the most enjoyable to me. The way the band worked, is that one of us would have an idea, be it a lyric, riff, rhythm, or whatever. Then the rest of us would fill in the rest of the tapestry of the song. We could take four guys, with our own minds, thoughts and emotions of that moment and color a song in a language that (in the whole of the universe) only the four of us were speaking. To me it was cognitive empathy, where I could instantly feel the emotion of my mates, and react or respond in my own way, which they would in turn feed on.

The second was a live performance. This is where we could, on a more limited plain, share in a form of empathy with a crowd. We could impart our emotions on a crowd, where all of us could, by the end of the evening, be breathing with the same breath. We could take them on a journey, from despair or anger, to elation and joy. We could share ourselves, from our humble insecurities to visceral anger.

Popularity was not our goal. If we wanted to be popular we would have printed more than 3,000 copies of our album. We had occasionally opened for bigger names, on mid-week shows with 6,000+ people to play for. But we were a club-level band, so our "put food on the table" money was not from the performance, it was in merchandise and CDs. Yes it was a risk producing an album, but in the wild west days of the early internet and file sharing I would say that had a huge hand in our predicament. This in the end had a direct effect on our ability to produce another album. So the unfortunate side effect was that it stifled the creation.

In today's day and age, I feel that we would have had a nice break even with the ability for folks to buy single songs from the services (iTunes, Pandora, etc...) that popped up in the past several years.

[joshcryer]

98. When a thing has zero marginal cost is is unethical not to.

"Now we live in a different world. For the first time, all the basic knowledge, all the refined physics, all the deep mathematics, everything of beauty in music, in the visual arts, in literature, all of the video arts of the 20th Century, all can be given to everybody everywhere at essentially no additional cost beyond the cost required to make the first copy.

"And so we face, in the 21st Century, a very basic moral question: If you could make as many loaves of bread as it took to feed the world by baking one loaf and pressing a button, how could you justify charging more for bread than the poorest people could afford to pay?"

[treestar]

67. I've never done anything like that

What I did do is use songs as backgrounds to videos I made. Then youtube would scrub them, at one point, and Facebook stopped me from ever putting up videos again. As far as I can tell, my use of the song did nothing but publicize the song a little. Nobody lost a damn thing. I just thought it was bullshit. What are they protecting?

Now youtube is different, though, in that it lets you acknowledge third party content, I guess so the can make a "claim" on the non-millions I will be making from using it as background to a video of family photos. Oh and I had bought the song in the first place.

[Locut0s]

69. Actually there is a huge brouhaha on YouTube going on right now surrounding copywriter issues...

It's too long and complex to talk about, I would suggest googling it. It has to do with so called managed partners. At any rate many people who make a living off YouTube are now worried that will be a thing of the past for them.

[on point]

76. Strongly, once they return copyright to 20 yrs. until then, required

[Xyzse]

77. My views on such a thing...

In regards to songs and stuff like that, I think the general thrust of the Music Industry is too heavy handed and dumb.
I think that many times, the sharing of songs is a great enterprise to be able to promote more viewership.

When I was younger, I would download songs so that I would know them. It is one way I would get to know an artist, and if I like their stuff, I buy their CD. I still love buying CDs and enjoy the cover art and other stuff that goes with it.

I also enjoy the idea of this company that sells these big audio files that go with a sound system that just blows your mind.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2013/09/11/219727031/what-does-a-song-that-costs-5-sound-like
I mean, they sound AWESOME! I would pay for some of these, and you should when the time comes.

As for shows, there is no reason not to pay for a Netflix, hulu, amazon or whatever. The issue really has been access.
There are tons of stuff out there that I am willing to pay for, I just can't find it anywhere.

See, the only thing I really download nowadays are fansubs. Meaning, subtitled translations of movies, shows and other things from different countries that will either never come to America, or will after more than 5 years.
If the industry actually decides to pay some of these fansub companies to do the translating for them for the general masses to buy, I think I would soooo pay for them too. It makes it have better quality and service.

