Is it wrong to download?

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
User avatar
drathbun
Former Team Member
Posts: 12204
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: TOPICS_TABLE
Contact:

Post by drathbun »

Myspoonistoobig wrote: More harm is being done to society by the industries pushing this issue than the individuals infringing copyright

You will find that very hard to prove.
The act itself is not analogous to shoplifting or robbery. It's analogous to not watching or muting television commericals. 'stealing' a file represents only a loss of potential profits. Whereas a real, physical product costs real resources to put on the shelf, a copy of a file on a p2p network is transferred with the bandwidth of the users involved, and stored on the harddrive of the one receiving it.

Your argument is flawed. The fact that something is digital makes it easy to steal, but it does not make it moral or legal. And yes, I use both of those terms as they are not always used in the same way. :-)
Stealing music is actually GOOD for small bands: When you're a worthless nobody, you want every single person you can POSSIBLY get, to hear your song.

Balony. You want everyone to pay for your music, so you can afford to make more. Let's make a distinction here. If the small band chooses to release their music, fine. If they - the owners of the content you seem to so cavalierly dismiss - do not choose to do so then you have no right to take that choice away from them. That - no matter how you spin it - is stealing. That band has the right to restrict the distribution of their music, and you do not have the right to make your own decision that supercedes theirs.
drathbun wrote:Pay for download via legal channels is fine.

File sharing of protected content is not.


Now log on a secret non-mod account and say what you really think : )

Why? I am not ashamed of my opinions.
I blog about phpBB: phpBBDoctor blog
Still using phpbb2? So am I! Click below for details
Image
Drunky
Registered User
Posts: 309
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 3:16 am
Location: Kegfarms
Contact:

Post by Drunky »

The one thing companies wouldn't lose money on is somebody who DLs their software who never intended on paying in the first place. They will get their money from the person who buys it and anybody else who pays for it.
User avatar
LukiB
Registered User
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:33 pm
Contact:

Post by LukiB »

It´s different in every country. The most known is the US, but in Holland it´s allowed to download...not to upload. (Same strange policy as our drugs policy). So I don´t have to worry if I download from any site. If phpBB was a paid-for-forum(vBulletin, Invision etc.), and I found a site that has the forum for free, I´m allowed to download it.

That was (again) about laws. Sweden also has such a policy, but for uploading too...

I truely believe people are forgetting the feeling of buying. I can already see a discussion with someone if phpBB was a paid-for-forum.

Me: Why would you download phpBB?
He: Becuase I can. Why would I buy it, if i can get it free. You wasted your money on it.
Me: True...but there is once mayor difference. At least I can afford it.....

Good...enough being a pimp. If I buy a game, it feels much more special. I worked hard for it, but I finally managed to buy it. I think a PS3 would sound more logical...but I can´t remember that such a thing is possible to download.
MikeTitan
Registered User
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:56 pm

Post by MikeTitan »

My Philosophy on most things d/l is you should be able to d/l something for at least a day or so, to check it out. I frequently do this with movies, and games.

I however have purchased over 500 DVD's, and will keep buying them. Should I be lotted into the same group of people that just download things to download them?

I own all of the games I play, and rarely download other games. I have sometimes gotten games at LAN parties to play with other people, however don't end up playing them unless I'm at the LAN party.

Music is mostly another story all together, as it seems with a dvd, you get so much material, it's worth the $15. However a CD, only has 80 minutes of music, that you can only listen to so often. Most often there are not nearly enough good songs out their to justify buying a CD for 1 or 2 songs. Now, I understand you're able to d/l music for like 99 cents, however that seems expensive to me. I mean honestly, how much does it cost to actually advertise and make the CD? $1 a song. If everyone that was at my High School downloaded a popular Song, they'd make $3,000 just from one song, from 1 school. If the 50 some high schools in my state all d/l the song. They're sitting at $150,000 from one state. 150Kx50 = 7.5 Million.

