I've just finished a discussion/argument with a close friend over file-sharing, pirating, or more accurately, breach of copyright, and it made me angry to discover his moral position over other people's property.

We started out talking about the possibility of a levy being applied to all broadband connections in the U.K. so that every subscriber pays a small amount that goes into a fund that pays artists, composers, and publishers. That led to talking about the cause of the problem being that copying and breaking the Copyright laws is easy and there is little chance of being caught and prosecuted.

I mentioned that it was very much a question of personal morals - whether you believe that just because something is easy to do you can do it even if it is against the law, and deprives content creators of their livelihood.

I was very much interested to read an article on The Register this week, an interview with Feargal Sharkey about what piracy means to the average composer and artist. He points out some very important issues and I highly recommend reading it.



To save paraphrasing my discussion with my friend I'll reproduce the relevant part here. I've known him several years and I was shocked to discover his casual attitude to taking something without paying for it, as you'll see at the end.

Tris: Something has to be done to change people's behaviour over pirating media content though. It's got plain stupid. It's a question of fundamental morality because of the scale of it
Tris: As Fergal Sharkey said, "When we ask those who download our music if they'd go to work for free, and they say No, we point out that's what they expect us (composers and artists) to do"
Tim : Dont know what the solution is though
Tris: No, thats the issue. I suspect it is a levy on connections like the cassette tape levy
Tris: Everyone pays a small amount extra, but I'm not sure how distribution of the income would be worked out fairly without monitoring the sharing even then.
Tim : How do you mean? Charge per m/b?
Tris: No, it's been suggested that each BB customer pays an additional amount per month for the legal right to download music (and possibly other media). That would be good because it'd make what people want to do naturally legal, give businesses an incentive to improve content offerings so pirated bittorrent distribution wouldn't be a big deal any more - people could download from record company and artist web sites freely
Tim : Ok, so what about the ones that dont want the legal right and just p2p it anyway?
Tris: If it was a levy it'd be a law, so everyone would be paying it regardless. Same as the tape levy.
Tim : ah right. but there is still going to be stuff thats illegal anyway. for instance, Lost is broadcast in America way before its shown here.
Tris: Yeah, but that'd be 'import' stuff
Tim : (actually this current series its only about 2-3days, but previously it was months). i used to download it after its been shown in the usa
Tris: The thing is, a levy is the way to go, and if companies can get recompensed (even for stuff released in other countries) they aren't going to be so bothered about possible losses
Tim : i dont know, i do pirate quite a bit of stuff, it used to be loads more, but none of it would i have ever bought if i wasnt able to pirate it and i mean literally none of it
Tris: It bothers me that people are prepared to break the law to pirate stuff just because it is so easy... it suggests if there weren't store detectives people would avoid paying for stuff in shops. But, as things are, I think the law is going to have to catch up or turn a large part of the population into criminals
Tris: Well then that's a question of your personal morals really, if you wouldn't buy it but you're prepared to steal it.
Tim : I dont see it as theft for one thing
Tris: I generally download stuff that I can't get anywhere else, or to check I actually want it. I've currently got an amazon order and an ebay order, one from the USA, the other from Canada, of hard-to-get albums that I was able to listen to some samples of and decided I wanted them.
Tim : they already are criminals by law technically but there is just little/no way to enforce it
Tris: So if you spent your time and effort producing something that was popular you'd give it away for free? That's what you're expecting the producers of Lost et al to do
Tris: I generally work on the principle of mutual respect - I treat others the way I hope they'll treat me. If I was pirating stuff all the time then I couldn't really argue if someone ripped off something I've worked hard to create, either.
Tim : I would kinda expect that a large portion of people would give it away free wether I liked it or not and I'd take that into consideration when building it yes. But, without ever having produced something highly desirable, its hard to say
Tris: I don't think that is a tenable position. The only reason it is possible is because the product is digital. If it were a box on a shelf it'd be impossible. If you took the box without paying for it you'd argue that wasn't theft because lots of other people were taking the boxes too?
Tim : If I could take my computer into the shop, point it at the box and say "copy", it makes a good enought copy of the box onto a blank box that i bought cheaply then yes id probably do it. the box on the shelf is still there, nothing is stolen
Tris: Of course it is. If you've taken a copy and not paid for it, then you've deprived someone of income they depend upon.
Tim : what if i would never have bought it anyway?
Tris: There's no 'right' to freely copy/take things - it's done on the basis of the buyer accepting the sellers terms.
Tris: What you're arguing for sounds like simple anarchy. No society could survive with that kind of attitude being the norm, not even a communist one where property is theoretically owned by the entire community.
Tim : i think we should disagree, i guess im more worried about myself than simon cowell and britney spears
Tris: I'm not bothered about them, I'm bothered about what the large scale lack of morality says about where society is headed. My view is, if you're not prepared to pay what someone asks for something, then find something else - don't think you can take it anyway just because it's easy to do.

