NationStates Jolt Archive

Who thinks its wrong to download? I'm talking about music, games, movies, TV and whatever else.

I honestly have no problem with it and I know a lot of my friends don't have a problem with it. But there are many people who think its wrong.

I just want to get your opinions on it.

If you only download things you could never afford to buy or say, albums you can enjoy listening to a few times but would never spend money on, I think it's alright, no one is losing any money then... I mean, think of all the kids that play around with photoshop, making themselves nice pictures for desktop wallpapers... it's not like they could afford to spend 600 bucks just for that previlige... but there are many views on this subject...

It is ethically wrong to download free stuff. I do it anyway.

Motive has a lot to do with it. I don't download music without paying for it anymore. I download tv shows before they come out on dvd because I have no other way of accessing them, but I always buy them once they're available.

i do it, but i feel bad about it. i figure if that's the worst thing i do, i'm doin ok.

To quote my webhost's 404 page: "Illegal downloading - appropriate for all ages".

When I go for it, my computer is typically on 24 hours a day for a week or two, downloading and uploading at maximum speed.

Svenskar är bra på fildelning:)

I download illegally, not because I cannot/do not want to pay for it, but because I am a communist. :)

To quote my webhost's 404 page: "Illegal downloading - appropriate for all ages".

When I go for it, my computer is typically on 24 hours a day for a week or two, downloading and uploading at maximum speed.


I think its "Illegal downloading - Inappropriate for all ages". :p

I once saw that on some German torrent site. I saved the image so I have it on my comp and my website when I uploaded my saved pictures.

Svenskar är bra på fildelning:)

Den här gör i alla fall sitt bästa. :D

I'll download stuff to see if an album is worth buying. Or to try a new band that I haven't heard before.

Then I'll buy the album. A lot of the bands I listen to aren't that famous, and when my band releases an album, I'd really appereciate others buying it, too.

Sometimes I look for rare/live stuff that can't be found at a record store. But that's about it.

I think its "Illegal downloading - Inappropriate for all ages". :p

I once saw that on some German torrent site. I saved the image so I have it on my comp and my website when I uploaded my saved pictures.Nope. :) (http://negative0.net/404/) (see image on top)

Nope. :) (http://negative0.net/404/) (see image on top)

http://www.kefkasrevenge.net/Kegfarms/images/My%20Pictures/My%20Pictures/illegal_download.jpg

This is the one I got.

Short of shutting down the 'Net it will never end. Right or wrong. Illegal or legal.

I download stuff for the following three reasons:

A) To see if it's worth spending money on. Mainly games.
2) It's (semi)free. TV shows etc.
=) If I can't get it anywhere else. Old games and such.

If it weren't for illegal downloading...I wouldn't have crap.

I understand it breaches copyright laws and officially is wrong. However with the quality of albums being so poor these days many 30/40min albums being released with only half of it worth while. I often find I get much more enjoyment downloading and borrowing songs to make my own 80 min condensed albums of bands.

Bands that make truely good albums and offer lyrics/artwork or whatever in their covers and make the effort, I will try to go out of my way to buy. But typically its not worth buying when I can get better for free and listen to more music than I would normally.

http://www.kefkasrevenge.net/Kegfarms/images/My%20Pictures/My%20Pictures/illegal_download.jpg

This is the one I got.
And that's not the funny one:p

And that's not the funny one:p


I thought it was funny. :p

Most stuff produced my modern musicians is worthless filler. I'm not about to pay for the crap when all I want is the gold. Develop a greater degree of talent and I'll pay you more.

I thought it was funny. :p
you have a twisted sense of humour:D

It depends on what service you use. I personally used WinMX. With the money that they got from their banner ads, they paid the music industry more than what the songs were worth if youbought them on CD's.

I really only download stuff from people who are already dead and thus have no good reason to have a problem with it or people on the left who can't condemn violating capitalist property laws without being hypocrits.

Most stuff produced my modern musicians is worthless filler. I'm not about to pay for the crap when all I want is the gold. Develop a greater degree of talent and I'll pay you more.

Quite so. If they can't be bothered to work for their success, they don't deserve all that money. Why should I fund musical mediocrity?

The only thing "wrong" with creating and preserving an identical copy of a pattern of organization of numbers is that the people who were making a lot of money producing, through a difficult industrial-grade process, vinyl records, convinced the reigning politicians that scarcity-based property laws should somehow apply to a medium that is easily, cheaply, perfectly reproducible.

Now, perhaps I'm being too hard on intellectual property laws. Perhaps writers should be paid for the rest of their lives for having good ideas and expressing them well one time. Perhaps music-writers and -performers and their estates should be compensated perpetually for a finite act. Is my sarcasm getting through?

I love paying to see artists, of any stripe, perform their work. That's the thing they do that is of value to me, which compels me to provide them with something of value, or with pieces of raw exchange-value. But digital recordings ought justly be distributed freely as a reason for me to pay money to go see these artists at work.

It's wrong because it's illegal, and it's wrong to break the law.

It's wrong because it's illegal, and it's wrong to break the law.

Segregation was law. *cringes*

It's wrong because it's illegal, and it's wrong to break the law.
No its not. Rules where meant to be broken. *insert picture of Peter Griffen being roundhouse kicked for pressing that button*

Meh.
Downloading rocks.
Im an honest downloader.
I download songs ive heard of
and if i like em
i buy the album to hear the rest.


I download films all the time just cos i can and it gives me a thrill to press enter and come back from educationalstudies ... :rolleyes: and have an extra 8 films ready.
ive only ever watched 4.

If it weren't for illegal downloading...I wouldn't have crap.Odd. Because of illegal downloading... I have too much crap.

Segregation was law. *cringes*

just because you don't agree with a law doesn't give you the right to break it.

I didn't say downloading music was wrong because it's just wrong, I said it's against the law, and it's wrong to break the law.


