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.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Tork on Friday June 20 2014, @08:40PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 4, Informative) by ikanreed on Friday June 20 2014, @08:52PM
Well, it depends on what you mean by "showing harm". There are definitely losers in the market. And some of those losers definitely face piracy. Those are so easily proven that I won't bother to do so.
But demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt concrete harm on the industry as a whole? You're right, it's not there.
Also: I pay for media online all the time. I don't feel like the free rider pirates are hurting me.
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Friday June 20 2014, @10:03PM
"Measurable harm on the industry as a whole" is a standard that really only applies to big-content.
The guy writing ebook novels, even if he never hired a professional editor (most do) and did ALL the work by himself (most don't), is another story all together. Ditto the independent band, software developer, photographer, etc.
The abuse we have suffered at the hands of big media companies has poisoned the well for everyone, and that happened just when the tools finally become affordable and available for individuals to produce, present, sell and get paid for small purchases.
I only vaguely understand the mentality of these people, but it seems to hinge on them disassociating the human creator from person-hood, and substituting some evil corporation in his place.
They justify their belief by insisting the creator is not diminished by duplication of a digital good. But the fact that they even have a ready excuse, makes it clear that even they don't believe it.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Friday June 20 2014, @11:03PM
I disagree about the disconnect from person-hood (Some feel this way, but not all). Let me offer a different perspective that these children and youths may be perceiving as an intrinsic property of reality:
These children and young adults already realize that fundamental truth. You would need to explain and convince them about the fundamentals of intellectual property and the benefits it can bring towards society. Screaming at them and telling them that ideas and expressions can be stolen, when they themselves possess the requisite sophistication to see the bullshit in that proposition, does not lend credibility towards the pro-IP arguments.
Copying and distribution on the Internet *is* completely free, and they realize the only true cost is their payments to the ISP every month. It's the world on tap for a nice flat fee.
Same goes for lumping in Marijuana as a Schedule I with crack cocaine, meth, heroin, and the other you-will-suck-nasty-dirty-penis-to-get-your-fix drugs. Nobody ever sucked a dick to get a bag of weed that wasn't already in possession of such proclivities. Add the hilarious bullshit of explaining to teenagers how sex is bad, abstinence is good, and willful ignorance being used and taught with regards to sex education by Quakers.
Children are human bullshit detectors, and they can smell what the adults are cooking. Young adults also listen to the news and realize just how hard the 1%-elite-TheMAN is working towards clamping down on them and controlling their lives in the name of big corporate profit. Once again, unless you carefully explain the real truth behind intellectual property, how it works, why it's needed, and how it can improve their lives, they only see rich old "white" fuckers playing games to keep their billions .
Watching a multi-millionaire on TV complain about lost pennies using fallacious logic, appeals to emotion, and threats is not a successful strategy for changing their mind. Neither is continuing to corrupt and pervert intellectual property to achieve greater controls and not only deny new additions to the Public Domain, but take them back.
Instead of fighting for the older business models and schools of thought, it would be easier and more productive to extol the virtues of an intellectual property system that does work for their interests. Great. We need to create one first.
This is a battle for hearts and minds, and children and young adults are not just deaf to the old guard, but are actively hostile against them. Let's call it what it really is: Revolution. When the majority of them get together and decide through jury nullification that the civil suits are without merit and give no quarter in the legal battle, well, it's over for the "old evil bastards".
Those of us here realize the dangers and how the lack of a system to provide incentives for creation of new works. Do you even believe in the bullshit enough to try to explain to them about intellectual property and how they should figure out a way to sponsor the artists? I don't. They have a point, even if they are doing the wrong things for the right reasons with incorrect ethics and logic.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday June 21 2014, @01:40AM
Other than adding the class warfare angle to the already pretty well understood mind-set, you've largely restated what is well known about the "sharing" community.
However, you largely overstate the class warfare angle. Most "kids" don't really see society as a 99 percenter, at least not until they have been through a few liberal college sociology classes, or have dropped out entirely and set their sights on getting everything they can for free, and are perfectly fine with being homeless to "stick it to the man".
Most of the young people in my neck of the woods actually want a job, or a career, or to run their own business. I imagine I could drive 50 miles and meet some with vastly different attitudes and a richer assortment of tattoos. But most people don't actually believe the 99% vs 1% bullshit, because if they did, the Occupy movement would not have ended in utter sputtering failure.
I actually have no idea how we support struggling artists, authors, musicians, developers, or creators in a society of thieves.
Until more of these young people "do something" and become a stake holder in society, they are unlikely to change their viewpoint.
