Is BitTorrent Ethical? [Archive]

Blue Velvet

Oct 17, 2005, 03:09 AM

It's like asking whether using the roads is ethical. Depends on what and how you're driving...

Downloading copyrighted material is extremely shady. Everybody knows this... there's a lot of rubbish talked about 'fair use' and some dubious stances taken by people who imagine themselves to be Robin Hood characters taking a stance against 'The Man'.

Personally, I don't use P2P because I just can't be bothered and to me, missing a TV program hardly counts as a 'bad situation'.

As a designer, I'm well aware of the issues surrounding copyright and intellectual property and if some of those who advocate piracy had their livelihoods depend on something they personally created, perhaps they would take a different view on the matter.

CanadaRAM

Oct 17, 2005, 03:12 AM

The technology - no comment

The content -- well it depends what content.

The Betamax case established that a company could not be prohibited from selling a product that had a substantial, non-infringing use, even though it could also be used for infringing purposes.

The test for non-infringing recording of TV shows was that the show was being broadcast to the owner for FREE -- therefore they could record it and time shift it.

So if Alias is on the airwaves in your home as 'free' (that is, freely broadcast, advertiser supported) television, then it would be hard to differentiate between a VHS machine time shifting and a bittorrent time shifting. However, if it were a pay-channel only or PPV, it gets murkier. Presumably it would be OK still, if you were a current subscriber to that channel.

What wouldn't be OK would be bringing in a copy of a TV show that wasn't offered in your market, or that you hadn't paid for in your cable subscription.

hookahco

Oct 17, 2005, 03:14 AM

What wouldn't be OK would be bringing in a copy of a TV show that wasn't offered in your market, or that you hadn't paid for in your cable subscription.
if it wasnt in my market, it wouldnt be very bad to download it since i had no other way of watching it. but, if i didnt want to pay for it in my cable subscription, that would be the same as downloading a motion picture because you don't want to rent/buy/see it in theaters.

ill be straightforward.. not only did i miss it but my cute friend did too so me being the nice guy that i am had to find out what happened so she could know. i mean, i didnt sell it or anything.. and i will still watch it.
that brings me to something else.. if im downloading a tv show instead of watching it on my dvr, whats the difference? i still fast forward through the commercials. well.. i think ratings might have something to do with it.

Lacero

Oct 17, 2005, 03:16 AM

On the other hand, some movies I will never consider paying 10 bucks to see in the theater or buying the DVD or even renting. However, if it were readily available on BitTorrrent and I had time, I might download it to watch. Then just as quickly, delete it off my hard drive. Does that make me a bad person? Perhaps.

Without BitTorrent, the content producer would have had no way to get me to watch their product. You know, for every evil thing one can say about the bad effects of BT, I can point to one good thing about BitTorrent.

fayans

Oct 17, 2005, 03:25 AM

The rule of thumbs is "do anything you want but don't get caught." Ethical or not, to each his own.

Seriously speaking, how many of us against using P2P publicly and still using it privately?

Savage Henry

Oct 17, 2005, 03:37 AM

I don't know what it's like over there, but here if there is a program that the networks consider even slightly popular each episode is shown a least 3 times in a week; so you can invariably catch the same episode later on.

Until they make it legal, then, um, it's not.

watcher2001

Oct 17, 2005, 03:45 AM

ill be straightforward.. not only did i miss it but my cute friend did too so me being the nice guy that i am had to find out what happened so she could know.

Now there is where I have issue. Not with the fact that you got it off of bit torrent mind you, Instead of telling her about it you should have invited her over to watch it with you... :) :)

Xeem

Oct 17, 2005, 03:53 AM

I don't consider using torrents to download TV unethical, especially if it's just someone's TiVo or VHS rip. Most ripped seasons of TV shows on torrent sites are DVD rips, though- definitely much more dangerous territory.

Lacero

Oct 17, 2005, 03:55 AM

All the same... btw Xeem, have you considered adding an e to the beginning of your name? ;)

RedTomato

Oct 17, 2005, 04:46 AM

I'm a member of ScreenSelect, a DVD home delivery service in the UK, similar to NetFlix in the US.

Some of the DVDs I order, e.g. David Lynch's Blue Velvet or Peter Jackson's Bad Taste, have no subtitles. Usually, I don't know till I try playing the actual DVD, as the information on the website can be sketchy or misleading.

I'm Deaf - I cannot follow the film without subtitles - so what am I to do? I've paid my money, purchased the right to watch it, the MPAA have their share of my money. But I can't access it.

This isn't about whether I run Windows or Linux or OS X, or which movie player I use. It's about watching what I paid for, being able to follow the dialogue.

I'm not interested in getting a refund - I just want to watch the film I paid for. ScreenSelect's policy is to say return the film and they will send out another one, or give you some free subscription time. Works for some people, but I just want to watch the film I rented.