It's kinda like I call people who sneak into the country illegally, criminals. You know because they broke the law. Whether they agree with the law or not, they don't have a right to break it, and once you break a law, no matter how stupid you think it is, or how unfair, or how inconvienient, then you are a criminal.

It's kinda like I call people who sneak into the country illegally criminals.You call them that? It cracked me up for some reason...

You call them that? It cracked me up for some reason...acutally unless I am in a heated argument with my cousin, I call them illegals, she thinks that's "rude" and prefers them called "undocumented"

:rolleyes:

acutally unless I am in a heated argument with my cousin, I call them illegals, she thinks that's "rude" and prefers them called "undocumented"

:rolleyes:OK. Thanks. Illegal illegals would be even better, btw.

OK. Thanks. Illegal illegals would be even better, btw.
ah, but that's redundant.

anyway her conversation goes

"they aren't criminals, why do you assume that they are criminals?"
"because they broke the law"
"you are racist"
"I am not, they came here illegally aka against the law, that makes them criminals"

then she tells her husband to tell my husband to make me leave her alone:rolleyes: yeah right, like my husband could make me shut up...he wishes. :D

like my husband could make me shut up...he wishes. :DOuch.

like my husband could make me shut up...he wishes. :D
Don't we all.:p

Don't we all.:p
well, you know how it goes, wish in one hand and..........

well, you know how it goes I am sure. :p

well, you know how it goes, wish in one hand and..........

well, you know how it goes I am sure. :p
Accually, I don't know how it goes. Do tell.

Accually, I don't know how it goes. Do tell.
my dad used to say it......let's see if I can G-rate it for you (spoils your fun though)

"wish in one hand and spit in the other and see which one gets filled first"

my dad used to say it......let's see if I can G-rate it for you (spoils your fun though)

"wish in one hand and spit in the other and see which one gets filled first"
If I knew you were going to G-Rate it, I would have looked it up meself.

just because you don't agree with a law doesn't give you the right to break it.

Umm, it does. Stupid laws need to be broken. Sometimes a "******" just needs to sit at the front of the bus.

I didn't say downloading music was wrong because it's just wrong, I said it's against the law, and it's wrong to break the law.

I'm glad for your country's sake that that woman disagreed with you all those years ago. And just a few years ago, in your country, it was illegal in some states for gay people to have sex. Or straight women to give their husbands blowjobs. Was doing those things "wrong" because there was a law against them?

I'm glad for your country's sake that that woman disagreed with you all those years ago. And just a few years ago, in your country, it was illegal in some states for gay people to have sex. Or straight women to give their husbands blowjobs. Was doing those things "wrong" because there was a law against them?
Oral sex is still illegal in my state, and I break the law, I am a criminal...see? I can admit it.

If I knew you were going to G-Rate it, I would have looked it up meself.
replace the P in spit with an H and you got it.

Oral sex is still illegal in my state, and I break the law, I am a criminal...see? I can admit it.No. I just bumped this for no reason.


*she gives head... teehee*

replace the P in spit with an H and you got it.
O, I thought it was something a lil nastier than that. I forgot you have morals and stuff.

No. I just pumbed this for no reason.


*she gives head... teehee*
I didn't say that.........

besides, it's illegal for me to have sex with my husband at all, so if I'm gonna break the law, then I might as well do it right.

O, I thought it was something a lil nastier than that. I forgot you have morals and stuff.
not many.

I just don't like the "s" word. LOL

I didn't say that.........

besides, it's illegal for me to have sex with my husband at all
OK, an explanation would be in order.

OK, an explanation would be in order.
it's illegal here to have sex for any reason other than reproduction, my husband got "fixed" so that we won't have anymore kids, so since we aren't trying to reproduce then it's illegal to have sex.

it's not enforced.

Oral sex is still illegal in my state, and I break the law, I am a criminal...see? I can admit it.

You just claimed it was wrong. Is it wrong of you to suck your husband's dick? And oral sex is not illegal in your state - the ruling voids that law.

lmao

Well, have fun regardless, Smunk.

it's illegal here to have sex for any reason other than reproduction, my husband got "fixed" so that we won't have anymore kids, so since we aren't trying to reproduce then it's illegal to have sex.
Since when is it "illegal" to make love in the U. S. of A.?

If you only download things you could never afford to buy or say, albums you can enjoy listening to a few times but would never spend money on, I think it's alright, no one is losing any money then... I mean, think of all the kids that play around with photoshop, making themselves nice pictures for desktop wallpapers... it's not like they could afford to spend 600 bucks just for that previlige... but there are many views on this subject...
If you can afford a computer and a broadband connection required to do the d/ling chances are you have enough to buy whatever it is you are d/ling.

You just claimed it was wrong. Is it wrong of you to suck your husband's dick?
it's wrong because it's illegal, and it's wrong to break the law.



And oral sex is not illegal in your state - the ruling voids that law.
good, then I am no longer a criminal, I have reformed :D

it's wrong because it's illegal, and it's wrong to break the law.

Now you're just being jejune. Was it wrong of Rosa Parks to sit at the front of the bus? Was it wrong of all those gay couples to have sex? Was it wrong for the people of East Berlin to bring down the wall? The people of Serbia to oust Milosevic? There were laws against all that. Were they wrong to do them?

Since when is it "illegal" to make love in the U. S. of A.?
it's been that way here since like the 1920's, it hasn't been enforced since then either I don't think, it's one of those weird laws that's still on the books. However, I hear that there is some supreme court ruling that overturns it, but I am not quite sure how that works, since it's illegal to sell marajuana by federal law but there are states that do it medicinally.

Now you're just being jejune. Was it wrong of Rosa Parks to sit at the front of the bus? Was it wrong of all those gay couples to have sex?
legally? yes. If you break the law it's legally wrong to do that.

ethically? morally? I can't answer those questions. Mostly I don't think it's any of my business what they do.