I'm a little confused. Are you referring to music downloaded, or stories? Or just in general?

I don't know how to answer that question. I know a lot of kids and even my sister and her friends, they download music illegally. The whole Napster case awhile back caused a big stir in the media. From one angle, it's the little people vs. the man (the big money making companies) and I can understand why your friend and others find ways to save themselves money. It's the thing to do, I guess.

I personally don't download music. I'm the iTunes buyer. One dollar per song.

As for writing on the internet or anything else, no I don't steal. I may print their story off the net and have a hard copy to read once in awhile, in case the file gets lost over time, but never to sell or distribute it. It's for my own enjoyment and that's it.

It's a shame that morals are going downhill. However, I realized, you can't really argue with others, if it's their personal opinion, and their own set of morals/values, even if in your opinion, are tainted. It's how they feel and what they believe. Just have to agree to disagree, otherwise, you'll drive yourselves crazy!

I find it hilarious that the article mentioned their $10,000 income. Artists have never made a whole lot of money off of the sale of MP3s, CDs, Cassetes, or LPs. No, their millions come from tours, concerts, merchandise, etc. I remember there was a South Park episode that was centered on the topic of piracy, and a news reported showed artists feeling the weight of it. Britney Spears had to settle for a Leer 2 private jet, instead of the Leer 3 with cup holders. Another artist couldn't get a private island, or something to that effect.

Artists and musicians aren't affected much by piracy. It's the record labels who are affected because they're the ones who record the songs to be sold in brick and mortar stores as CDs or online at music e-stores as copyrighted MP3s. In fact, many artists actually LIKE piracy because it's just another form of exposure for their music that attracts people to their live performances where entrance tickets can exceed $100 per head at certain venues. I paid $60 this past summer to see TOOL live in Atlantic City. I forget which band it was, but they released an entire album online for free download just to get the exposure for live concerts and such.

Piracy is not wrong and doesn't make artists poor. It makes them richer and encourages them to continue making music. It's the record labels who have to learn that media is changing, and if they want to make money then have to start selling songs individually on e-stores, or has whole albums for less than the cost buying the songs separately.

EDIT: To add to the e-store thing, DRM-encoded MP3's must die. When I buy the music on a CD, I can rip it to my computer and put it on my MP3 player. Some places sell you the songs and prevent you from burning them to CD. It's good practice in theory to prevent people from turning around and selling the songs on blank discs, but it's annoying as shit when you have no MP3 player or MP3 capable home or car stereo and want to listen to the songs there.

Well spotted! Although our discussion centered around music and video (TV shows) I'm on about the whole moral situation where someone rationalises that it is okay to break the law in this way, rather than campaign to change it. So yes, the morals apply just as readily to someone ripping off stories.

How would authors here feel if someone took their stories and published them on other web-sites without permission, for example? How would you feel if you asked them to remove your copyrighted work and they refused? What would happen if they edited it slightly and claimed it as their own?


What bothers me is how they can justify breaking the current law (as it stands in most countries) and how they think it is okay to deprive songwriters, composers, and artists of their income.


For a small number of very successful artists or brands that may be true, but the vast majority of musicians, composers, songwriters and artists struggle to make an income and don't have vast touring or merchandise franchises.


Do you have sources for that?


Supporting evidence?