Now that might be some out their math, but I'm just saying overall If the pricing was more reasonable for music, I'd definitely buy it.
KHyuga
Registered User
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:29 pm

Post by KHyuga »

I think it's wrong to download only if there is a violation of copyright.
After all, if there has been express consent something to be downloaded, why can't we do it?
User avatar
cyberken
Registered User
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:51 am
Location: Edinburgh

Post by cyberken »

Personally I dont download (illegally) and music or films. I work closely with a few guys who run a music company and it is hard for these guys to break even on a release.
But I admit I have downloaded recorded TV shows in the past - but in my defence I have only done that because they are shown sometimes months before the actual DVD is released - and I can honestly say I have went out and purchased the DVD as soon as it came out.
Between the 60's (before my time) right up till the 80's there was a big thing about people buying records and copying them onto cassette tape and giving them to friends - nothing has changed here but computers, the net and digital format has just made it easier and quicker.
My own government even tried to pass a law years ago that if you recorded a tv show you were only allowed to keep it on tape for a week!
On the software issue, it has been reported that companies actually factor the cost of piracy into the price of the item - so people that buy it are paying for those who dont anyway.

It is an argument that isnt gonna go away and everyone has different views on it - be happy, be safe and if you cant afford it - save up :)
rick`
Registered User
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 5:09 am
Contact:

Post by rick` »

I'm rather split on it sometimes.


I have no problems downloading TV-Series before they air in Australia, they get aired on Free-TV anyways, and I'd either end up with them on VHS or on a mate's DVD recorder.


Haven't downloaded much copyright'd material in almost 6 months, except for the latest rocky movie (off google video suprisingly).
Ar4chN1d
Registered User
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:26 pm

Post by Ar4chN1d »

I think it's not wrong to download, cause i'm the type who wouldn't buy the stuff even if i couldn't download it.
geocator
Registered User
Posts: 16242
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:56 pm
Location: On dry land
Contact:

Post by geocator »

Ar4chN1d wrote: I think it's not wrong to download, cause i'm the type who wouldn't buy the stuff even if i couldn't download it.


If you would not buy it then you should not use it. This is not a valid argument to downloading, sorry.

And people wonder why companies like Microsoft feel the need to add more and more piracy protection to there products.

What all of you that download illegally seem to forget is that someone has spent time and money producing these assets. It is not cheap to create a software app or record and album. By downloading you are telling these people that there time is not worth the money. And if that is the case, again you should not use the asset.
User avatar
drathbun
Former Team Member
Posts: 12204
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: TOPICS_TABLE
Contact:

Post by drathbun »

For all of you that are in favor of downloads, let's take a hypothetical case. You make furniture. It takes a while for you to make each piece, and you price it in order to make a fair profit and support your family.

Now someone comes up with a way to duplicate your furniture with essentially zero cost (think of it like creating digital versions of your music or movie discs). People all over the world that were at one point potential customers of yours will no longer buy your furniture because they can just obtain it (download it) for free. And to add insult to injury, they start trying to justify this by saying, "Hey, everyone has a right to furniture, nobody should be forced to pay for a chair so that they don't have to sit on the ground" or "They'll make enough money from those that do purchase their furniture, they'll never notice that I didn't pay for mine."

Those are some of the more frequent excuses I have seen regarding illegally downloading content, and they are absolutely that: excuses or justifications. They are not valid and legal reasons to avoid paying for something.

The ability to digitize movies or music has made downloading (or otherwise obtaining) media content easy. It has not, in any way, made it legal. You can rail against the big record companies all you want; that's not an excuse. If an artist wants to try going it on their own, they're free to do so. In fact a lot of artists are now doing just that. In the evolution of the market I believe that big record companies are dinosaurs waiting for extinction. Eventually the market will catch up.

If you can't afford the fancy chair, get a simple one, or sit on the ground. But you do not have the right to steal someone else's work just because it's easy. How would you feel, working hard to make your chair, only to see thousands of people using what is essentially your product without paying you for it?

Don't give me the excuse of "the poor music artists" or "Microsoft already has enough money" or anything like that. How would you feel if you were on the other end of the equation? What if your ability to feed your family depended on it? Still feel the same way?
I blog about phpBB: phpBBDoctor blog
Still using phpbb2? So am I! Click below for details
Image
VVVZZZ
Registered User
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:30 am

Post by VVVZZZ »

Downloading can never cause somebody to lose money.

It's not like everytime somebody downloads, a $20 bill vanishes from the creator's wallet.

Companies create content in the hopes that at least somebody will buy it. And many users DO buy it.