[I make arthouse shorts, and I study filmmaking - David Lynch's stuff is a must see in any film school. But that doesn't matter. I could be just Joe Deaf Schmo with a taste for classic films]

So I fire up BitTorrent, and download a subbed version, or search the sites for a .sub file.

I prefer to find a subbed version, as with .sub files, it can take me a hour or more to find a .sub file that works and is the right length with the right timings.

[I can't listen to the film to check synch - I have to find a clear bit of spoken dialogue near the end of the film, guess what it could be by reading the .sub file, play both, and try to work out which lip movement was which line of dialogue in the .sub file. Do I need to slow down subtitle display by 5 seconds or speed it up by two minutes? - or was I reading the wrong line of dialogue?]

Even just downloading the .sub file likely breaches the copyright to the film script.

I've only been able to do this the last couple of years, and it's been a godsend - finally, I can watch the classics that I always wanted to watch, but never got subtitled.

I leave the ethics of that up to you. It's certainly illegal. But I'm happy to stand up in any court and explain myself to the judge.

cheers

.. RedTomato ..

Dagless

Oct 17, 2005, 05:27 AM

I dont download music (not when you have friends with it all ;) ) but i wouldn't find it hard to download it if need be. Just open a newspaper and theres another band on cocaine or another singer caught with a drug dealer or falling out of a taxi outside an uber-expensive night club.

point is everyone in the industry is making too much money, except probably the engineers. the fat cat music bosses and the bands all get too much. i know a few bands in my area, popular ones at that (aka. on a big label). some of those haven't sold many albums but are still totally loaded. its been like that for years! if they can afford to live in massive detached mansions and can afford hundreds of guitars then what does that say about the bigger bands?

its all about greed.

BitTorrent? ethical. never ever brandish it as fully illegal, there are many legal torrents out there. and its a good way of spreading files around. This games company I know spread out files on BT when their own file servers are reaching their bandwidth limit.

Savage Henry

Oct 17, 2005, 06:27 AM

the industry is making too much money, except probably the engineers. the fat cat music bosses and the bands all get too much. So who do you think are the first to lose out if industry cut-backs are made ... execs? ... artsists? ... or the engineers and low ranking employees ? hmmmm ... the plebs get it first, everytime without fail.

thedude110

Oct 17, 2005, 06:31 AM

As a designer, I'm well aware of the issues surrounding copyright and intellectual property and if some of those who advocate piracy had their livelihoods depend on something they personally created, perhaps they would take a different view on the matter.

I understand your argument, but only to a socially contextualized point. Consider contemporary (avant-gardeish) poets and painters, most of whom can not make a profit on their work (despite the fact that much of it, in my opinion, is significant, human work). Poetry, especially, is relegated to a position outside of capitalism. Yet poetry goes on, even though no one is making their livelihood at it (poets are teaching and working in factories and doing whatever to pay the bills).

Another way of saying this -- does intellectual property naturally exist, or is it a product of capitalism? I would argue that most poets -- and many musicians -- believe that once they've created and published the poem or song, it belongs to the people and the culture more than it belongs to themselves (and I think the popularity of p2p provides dramatic evidence of this as a natural, human truth). And, at the expense of sounding like Robin Hood ( :o ), I would argue that it's the system that has corrupted the definition of intellectual property -- that the people are working to set it right again.

An alternative? All artists should be working off equivalent and significant federal stipends -- no artist's livelihood should be dependent on the popularity of their work (a system which has granted riches upon riches to Britney Spears but leaves writers like Lisa Jarnot (http://epc.buffalo.edu/authors/jarnot/) virtually outside the Western conversation).

iMeowbot

Oct 17, 2005, 06:48 AM

that brings me to something else.. if im downloading a tv show instead of watching it on my dvr, whats the difference? i still fast forward through the commercials. well.. i think ratings might have something to do with it.
Oh, it's not a ratings thing, ripped copies don't really affect what survey companies are trying to measure.

The big problem with p2p is that you aren't simply downloading (as others noted, it's little different from recording at home with a VCR), but you are also uploading to others at the same time. You have know way of checking that the other downloaders are in a market where advertisers have paid to have the show aired, or that the downloaders have otherwise paid to see the episode. That's where the ethics really start to fall apart.

eva01

Oct 17, 2005, 07:01 AM

I use bittorrent for unlicensed anime and also WoW updates.

slimflem

Oct 17, 2005, 07:06 AM

I'm sorry, but these sorts of threads just make me roll my eyes. Do you guys honestly believe that using BitTorrent or another p2p is wrong to grab a TV show. You know what, who cares. It amazes me that on this Mac forum that everyone is so timid about downloading anything. It appears the scare tactics and the *AA's are really getting to this group. Being a recent switcher over from Windows, it amazes me. Maybe it's because there aren't near the quantity of tools on Mac as Windows for all this and the users of this board just don't have the exposure to it. I download music all the time. Why? So I don't waste my money on an expensive cd unless I know I really like it. When I find a group that I really enjoy and is not some commercial sellout band, then I have no problem buying their music on iTunes or a cd from amazon or something like that. This country (US) is way to greedy, to sue-happy, and way too quick to try and squash the very people that can make the money come in for these nutbag *AA's. If I buy something, I'm going to do whatever I want to with it. I don't give a flip what someone else says.