So by that argument if you worked for me and I paid you nothing it'd encourage you to continue working for nothing?


My question wasn't about the commercial arrangements, distribution method, or the money, it was deliberately about the morals of individuals and how they justify breaking the current law and depriving the creators of the art of an important portion of their livelihood.

Here are my guidelines-

1) for music, I only download music that I own, what I own in another format or is out of print.

2) for video I download whatever has been on the air (broadcast TV).

3) for ebooks, I download whatever I can get my hands on.

4) I don't download software or games

Personally, I almost never download any music,, if I have done so, it was cause the album or the song was really unavailable to buy in a legal way. otherwise I either buy the CD or if there's not enough good song on the CD, I'll just buy the song on itunes.

for video, I've only downloaded one movie not legally, but it's cause I really wanted to see it and that I knew that I would buy the DVD as soon as it go out, which I did.

I don't download pirated games nor ebooks

Amazon has good mp3 downloads that are drm free.

Itunes have a seaction for drm free songs.

I personally only download drm free songs now.

if you have a drmed song. just burn it and then upload it back to your computer.

Sorry, i have to disagree. I know some professional musicians, and their income has been affected significantly since the mp3 boom (and the piracy) started. In the "pre-mp3" days, the income from selling records was the major source of income even for the "big" players (Beatles and Stones etc. made their fortune with selling records, not with concerts). That has changed due to the illegal copying/downloading. Thats why the "famous" musicians now try to make their money through concerts, charging a lot for the tickets (it was much more affortable to go to a concert 20 years ago...). Not-so-famous bands cannot charge that much, so they have a hard time making money with concerts at all (you have to pay for the hall and the equipment and travel expenses etc etc...).

I think its just fair to pay for music (or any other work of someone else that i use). A dollar (or Euro) for a song isn't really that much IMHO.

I voted "It's OK just to check if I like something before buying it", having in mind mainly computer programs. As i make my living with programming, i depend on being payed for my work. I think its ok to check something out before i decide to use it - if there is no time limited trial version available i do at times use a copy to check if i like it and it does what i expect. If i use software, i pay for it. As for music, its just a fair thing to do. Everybody deserves to be payed for his/her work.

As for drm protection: i agree, its annoying you can't copy the files that you payed for as you want to your own mp3 players and computers. If i payed for it, i think i should be allowed to use it (myself) in any way i want to.

Well, I'd love to post a very long, thorough discussion of my thoughts on this, and I probably will later, but I don't have time now, so I'll just make a few quick points, all in this case regarding music.

If I like an artist I will support them. I will buy their CDs, I will speak positively about them whenever they come up, and if it's convenient or I really like them, I will go to their concerts. The way I discover artists I like is from the radio, word of mouth, youtube, and downloading songs.

Once I discover that I do indeed like an artist, even if I've already heard all the songs on the CD, and can easily hear them again, I'm still inclined to buy the CD. To me the "process" doesn't feel complete until I do. I also like the feeling of "owning" it, and not only that but usually I prefer the quality of the songs on CD, and I also admit that I simply like the fancy packaging, and inserts. Plus it does make me feel good to support an artist I like.

Thus, for me, downloading music, or otherwise being exposed to it for free first, makes me more likely to eventually support the artist. I'm unlikely to have bought the CD in the first place if I didn't have a good indication that I would like several of the songs, so the more I get to hear, the more likely I am to buy it.

Conversely, artists who make a big deal about piracy completely turn me off. Even if I do like them I refuse to listen to their music. I wouldn't think of buying their CDs or supporting them in any way, and every time they come up in conversation I'll make it clear that I don't like them. The perfect example is Metalica. I did like their music, but after they spearheaded the Napster thing they completely and permanently lost me. Whereas I'd have probably spoken positively about them and bought their CDs otherwise.

I'd be very likely to just go ahead and buy songs on iTunes or something if I had an iPod or other MP3 player, but I'm very very slow to embrace new electronics, and I'm still not really comfortable with owning an iPod/MP3 player just yet. I mean I guess if someone bought me one, loaded with a bunch of songs I liked, and spent some time slowly and thoroughly showing me all the features I might get on-board, but I like to live a "simple life" with regards to electronics, and I just don't see myself initiating introducing these things into my life on my own (not that I want or expect someone else to do it for me; that's just ridiculous).