All I said is that it's wrong because it's illegal, and it's wrong to break the law.

I feel that there are some rules that are asking to get broken, and if you choose to break them then it's you who has to deal with the consequences.

Here in Canada it's not illegal to download music for your personal use, it's just illegal to share it, and i don't. I guess i'm not a criminal, woo hoo. I still buy CD's, but i buy the ones of my favorite artists. The songs i download are by artists i don't like enough to by the albums of. For example, i have "Never Tear Us Apart" by INXS on my computer because i love the song, but i don't really like any other stuff by INXS.

I don't really like any other stuff by INXS.That really makes it alright. Trust me on this.

legally? yes. If you break the law it's legally wrong to do that.

ethically? morally? I can't answer those questions. Mostly I don't think it's any of my business what they do.

All I said is that it's wrong because it's illegal, and it's wrong to break the law.

You've stopped being jejune, and gone straight over to specious. Are you claiming that sitting at the front of the bus as a black person is wrong if there is a law banning black people to do it? Of course you aren't, because you're not stupid. You know as well as I that it is not at all always wrong to break a law. Don't let your pride stand in the way of admitting that your stance is untenable and intellectually dishonest: something is not rendered wrong just because there is a law against it, and breaking the law is not always wrong. Only a fool would claim otherwise, and I know you not to be a fool.

I feel that there are some rules that are asking to get broken, and if you choose to break them then it's you who has to deal with the consequences.

That is outside the scope of this. You were claiming in what was probably a lapse of intellectual laziness that "it is wrong because there is a law and it is wrong to break a law." It's not only an argument of lassitude, but of infantility.

You've stopped being jejune, and gone straight over to specious. Are you claiming that sitting at the front of the bus as a black person is wrong if there is a law banning black people to do it? Of course you aren't, because you're not stupid. You know as well as I that it is not at all always wrong to break a law. Don't let your pride stand in the way of admitting that your stance is untenable and intellectually dishonest: something is not rendered wrong just because there is a law against it, and breaking the law is not always wrong. Only a fool would claim otherwise, and I know you not to be a fool.
It's never legally right to break a law, only preferable. I didn't ever say it was morally wrong to download only that it's illegal, and that breaking the law is wrong. I have a slightly skewed view of right and wrong though. I believe killing another person is wrong, if someone broke into my house and I killed them even in self defense I would see it as wrong as it's always wrong to take another person's life. It doesn't mean it's not preferable to me to kill them before they kill me though.

Most stuff produced my modern musicians is worthless filler. I'm not about to pay for the crap when all I want is the gold. Develop a greater degree of talent and I'll pay you more.

You're not listening to the right bands, then.

It's never legally right to break a law, only preferable. I didn't ever say it was morally wrong to download only that it's illegal, and that breaking the law is wrong. I have a slightly skewed view of right and wrong though. I believe killing another person is wrong, if someone broke into my house and I killed them even in self defense I would see it as wrong as it's always wrong to take another person's life. It doesn't mean it's not preferable to me to kill them before they kill me though.

"It's wrong because it's illegal, and it's wrong to break the law."

Seriously, it shouldn't be that hard for you to admit that it isn't always wrong to break the law. In fact, as the case was with the gay couple, and the black people who refused to obey a law that was clearly wrong itself, it led to the abolition of those laws. If you continue to claim "it's wrong to break the law and that's that," I may just have to alter my opinion of you, to being someone who is intellectually dishonest, because you continue to deny the obvious.

What about the initial theme of this thread then, Fass? I see you answered you 'have no prolem with downloading stuff'.

I mean, is copyright law just another stupid law to you? I have to say I answered 'it's wrong', but I do download stuff illegally (I have problems facing my pals who are recording artists...).

Now, perhaps I'm being too hard on intellectual property laws. Perhaps writers should be paid for the rest of their lives for having good ideas and expressing them well one time. Perhaps music-writers and -performers and their estates should be compensated perpetually for a finite act. Is my sarcasm getting through?

I love paying to see artists, of any stripe, perform their work. That's the thing they do that is of value to me, which compels me to provide them with something of value, or with pieces of raw exchange-value. But digital recordings ought justly be distributed freely as a reason for me to pay money to go see these artists at work.

You don't seem to have a very realistic idea of exactly how much most bands get paid. Sure, there are the lucky few who break out to superstardom, but that's not the case with most.

The "oh, bands really only make money from their concerts" is a very common fallacy. For one concert, not only does the band have to get paid, but the roadies have to get paid, so does the concert promoter (in fact, quite a significant amount of money goes to the promoter), and all the people who work for him/her. Then of course there's the owner of the venue, and often the person who runs it, who has to pay rent to the owner. And of course then there are all the people working there, such as the bartenders and security.

Some bands are famous and will be rich even if you do download all their music and never buy their albums. As I said earlier, they're the lucky few. Most good bands, underground bands, need both album sales and concerts to sustain themselves, as the bands themselves don't get a very large percentage of of the money from either.

I agree with you that most people won't become millionaires with their music, but, and i can't speak for everyone, only me, whether i download music or not, many of the bands whose songs i have still wouldn't get any money from me. I wouldn't go out and buy Our Lady Peace CD's for example, or Metallica CD's because i don't like enough of their music. That wasn't any difference when i had dial-up and didn't download anything. Being able to download their songs isn't what makes me not buy the CD's, it's knowing i would almost never listen to them. There are some people who download and just don't buy, i'm not one of those people, neither are most of the people i know.

What about the initial theme of this thread then, Fass? I see you answered you 'have no prolem with downloading stuff'.

I mean, is copyright law just another stupid law to you? I have to say I answered 'it's wrong', but I do download stuff illegally (I have problems facing my pals who are recording artists...).

