Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by azrael on Friday June 20 2014, @08:30PM   Printer-friendly
from the sharing-is-caring dept.

TorrentFreak reports on the results from a YouGov survey on the file-sharing and content consumption habits of citizens in the UK.

A new survey of young children and adults has found consensus on what should be charged for content online. In both groups, 49% said that people should be able to download content they want for free, with a quarter of 16-24 year olds stating that file-sharing was the only way they could afford to obtain it.

While cost plays its part, the report highlights the low percentages of children believing it wrong to access content "without the creator or artist's permission".

Although ethical concerns do exist, only 16% of children strongly agree that it is wrong to access content without the creator or artist's permission, whilst just 7% say file sharing is a form of stealing.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by lgsoynews on Friday June 20 2014, @09:29PM

    by lgsoynews (1235) on Friday June 20 2014, @09:29PM (#58165)

    If it was their work (that is, the way they make their living), they'd be the first to complain about piracy!

    [Before you ask the question, I don't work in this field, I'm a programmer/team leader and don't work for content producers]

    Many people put their work for free on the web. That's great, and some of it is equal to what professionals produce (especially in the Free Software realm). But most people like to play/watch/listen/read content made by people who make their living from it, and you must pay those people... I'll be the first to agree that the current system is quite bad & corrupt (see the abuses of the RIAA backers, etc), but that doesn't mean one should feel free to grab everything and DEMAND that other people give their work for free.

    You don't like the system? Don't download their stuff, use the many free resources available.

    I used to have a personal page explaining my views on the subject. It was amazing: the number of insults -and threats- coming from a bunch of ignorant hypocrites that I received with the most incredible hypocritical pseudo-arguments... Really sad.

    I'll always remember what a classmate of my brother told him back in the day (in the 90s), basically: "ha ha, you're an idiot if you buy!". What a MORON. If teens like my brother and myself (who spent a LOT of your quite limited money) had not paid for games, most companies would have closed and he would have been left without anything to use on his computer, like a fool that he was.

     

    My philosophy on this subject (piracy/illegal downloads) is quite simple (I'll use THING to mean either software, game, movie, music, ebook, whatever digital thingie that you want), I'm only talking about proprietary and/or paying things of course:

    • If the thing is easily available (downloadable on the producer site for instance)
    • If the price is not abusive (ex: not 500 euros for a 20 years old game)
    • If you really use it (ex: you don't download, play 5 min then delete or never use it again)
    • If you have the money (not a starving student) Note that this one is ambiguous because people usually manage to buy physical goods, they don't have money when it comes to things that can be pirated... Hum. I'll let it slide.
    • If you CAN buy it (no stupid region-blocking stuff, no strange payment issues)

    IF ALL those conditions are respected, but you don't pay, then you are an hypocrite.

     

    Note that those conditions mean that, for instance, I think abandonware is OK. At least ethically, maybe from a pure juridical point of view it's not, but then it is stupid: if the producer doesn't allow access to something, it means he doesn't want the money. So, they can't say they make a loss...

    Of course, I agree that the producers don't make a direct loss (the old "it's not stealing" thing), and you may say that piracy drive sales by making it more popular (free publicity), even if it is often dubious and a specious argument. Still, it's not ethical.

    I must also add that DRM is a shameful insult to people who respect those conditions. Basically, you pay something that is crippled, this is unacceptable, especially when pirate version don't have the restrictions... But the fact that producers are a bunch of #@! doesn't make it ethical to pirate their stuff.

    Lastly I'll also add that I DESPISE the discourse of some content producers: "BILLIONS are STOLEN", "MILLIONS JOBS at stake", and whatever nonsense. What they say is an insult to our intelligence and is such a big lie, it's SHAMEFUL. I certainly have no sympathy at all for those.

     

    Fire the insults, I'm ready 8-)       I'm joking, I hope people here are a bit more evolved in their understanding of this issue than the average internet-idiot.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Redundant=1, Insightful=1, Interesting=3, Underrated=1, Total=6
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by lgsoynews on Friday June 20 2014, @09:34PM

    by lgsoynews (1235) on Friday June 20 2014, @09:34PM (#58170)

    I forgot one condition:

    • If you can use it (no limitation of your use, it's a subset of the DRM problems)
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 20 2014, @09:40PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 20 2014, @09:40PM (#58173)

    > IF ALL those conditions are respected, but you don't pay, then you are an hypocrite.

    Gee, thanks for giving us your personal set of rules that are so self-evident that they don't require justification.

    Here's my rule, with justification:

    Copies are an infinite resource therefore charging for them is like trying to charge for air - that only becomes feasible if you pollute the shit out of all the air that you aren't selling. But the effort to create is a scarce resource, thus it is the point at which charging is feasible without screwing over anyone else.

    I will pay for the creation of content that I am interested in, but I will not pay for copies of already existing content. If the current creators don't like that, they are free to not create. Others will come around who are happy to be paid for their effort.

    The smart ones will get paid up front and thus will be able to work without any risk of not being paid. Hollywood is so fucking risk averse they ought to be lining up for a system that guarantees them a known profit before shooting even starts.

