| User | Comment |
|---|
Melf    | | posted 20-Aug-2008 10:56am |
I do. Lots. I do have to watch for hard drive space and that though. I need to get an external hard drive.
The Doctor Who I've downloaded recently is worth about £180 in shops. Alex has pirated upwards of £20000 for games design; apparently they're not losing money because the people who download it couldn't buy it in the first place, and the money goes back into the industry in the long term. |
| Galomorro | | posted 20-Aug-2008 11:09am |
It's a lot of work, I don't know how to do it, and it's easier just to buy it. Besides, there's not much out there I really want to pirate. |
LindaH   | | posted 20-Aug-2008 11:31am |
Just never got around to it. |
| JessicaWoman99 | | posted 20-Aug-2008 1:07pm |
Just have not tried to do it and not gotten around to it |
| LJD | | posted 20-Aug-2008 1:21pm |
I think it's illegal when a person pirates for monetary benefit. But, I'm not so sure it would be if it were not. Is it pirating, if I send a song to a friend or family member? I think not. |
Matty  | | posted 20-Aug-2008 1:39pm |
I don't think copyright laws are clearly defined with regard to the internet. How different is it from taping songs from the radio years ago...or hooking up 2 VCRs so you could share copies of VHS movies years ago. These things were not really addressed that much in their time. The advent of all this stuff about copyright law really became salient when media went digital. So then, does the quality dictate the law? I don't think so.
Why hasn't the FCC shut down Kazaa, Limewire, etc? The way I see it; it's how you use any such copy you make...i.e. are you selling copies? My answer to this question is thus, I don't feel I am pirating now. |
| romkey | | posted 20-Aug-2008 2:34pm |
I don't feel that I'm entitled to free things, or to access someone else's work without giving them something back for it. If a song is officially released for free then that's fine, I'm happy to take it for free. If a band or artist makes their work available under a different copyright arrangement than the normal one then I'm also happy to work under those terms. |
| romkey | | (reply to LJD) posted 20-Aug-2008 2:36pm |
> I think it's illegal when a person pirates
> for monetary benefit. But, I'm not so sure
> it would be if it were not. Is it pirating,
> if I send a song to a friend or family member?
> I think not.
There's a notion of "fair use", which I think very casual sharing with a friend of family member falls under. The record industry sometimes tries to claim fair use doesn't exist, but it is a part of existing copyright law. I agree with you about that kind of copying, and I think that the body of law does as well. |
| moviesnob | | posted 20-Aug-2008 3:05pm |
YO HO HO
Shiver my timbers!!!
Yaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr |
| dab | | posted 20-Aug-2008 3:47pm |
I rather dislike this use of the term "pirate". Piracy, the real thing, involves theft and murder. Copying something hardly seems a crime worthy of using such a loaded term. |
| Cain | | posted 20-Aug-2008 4:08pm |
A. I feel guilty.
B. The last time I downloaded a pirating source, my PC died a slow and agonising death. |
cloudhugger   | | posted 20-Aug-2008 5:04pm |
Because I don't like to have to remember lies, or what I stole. |
| LJD | | (reply to romkey) posted 20-Aug-2008 9:16pm |
Thank you Romkey for clarifying.. |
| justjulie | | posted 20-Aug-2008 10:14pm |
crapty connection |
| kcthedog | | posted 21-Aug-2008 1:20am |
I don't even think about it. As long as I do not go out of my way to obtain it I consider it free! |
| Matty | | (reply to romkey) posted 21-Aug-2008 8:11am |
> I don't feel that I'm entitled to free things, or to access someone
> else's work without giving them something back for it. If a song is
> officially released for free then that's fine, I'm happy to take it
> for free. If a band or artist makes their work available under a different
> copyright arrangement than the normal one then I'm also happy to work
> under those terms.
I certainly agree with your principles, but would like to point out something about the record industry. I just watched an interview with Neil Young (it was a special feature on his Prarie Wind concert DVD); he said he actually only gets about 4 cents on the dollar of his record sales. Take 4 cents and multiply it by the average CD price, 13 bucks, and you get 52 cents an album. Take 52 cents, divide by 10 songs per album and you get 5.2 cents per song. Apparently, the lion's share of an artist's money comes from the touring.