I'm somewhere inbetween on the issue, but "I have no problem with it" was the closest to my stance, as I don't have a problem doing it or seeing other people do it (or even aiding them in it). Something which is made easier when you see how the recording companies treat people and how overpriced CDs are.

Is it wrong to dowload things illegaly? Probably (not in the realm of stealing, though, as I wouldn't have paid for the stuff I download anyway - I just wouldn't have seen it/listened to it). Are the current pricing schemes and actions of the recording companies wrong? Probably. Which can I live with? The former. Which will I end up living with? Well, that remains to be seen.

I'm glad you brought up record companies in your post... without them, i'd be ashamed to download stuff.

"It's wrong because it's illegal, and it's wrong to break the law."

Seriously, it shouldn't be that hard for you to admit that it isn't always wrong to break the law. In fact, as the case was with the gay couple, and the black people who refused to obey a law that was clearly wrong itself, it led to the abolition of those laws. If you continue to claim "it's wrong to break the law and that's that," I may just have to alter my opinion of you, to being someone who is intellectually dishonest, because you continue to deny the obvious.
there are better ways to change laws than to break them, you have to admit that, if breaking laws was a reliable way to change them then crack would be legal in the USA and murder wouldn't be a crime anymore.

I can admit that right and wrong are not always as simple as legal or illegal (although not often) if you can admit that breaking the law isn't an efficient engine for change, and that the only reason that people illegally download music is that they are too cheap to pay for it, or too lazy to do something constructive to fix the problem.

Well its not just music that people download. What about games and TV shows?

Who thinks its wrong to download? I'm talking about music, games, movies, TV and whatever else.

Well.. YOU do not own the rights to those games, movies, tvshows and so on. Only the owner is allowed to decide how they should be spread and for what price.

Yes - maybe you are not actually costing them money. Hell, maybe you are even helping them to sell more, since more people get in contact with the product and decide to buy something. That doesn't matter - since it is not your place to decide what to do with other peoples stuff. Even if those other people are being greedy morons.

Here in Canada it's not illegal to download music for your personal use, it's just illegal to share it, and i don't. I guess i'm not a criminal, woo hoo. I still buy CD's, but i buy the ones of my favorite artists. The songs i download are by artists i don't like enough to by the albums of. For example, i have "Never Tear Us Apart" by INXS on my computer because i love the song, but i don't really like any other stuff by INXS.
INXS are fags. Only because the monopolised on the death of a band member to get money... plus a new bandmember, otherwise they're okay

I'll download stuff to see if an album is worth buying. Or to try a new band that I haven't heard before.

Then I'll buy the album. A lot of the bands I listen to aren't that famous, and when my band releases an album, I'd really appereciate others buying it, too.

Sometimes I look for rare/live stuff that can't be found at a record store. But that's about it.

That's generally what I do as well. In a lot of cases, with some of the music I listen to, I have no other way of checking out the band than to download their songs. I usually import the albums if they're good enough to buy, but as that can take several months, I usually download the albums in the meantime. A lot of independent bands could use the money. Some of the albums I download are out of print, so while downloading them is illegal, there is absolutely no other way to obtain them (well, there are second hand sales, but chances are if an item is out of print, it's pretty rare in the first place, making tracking them down next to impossible).

So if that's all wrong, they can sue me - I own a couple of hundred albums.

I also download computer games, though mostly abandonware and others that are too hard to find in stores, and i'll also download movies and TV shows from time to time, again, especially if they're obscure.

I download illegally, not because I cannot/do not want to pay for it, but because I am a communist. :)
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/Communism.jpg
*hopes someones else hasn't posted this already*

*hopes someones else hasn't posted this already*

Except for the diabolical looks of the communist, the pic *is* right though. A good capitalist should despise the unlicensed spreading of music, movies etc.

Except for the diabolical looks of the communist, the pic *is* right though. A good capitalist should despise the unlicensed spreading of music, movies etc.

On the other hand, copyrights and licence protection can be taken as a distortion of the free market...


:p

On the other hand, copyrights and licence protection can be taken as a distortion of the free market...

:p

Well.. since it can be argued the industrial revolution would not have happened if patent rights had not existed, I will accept those restricting measures ;)

Most of what I download I can't get here. e.g I download 'The Daily Show' cause it's not shown on any chanel here. Because it's topical, there's no point waiting for a DVD set (is there one?), so where's the harm?
In a similar vein, other things I download I wouldn't normally buy. Various TV shows - 'American Dad' for instance. It's never been shown here and now that I've watched it, I've deleted it. If I'd seen it on DVD I wouldn't have bought it, as it wasn't important enough to me to spend money on. So the creators and producers haven't lost any money. I never intended to spend money on it in the first place.
Also, there's some movies I've downloaded. 'Narnia' was one. It showed here while I was on holiday back in NZ, where it'd just ended. So I never had the chance to see it. Why should I have to wait several months for it to come out on DVD? It's just a marketing ploy.
Likewise, 'Mandalay' by my favourite director Lars Von Trier. It was released last year, but it's not due out here until Xmas. Similarly, 'Tom Yum Goong', a awesome Thai martial arts movie that I saw it here last July. "Tom Yum' is available on DVD already but only with chinese subtitles (even though I watched it with english subbies). Why? Cause Miramax hold the worldwide distribution rights and are keeping it back til Xmas 2006. 18 months after it was released in Asia.
There's DVD quality torrents available now (though some don't have subtitles, but you can get the subbies and a program that copies them into the movie). So fuck the Weinstein brothers and their greed. Get a copy now! (honestly it's worth it - the action is phenomenal).
Sorry, but that's pathetic expecting ppl to wait that long for a movie that's been shown elsewhere in the world solely due to some marketing decision. I like to think of my downloading as a stab against their corporate stupidity and greed. If enough ppl do it, they might finally wake up to the idea that letting ppl worldwide see movies when they come out is a GOOD idea.
As for music, in all honesty most music I download I already have. Cause I have broadband (10 MB connection) it's more convenient for me to grab it off the net than sit here and switch CDs back and forth. laziness. but eh, whatcha gonna do?