I think the industry is doing themselves such a huge disservice by throttling access, rather than working to streamline the process and making money out of it.

[Locut0s]

81. Thanks for the link!...

Yeah the move to MP3s really did do bad things for the music industry and music lovers. I don't think people even know what their higher quality speakers and headphones are even capable of producing now a days, there's just been such a lack of content. We now have the tech and speeds that we can do better than even fully uncompressed CD and DVD audio.

[Xyzse]

84. No prob.

[Egalitarian Thug]

79. I agree with the pre-'80s court judgments. When the company sells it's product

it has no further claim to ownership unless another party sells or attempts to sell it. IOW, freely sharing your purchase is fine, profiting from selling others work without permission and/or compensation is not.

The court cases go back to the day of player pianos and until we took that hard right turn to stupid, the courts were very consistent.

[bobclark86]

80. In college, we had to...

...because it was that or spend $5,000 re-buying albums stolen while I was in the college darkroom (happened several times, so I rehabbed the darkroom at the college newspaper and got paid to screw around there... in 2006)

Now I have streaming services and video players with Chrome and a bitchin' ad blocker -- Goodbye stupid Vevo ads on Youtube, in-between ads on Pandora and those five ads three times an episode on South Park Studios!

[Locut0s]

83. Adblock adds another interesting kink to the mix...

I use it too. However by blocking the ads that play in front of the YouTube vid you are actually denying the producers of the vid the ad revenue they would normally get from you watching these. So in some strange ways it's similar to piracy.

[bobclark86]

92. If you want money...

don't put your crap on YouTube.

Not my fault their business model sucks.

[Vashta Nerada]

93. +1000

[bhikkhu]

82. I'm ambivalent

On the one hand, I remember what it was like to have no money to go to the movies or buy music, and to feel not just shut out of a lot of fun things, but to be not even a part of the culture. I also remember what it was like in college to not be able to afford books for research, and to be very much limited in what I could know by what was available at the library.

When I was younger there were no options, one just got used to it; in a way, one's mental condition just shrank to whatever size one's income provided for. In the same way poor people live in small spaces with shoddy things, overall access access to the culture was pretty tightly constrained. Online piracy is a very good way to even things out.

On the other hand, we have a wonderful culture partly because many people can make a living being creative. While I pirated a lot of things in the past, and still do occasionally, now I feel good about being able to pay for streaming services and buying music and books I want. I think the industry as a whole would do well to make it as easy to buy as it is to pirate things, they might be surprised at how many people would willingly pay.

[MineralMan]

85. As someone who has made his living with words since 1974,

I never pirate anything. Ever. Someone creates everything, and that person, like everyone who works at something, deserves payment for that work.

I solve the problem with my writing by writing on contract. I produce the work, and I get paid. Whoever buys that work can worry about the copyright issues. I don't. I either get a fair fee for my work, or I don't do it. That's for writing.

For several years, though, I had a small software company. I wrote a range of useful applications that filled gaps in what was available as commercial software. I marketed those applications as shareware, and like a lot of shareware authors, I didn't use limitations on functionality as a means of getting people to pay and register the products.

The result was that about 5% of the people who regularly used the products paid for them. Everyone else just used them. I also developed a shit load of utilities and other programs and just dumped them on the freeware market, using a small splash screen when you closed the program to advertise my shareware applications.

I made about $20K per year from registration fees for my applications. It might have been more if I had limited functionality to get people to register, but I was not in favor of that. I actually believed at the time that the shareware concept would actually work and that people would pay for software they found valuable to them. About 5% did. What did they get for paying? Well, they got a nice printed manual, a copy of the program that didn't ask them to register, and notification of upgrades. They also could contact me for support, but my software worked well and didn't need much support. I tested it thoroughly, and took care of issues immediately when I became aware of them.