MongoTheGeek

Oct 17, 2005, 07:12 AM

So many thoughts and things to say.

1) BitTorrent is a tool like an axe or a car. For good or ill.
2) Watching a TV program off of Bittorent is slightly shady since the content was available for "Free"
a) But since you didn't watch it it wouldn't count towards ratings so it indirectly takes money out of the pockets of producers.
b) Not available in the market isn't necessarily better and could be worse at least legally. The law has been trending towards allowing rights holders to restrict content geographically, and that has always to a certain extent been allowed and in some cases manditory, for instance blacking out a ball game when the gate fall below a certain level.
3) RedTomato has an excellent point and is (at least under US law as I understand it) in the right.
4) Compulsory licensing seems to be the way of the future. It will suck hard for Apple but the alternatives seem to be a a cultural stagnation where there is no reward for creation of new material or a stagnation of technology.

RedTomato

Oct 17, 2005, 10:49 AM

RedTomato has an excellent point and is (at least under US law as I understand it) in the right.

Thanks MongoTheGeek, tho I'm pretty sure that most juristictions in the world would regard my acts as technically illegal - as the MPAA / content owners have not formally approved my means of accessing their content. There's other legal issues as well which I don't feel like going into at the moment, timeshifting is one of them.

Whether a judge / jury would actually convict is a different matter - I've had experience of being arrested doing stuff, standing up in court saying yes I did it, and explaining why, and the judge telling me to go home and don't worry about it. (stressful procedure tho, and good-hearted lawyers helped a lot)

cheers

.. RedTomato ..

belvdr

Oct 17, 2005, 11:06 AM

There are many technologies that can be used illegally. I use BitTorrent to download Linux isos but that's not illegal. If we banned every technology that supported illegal activity, FTP and HTTP would have been gone a long time ago.

moot

Oct 17, 2005, 11:12 AM

greatdevourer

Oct 17, 2005, 11:30 AM

Yes. How is BT not ethical? Is taking strain off home servers really bothering your concience? If so, then wtf?

Blue Velvet

Oct 17, 2005, 11:33 AM

... I download music all the time. Why? So I don't waste my money on an expensive cd unless I know I really like it. When I find a group that I really enjoy and is not some commercial sellout band, then I have no problem buying their music on iTunes or a cd from amazon or something like that.

Now just what exactly is your definition of a 'commercial sellout band'?

RobHague

Oct 17, 2005, 11:41 AM

I've always used P2P.... isnt that what people want 8meg+ connections for? :confused:

I buy DVD's, Music, games ect sometimes i download them. Including TV episodes of shows ive missed (if i can find them). And yes, even software sometimes. Actually i lie, i have not downloaded games - i like to own them ^_^ with the fancy box's, same with software but sometimes that costs £1000+

There are always two sides to this argument that always say the same things anyhow, one side says "ITS STEALING! YOU THEF!! J00 SUCK0RS" and the others are "I WOULDNT HAVE BOUGHT IT ANYWAYS! THEY OWE ME FOR USING IT!!!". Personally i dont think the world is going to stop because someone downloaded an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer because they missed it on TV. ;) I have discovered a lot of artists by downloading mp3's too (since napster days) that i wouldnt have heard of otherwise. I like to have the proper product in my hands, even if i have an exact duplicate i prefer to have something of substance i can stick on my shelf :p, not a load of CD-R's. The only things ive saved that i 'downloaded' over P2P would be Muic and Video (mainly episodes of anime :P) and ive just started investigating iTunes properly since getting a Mac ^_^ so i might consider a switch of music habbits soon.

I think i had a point somewhere but i forgot what it was.

XNine

Oct 17, 2005, 12:06 PM

Honestly, I don't care. If Metallica loses 5 bucks or 5 million, I could care less as they suck anyway, and they have more than enough money to last 6 generations of their family for being a really "good in the old days but now they suck kinda band.

I downloaded the ENTIRE first season of arrested development. I ended up watching 4 episodes then buying the boxset, then bought the 2nd boxset and am currently watching the third on TV (when that godforsaken sport known as Baseball isn't taking the time slot, that is). So when the third season coems out, I'll buy it too.