Most of what I download I can't get here. e.g I download 'The Daily Show' cause it's not shown on any chanel here. Because it's topical, there's no point waiting for a DVD set (is there one?), so where's the harm?

The harm is that the owners of the daily show did not give you permission.

If I'd seen it on DVD I wouldn't have bought it, as it wasn't important enough to me to spend money on. So the creators and producers haven't lost any money. I never intended to spend money on it in the first place.

Irrelevant. The owners of the series did not give you permission.

Also, there's some movies I've downloaded. 'Narnia' was one. It showed here while I was on holiday back in NZ, where it'd just ended. So I never had the chance to see it. Why should I have to wait several months for it to come out on DVD? It's just a marketing ploy.

You know what I am going to say. The fact that YOU dislike the way THE OWNERS distribute THEIR product does not magically give you any rights to that product.

The harm is that the owners of the daily show did not give you permission.


If its not shown in that part of the world there is absolutly no problem with downloading it.


Irrelevant. The owners of the series did not give you permission.

Doesn't matter. They didn't lose any money over it. I will download and watch and then delete shows. There is nothing wrong with it. I usually do it when I miss a show that airs because I was working or had to do something else.

I bet you think that its wrong to download old games when they are not available anywhere else. For example NES, SNES, and Genesis games.

If its not shown in that part of the world there is absolutly no problem with downloading it.

Really ? Who exactly gave you the right to decide what to do with someone elses property?

Doesn't matter. They didn't lose any money over it. I will download and watch and then delete shows. There is nothing wrong with it. I usually do it when I miss a show that airs because I was working or had to do something else.

That is your opinion. I still fail to see how your opinion is relevant when we are talking about the property of someone else.

I dislike illegal DLing, but there is a part of it that is considered "Fair Use" - and for the recored I am also against DRMs and the RIAA because DRMs are a violation of privacy and the RIAA doesn't do sh*t

Really ? Who exactly gave you the right to decide what to do with someone elses property?

Nobody did and guess what I don't care. I will continue to download. They don't lose money by me downloading an episode I missed then deleting it after I watched it. :rolleyes:

That is your opinion. I still fail to see how your opinion is relevant when we are talking about the property of someone else.

Explain how your opinion is relevant. They don't lose money expecially if its a TV show. They are already available for free on TV. Show creators don't care if you download, its organizations like the MPAA that actually care. Once they come out on DVD that is.

The harm is that the owners of the daily show did not give you permission.
I take it you've never taped a show off TV to watch later, then?

You know what I am going to say. The fact that YOU dislike the way THE OWNERS distribute THEIR product does not magically give you any rights to that product.
True, but maybe, just maybe, this could make them change the way they distribute their product. It happened when VCR first came out.

Dowmloading is cool!!!

I dislike illegal DLing, but there is a part of it that is considered "Fair Use" - and for the recored I am also against DRMs and the RIAA because DRMs are a violation of privacy and the RIAA doesn't do sh*t

Yes DRM is horrible. Companies should be fined for putting it in.

I only download if there is no way, within reason, to get it legally.
So I have a lot of abandonware (Why should I put myself through hoops to buy a secondhand copy of the original Master of Orion or the Nabunaga's Ambition?), and a few TV shows/movies (My Fullmetal Alchemist addiction knows no October release dates, fools!) that haven't yet been released in the US, or they were released, but no one is making/circulating them anymore.

The conundrum of the RIAA and such's problem with downloading is this: they work totally around imaginary money - what can they do or not do that will make them money, but they won't recognized that the high majority of people who download arn't going to buy it in the first place. If they were going to buy it, they would.

You can't lose imaginary money that you isn't imagined.

Sidenote: Any company found putting DRMs or any other sort of "protection" on their CDs should be broughtup in court for violating laws against intentionally putting viruses or virus like material on a computer.

Music bad....anime good.

Music bad....anime good.

Unlicensed, licensed or SUB?

It's wrong because it's illegal, and it's wrong to break the law.
Hypothetical question time. If you could, with a minimum expenditure of energy, completely reproduce a candybar that your friend bought, would you pay the store and subsequently the maker of the candy for it?

Hypothetical question time. If you could, with a minimum expenditure of energy, completely reproduce a candybar that your friend bought, would you pay the store and subsequently the maker of the candy for it?

Well the company wouldn't be losing any money since its a copy of the candybar that you wouldn't have bought anyway since you can reproduce it. (nice analogy btw)

I have no problems with downloading anything.

Hypothetical question time. If you could, with a minimum expenditure of energy, completely reproduce a candybar that your friend bought, would you pay the store and subsequently the maker of the candy for it?
No, to do so is making illicit use of their candy when I could just haul my lazy ass to the closest store and shill out a couple bucks (and a lot of music doesn't even require you to go out, there are legal, ala carte music downloading services out there that bypass your need to acquire physical mediums entirely). And your analogy fails, since copying candy != downloading. The most important difference being that, with the music it is a one time thing. I download the files, and then they are mine forever.
The candy, however, is passing. Once you've copied it and enjoyed it, you are now (once again) without candy and might buy more later. Once you've downloaded a song, you've no reason to go out and buy it.

No, to do so is making illicit use of their candy when I could just haul my lazy ass to the closest store and shill out a couple bucks (and a lot of music doesn't even require you to go out, there are legal, ala carte music downloading services out there that bypass your need to acquire physical mediums entirely). And your analogy fails, since copying candy != downloading. The most important difference being that, with the music it is a one time thing. I download the files, and then they are mine forever.
The candy, however, is passing. Once you've copied it and enjoyed it, you are now (once again) without candy and might buy more later. Once you've downloaded a song, you've no reason to go out and buy it.

