Morality and downloading

[downbeatplumb]

Don't know if anyone has already posted this but...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

[Ravenshire]

(emphasis is mine)

As long as people are willing to pony up at the box office I would argue that it's not. There will always be people who want to see it before everybody else.

You're right for the most part. But there are also a massive amount of people pirating new movies. My thought is that this is the market responding to the price of content.

Meh. I don't think it is. I think most people who download movies that are still in the theater are downloading the ones they would have wouldn't pay to see anyway.

More to Benny's point...
While I won't defend online piracy as moral, there is evidence that the "victims" are not being hurt and certainly not to the extent that they claim. Internet piracy does not reflect a one-to-one ratio in downloaded content to lost sale. There are many who download music using torrent because it's more convenient than sitting in front of a PC ripping a stack of discs or to replace CDs that were stolen out of their cars, auto insurance won't cover that loss and the labels have no fucks to give even though the consumer is still legally entitled to that music. There are those that will download expensive software to be able to try an actual working version (not the trial version where half the shit you need in your day to day use of the software is disabled) before dropping thousands of dollars for each copy they need. Many will download a sampling of songs from a band they heard on the radio to see if they're really worth a shit or if it's just that one song that's good.

No, stealing is not ok but what has become known as "internet piracy" (downloading content through non-standard channels) does not automatically equate to theft.

[Cephus]

You're right for the most part. But there are also a massive amount of people pirating new movies. My thought is that this is the market responding to the price of content.

Meh. I don't think it is. I think most people who download movies that are still in the theater are downloading the ones they would have wouldn't pay to see anyway.

More to Benny's point...
While I won't defend online piracy as moral, there is evidence that the "victims" are not being hurt and certainly not to the extent that they claim. Internet piracy does not reflect a one-to-one ratio in downloaded content to lost sale. There are many who download music using torrent because it's more convenient than sitting in front of a PC ripping a stack of discs or to replace CDs that were stolen out of their cars, auto insurance won't cover that loss and the labels have no fucks to give even though the consumer is still legally entitled to that music. There are those that will download expensive software to be able to try an actual working version (not the trial version where half the shit you need in your day to day use of the software is disabled) before dropping thousands of dollars for each copy they need. Many will download a sampling of songs from a band they heard on the radio to see if they're really worth a shit or if it's just that one song that's good.

No, stealing is not ok but what has become known as "internet piracy" (downloading content through non-standard channels) does not automatically equate to theft.

Which is exactly the point.  There is no money to be made by people who aren't going to go to a theater regardless, therefore there is no harm in people who won't pay for it anyhow to see it via piracy.  There simply is no downside here because there was never an upside to begin with.

Likewise, when it comes to digital piracy, nobody has lost anything.  Everyone performs an internal cost-benefit analysis when they look at things to purchase.  Is what is being bought worth the money that is being asked.  It is a yes or no question.  If it is worth it, then it is purchased, or planning takes place to save for it or whatever. If it isn't worth it, then no purchase takes place.  A lot of producers seem to think that people OWE them something when that's simply not the case.  They have to EARN the money and business of their potential customers.  They have to convince consumers that their product is worth spending money on.  Recently, FOX has said that they will no longer release physical Simpsons season box sets because of the prevalence of digital downloads.  I know a lot of people who have already said that they will no longer buy Simpsons episodes because of this.  It is no longer worthwhile to pay money for something that they can see for free and get digital copies of easily.  It has failed the cost-benefit analysis.  FOX will lose money.  That's all FOX's fault.

[abaris]

There are those that will download expensive software to be able to try an actual working version (not the trial version where half the shit you need in your day to day use of the software is disabled) before dropping thousands of dollars for each copy they need. Many will download a sampling of songs from a band they heard on the radio to see if they're really worth a shit or if it's just that one song that's good.

I do the same with games. There's a lot of hype surrounding them and most are just a pile of crap. I treat them accordingly, try them out in a not entirely legal fashion, delete them if they turn out to be garbage and buy them if they're worth their money. I believe in supporting companies that do deliver on their promises, which is a rare thing today. And what's more, most shops, especially when it's about downloadable content don't grant refunds, which I didn't hesitate to claim in the times when it was still about customer care and hard copies not coupled with an online client.

[IATIA]

I am really disappointed at all the twisting, turning and gyrating done in this thread by some to rationalize stealing and we keep telling the christians that we have as good or better morality without their god's intervention.  I guess that depends on one's interpretation of morality.  Whatever description that makes it ok.  It is like the bible-thumpers plethora of interpretations for their bullshit.

And those so-called "people that would never buy anyway" would certainly buy if it were absolutely impossible to get and have copies in any other possible way.

[One Above All]

And those so-called "people that would never buy anyway" would certainly buy if it were absolutely impossible to get and have copies in any other possible way.

Restricting software acquisition to legal purchases doesn't make money magically appear in your pocket. At least it doesn't with mine and everyone else's (that I know of).

[bennyboy]

I am really disappointed at all the twisting, turning and gyrating done in this thread by some to rationalize stealing and we keep telling the christians that we have as good or better morality without their god's intervention.  I guess that depends on one's interpretation of morality.  Whatever description that makes it ok.  It is like the bible-thumpers plethora of interpretations for their bullshit.

And those so-called "people that would never buy anyway" would certainly buy if it were absolutely impossible to get and have copies in any other possible way.

You sound like you are pretty strong in your moral sense.  But what is the basis of this confidence?  Given a lack of objective morality (i.e. from God), morality is subjective-- it is a matter of social interactions, emotions, and the evolution of ideas in reponse to new environments.  And the internet definitely represents a new moral environment, and requires new reflection on what is right or wrong about it.  And yet your confidence also reflects some hypocrisy, for you state your moral idea as a "thou shalt not"-- an unthinking, hands-over-the-ears statement of what is right that is confident exactly because it requires no consideration. To speak so unambiguously about something that many in your culture see as ambiguous represents hubris, no?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not pinning my argument on the practical effects.  I'm saying that if you didn't create it, and the author is charging money for it, taking it without paying the fees being asked is unethical. This isn't drama or anything else.

Why is it unethical?

Because it is taking the product of someone's labor without compensating them for it.

How did they crash?  Didn't the venue have security?

Not enough. They climbed over a fence, I saw them doing it, but being onstage, pointing was the only option, and a scanty one at best, because I had a bassline to play on time.  The two bouncers working the party weren't watching me, though.

[CapnAwesome]

I believe that downloading leaked Game of Thrones episodes is the highest state of moral activity possible.

[bennyboy]

Why is it unethical?

Because it is taking the product of someone's labor without compensating them for it.

And why is this unethical? What is it that gives the creator of a collection of ideas or sounds the right to tell others what to do with them after they have been released into the public sphere? I'd contend that particularly with very popular music, enough is enough. Metallica, for example, isn't just a bunch of guys trying to sell new songs-- they are a part of American history and culture, and their names will be writ large long after they are dead and gone. Am I really going to go to hell because I downloaded albums I've already bought several times along with a couple I've never bought?

You are not considering the balance of rights and fair use. For example, don't people have a right to share their own experiences, even when those experiences involve the intellectual products of others? If I have a video of my teenage self thrashing to Metallica when I still had long hair, should Youtube unplug the audio because Metallica's lawyers' lawyers' minions are pissed that I didn't arrange a license?