Those that I have met who have indeed gone out and created something immediately realize the situation in far different light than they did previously. Perhaps nothing succeeds like success. Seems counter productive to raise a generation of thieves, only to have to un-teach that mentality or re-invent the social compact that has held civilization together since the end of the Pleistocene.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 21 2014, @11:57AM
Interesting.... you know it wasn't an interest in "theft" that got me so worked up about open software. It was all about my feeling of ownership over what I had supposedly bought and paid for.
I remember all too well seeing my Commodore64 computer's 1541 disk drive pounding its head relentlessly against the stop, knocking it out of alignment, just because some programmer told it to. None of the stuff I wrote did that. But the EA games and other "copyright" stuff did, and I soon found out there were others who felt as I did and knew enough to disassemble the code and get the irritant code out.
My hatred for companies who would so cavalierly destroy my disk drive was soon replaced with the knowledge that this kind of stuff could be avoided if one developed the skills of reversing, or knew someone else who could arrange to get a cleaned up copy. For the car analogy, if the car you got from the dealer had erratic steering or dumped its gas tank, had oil leak, had to phone home to get permission to start, insisted on playing an ad before it would start, or some other annoyance, but one could fix the car where it did not do that, one is sorely tempted to take matters into his own hands and fix it, no matter what the dealer thought of it. Soon, it became apparent that the copyright-violated stuff worked a heckuva lot better than the bought and paid for stuff.
It seemed businesses were thinking outside the box, as in who needs to please a customer when one has enough money to buy congressmen to pass law saying they are "held harmless" for what they do but expect lawful payment anyway? Could I expect a business to take it seriously when I whine about my disk drive pounding its head against the stop? Then why should I take their whining about my taking steps to clean up their irritating product seriously? That sound of a disk drive beating its head against the stop was also the sound of millions of young minds realigning their mindset over the meaning of copyright.
I am sure that people would even be trying to bypass light bulb manufacturers if they made their lightbulbs as screwy as a lot of businesses make their IP stuff. Would you try to get a lamp from a bum on the street because his simply turned on when you hit the switch, and did not have to call up Edison to see which lighting plans you were entitled to? Or tried to play a commercial before the light would work?
Its not a question of payment, rather to me its a question of will the thing do what I wanted it to do. If it wants to be persnickety, then either I do without or fix the persnickety part, or most likely find someone else who is replicating the thing I want with the persnickety part removed.
The business says "screw me", then I retort with "screw them".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 21 2014, @12:20PM
>"...support struggling artists, authors, musicians, developers, or creators..."
These worthies can actually do just like the rest of us, and get a paying job. Like, producing something that is NOT in so hilarious an oversupply as those "creative products" in a digital epoch.
When you have ALL the art of the generations past at your fingertips (due to Project Gutenberg, etc., etc.), and ALL the wealth of Free Software, and all the freely made art... competing with free is only bound to get harder. The "creative pursuits" have become just as outmoded, as the profession of a scribe with the advent of a laser printer: yes, there ARE some people who still manage to be paid for calligraphy... but the niche as such is gone, never to return. Accept it, and learn to live with it.
Amateur art, in its best examples, is no worse than the best for-hire art there is. And no less in absolute numbers. The only new problem is - finding it in the ocean of less-worthy specimens. And it WILL be solved.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 21 2014, @11:13AM
Just a heads-up, methamphetamine and cocaine are Schedule II ("crack" or cocaine freebase is still just cocaine), and heroin is also available by prescription in England, among other non-third-world countries. Putting marijuana in Schedule I means they're saying its worse than heroin, crack, and meth.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday June 20 2014, @09:22PM
Which is really too bad. Not just because I'm some punk wanting to stick it to the man, but because if the big industries fall, maybe content creators would -- *gasp* -- dedicate more resources to create original and creative content for the joy of creating it, rather than churning out predictable and formulaic slop to mass-shovel onto tired audiences as Germans* would shit down their lovers' throats.
* SOME Germans. Not all. Therefore, the comment wasn't racist or stereotypical.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 20 2014, @10:03PM
Your comment was still racist and stereotyping, just not as completely as it would have been without your insincere disclaimer. It was still very stereotypical of you.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Kilo110 on Friday June 20 2014, @08:42PM
Good thing children are known for their thorough understanding of the law and ethics.
I look forward to more anonymous online polls to tackle the other complex issues in our society.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 20 2014, @08:47PM
Glad to know that you think that people in their twenties are children.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Tork on Friday June 20 2014, @08:50PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 21 2014, @01:38AM
Yeah, they're pretty much children.