Lots of Anime in my collection was fansubbed and I downloaded it to see if I liked it. If I did, I bought every DVD in the series (when it officially became licensed in America). If I didn't I trashed it.

I don't pirate music on a large scale, and usually it's stuff by bands I idolize and they don't release the actual song, like MDFMK's Amerikan Dream song that was never released ANYWHERE on disc. So, they didn't "lose" any money off it anyway. My music and Anime collections are too large for words. I actually need to buy a much larger bookshelf to accomdate my Anime now, as they're all stacked and out of order.

So, do I use P2P? Yes. Do I spread copyright content around like a child molester offers puppies? No. Do I support those products if I like them? Yes. So when the RIAA or MPAA or whoever comes knocking, I've got hundreds of DVD's and CD's and Records to say "oh yeah? **** YOU! I bought it and you can take your lawsuit and shove it, fool!" :D

narco

Oct 17, 2005, 12:11 PM

I use Bittorrent all the time, for the same reason I use Soulseek. There are a lot of stuff out there that I can't get on DVD, or sell for outrageous amounts of money in VHS format or something.

I recently downloaded the second season of Twin Peaks. Any fan of the show knows the controversy with the second season being released on DVD, but when it finally is, your damn right I'll delete the files and buy it.

Old video game ROMS is another shady area. It's easy to download 4,000 Super Nintendo games and have them on your computer. They are mostly discontinued, but are still distributed in some cases and it's still considered to be illegal.

All in all, I think I use P2P networks honestly. Some may disagree.

Fishes,
narco.

Blue Velvet

Oct 17, 2005, 12:18 PM

I recently downloaded the second season of Twin Peaks...

Oh really? Might just have to reappraise my stance on downloading stuff then...

No, only kidding. I'm prepared to wait for its DVD release -- what's another year or so after all this time? :rolleyes:

narco

Oct 17, 2005, 12:47 PM

No, only kidding. I'm prepared to wait for its DVD release -- what's another year or so after all this time? :rolleyes:

I've been saying "what's another year or so" for the past 4 years, I just had to get it! :) It's amazing how much better the second season is too, it'll be nice to (hopefully) get some extras. I know David Lynch has a lot of stuff to release on DVD, but he seems to be taking his sweet time!

Fishes,
narco.

Lacero

Oct 17, 2005, 12:50 PM

Sometimes I miss episodes of Lost and Alias, so I turn to BitTorrent to download them. The TV networks don't make it easy for me to catch my favorite shows on the net, so I have no problems downloading off the net from BT. I could as well record it to VHS or PVR but no, I prefer watching it on my Cinema Display, and commercial free.

Blue Velvet

Oct 17, 2005, 12:51 PM

I know David Lynch has a lot of stuff to release on DVD, but he seems to be taking his sweet time!

Don't blame my lovely David. :mad:

:D

No, it's been tied up in red-tape over distribution rights. Now that Paramount have got it back from Artisan, I expect to see something very soon... the log told me.

solvs

Oct 17, 2005, 01:09 PM

Sometimes I miss episodes of Lost and Alias, so I turn to BitTorrent to download them.
As have I. But ABC has been showing Lost and some other shows on the Weekends, in case you missed it during the Week. WB does that too, Second-Chance Sunday and Charmed on TNT the following Tuesday. Quite nice if you miss something. I was trying to TiVO an episode of FireFly I hadn't seen when they started showing it on Sci-Fi, but I screwed it up and missed the first 20 minutes. I used BT, watched what I missed, and then deleted it. Probably not a good thing, but I wanted to see what happened. Guess I could have gotten the DVD, or waited until they re-ran it... but I didn't.

Just try not to make a habit of it.

hookahco

Oct 17, 2005, 01:11 PM

let me just say one thing to all the people rolling their eyes because my "conscience is hurting" after downloading a tv show on bittorrent.

nothing really makes my conscience hurt. although im a nice guy and i know right from wrong, i dont have guilt trips about things and i won't refrain from doing something because it is illegal. im just thinking about an issue that had me stumped.

CanadaRAM

Oct 17, 2005, 02:56 PM

But surely time shifting using a VHS machine is different to getting it from others. That is like re-broadcasting it, isn' it.
Yes, rebroadcasting it is another issue. I was referring to the original poster downloading it for their own consumption only, and that being similar to timeshifting.

ZoomZoomZoom

Oct 17, 2005, 03:45 PM

I think that it's wrong to use bittorrent to download copyrighted material. Being a college student, it's tempting to go and download music, movies, and videos without paying for them as I do already. But it's still wrong, and attempting to justify it doesn't work.

The people who get hurt aren't the record execs or the higher-ups. I agree with Savage Henry, that the plebs get it first. I'd love to stick one to the record industry especially, but downloading music instead of purchasing it isn't the way. In the end, I'd be downloading it for the sake of my having music for free, trying to justify it by saying that I'm rebelling against the greedy record execs.