Those that don't buy it, the company can simply ignore. The "pirates" are simply on the outside, they are not customers (and most likely never will be), the company can shake them off like water off a duck's back and just care about its CUSTOMERS.

Companies assume that the pirates are potential customers. What a silly assumption!

Just care about your customers, keep making new products, and enjoy the income you get from your faithful customers. Act as if the pirates don't exist, and build your business on the lovely customer base you already have.

If your sales encounter a sudden drop, then it might be time to attack the downloaders. Until then, continue to nurture your customer base. :D

Of course the cops/authorities could do their job if need be.
Last edited by VVVZZZ on Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
drathbun
Former Team Member
Posts: 12204
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: TOPICS_TABLE
Contact:

Post by drathbun »

VVVZZZ wrote: Downloading can never cause somebody to lose money.

Yes, it does. Why is that so hard to understand?

I sell a product. You didn't buy it but downloaded it from some website instead. You might not have physically removed $20 from my bank account, but you took $20 of value from me without reimbursement.
VVVZZZ wrote: Companies assume that the pirates are potential customers. What a silly assumption!

That does not change the fact that if you are NOT a customer, you have no right to my product. What an even sillier assumption!
VVVZZZ wrote: If your sales encounter a sudden drop, then it might be time to attack the downloaders. Until then, continue to nurture your customer base. :D

At that point it is too late. If you do not vigorously defend your rights, then the courts will at a later date often decide that you were lax in your own legal obligations, and therefore were given tacit approval to the illegal downloading and sharing of your works.
I blog about phpBB: phpBBDoctor blog
Still using phpbb2? So am I! Click below for details
Image
Ar4chN1d
Registered User
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:26 pm

Post by Ar4chN1d »

geocator wrote:
Ar4chN1d wrote:I think it's not wrong to download, cause i'm the type who wouldn't buy the stuff even if i couldn't download it.


If you would not buy it then you should not use it.


sorry, i'm having trouble getting this idea, can you elaborate further?

edit: nvm, i got the answer from the post above.
VVVZZZ
Registered User
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:30 am

Post by VVVZZZ »

drathbun wrote: Why is that so hard to understand?


Because the supply is practically infinite. The traditional rules of Capitalism do not apply on computers too well. Capitalism works best when there's a limited amount of something. When all you need to do is create the product once, and the supply is infinite, that's the main reason why phpBB and Linux are able to do what they do for free.

vBulletin and Windows are in the same universe. A pile of 1s and 0s that can be duplicated forever more. It is only the power of the government that allows creating vBulletin and Windows to be financially rewarding, the natural rules of Capitalism are irrelevant there.

For example, it would be almost impossible to create a free Wal-Mart due to limited supply.
drathbun wrote: That does not change the fact that if you are NOT a customer, you have no right to my product. What an even sillier assumption!


When the supply has no major limit, it's natural for a product to be free (like tap water and fresh air and phpBB and Linux).

The government, in its wisdom, decided to grant an artificial monopoly to the original creator of a product, known as "Copyright Law". It was needed to ensure that there is at least some financial reward for making software/music/movies/etc.

But in many cases the financial reward is already maxed out, the general public as a whole has already given as much money as its going to give for one particular product. So for the money they did make, copyright law has done a fine job already.
drathbun wrote: At that point it is too late. If you do not vigorously defend your rights, then the courts will at a later date often decide that you were lax in your own legal obligations, and therefore were given tacit approval to the illegal downloading and sharing of your works.


Never knew that before. Interesting. :?

It's more understandable now why the RIAA/MPAA/ESA/BSA are going psycho these days.
geocator
Registered User
Posts: 16242
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:56 pm
Location: On dry land
Contact:

Post by geocator »

VVVZZZ wrote: Because the supply is practically infinite. The traditional rules of Capitalism do not apply on computers too well. Capitalism works best when there's a limited amount of something. When all you need to do is create the product once, and the supply is infinite, that's the main reason why phpBB and Linux are able to do what they do for free.


This is not true. Certainly there is no physical goods and so the product is so called limitless. However the talent to create that product is not limitless nor are the resources required in the production of the product. That is what you are paying for, the talent that creates the product. And lets face it, it takes a lot more talent and knowledge to create a music album, movie, software, etc than to design a t-shirt.

All of these arguments that you present (and others with the same mindset) think that there is no cost for production, and that is incorrect.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”