As for whether or not it's legal, that's mostly irrelevant to me. My system of morality is tied to doing what I feel is morally correct, and making the best and fairest decisions I can make on a personal basis. Not hurting anyone is paramount in this system. So while my morals and code of ethics usually align with laws and conventions of society I'm not particularly concerned if they don't.

In this case, I have no doubt that my listening to the music first for free (be in on radio, illegally download, youtube, or a friend's CD) is actually better for the artists and for myself. So it's an obviously appropriate moral choice for me to make. I benefit, the artists benefit, and no one gets hurt.

I'll readily concede that this might not be the case for many if not most other people, and that is more complicated and troubling, but that would be beyond the scope that I intend to explore with this post.

-Kevin

I'm sorry, but if the people weren't so moneygrubbing to begin with, the world would be more hesitant to break copyright law. As it is, this is simply the inevitable backlash of greed.

And sorry again, but quite frankly it doesn't really register on my give-a-sh... I mean.... sympathy-meter. Welcome to life with the rest of the world.

Authors would feel extremely pissed if someone took their stories and published them elsewhere without permission. Who wouldn't? All your hard work and someone else is handling it without asking, or possibly passing it off as their own?

I would feel angry and then stressed, trying to figure out how to deal with it. If you contacted that person to remove the work and they refused, what else can be done? That's why writing on the net can be tricky. You can be easily ignored and brushed off. At least I can- I wouldn't know what to do! So I'd feel pretty darn helpless, too. But if it happens, well, I'll worry when the times comes.

Technically it's not illegal to download files (though uploading is) in Canada.

But I rarely download files and I never share my files for people to download (I hate people taking up my bandwidth).

Personally I don't really care.

(Preamble: I'm drunk, so please take everything I say with a grain of salt )

I don't download or copy copyrighted items to the best or my knowledge. However, I admit that I've had pirated computer games in the past. I was influenced by a friend of mine while we were going through University, who commented that computer games were so expensive that it was cost-prohibitive to buy a game that you found that you didn't like. He would 'acquire' a cracked version of the game, and then, if he liked it, he would buy a legal copy. So, if I like a game, I buy it.

I would also like to point out that pirating stories and passing them off as your own are two completely different situations. One is acquiring a copy illegally (ie. not paying the license fee associated with the story) and the other is fraud (passing off something as your own when it isn't). I would object strenuously if someone tried to pass of a story that I wrote as their own. Since I post my stories for free, I certainly have no objection to them acquiring a copy for their own use

Part of what we are looking at is the market economy in action. The market is saying that the prices being asked for are too high. For those who believe that a free market will determine an accurate price, then the free market is saying that they would prefer a free price to paying the current prices. That, in turn, is telling the producers (the artists) that their goods are not valued at the current price -- and the vast majority of artists can not live on their artistic income.

This is where I have to vary from the free market economy. I believe artistic endeavours are important, even if they are not financially viable (in general). I just don't know what the solution is....

PS: I haven't voted yet. I'll do that when I'm sober....

Just out of curiousity, could a file sharing site like Limewire or Bear Share disable MP3 downloading through their software? If so, then I'd say that the record companies and artists should be targeting the sites instead of the individual. I mean, if someone was giving away free copies of a song on the street corner, would the people who took them up on the offer be charged with a crime?

I'm inclined to agree with Graeme! Right down to the "I'll vote when I'm sober" bit


I should think that indeed they might be, in much the same way that someone who is buying a prostitute might be charged if there were a raid or something. Also, there have been a few cases of individuals who downloaded music being charged.

I am a go-between the first two options.

While I am not a big advocate of Piracy, I can understand why India has it. The duties levied by the government on VCD's DVD's and Games CD's are so high that you get a normal game CD for as high as Rs.1,000.

Same is the case with most copyright content. Therefore, the masses find it easier to resort to piracy. Even the softwares are priced at exuberant rates.