Well the problem with that is like Apple and their Ipods where you can only download from them and have to convert your music to their format. Then there is also companies where you can't move your downloaded music out of their folder.

I only download things that are unavailable through any other means, most commonly fan-subbed anime. I also often download video game soundtracks, since the CDs sold in that area are usually bootlegs that don't benefit the original author anyway.

It's wrong, but that doesn't mean I have a problem with it.

Here's a good reason that goes in its favour :Dhttp://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif
http://xs73.xs.to/pics/06124/downloadingcommunism.jpg (http://xs.to)

.
'Heavenly Sex'. Ha, what a cool name.

If you are in a place where you can't buy stuff otherwise, it becomes alright.

In Iraq, there is no place to buy "legit" movies or dvd or games. So you end up going to Haji and buying DVDs that have like 5 movies on a disc for like $2.00. Same with the games. You buy a copied game disc and download it onto your xbox drive.
Or you download them off the internet from a site that has them for downloading.
In those circumstances, downloading stuff for free becomes ethically right.

So it depends entirely on circumstance. And that includes ability to pay. In fact, just so you know, just last week, the justice department launched a major investigation into America's major record labels and is charging them with illegal monopolizing and price fixing. That's good news cause it means they will have to reduce the fees they are to trying to force people to pay to hear their stuff, even after the CD is already bought and paid for.
The way capitalism is supposed to work is that once you've bought a CD, it is yours to do with as you like. The people who make the CD no longer own it. So they no longer have a say in what you do. They sold their right to you and you paid them for it, by buying their CD.
By accepting the money the major producers give up their rights to it. Just like when you sell a car. Once you accept the cash, you have no say what so ever in how it is used.

One of the (many) claims that the recording industry make is that pirating helps organised crime.
Well, since most muscians just use their royalties to buy drugs from organised crime, I just see my downloading as cutting out the middle man.

The way capitalism is supposed to work is that once you've bought a CD, it is yours to do with as you like. The people who make the CD no longer own it. So they no longer have a say in what you do. They sold their right to you and you paid them for it, by buying their CD.
By accepting the money the major producers give up their rights to it. Just like when you sell a car. Once you accept the cash, you have no say what so ever in how it is used.

Bullshit. When you buy a cd, you buy the right to listen to it in private. You do NOT buy the right to the music on it. You do not even have the right to play your perfectly legal cd in a disco without paying the record company extra.

If I like music, movies, etc. enough to want a copy, then I also want the people who made it to make more. Hence, I pay for it.

No, to do so is making illicit use of their candy when I could just haul my lazy ass to the closest store and shill out a couple bucks (and a lot of music doesn't even require you to go out, there are legal, ala carte music downloading services out there that bypass your need to acquire physical mediums entirely). And your analogy fails, since copying candy != downloading. The most important difference being that, with the music it is a one time thing. I download the files, and then they are mine forever.
The candy, however, is passing. Once you've copied it and enjoyed it, you are now (once again) without candy and might buy more later. Once you've downloaded a song, you've no reason to go out and buy it.
What's to keep you from making another copy before you eat it? Basically, as long as I have a program that copies the song before I listen to it and destroy the original copy after I listen to it, I'm in the clear.

The way capitalism is supposed to work is that once you've bought a CD, it is yours to do with as you like. The people who make the CD no longer own it. So they no longer have a say in what you do. They sold their right to you and you paid them for it, by buying their CD.
By accepting the money the major producers give up their rights to it. Just like when you sell a car. Once you accept the cash, you have no say what so ever in how it is used.
Not quite true, you can't use the CD for any money-making venture w/o permission from the holder of the copyright. However, as long as no money is made, you could do almost anyhting you want with it, other than claim it as your work.

The conundrum of the RIAA and such's problem with downloading is this: they work totally around imaginary money - what can they do or not do that will make them money, but they won't recognized that the high majority of people who download arn't going to buy it in the first place. If they were going to buy it, they would.

You can't lose imaginary money that you isn't imagined.

As I have stated multiple times already: the whole "money making" thing is irrelevant. It is a simple matter of you not being allowed to do things with other peoples stuff without their permission.

Sidenote: Any company found putting DRMs or any other sort of "protection" on their CDs should be broughtup in court for violating laws against intentionally putting viruses or virus like material on a computer.

With that however I agree.

Not quite true, you can't use the CD for any money-making venture w/o permission from the holder of the copyright. However, as long as no money is made, you could do almost anyhting you want with it, other than claim it as your work.

Not true. You cannot for instance play the cd in front of a large audience or even on national radio without permission, even if you are not charging anything to your listeners.

My personal policy is basically this:
If I can't find it in a physical store, as opposed to an online store, it's ok to download it. I feel that if I can't buy it, I'm not hurting anyone by downloading it.
This basically means I download foreign music, old games, and television shows.

Not true. You cannot for instance play the cd in front of a large audience or even on national radio without permission, even if you are not charging anything to your listeners.
Actually, you could play the CD to as many people as you wanted, as long as no money was made on the engagement and it was on your property. As for the radio, that is paid for through commercials or government subsidies, and people are paid to run it. Ergo they are making their livelihood off of the playing of the songs. Thusly you can't put it on the radio. Now, if you got everyone to donate their time, engergy and money at no charge and didn't have commercials than you could do so. Of course, it'll never happen, but it would be legal.

Actually, you could play the CD to as many people as you wanted, as long as no money was made on the engagement and it was on your property.

Which country are you in ? Because that law makes no sense whatsoever...
In most countries you do not buy the right to the music. You just buy the right to listen to the music in specific circumstances.