People are just happy using bittorrent because they don't see the people they hurt, and that it's unlikely for them to get caught. Imagine if you, along with hundreds of thousands of others, could steal from stores without ever getting caught, and don't have to see the jobs that are lost because of it. That's pretty much what's happening nowadays with programs like bittorrent that allow people to steal music. (I won't euphemize it by saying "sharing music.") If you've ever been posed - "If you could get away with [something], would you do it?" - and if you have already chosen to steal music, then you've already answered "yes" to the question.

Bittorrent can be used to legitimate purposes, but if you just look around - 99.99% of the time, it's not.

As for TV shows, I think that's sort of blurry.

TheMonarch

Oct 17, 2005, 03:52 PM

Ethics aside... None of you are afraid of lawsuits? :confused: :o

slimflem

Oct 17, 2005, 04:10 PM

I used BT, watched what I missed, and then deleted it. Probably not a good thing, but I wanted to see what happened. Guess I could have gotten the DVD, or waited until they re-ran it... but I didn't.

Just try not to make a habit of it.

Please...give me details as to why you consider this to not be a good thing. Are you so scared and paranoid that you believe you must delete a copy of a TV show? Maybe you have a small HD.

This is what I'm talking about. Timid to even download a TV show to watch something you missed or messed up on a DVR. Kindly explain to me the difference in recording this on a DVR or downloading from BT or P2P. I don't think you can come up with a logical, reasonable answer.

This kind of behavior will further drive our rights into the ground. Sure, pay for stuff you like and think is worth it, but don't be so scared that you won't even download something to try it out first.

Some people in World would have you believe that the very word "download" is bad, wrong, evil, and immoral. This has got to change. Remember, in the end, this is all about super-rich, powerful corporations that already have hordes of money from screwing the artists for decades now crying because they believe they are loosing money. If you want to support this corporate rule, fine go ahead. By you being so scared and timid believing the way you do, we will be corporate-owned ourselves one day...if we aren't already.

It's not like the normal home-user is out of the street selling dvd copies, recorded tv shows, etc for profit. You know the warnings at the beginning of movies that says you can't engage in unauthorized reselling, etc?, well, we are not. Casual home use where no profits are being made should be totally acceptable with noone complaining they are being cheated. Think about it.

slimflem

Oct 17, 2005, 04:13 PM

If you've ever been posed - "If you could get away with [something], would you do it?" - and if you have already chosen to steal music, then you've already answered "yes" to the question.

Thats total nonsense. Nice blanket classification of people you have going there. I'm sure you are not as righteous as you make yourself out to be.

slimflem

Oct 17, 2005, 04:34 PM

I can see it now...when going to a friend's house to watch TV, you must pay because you are not directly paying a bill that contributes to the cable signal being piped into his house. Woops, I looked at your TV and noticed it was playing TV Show X, here's a 5 spot for the 5 seconds of illegal viewing.

aspro

Oct 17, 2005, 04:55 PM

I use bittorrent directly to download IPTV (Systm and the like), and I kind of use it to watch some TV shows that don't really get shown down here within years of release (well, not directly as my brother downloads them.)

I used to pirate music, but then I came across eMusic, and I get all my music from there now :)

belvdr

Oct 17, 2005, 05:41 PM

Please...give me details as to why you consider this to not be a good thing. Are you so scared and paranoid that you believe you must delete a copy of a TV show? Maybe you have a small HD.

This is what I'm talking about. Timid to even download a TV show to watch something you missed or messed up on a DVR. Kindly explain to me the difference in recording this on a DVR or downloading from BT or P2P. I don't think you can come up with a logical, reasonable answer.

This kind of behavior will further drive our rights into the ground. Sure, pay for stuff you like and think is worth it, but don't be so scared that you won't even download something to try it out first.

Some people in World would have you believe that the very word "download" is bad, wrong, evil, and immoral. This has got to change. Remember, in the end, this is all about super-rich, powerful corporations that already have hordes of money from screwing the artists for decades now crying because they believe they are loosing money. If you want to support this corporate rule, fine go ahead. By you being so scared and timid believing the way you do, we will be corporate-owned ourselves one day...if we aren't already.

And how is downloading something for free going to give the artists any more money than they would have received from these corporations?

It's not like the normal home-user is out of the street selling dvd copies, recorded tv shows, etc for profit. You know the warnings at the beginning of movies that says you can't engage in unauthorized reselling, etc?, well, we are not. Casual home use where no profits are being made should be totally acceptable with noone complaining they are being cheated. Think about it.