So, while I would like to buy wherever possible, it is not the case everytime.

BeaStKid

This was what I hoped we'd get to.

As authors we'd be upset and stressed - so why is it some people think that composers, songwriters, artists and publishers shouldn't feel the same way and should forgo their earnings?

If it is thought okay for those creative people to be ripped off, then it follows the people advocating ripping them off don't care about the well-being of the creative people (who could be colleagues and friends), which takes us back to why I asked the question about morals rather than legality or economic issues.

Seems to me a lot of the moral justification comes from how some people like to create the impression that the people creating the material and depending on the income are 'faceless greedy corporations' - as if the creative geniuses behind the whole endeavour don't exist.

What really bothered me about what my mate Tim said was at the end of the conversation, where he said if he could take his laptop into a store and make an exact copy of a 'box' without paying he would. Think of that box as a CD or DVD, and him making a perfect copy and leaving the original on the shelf and not paying for the copy - the implications of what he said are astounding.

It seems like people really don't think through the implications of what they advocate or do, because I'm sure if the roles were reversed they'd be screaming blue murder about it.

Yes and No. I disagree this is about the market economy since this isn't a case of an equitable trade where the buyer and seller negotiate a price and if the buyer isn't happy they simply don't make the purchase, as happens in any other area of commerce. This is a case where a large number of people believe it is okay to simply take without any equitable return to the seller.

I'm not sure I could agree with you more.
There is a good feeling that comes with the piece of plastic and tin (or whatever metal it is...)
Plus the smell, oh my. New CD smell is so good.
Erm, yes, I am strange.

However, I do pirate. I download a song or two, even a whole CD. Then I try to find the CD. That is, however, difficult since I like many European artists and I'm stuck here in the States.
I search E-bay and Amazon weekly for artists that I have the illegal mp3s for. I actually just found one recently on Amazon, and I'm so glad I bought the CD. It sounds better legal.

Movies, I do not pirate movies.

TV shows, only one, and it was actually my dad that pirated it. I watched it though...

Software, I admit, I have pirated some graphics software, but I cannot afford to pay $700 for a program that I won't make any money from.
I never have pirated a video game, between me and my friends we swap and borrow the games we like and we all own copies of the best ones.

Books, why pirate when there is project gutenberg? 17.000 books that I haven't read yet.


Enough about my personal habits.
I do think that the trend in piracy is horrific, people don't think it is wrong. I know it is wrong if abused, but I use it more like a library or netflix. Try it then buy it.
I blame some parents for not teaching these morals to children, but really how can a parent tell their child that their own culture is wrong?
It is an unfortunate mess that i don't know how to solve. This broad tax seems...a bit strong. It is a bit like socializing medicine, everyone has to pay. Only in this case not everyone will use the service paid for.

I agree Razor. I used to love Metallica (and still do) but since they became the poster children for the RIAA I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.

There are too many mediocre artists crying crocidile tears over piracy who are clearly trying to position themselves for some sort of settlement.

Have you seen the numbers that they claim to have lost due to piracy? I have to call bullshitte on that. Those estimates are clearly based on drugs and/or wishful thinking and have nothing to do with their business model.

You have a good point about that, especially for software that costs a lot of money. Still, there are legal issues involved should you decide to dl pirated software. Do so at your own risk.

I don't know, James..look at how many artists used to go platinum before downloading music off of the internet came along. I'd have to say that there's been a huge impact on a lot of artists. I mean, would you want to go to work if you weren't being paid? That's basically what people who illegally download music are asking artists to do.

I agree with Graeme, the comparison with authors and stories isn't quite appropriate.

I pirate a lot of music and software.

It makes me cringe how easy it is for first world countries, of course, to judge piracy. As it is, it is the only reason we are keeping pace at all.

For example, the 3d modeling application I need for my profession (or soon to be profession) costs $4000. Where in the world would an island country boy like myself get $4000?! LOL

I mean come on. In a country where the average income is something like $100 MONTHLY where the heck would we find the money to buy the oh so gloriously inflated prices of the first world countries?