    • (Score: 2) by Oligonicella on Friday June 20 2014, @10:27PM

      by Oligonicella (4169) on Friday June 20 2014, @10:27PM (#58201)

      I will pay for the creation of content that I am interested in, but I will not pay for copies of already existing content.

      And there we have your justification for downloading anything put on say PirateBay, major producer or not. It's already existing past the first upload.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 20 2014, @10:55PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 20 2014, @10:55PM (#58212)

        > And there we have your justification for downloading anything put on say PirateBay, major producer or not.

        Yes, 100%. You appear to think that is a bad thing.
        I think it is the way of the present and even moreso the future.
        Anyone who is not on board with that is going to have a hard life.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by lhsi on Friday June 20 2014, @10:35PM

      by lhsi (711) on Friday June 20 2014, @10:35PM (#58202) Journal

      The smart ones will get paid up front and thus will be able to work without any risk of not being paid.

      I have seen a couple of content produces start to use patreon to fund continuous creation: http://www.patreon.com/ [patreon.com]

      From what I can tell, people pledge an amount per piece of content upfront, and once you produce something you get all the pledges (it looks like all processing is done once a month to Krupp card fees down).

    • (Score: 1) by lgsoynews on Saturday June 21 2014, @10:36AM

      by lgsoynews (1235) on Saturday June 21 2014, @10:36AM (#58364)

      Gee, thanks for giving us your personal set of rules that are so self-evident that they don't require justification.

      Hem, I think that my message was developed enough to be obvious. There is no need to justify what is ETHICAL. As well as what makes common sense. And I don't see how such a simple set of rules need further justification, especially on a tech-oriented site...

      Maybe you misunderstood the underlying message: what I denounce the most is people that pirate because they can, because it's easy, and doesn't make victims. BUT the same people are hypocrites because they rely on others to pay for them while they have the means to pay (and will pay physical goods, that cannot be duplicated easily).

      Copies are an infinite resource therefore charging for them is like trying to charge for air

      Please, don't be disingenuous, that's a FREAKING LIE and a pathetic excuse, and you know it! You even say so in the next sentence!

      What has to be paid is not the copy -everybody knows it is basically a zero cost- it's the hours that people spend creating content. You agreed on that. But, under the current system, the cost is spread on many, in the hope of turning a profit. Maybe not the best system. But that's how it works usually. If you disagree with this system, then you should not use it (I know, easy to say).

      If the current creators don't like that, they are free to not create.

      Exactly the kind of behaviour I denounce: this is pure hypocrisy.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 21 2014, @02:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 21 2014, @02:45PM (#58413)

        > Maybe you misunderstood the underlying message: what I denounce the most is people that pirate because they can, because it's easy, and doesn't make victims.

        Yes and THAT is why you are 100% wrong. It is those very attributes that make piracy mandatory. We do it because we can. Just like we retell jokes because we can, we sing songs because we can, we pass around recipes because we can, our lives are made full by freely copying. Sharing because we can is at the core of what makes us human. Anyone who is against that is fighting against human nature which is a war that human nature always wins, always. Sometimes it is a bloody and drawn out fight, but that is 100% on the people who think they can win against human nature instead of finding a solution that is in harmony with human nature.

        The smart people find a business model that harnesses human nature, the stupid ones try to fight it. History is littered with such proverbial buggy whip makers,

        > BUT the same people are hypocrites because they rely on others to pay for them while they have the means to pay

        The overwhelming majority of people do not get paid for copies of their work. Chances are you've never been paid for more than the original copy of anything you've created. There is nothing hypocritical about expecting the same rules to apply to us all.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 22 2014, @11:31PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 22 2014, @11:31PM (#58821)

      The smart ones will get paid up front and thus will be able to work without any risk of not being paid

      If no one pays for anything where does the money for the scam artists uhhh I mean content industry get their money to pay them?

      but I will not pay for copies of already existing content
      What you are talking about is marginal cost. To marginally create 1 more copy is near 0. This is where econ fails though (and most people fail). Copy #1's cost is huge. How do you propose we get copy #1 if no one is willing to pay for it? So average marginal cost is much higher than the price you put on it. And it *only* goes down if more people buy it.

      they are free to not create.
      So 'screw you if you dont make something for free for me'. Nice.

  • (Score: 2) by Open4D on Friday June 20 2014, @10:36PM

    by Open4D (371) on Friday June 20 2014, @10:36PM (#58203) Journal

    I agree with much of what you say, and in some ways would go further. I don't download stuff without the copyright holder's permission, even if none of your criteria is met.

    But I also agree with you on DRM. And again, I would maybe go even further. The behaviour of these corporations and their subservient (paid-for) politicians is outrageous. The first example that springs to mind would be DVD Jon [wikipedia.org]. That alone makes me angry enough to not be at all bothered at the prospect of the end of all copyright laws. I do think it is going 'too far the other way', but still it's 1000 times better than where we are now.

    A bit like how I'd rather live in a country where free speech goes too far, and you can shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre, than I would live in a country like Pakistan (where blasphemy is punishable by death).