The notice actually talks about illegal reproduction, not necessarily selling it.

bousozoku

Oct 17, 2005, 06:01 PM

A musician friend of mine told me that while I was registering the information about his CDs in the CDDB, he wouldn't mind if I uploaded his music to some sharing network, so that he would get extra exposure. Of course, I wasn't comfortable doing it but it was one of the best reasons for file sharing--artist promotion.

I don't agree with going against anyone's wishes concerning their own work.

The technology is ethical but some of its uses aren't.

slimflem

Oct 17, 2005, 06:12 PM

And how is downloading something for free going to give the artists any more money than they would have received from these corporations?

The notice actually talks about illegal reproduction, not necessarily selling it.

Did you read what I actually wrote? I said, if you like something and you think it is worth it, then buy a copy and pay the person. If not, then don't buy and delete it if you so choose. Why should I pay upfront for something if I don't even know I am going to like it and if it's even worth my money? P2P is great for try before you buy. So yes, I fall somewhere in the middle of this great debate. I have no problems paying for stuff at all, and do. I just don't believe in forking out a lot of money upfront for something I don't like and then not being able to return it because I have been thrown into a stereotype and it's assumed I just copied it and am trying to get something for free.

Man, I'm such a bad person for downloading/"stealing" some music. I'm just the scum of the earth. I should be locked up in prison for trying out some music before I pay for it. I'm not better than any other criminal and downloading music is going to push me into more crime, according to other posters on this forum.

If I can't take something back that I don't like, then I should be able to preview it first...and sometimes a 20 second preview is not good enough. And I'm for damn sure not going to go stand in some mall or best buy listening to their little cd listening stations.

belvdr

Oct 17, 2005, 06:42 PM

Did you read what I actually wrote? I said, if you like something and you think it is worth it, then buy a copy and pay the person. If not, then don't buy and delete it if you so choose. Why should I pay upfront for something if I don't even know I am going to like it and if it's even worth my money? P2P is great for try before you buy. So yes, I fall somewhere in the middle of this great debate. I have no problems paying for stuff at all, and do. I just don't believe in forking out a lot of money upfront for something I don't like and then not being able to return it because I have been thrown into a stereotype and it's assumed I just copied it and am trying to get something for free.

Man, I'm such a bad person for downloading/"stealing" some music. I'm just the scum of the earth. I should be locked up in prison for trying out some music before I pay for it. I'm not better than any other criminal and downloading music is going to push me into more crime, according to other posters on this forum.

If I can't take something back that I don't like, then I should be able to preview it first...and sometimes a 20 second preview is not good enough.

Calm down; I simply disagreed with a couple of things you stated. I didn't say anything about you being scum or anything like that.

I still disagree, because if the artist wanted you to be able to download more than a 20 second preview, they would have made that possible. Some people may think they like it by listening to the 20 second preview, and buy it, but then don't like it. That still puts money in the artist's pocket, which according to you and others, aren't getting enough anyway.

And I'm for damn sure not going to go stand in some mall or best buy listening to their little cd listening stations.

Why not? That's trying before you buy.

EDIT: I probably missed your point about trying and buying before writing my first reply. I was trying to read them too quickly, and breezed through all three quickly.

slimflem

Oct 17, 2005, 06:44 PM

Some people may think they like it by listening to the 20 second preview, and buy it, but then don't like it.

...and then the consumer is screwed. Sorry, no refund.

btw: I am calm. It's just a topic I get worked up about. :D

slimflem

Oct 17, 2005, 06:45 PM

EDIT: I probably missed your point about trying and buying before writing my first reply. I was trying to read them too quickly, and breezed through all three quickly.

See, I caught you. At least you admitted it. Many would not.

belvdr

Oct 17, 2005, 06:46 PM

...and then the consumer is screwed. Sorry, no refund.

btw: I am calm. It's just a topic I get worked up about. :D

Cool beans about the calmness. I'm not trying to get anyone worked up.. :D

I agree about the refund problem. However, I guess most people would try to buy the CD, rip it, then return it.

belvdr

Oct 17, 2005, 06:46 PM

See, I caught you. At least you admitted it. Many would not.

Yeah, I'm human.. :)

ftaok

Oct 17, 2005, 07:56 PM

Did you read what I actually wrote? I said, if you like something and you think it is worth it, then buy a copy and pay the person. If not, then don't buy and delete it if you so choose. Why should I pay upfront for something if I don't even know I am going to like it and if it's even worth my money? P2P is great for try before you buy. So yes, I fall somewhere in the middle of this great debate. I have no problems paying for stuff at all, and do. I just don't believe in forking out a lot of money upfront for something I don't like and then not being able to return it because I have been thrown into a stereotype and it's assumed I just copied it and am trying to get something for free.

...snip...