I wouldn't sell the work on the pirated copy I have of it, though. Of course, I've sworn I'll buy an original copy when I have the money to spare. For the moment, I practice on it, build my portfolio on it, and in the end will have to buy it for real. It's even a 'standard' practice in my profession anyhow. We start off with cracked versions then buy them when we go professional.

As for piracy of the entertainment media... LOL. The most affected by piracy aren't the struggling artists as you painted - it's the most popular and most filthy rich people who get the brunt of it. Records sales aren't even their only sources of income anyways. Movie soundtracks, concerts, royalties, etc. You name it. Even back in the cassette days, people were freely copying music.

And honestly, I wouldn't cry if Britney loses a few million dollars because of piracy.

You don't see indie bands complaining about piracy. They even ENCOURAGE downloading of their mp3's for free.

That said, I don't download music for resale. Even most of my mp3 collection is from copying from friends' collections. And I still do my best to stick to GPL software whenever I can.

Personally, I'm sick of seeing the people who drive around in limousines complain about having had to give that up because of piracy. As Razor said, it's the backlash of greed. The music is so goddamn overpriced for the global market, it's inevitable that piracy will come into being. I see it as wealth redistribution, an equalization of sorts, and I really could not care less.

I think when I pmed a someone at amazon, you can buy it from that countries version of amazon's site. I still buy some cd's it has to be one that I like mostly every song. and Amazon's download service, their mp3 files are high quality, I don't feel like buying a cd that I may only like two or one song.

Anyone remeber tower records? Most of their cd's were about 19 bucks or maybe 17.95 that is overpriced, and most them have closed down now, no one really wants to pay that much for a cd or lp. I forget which band it is, but this one mostly all their songs are only available online thru a online mp3 store.


Have to praise kevin, for him knowing what packaging is when it comes to cd's

it's the graphic artist job too have you buy it if it's good or not.

I originally voted that I won't touch it unless it's been licensed, but now that I think about it, I'm actually a mix. If a friend has a rare, and I mean rare, mix of a song or a song that I've been looking for, and they are willing to share, then yes, I'll keep the file. But only because it's a pain in the ass any other way to try to get it.
I still think piracy is wrong and shouldn't happen.

I'll admit that five years ago and more, I downloaded music free.

I used all the arguments given above to justify it, and really didn't lose any sleep over it. Then, I don't know why, I went to Itunes and downloaded a song, for the obscene price of 99 cents. For some reason, from then on, I've never downloaded any music that I haven't paid for. The funny thing is that I really can't say why I do that now, other than it just seems the right thing to do.

Think about it, 99 cents!!! Is a buck that much for a song that you will be able to listen to over and over?

What I do really, really, really have a problem with is mentioned in your opening post though Tristan. You allude to a levy that everybody pays that goes into a fund for the artists.

What a load of SH*T!!!

First off, why should I pay a tax (really it is a tax) based on the fact that I may download something illegally, which I don't. Maybe I should just go to my local jail and check in cause who knows, maybe someday I might commit a serious crime.

Second, all this fund will do is enable people who should probably go out and get a real job, and music actually wouldn't sell a single copy if there was no way to illegally download it, continue to leech off of the state. Who is going to administer this fund? Technically, it should be paid out based on percentages of the legal market right? If Band X is selling 2% of national sales, then they should really get 2% of the fund. You know, and I know, it won't work, Band X won't really care about their share of the fund, but I can guarantee Joe "I couldn't carry a tune for my life" would be lining up for the cash weekly.

If a band or artist can not honestly make it with the illegal file sharing, then probably it is a good enough indication that they shouldn't be trying in the first place.

Well, I'm worked up now. Just please don't tell me to pay for the activities of others. Since I take this stance, I am in the favour of going after the sites that offer P2P, after all they are the ones facilitating the illegal activity. I believe it is the responsibility of the site owner to ensure that illegal activity does not go on.

The reason we were discussing it is that in the U.K. the government is currently consulting on how best to deal with the mass copyright infringement going on. It has already given the ISPs and media publishers a couple of years to reach a deal between themselves but so far nothing has come of that. Therefore, if they don't sort something about by the summer the government intends to legislate.