Thus, when I download a song; I'm only taking about a nickel from the artist, and I won't feel guilty about that. Most of the rest of that money goes to the record company, the store, and the distribution company. As far as I am concerned, corporations are so exploitive of the average working stiff, too bad if they lose some money on downloading. Yeah, I know that 2 wrongs don't make a right, but in this case I just don't care.
Additionally, the downloading programs like Kazaa and Limewire aren't hiding; in fact, they're very much out in the open...even after the famous Nabster suit. If P2P downloading were such a violation of property law, why isn't anything done about it?
|
| judgescratch | | posted 21-Aug-2008 9:06am |
All of the above except for "I'm a collector" and " Internet provider blocks it" |
| Melf | | posted 21-Aug-2008 9:07am |
|
| Jody | | posted 21-Aug-2008 9:55am |
I'm married to a musician, so I know how much work goes into making an album. Pirating music is just plain wrong. |
| Iseult | | posted 21-Aug-2008 11:14am |
Because I can't find everything I'm looking for. |
| Matty | | (reply to Melf) posted 21-Aug-2008 12:49pm |
Companies, governments, and laws outside the US don't really pertain to me when it comes to downloading music. My guidepost is what the FCC is doing...nothing. Nothing, because as a matter of policy, we still haven't really defined what constitutes pirating with specific regard to internet downloading. The Nabster case left everybody scratching their proverbial heads other than to say that Nabster was wrong because of the way they shared music. Yet other organizations still operate at will. Further, what constitutes sharing in the context of the First Ammendment is still equally nebulous. Again, I would point out that when we used to tape (cassette) songs from the radio, from a CD player, or from another cassette tapes, nobody seemed to care. When we daisy-chained two VCRs to copy a movie from a friend or video-taped movies from HBO and Sowtime, nobody seemed to care. Only when the record industry started to lose money, did the issue of copying music become so salient. What has fundamentally changed from these priorly acceptable practices (acceptable as evidenced by companies making dubbing equipment)? Am I supposed to accept that something I have been doing since I was a kid has become immoral because we now have better technology to do it?
Until it's defined as pirating by the FCC, I will download whatever I want into my iPod; I will still share music iPod to iPod with my pals, and I won't feel guilty about it. If and when my nation declares such practices as pirating, I may reconsider my position. But I don't really see this as a moral issue so much as a legal issue. |
| Melf | | (reply to Matty) posted 21-Aug-2008 12:50pm |
Fine. |
| LindaH | | (reply to Matty) posted 21-Aug-2008 2:55pm |
> Am I supposed to accept that something I have
> been doing since I was a kid has become immoral
> because we now have better technology to do it?
 |
| Enheduanna | | posted 21-Aug-2008 5:58pm |
I infringe copyrights all the time. |
| they | | posted 23-Aug-2008 11:36am |
Other baby. |
| southernyankee | | posted 23-Aug-2008 2:30pm |
Mostly because "my" (read my parents' or my universities) ISP would get mad at me if I used too much of their bandwidth. Especialy movies and TV shows, they really use up a lot. So I do it in moderation. |
| southernyankee | | (reply to romkey) posted 23-Aug-2008 2:49pm |
I think "fair use" has more to do with parodies and that whole "if you steal from one author its plagerism, if you steal from many its called research" type of thing.
"Fair use" is there mainly there to protect Weird Al Yankovich. |
| southernyankee | | (reply to Matty) posted 23-Aug-2008 3:17pm |
"Why hasn't the FCC shut down Kazaa, Limewire, etc? The way I see it; it's how you use any such copy you make...i.e. are you selling copies? My answer to this question is thus, I don't feel I am pirating now."
It has more to do with pragmatism than anything, but also there's the decentralization argument. What screwed Napster is that they had centralized servers, thus making Napster an "excessory to the crime" [think owning a whore house only you don't call it that and take a fee for people having "private time" OR a drug deal happening on a parking lot of a property that you own]. Kazza and Limewire is just a program on people's computers that directly connect to other computers [this would be like selling tobbacco pipes which people use it for bongs, but you say its for legitimate purposes OR think the 2nd Amendment, you sell me your guns but whatever I do with them is my fault, not yours]. The distinction is something actually happening on your property verses selling a tool. |
| Matty |
okay |
| HMC35 |
Eh, it depends. |