If I can't take something back that I don't like, then I should be able to preview it first...and sometimes a 20 second preview is not good enough. And I'm for damn sure not going to go stand in some mall or best buy listening to their little cd listening stations.I read through your other posts in this thread, but if I miss some points, please forgive me.

Anyways, what you do is your thing. I'm not going to try and change what you're doing.

The thing I disagree with you is the whole "try before you buy" argument. It seems as you feel you're entitled to try something to see if you like it, and if you do, you'll buy. Well, that's not the way it works. I mean, do you go into a restaurant and take bites out of food to see if you like it first?

If you don't like the way the business model works, then don't participate.

Anyways, you could always listen to the radio to see if you like a band or performer. Or you could go to the library and borrow CDs to see if you like them. There are other options.

Anyways, this is just my opinion. Who's to say I'm right or wrong?

ZoomZoomZoom

Oct 18, 2005, 09:45 AM

Thats total nonsense. Nice blanket classification of people you have going there. I'm sure you are not as righteous as you make yourself out to be.

Whatever floats your boat, but thanks for making a personal attack. I can claim to not have pirated/illegally downloaded anything since I sorted through that it was wrong. (Yes, I buy all my music, and I had to use a trial version of Macromedia Flash because I couldn't afford it.) And why is my earlier statement total nonsense? It's stealing all the same. And as for a blanket classification, what is there to prove me wrong? The internet has music thievery not only because of the wrecked recording industry, but because people don't (often) get caught.

You make arguments for the "Try before you buy." Firstly, you can listen to small clips if you want on ITMS/amazon and such. And if that's not good enough for you, and if you - along with many other people out there - have to listen to songs a few times in order to make a decision - then there's a mistake somewhere with the record industry's business model. Even though your method is more efficient, the record industry still holds the rights to the music, so it is still stealing in the sense that you take what you did not pay for. And, most people don't do what you do and actually purchase the music. They just sit with thousands of songs on their HDs, not paying a cent. I don't think that you quite understand the problem here - it's already obvious that the record/other companies put the customer in a pickle, but the ethics of bittorrent still lie in customer response to the companies' screw ups. Their mistakes don't give the public the right to put the law into their own hands, to steal or "try before you buy."

In the end, if you look at all of the justifications, you wouldn't be able to reproduce (respectively) your actions on bittorrent at a brick-and-mortar store. It's just taking something without paying for it, not getting caught, and then trying to weasel out of guilt.

StinktOldC

Oct 18, 2005, 10:01 AM

just finished dloading Final Cut Studio, saved me £800.....OMFG Steve says I will burn in hell now!! :D

Lacero

Oct 18, 2005, 10:03 AM

just finished dloading Final Cut Studio, saved me £800.....OMFG Steve says I will burn in hell now!! :D
Just make sure if you use it for commercial purposes, please pay for it. I really don't have a problem with downloading software to try out, but yeah, like what I just said.

StinktOldC

Oct 18, 2005, 10:13 AM

RobHague

Oct 18, 2005, 10:15 AM

Just make sure if you use it for commercial purposes, please pay for it. I really don't have a problem with downloading software to try out, but yeah, like what I just said.

<off-topic>
Nice choice of avatar btw ;) tatu rock. mmmmmm.
</off-topic>

eva01

Oct 18, 2005, 10:16 AM

me? commercial purposes? being a brain dead vegetable such as myself Ive more chance of locating a set of hens teeth! But as for the "try before you buy" bull...I dont know anyone who's downloaded a piece of perfectly working software then gone out and actually paid for it because they like it

I have with shareware software and also downloaded trials and then went out and bought it even thou i could just as easily steal it or hack the trial

StinktOldC

Oct 18, 2005, 10:26 AM

<off-topic>
Nice choice of avatar btw ;) tatu rock. mmmmmm.
</off-topic>
You dirty old man!

Anyway Lacero's profile photo is much hotter, I think she should use that as her avatar

StinktOldC

Oct 18, 2005, 10:29 AM

I have with shareware software and also downloaded trials and then went out and bought it even thou i could just as easily steal it or hack the trial

Good for you! What I actually meant was software downloaded from bit torrent/P2P etc

DarkNetworks

Oct 18, 2005, 10:36 AM

Do you think this is a situation in which it would be right to use bittorrent? I deleted the file after viewing it.

deleted the file after viewing it...fine enough...

StinktOldC

Oct 18, 2005, 10:42 AM

I deleted the file after viewing it.

If its gonna make you sleep better tonight then why not? :)

RedTomato

Oct 18, 2005, 10:44 AM

caveman_uk

Oct 18, 2005, 10:58 AM

Adobe have addressed this issue somewhat with the release of Elements, but still, if you're learning the high end functions of Photoshop, it's a bit difficult to forkout for a full copy before you've had a chance to start earning money with it.