Currently the two leading possibilities are:

1. A levy as described in the same way there was a casssette-tape levy when they were first introduced and home copying became a big issue
2. A three-strikes-and-you're-out policy implemented in law such that if a person commits copyright infringement three times the ISPs will be required to cancel their connection - this would be a U.K. wide block applying to all ISPs so infringing users can't ISP-hop. They'd simply lose Internet connectivity.

The alternative of keeping the status quo isn't being considered.

I don't see a major issue with the levy since it operates on a similar principle to the BBC license fee, which everyone using a TV set must pay by law too, in order to operate TV receivers - whether for public service BBC or commercial broadcasts.

In fact, a levy might offer a way for the ISPs to introdce their customers to the concept of paying for additional content, something they are desperately trying to do since the market for broadband connections is so cut-throat that many ISPs are making a loss and selling up to the four or five big broadband providers.
It would certainly help the ISPs that are currently worried about the amount of bandwidth their customers are utilising for the recently released BBC iPlayer which uses a form of peer-to-peer technology to spread the load.
There's talk of multiple rates. The basic levy entitling say 4 or 5 downloads a month, and a more expensive all-you-can-eat rate, and maybe some packages in between. As I said it's all up for discussion.

I don't live in the U.K. anymore, but if I did, I think that knowing I was paying the levy I would actually investigate and consume more music than I do now, especially as with the levy in place it would be much easier to find music and video on legitimate sites (fan sites, aggregators, search engine portals, etc.) with all the additional supporting information and entertainment that would surround it.

I think that some of the points being discussed here are irrelevant. Graeme pointed out that piracy and fraud are two totally different things. If I were a published author and someone downloaded an illegal copy of my book in ebook form, it would peeve me a bit. Y'know, a few bucks I lost and all. Fraud would make me sink my teeth in and rip out their spleen, big difference there.

As for this talk about regulating websites, don't even think about it. The moment any politician tries touching that, they're gonna draw back a bloody stump. The crusade to censor the Internet has yet to work, and I don't think that one will get any further. Besides, peer to peer sharing kind of dodges that anyway.

I also definitely agree with Hylas, and Graeme for that matter. Industrialized countries don't realize that the prices they demand are far too high in other countries. Also, like Graeme said, the price is just higher than the customers are usually willing to pay. One song is one dollar, yeah yeah yeah. That adds up REALLY fast, and some people are just not willing to fork over that kind of money, especially when the artist in question is exorbitantly wealthy. That said, if I was a fan of a smaller or local band, I would be much more likely to support them.

Finally, I think it's sort of silly to expect that you can own ideas, so this ends up being a really good justifier for piracy... let me elaborate, lol.

When you get a job, what do you provide? Well, you can offer goods or services in return. If you're hungry, you buy food. If you want a house, you buy it. If you want to make money then you get a job and do something or make something.

With that in mind, what is a song (or a book for that matter)? Is it a service? Not exactly, nobody's actually doing anything for you directly (though if you were going to argue in opposition then you could definitely make a case for it). Is it a good then? Nah, not really, it's not tangible.

If you had an eidetic memory and read a book, have you stolen the book? No, you haven't, but it's almost like you recorded it...

CD's, concert tickets, t-shirts, books... those are all tangible, but they are tangible representations of an idea, something immaterial. I don't really think you CAN steal an idea exactly. CD's and tickets and whatever else, yeah, you can steal those. Then again, I'm all for the idea of the free exchange of ideas.

And don't be confused, exchange of ideas is fine with me, but theft of ideas is not (like plagiarism).

I beg your pardon, but I didn't know we could negotiate a price with the record companies or software houses. I thought they set a price and effectively tell us to take it or leave it. While some people are simply taking the "free" versions, I think you'll find that many of them WOULD pay what they consider to be an equitable price. It is the fact that there no option to negotiate such an equitable price that leave them without an option (though see below for my comments on iTune).



I believe that many people are in this category. They object to paying a large amount of money for a CD when they only want one or two songs on it, but they'll pay a couple of dollars to get those songs. The success of iTunes is, I think, evidence that people WILL pay what they see as an equitable amount. The prices they were previously charged were not equitable, and (just like at the time of Prohibition) they took illegal action in protest.