I closed down the shareware company not long after the Internet became the primary way people shared stuff. Registrations dropped when that happened, and the paid versions of my software started appearing on download sites. Why should anyone pay if they could get the paid version for nothing? The shareware model of software distribution failed with the rise of the Internet. It was that simple.

People stopped paying and I stopped developing applications permanently. Too bad. Once Windows 7 came out, those old programs didn't work any more. I could have updated them, of course, and would have, except that shareware had died. I got calls and emails from people, asking for updates. I had to say no. I couldn't afford to spend the time for no payment. Economically, it didn't make sense any long. So, I don't do that any more, because people stopped paying for what I produced. They still used it, and I could see the download numbers staying strong, but they stopped paying for it.

Want to see what I did? Google OsoSoft Shareware. Some of it is still available, but most doesn't work well on anything later than XP.

So, I'm back to writing for clients. They tell me what they want. I tell them how much that will cost them. They agree on the amount and I produce what they want. I don't work for free. I can't. I have to eat, pay a mortgage and car payment, etc. So, I do what pays the bills, instead of doing stuff that I'd like to be doing. If nobody pays, it's not happening. It can't.

Except for DU. I write on DU because I'm a political guy. It's my outlet for my own opinions, which have no market value at all. That's cool with me. If I'm not writing stuff for money, I'm usually on DU, writing stuff because I like to write and I believe that writing makes a difference. I'm never paid for my political writing. I wouldn't ever take money for that, because then I'd have to write what someone else wanted me to write.

So, think about it when you bag something without paying. I don't really care if you do, but I stopped doing interesting stuff when people stopped paying for it. Simple, huh?

[tabbycat31]

86. I wrote a paper on this back in 2000

It was at the height of the Napster controversy. At the time, I was following a band's tour throughout the eastern seaboard, and I saw a show of theirs 2 days before the paper was due.

Naturally, I asked them what their thoughts of the Napster controversy was (this was 2000). They told me that they barely saw 50 cents from every $20 CD sold and they made most of their $$$ from concerts and merchandise (t-shirts, etc). They said that if someone was downloading their music then seeing a show, they were completely cool with it.

[SomethingFishy]

87. I took my family to see the Hobbit...

6 people for a 3D Imax movie. Ticket cost: $96 dollars. Popcorn and drinks: $52 So to see one 2 hour movie I paid $148.

So when I grabbed the screener online I didn't feel too badly about it.

I also don't feel bad when I "pirate" albums that I have purchased in the past. I have bought certain albums on LP, 8-track, cassette and CD and some of those multiple copies when the original wore out..

I don't feel bad about not having to pay for another copy of Dark Side Of The Moon...

Like you Locut0s when I was younger I pirated every game and piece of software I could get my hands on. Going back to the old BBS Doghouse days before the internet came into play. Never really used most of them, just collected them. Now days, not so much.

Something else to consider. When pirating music you are mostly ripping off record companies. Musicians get screwed on album and iTunes sales. Unless you are the songwriter you ain't getting jack. And the truth is it's becoming easier and easier to record and release your own stuff. Eventually you will be able to buy music directly from the musicians for 1/5th of what you are paying now and the musician will still make 3 times as much money.

[L0oniX]

88. Give your music away for free and make your money from the concerts ...like usual.

If your music gets downloaded a lot in Brazil then you do a concert there ...like Iron Maiden.

BTW were you on irc undernet?

[hunter]

89. If someone doesn't want me to share their art I don't.

It's their loss, not mine.

Our extended family does share DVDs, however. Some of us buy them new, some of us haunt the thrift stores. It's very similar to the book trade in our family. We all have thousands of books and few of us can walk past a book store without going in.

I also use Handbrake, not for sharing, but for converting movies to a form portable devices can use. These video files are often deleted later to make room for something else. I have made electronic files of all our CDs and most of our vinyl. I don't share these. Again, it's so they can be played on portable devices.