I have to say, I've used pirated versions of Word and Office before. Now I make some money by writing, and a company I work for has just purchased a full licence of Office for my use. A friend used to use pirated Dreamweaver, and the same company has just purchased a full Dreamweaver licence for him.

Adobe, Microsoft and (IIRC) Macromedia all release cheaper 'student' versions of their software in an effort to make it cheaper for students to learn. Arguably they should be cheaper as they're still pretty expensive for students to buy. Ironically Microsoft's student edition of office has probably the fairest pricing and still people like your good self pirate it. They can't win - it's very hard competing with free.

Blue Velvet

Oct 18, 2005, 11:03 AM

I've been told that Adobe and various pro companies are not that bothered about students ripping off their high-end apps, as the students need to learn the app, and if they become skilled at it, they will demand to use it when they enter paid employment.

If that were so, then why would they have introduced product activation schemes much as Macromedia and Quark have done?

Regardless of product -- music, software movies etc.-- this is what piracy brings us or will eventually bring. Awkward and potentially intrusive digital rights management that affects the legitimate user.

RedTomato

Oct 18, 2005, 11:22 AM

Ironically Microsoft's student edition of office has probably the fairest pricing and still people like your good self pirate it. They can't win - it's very hard competing with free.

When I was learning how to write a good piece, student pricing wasn't available. Now as I said, I have a legally purchased copy, brought for me by the company I work with.

If I'd never learnt how to use Word, I wouldn't be asking for a legal copy.

cheers

.. RedTomato ..

BarfBag

Oct 18, 2005, 11:45 AM

I've BOUGHT more music because of P2P. If I like what I hear, I will go out and buy the real copy. Do I think it's right? No. But I'm just saying, they've made MORE money from me because of P2P.

solvs

Oct 18, 2005, 02:18 PM

Anyway Lacero's profile photo is much hotter, I think she should use that as her avatar
Pretty sure Lacero is a dude. ;)

seabass069

Oct 18, 2005, 02:58 PM

How can the inventers, (sony, rca), of the recordable tape player, the dual tape deck, reel-to-reel, and the recordable vcr now come out and say copying media onto a computer is against the law. They started this many years ago, they should give up the fight. Don't these companies also make cd burners + dvd burners. What do they really expect people to do with it. The problem I see is the washed up bands that can't make it anymore are the ones cryin about it. Ever since the Black album Metallica has sucked. They need to spend more time creating music like what they did on the 'And Justice For ALL' album.

ZoomZoomZoom

Oct 18, 2005, 03:06 PM

I've been told that Adobe and various pro companies are not that bothered about students ripping off their high-end apps, as the students need to learn the app, and if they become skilled at it, they will demand to use it when they enter paid employment.

I have no idea if this is true or not. I'm sure Adobe etc come down VERY heavily on people using pirated copies for commerical work.

Adobe have addressed this issue somewhat with the release of Elements, but still, if you're learning the high end functions of Photoshop, it's a bit difficult to forkout for a full copy before you've had a chance to start earning money with it.

I have to say, I've used pirated versions of Word and Office before. Now I make some money by writing, and a company I work for has just purchased a full licence of Office for my use. A friend used to use pirated Dreamweaver, and the same company has just purchased a full Dreamweaver licence for him.

If he hadn't learnt his website skills on a pirated copy of Dreamweaver, I'm sure he would be asking us to purchase some different website creating sofware for him.

Cheers

.. RedTomato ..

I used to pirate copies of Photoshop/Macromedia Suite to toy with when I was learning how to build a website. And whenever I work with web design now, I'm only fully comfortable using Dreamweaver (unless if it's something quick that's notepad-able). After getting my camera, I only use Photoshop to mess with my pictures. I can't afford photoshop, though, and it looks like I'm going to be spending some quality time on the Dells in the computer lab when the free trial runs out... :(

Macky-Mac

Oct 19, 2005, 12:53 AM

I've been told that Adobe and various pro companies are not that bothered about students ripping off their high-end apps, as the students need to learn the app, and if they become skilled at it, they will demand to use it when they enter paid employment. ...

alas, that's just another of the many justifications for "why it's OK to pirate software"

the fact is that Adobe's software is an industry standard, they dont need recent graduates "demanding" that their software be used......actually those students need to learn the software so that they'll have the job skills that will get them employment.....so they pirate the software and tell each other that it's ok cuz "Adobe needs them!" when in reality Adobe already owns the market

mcmadhatter

Oct 19, 2005, 03:07 AM

a) But since you didn't watch it it wouldn't count towards ratings so it indirectly takes money out of the pockets of producers.

In the uk raitings are only done with a sample of a few 1000 people who have a little box plugged into their tv to record the statistics, so as long as you aren't one of the few 1000 that are being used for ratings, downloading it via bit-torrent won't affect the ratings, no-one will lose any money.