Which country are you in ? Because that law makes no sense whatsoever...
In most countries you do not buy the right to the music. You just buy the right to listen to the music in specific circumstances.

And that where the differents is. I don't know if this is true but I do know that if you want to do a musical or song in the theather you have to buy the rights to use the music, therefore This makes sense. However If I want to listen to the metro by System, I don't know of any other way to listen to it besides illegally downloading it, if they come out with a CD with It on it then I'll go buy it. (btw: I didn't illegally D/l it, a friend did but it serves my point.) If you can pay for it I think you should, that would be the morally right thing to do IMHO, which I think this conversation is about.

As I have stated multiple times already: the whole "money making" thing is irrelevant. It is a simple matter of you not being allowed to do things with other peoples stuff without their permission.
If by "do stuff with" you mean "share," I disagree. The best thing for any artist of any genre is to get your name and art spread around. Yes, downloading is illegally obtaining the material due to overzealous copyright legislation, but are the artists really hurt? The answer is no.


Which country are you in ? Because that law makes no sense whatsoever...
Yes it does, it's called fair use. You have are making no monetary gain and it is being played on private property, regardless of who is listening. If you don't have enough people over to requirement a permit, you arn't playing it for the express purpose of playing for a crowd.

If by "do stuff with" you mean "share," I disagree. The best thing for any artist of any genre is to get your name and art spread around. Yes, downloading is illegally obtaining the material due to overzealous copyright legislation, but are the artists really hurt? The answer is no.

I think that is up to the artist to decide - not up to you. Regardless of how pure and noble your motives may be.

I think that is up to the artist to decide - not up to you. Regardless of how pure and noble your motives may be.
I wasn't aware that the RIAA is an artist. The RIAA is a monopoly corporate entity and are trying to screw people out of money. They don't give a rat's ass about the artist. You think the artists give a fuck about file sharing? Hell no, it makes them more money with free advertising.

Who thinks its wrong to download? I'm talking about music, games, movies, TV and whatever else.

I honestly have no problem with it and I know a lot of my friends don't have a problem with it. But there are many people who think its wrong.

I just want to get your opinions on it.

Before I pick from the list your not a member of Interpol are you? :D

I wasn't aware that the RIAA is an artist. The RIAA is a monopoly corporate entity and are trying to screw people out of money. They don't give a rat's ass about the artist. You think the artists give a fuck about file sharing? Hell no, it makes them more money with free advertising.

So artists that do not embrace filesharing are stupid. And the RIAA is a greedy organisation that is mostly interested in filling its own pockets. And you only have their best interests at heart.

Fine. So what ?
You are not the owner of the products. They are. And therefor they have every right to decide who can do what with it and under which conditions. No matter how moronic, selfish, shortsighted or annoying for us nonowners that may be. Unless of course you believe you have some inalienable right to hear those songs or watch those movies ? Or that it is your sacred duty to decide what other people should do, because you know best what is good for them ?

Bullshit. When you buy a cd, you buy the right to listen to it in private. You do NOT buy the right to the music on it. You do not even have the right to play your perfectly legal cd in a disco without paying the record company extra.
That is not how the founders of the united states intended it to be.
And the government recognizes that most of the time. The only requirement is that money cannot change hands.
At a disco, people are paying you money to hear the music and dance to it. Money is changing hands. However, I note that very few discos actually pay royalties just playing tunes for people to dance to.
It's much different for broadcast radiostations however.
If you are at an event where people are not paying to hear the music, you do not have to pay royalties just for playing it. This is so for churches and nonprofits like the Boy Scouts.
You can't charge groups who don't make a profit.
America is not based on greed. But all the lawsuits by the record companies are based on just that, greed, and nothing more. Like all the other rich corporations the record labels don't give a shit about America or freedom. Just look at all the anti-american rhetoric they spew out.
For the last couple of years they have been getting their way, having even 5 year old kids tossed in jail. Recently however, the government has been changing course and actually taking action not against your typical american but against the record labels themselves and justifiably so. And it's about fucking time Uncle Sam did something about all the greedy anti-freedom record labels out there who are harming our nation's democracy. I would like to see all the record label execs tossed behind bars to rot for the rest of their miserable lives.

Before I pick from the list your not a member of Interpol are you? :D

You wish! :p

[QUOTE=The Alma Mater
You are not the owner of the products. They are. And therefor they have every right to decide who can do what with it and under which conditions.[/QUOTE]
If by "they," you mean the recording industries, yes. But that is a whole nother thing wrong.

I don't download stuff because it is a copyright violation, sure enough. I see narrow exceptions created by fair use (timeshifting,etc) but that does not include downloading. It's so expensive to buy the stuff new, yeah? Just buy used copies. I buy most of my entertainment media used, usually for around $3-5 a CD or DVD. It's not that hard, and saves me a lot of cash, as well as letting me feel happy about not giving the RIAA more money. Because they suck.

I don't download stuff because it is a copyright violation, sure enough. I see narrow exceptions created by fair use (timeshifting,etc) but that does not include downloading. It's so expensive to buy the stuff new, yeah? Just buy used copies. I buy most of my entertainment media used, usually for around $3-5 a CD or DVD. It's not that hard, and saves me a lot of cash, as well as letting me feel happy about not giving the RIAA more money. Because they suck.

The problem with used stuff is a lot of times you can get scratched stuff that doesn't play. You could save a lot more cash if you just downloaded. :p

If by "they," you mean the recording industries, yes. But that is a whole nother thing wrong.

The topic is about downloading in general, so the "they" refers to the legal owner of the products - son indeed recording industries, but also game and moviestudios etc. None of them have any obligation to be nice. They do not even have an obligation to share their work - if they are filthy rich they could just make something awesome, put it in a vault and state: "we have made the best game ever - but we won't give or sell it to you - neeneerneenerneer".