My wife and I will buy art from local or traveling artists, music, paintings, drawings, books, and so on. I also feel good about buying music from sources that pass most of the profits onto the artists.

Art is something humans do. There are billions of people on this planet and millions of very talented artists. The art owned and controlled by giant corporations is rarely the best. Gutenberg.org has more free books than anyone could ever read, many of them masterpieces. Most of the books on my kobo are from there.

The last time I bought software for myself was back in the Windows 98 era. I bought the Opera web browser when it fit on a single 3.5" floppy disk, and I also bought stuff from Fineprint to deal with pdf files. I won't use anything Adobe, Apple, or Microsoft unless someone is paying me. I won't even install the free Flash^® plugin on my personal computers. I use free, open source software. Why would I illegally download anything that is offensive or useless to me?

I like to live in a world of my own making as much as I can, not a world promoted, directed, and controlled by powerful commercial interests.

[Neoma]

91. I think knowledge and all forms of art should be free.

I don't need all the money in the world just because I did something that is appreciated by a lot of people. That's counter productive and greedy as fuck. If it's to get back what I lost in making it, that's understandable I suppose. I think doing it purely for profit destroys something in you though.

If my song gets popular through pirating? That's a good thing, and the only thing that should be important...someone likes something I did enough to risk going to jail. I think it's touching.

If I paint a picture, I don't want rich asshats to take it as status symbols, I want it to actually be appreciated. I'd rather give it to a waitress than sell it to a billionaire.

If I write a book, I want as many people to read it as possible so that it gets into the public discourse. I don't need money for teaching someone something. We put knowledge up for sale too often, and I think it hurts people when you do that.

[liberal_at_heart]

96. there has to be a way for the artist to make a living. Some have suggested that

musicians should give their songs away and earn their money through concerts. That might be a solution although I already can't afford to go to a concert. If concerts are the only form of income for musicians they would probably be even more expensive. But what about book authors or painters? I have a friend who makes a living writing books. If people stole from him he wouldn't be able to feed his family. My daughter is an artist but doesn't do it for a living. Sometimes she gives some of her art away. She doesn't have to pay her bills with the money should would have made from it so it doesn't matter. She can afford to just give it away. Some people can't afford to just give it away.

[Neoma]

97. To me, it's whether you're doing it for the sake of art or not.

When greed gets introduced, you can just forget it.

Authors already share their books for free in a way. Libraries they're called... Free e-books on occasion. They still sell fine.

But, I shouldn't have to pay $84 on a book I can't have use for or cannot sell back at school... I have respect for authors making money, if they're doing it for fun and they want to have fun for a living, go right ahead. But treating all knowledge like only really rich people can learn it is fucked up. I don't like it.

Same with artists, if you have fun and it's something you actually want to do. Instead of drawing for some corporation and having a breakdown because drawing feels like work rather than something fun...seen that happen before.

Making money from it is fine if it's all genuine "I gotta make money to live" and that's the only way you can think of to make money. (If you don't sell your soul.) But knowledge and art shouldn't only be limited to people who use it as status symbols. If something can be free for everyone, then it should be. Like as you said, only getting money from concerts (brilliant idea) can work. People who don't do art for a living can work, and libraries work quite well for a lot of people...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

99. Does *yawn* count?

[Glassunion]

101. Speaking from experience.

We (my band), lost a ton of our own money producing an album. We needed to clear a measly 2,000 copies to get our money back and break even (about $11k) on the production costs, album art, etc... We knew it would be a risk, producing the album ourselves. But what happened, killed us.

We used to sell the CDs at our shows. Movement was pretty decent to start. The first few shows we sold about 50 copies per show for the first few weeks, but then after about a month we were only selling about 5. We went to Ohio (a market we were new to) for a show, and we did not sell crap. But what was weird was that folks were singing along to our songs. We had zero radio play, we only advertized in the locals, but folks already knew our stuff.

