File-Sharing Morality

[wildone]

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.

[Tristan Thinks]

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!!!

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.

[Razor]

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).

[Graeme]

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 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 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.

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?

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.

 

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...

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....

[Demetz]

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....

[Tristan Thinks]

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:

But undeniably there's a hard core of users who just won't pay for music. A better guide to the psychology of these users can be found in the comments to Chris Williams' analysis of Three Strikes, where a fascinating argument unfolds. For perhaps the first time at El Reg, the social cost of "leeching" is discussed. (I can't remember "leeching" used outside a narrow technical context, and as a general purpose pejorative.)

 

It's almost as if some rage virus, like the one that infected people in the 28 Days movies, has infected a proportion of the population.

[Tristan Thinks]

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.

 

 

Seventy per cent of respondents agreed that if they received a warning from the ISP, they would stop sharing online. 66 per cent said they would stop if there was a stronger chance of them being caught. There's slightly less of a deterrent value from seeing media coverage of downloaders being caught for infringement, at around 50 per cent. And most don't think they will be caught: 68 per cent think it's "very unlikely" that they'll be found out.

 

...

 

On the other hand, perhaps file sharing is "softer" and less of an entrenched habit than you'd think. Not every P2P file sharer is a badge-wearing, Boing Boing-reading Freetard. More people are "occasional" or "rare" file-sharers than regulars. Almost half say they would stop "easily".

 

...

 

And amazingly (to this author, anyway), as many people (49 per cent) thought it was a good idea because it protected copyright holders than thought it was a nuisance (48 per cent).