The main problem observed in this topic is that many people seem to have the delusion that enjoying those products is somehow a fundamental human right. That "if you cannot get it legally, getting it in other ways is perfectly ok". But last time I checked, one does not download food, shelter, water or medication. Others claim that "the owners bring it on themselves by just asking so much money". Which simply means you should not use their products - not that you magically have obtained any right to use them illegally.

I download stuff for the following three reasons:

A) To see if it's worth spending money on. Mainly games.
2) It's (semi)free. TV shows etc.
=) If I can't get it anywhere else. Old games and such.

That's about it. Some things just can't be found except on the internet; others aren't worth wasting money on, but you don't always know that until you use it.

But last time I checked, one does not download food, shelter, water or medication.
That's because they haven't figured out how. :headbang:

The problem with used stuff is a lot of times you can get scratched stuff that doesn't play. You could save a lot more cash if you just downloaded. :pWha..? I've never gotten a disc that was scratched so much it didn't play or I couldn't rip the music off of it. You need to find better sellers, methinks. Yes, I could 'save' a lot more cash if I just downloaded, just as if I could just 'save' a lot of cash by stealing. I like having the physical case anyway. ;)

Yes, I am aware copyright violation is not the same as stealing, thanks. :p

I have a question for The Alma Mater. Do you think its wrong to download something that you already own in order to make an archive/backup?


Wha..? I've never gotten a disc that was scratched so much it didn't play or I couldn't rip the music off of it. You need to find better sellers, methinks.

Well thats more for games tham music CD's actually. But there are still a bunch of people who sell crappy used discs and usually you don't find out until you get the item.

So artists that do not embrace filesharing are stupid. And the RIAA is a greedy organisation that is mostly interested in filling its own pockets. And you only have their best interests at heart.

Fine. So what ?
You are not the owner of the products. They are. And therefor they have every right to decide who can do what with it and under which conditions. No matter how moronic, selfish, shortsighted or annoying for us nonowners that may be. Unless of course you believe you have some inalienable right to hear those songs or watch those movies ? Or that it is your sacred duty to decide what other people should do, because you know best what is good for them ?
Wrong, they are the maker of the product and the copyright holders. But they do not own the copy they sell to you. Biiiig difference. It's a bit like EULA's, which have never been tested in court, and if they were, probably wouldn't hold up.

Well thats more for games tham music CD's actually. But there are still a bunch of people who sell crappy used discs and usually you don't find out until you get the item.

It's common sense to ask to look at the disc before paying for it...

It's common sense to ask to look at the disc before paying for it...

Tell that to amazon.com

I'm downloading MS Office 2003 right now because I had to reformatt my drive and the CD has a corrupt .cab file so I can't install it.

I <3 The Pirate Bay. Being Swedish makes thm even sexier.

I say these US laws against dowloading things for free are stupid. In Poland, you can download whatever music you want for free.

I have a question for The Alma Mater. Do you think its wrong to download something that you already own in order to make an archive/backup?

Nope - though the person offering you the download will probably be doing something illegal. Which is why the record company or whatever is obligated by law to offer you a free replacement when you ask them to in many countries.

The topic is about downloading in general, so the "they" refers to the legal owner of the products - son indeed recording industries, but also game and moviestudios etc. None of them have any obligation to be nice. They do not even have an obligation to share their work - if they are filthy rich they could just make something awesome, put it in a vault and state: "we have made the best game ever - but we won't give or sell it to you - neeneerneenerneer".

The main problem observed in this topic is that many people seem to have the delusion that enjoying those products is somehow a fundamental human right. That "if you cannot get it legally, getting it in other ways is perfectly ok". But last time I checked, one does not download food, shelter, water or medication. Others claim that "the owners bring it on themselves by just asking so much money". Which simply means you should not use their products - not that you magically have obtained any right to use them illegally.

or, more than likely, it results in the creation of a blackmarket which downloading sites like the old Napster represented.

Nope - though the person offering you the download will probably be doing something illegal. Which is why the record company or whatever is obligated by law to offer you a free replacement when you ask them to in many countries.

What if they no longer excist?

What if they no longer excist?

That's up to your legislator. *Personally* I am of the opinion that if there is no owner, you do not have to ask that non-existant owner permission to redistribute.
In other words: if the owner is gone and has no heir or last will with relevant articles - download away.

That's up to your legislator. *Personally* I am of the opinion that if there is no owner, you do not have to ask that non-existant owner permission to redistribute.
In other words: if the owner is gone and has no heir or last will with relevant articles - download away.

Huzzah!

It depends on what you're downloading. Music I have no problem with becuase the artists make all their money from tours, merchandise, and apearences. Movies on the other hand... Hollywood makes most of their money from the DVD and VHS sales. And downloading AND keaping a movie is wrong. I always download my movies first though. Try them if I like them I buy them. OR I keep them untill I buy them. If I don't like them I delete them. With programs it is wrong but I do it anyways. They over charge for them. $20 for a game you beat in 2 days is a HUGE waste of money.

That's up to your legislator. *Personally* I am of the opinion that if there is no owner, you do not have to ask that non-existant owner permission to redistribute.
In other words: if the owner is gone and has no heir or last will with relevant articles - download away.

What if they still exist but no more copies exist anymore for sell. Like old games.

Downloading is ok in my book. I used to think it was wrong, before I downloaded and realize how awesome it really is. There are people who download far more than me however, so Im not a bad guy. Nor is it illegal what I do. No one who downloads 'steals'. At worse, it hurts 'potential' sales, not actual sales or product.

Who thinks its wrong to download? I'm talking about music, games, movies, TV and whatever else.

I honestly have no problem with it and I know a lot of my friends don't have a problem with it. But there are many people who think its wrong.

I just want to get your opinions on it.
recording companies make enough royalties off concerts and CDs to be complaining about illegal downloadng, they are just greedy, i mean they are all millionaires