Turns out a quick search on Napster (am I dating myself), you could just get a nice studio quality copy of the entire album, that we had not even paid off from about 40 different Napster users. Overall we lost about $6,000 and never produced another album. So, one of the original people who purchased the album had decided to share it, and we lost out on some of the sales. I'm not saying that we would have made all of our money back, but the attitude at the time, was that of simply "No thanks, I'll just download it for free when I get home". So there is no saying how hard it hit us.

[bemildred]

102. I feel complete indifference about it. nt

[The Kenosha Kid]

105. I support the ORIGINAL copyright law.

I'd like to see us go back to the original copyright term of 14 years with an extension of another 14. That's a reasonable amount of time for the author to make money from his/her creative efforts. And I would support strong copyright enforcement over that timeframe.


Older than 28 years? That should by rights be within the public domain. Go ahead and pirate away, I won't tell a soul.

[Scuba]

107. Welcome to DU! Another Cheesehead always appreciated (assuming).

[Initech]

110. Software I use freeware as much as I can.

Ubuntu, Open Office, iTunes, things of that nature. As far as music goes I believe in supporting the band's you like and the movies you like.

[tammywammy]

118. I don't illegally download music, movies, etc, and think it is wrong to do so. n/t

[lame54]

122. What if you pay for an album...

copy it and give it to someone who never even heard of the band

as Neil Young said during the Napster controversy

"Whatever gets the music out there"

[Locut0s]

123. Unfortunately it doesn't matter what the artist thinks...

It's still considered piracy and the RIAA will still potentially come after you even if the artist says he's cool with it. But then that's how laws work.

[lame54]

125. i'm not asking about the written law...

i'm asking your opinion

pot is illegal

but it's not wrong to smoke it

[Locut0s]

127. I have nothing against it, except...

In the case of large bands, blockbuster movies and the like I don't care what so ever. For small music producers and film makers I still don't mind if the person is trying to make converts or wants his friend to hear or see such and such, and I certainly don't mind making copies for your own use. And I don't mind pirating to get around having to purchase the same content multiple times on different devices. But where I do wish people would pay is when it comes to it being their main form of consumption AND they are listening, watching, small time producers/artists. I do feel uncomfortable when it gets to someone having their iPod chock full of only small niche artists and it's all pirated. Here I do feel they should pay to compensate the artist.

As for pot I think it should be legal 100%. And I have nothing against smoking it.

[MadrasT]

124. Completely opposed.

It is stealing.

[penultimate]

126. I do it and I think it's wrong, but I don't care...

I also speed, text while driving and I drink out of the milk carton. Again, all of those wrong, but I do it anyways because I'm an antisocial degenerate... I will say that most the stuff I 'pirate', I do it more as a trial and I will buy most things I end up using (I'm thinking of terms of books and computer based training stuff, and the occasional game) I will also pirate TV shows I would have usually watched, but missed because I wasn't around and didn't DVR them. Oh and I only wash left hand after using the restroom.

[BarackTheVote]

128. The only thing I pirate is premium channel content

HBO, Showtime, Starz, because the people running the premium channels are boneheads. If I could subscribe to HBOGo for $7.99 a month without having to have cable, I would. But to subscribe, you need cable, and that's $74/m. So, no, I'm not gonna do that. When they get their heads out of their asses and pry themselves from the sinking ship that is cable TV, then I'll give them my money. Until then, I'll watch their shows on pirate websites, and buy the seasons when they come out on BluRay, once I have the money.

I've also been known to theater-hop because I don't believe in supporting bad artists like Michael Bay, Uwe Boll, and Jonathan Liebsman, or bad art like the Twilight saga. But at the same time, I've been told many times that to have an opinion about a movie, you need to have seen it first, and lord knows if there's one thing I love, it's having an opinion. So, yeah, I hop to those films, see them, and then tell other people why they SHOULDN'T see them. The free market in action: vote with your wallets.