You've reminded me of another point. What about libraries? For those who believe in copyright this strongly, should libraries be banned, since they pay one set of royalties to the copyright owner, and then let hundreds, if not thousands, use the copy they've bought?

I don't want to come over as an apologist for pirates, but one reason they are prevalent is because prices are perceived to be inequitable. People would pay if the price was better. As a simple example, people BUY pirate copies of CDs and DVDs every weekend at markets around the world. Most will know that they are buying pirated copies, but they still pay for them. If the legal owners sold them at that price, people would pay them instead. It is not all just free vs pay.

There will always be an element who prefer to not pay for something, but I firmly believe that the vast majority will pay reasonable prices. Piracy flourishes when prices are not reasonable....

The trouble with the concept of the copyright is its already flexible even in the eyes of the law. Its not an absolute right, it lasts for a set period of time before it becomes public domain. With things like books, that works a lot easier because its much easier to manage, or as appropriate, punish a publishing company. Its clear who should be allowed to print what and the product is generally in a solid ink and paper form. This may change over time as e-books become more popular, but for now books are not the focus of copyright violators.

Something I would like to point out though when it comes to copyrights, when you purchase a book to read, why should you be legally forbidden from letting someone else read it? You aren't. Similarly, you aren't legally forbidden from playing your cds on a stereo if there are other people around you at the time. There is no reason why you could not set up a community library of music cds and have everyone just go and grab what they need when they want to hear it and put it back when they're done. What happens with a sharing folder is similar... a group of people put music into it and then they all listen to whatever it is they want to. Filesharing networks are this principle on a massive scale, with the difference being that a copy of the file is being made rather than physically moving the data. Because a new copy is made this is a violation of copyright and i can see how some might find it unjust the artist not be paid royalties... however, new networks are being formed which simply allow a person to play the music from their computer, using the original music file, which still does not result in more royalties being paid out yet is being encouraged by the RIAA as if it were the saviour of the music industry.

Bullshit.

I am baffled at how it can possibly be considered justice to bankrupt thousands of college students out of spite. Are the artists now in poverty because people listen to their songs right away instead of waiting for it to queue up on radio? No. Are new artists struggling to survive because their product is stolen? Perhaps, but not as a matter of theft by the consumer, but as a matter of signing disadvantageous contracts which funnel profits into the record companies instead of to the artist.

The only difference between now and 20 years ago is people are getting the music they want when they want it, rather than waiting for it to queue up in the radio or purchasing overpriced tapes/cds for the one or two songs they actually like thrown in with a dozen they don't.

Alternatively, lets consider the movie industry... I always pay to watch movies at least once. The sheer amount of time, effort, people, and resources that go into making movies makes their value far greater in my eyes. However, sometimes I just don't feel like going to the rental store to pick up a movie I've already seen and want to see again and its not playing on HBO or any of the on-demand channels (on demand my ass!). So I pop online and go to youtube or some other site and look for it to see if i can watch it there. Its just a matter of convenience and... I'm not copying anything. Nor am I doing anything illegal. It could be aruged the website is illegally distributing the material... but is it any different from having a lot of guests over to your house to watch a movie? ... And if the website is based in a country where US copyright law does not apply, then it is, literally, not illegal for them to do whatever they like with it.. is it?

But you're asking about the morality of a thing... I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't be allowed to horde art, but that the artist should be given due reward for their contribution. As for how to arrange that amicably, many countries allow for government funding of the arts, perhaps something along those lines would be appropriate? And there's always private sponsorship....

An article today about Trent Reznor's (he of Nine Inch Nails aka NiN) efforts to supply direct is interesting and revealing. He's trying to offer a damn good set of package options, but as the title of the article says, "When the music costs nothing, why do freetards prefer to leech?"

What is fascinating is the last few paragraphs of that article where, in part, it says:

At the risk of seeming to be harping on about this, another The Register story about a survey of file-sharers brings up some interesting responses: Most British filesharers would stop if warned - survey.