I'm not complaining; the fact that they've stretched out childhood to record lengths means it's only marginally socially unacceptable for me to be playing Pokemon in my early thirties.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by islisis on Friday June 20 2014, @11:29PM
If it prepares them for the opportunity to change them, I welcome it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 20 2014, @08:46PM
Copyright essentially no longer applies to the individual. It's just the domain of large businesses pummeling each other. Private, non-commercial, copyright infringement has become so casual and ubiquitous that it's no longer a legitimate crime. It only remains such because the small amount of people in favor of criminalizing it happen to be the ones with the money, and they can buy protection from the government.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Oligonicella on Friday June 20 2014, @10:18PM
As the holder of the copyrights for my books, you sir, are waay incorrect.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 20 2014, @11:02PM
So what are you doing to stop people from sharing your books without paying? And are you being successful stopping them? I'm going to guess the answers are "nothing" and "no".
People are going to share copyrighted works without paying. There's just no way it's going to ever stop. In fact, it's going to keep increasing.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday June 21 2014, @11:25AM
what a lot of people dont seem to understand is that this is actually a good thing because its free advertising. people who had never heard of you or your works before now get a taste of your material and style, and many will purchase it if they feel it is worth the money; naturally not all will, but typically the ones who dont wouldnt be buying it anyway. getting your material out there secures you future sales, assuming its worth buying in the first place.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by pendorbound on Friday June 20 2014, @09:07PM
There's a magic thing that starts happening at 50%. Granted, it's a long jump from "voters who think a thing" to "voters who bother to actually vote and vote out people who disagree with them on a thing," but as that group ages and starts voting consider what the odds would be of more RIAA witch hunt lawsuits being well received.
And to anyone who wants to label this group as thieves or what have you, law is *supposed* to represent the will of the people, not bind the people against their will. When you have a majority of people who disagree that downloading is stealing (sounds like 93% of those surveyed), first you start getting jury nullifications, and from there you start getting Congresscritters who realized they'd best get in line with the will of the people they represent. Lots of money from Big Media is nice, but if indeed 93% of your constituents are against Media's agenda, it doesn't matter how much lobbying or campaign contributions they might make. You can't buy *that* many voters, even today.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DECbot on Friday June 20 2014, @09:56PM
But if you can buy juries, you can show the Congresscritters whatever you want. 24 Joe-schmoes are easier to buy than 24 Congressmen.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Friday June 20 2014, @10:08PM
Buying juries. Very risky business. All it takes is ONE little old lady with a conscious, and lots of people go to jail.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Friday June 20 2014, @10:11PM
That's true, buying Congressmen is a lot safer... you know that they don't have a conscious.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 22 2014, @09:40AM
Conscience is the word you guys are looking for.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday June 20 2014, @10:17PM
If so, its probably game over for ANY digital content.
If society think's its ok to take from big content, then where is the distinction between big and the rock band lads down the street? When it is no longer considered stealing from big labels, why would that not also apply to independent artists, small bands, and ebook authors?
Are we condemned to only have live music at expensive venues or crusty smokey bars?
Jury nullification comes from the penalty not fitting the crime. Going after multiple millions of dollars from someone who lives on $30,000 is what pisses people off. If the punishment fitted the crime, you wouldn't have people so pissed off. If the price was fair in the first place, ditto.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 21 2014, @01:15AM
I like Cory Doctorow's take on it... that the main peril he faces as an author is oblivion, not piracy.
What is the difference between a successful rock star, and a hopeful guitarist down the street? Exposure!
The middlemen stoking "the star making machinery" behind the popular songs are trying everything they know to block the bypasses to their control the internet presents. Their monopoly and control of who is exposed to the public is under threat, where literally anybody can expose themselves to the public ( and in more than one way mind ya! ). These aren't cheap middlemen either. They live high on the hog writing nasty little contracts which hopefuls must sign in order to be considered for "promotion".
When the artists go on tour, its the artists I am paying perfectly good ticket money to see, not their promoter.
It seems perfectly legal to outsource labor to the lowest bidder. At least that's what the 1%'ers say.... It follows that it should also be perfectly legal to outsource one's publicity via the internet as well, completely eliminating the middleman promoter. The promoters want us to consider distribution of artist's work as piracy... however another way of looking at it - is that the stuff on the internet is merely an advertisement of an artist's capability... once you've seen the ads, are you interested enough to buy a ticket when your favorite artists tour? If indeed shared images and sounds of something is "piracy", then we better take all televised sports off the air and force people to buy a ticket if they want to spend several hours watching grown men playing with a ball.
Technology advances. There are gained benefits and lost benefits. The ability to duplicate, store, and send enormous amounts of information damned near for free has gutted the price that can be exacted for information. The ability to control and monetize digital medias has gone the same way as my own ability to control who takes my photograph or shares my own personal information. I have resigned myself to the idea there are cameras everywhere, any effort I make to shut them down will be about as productive as chasing wind. I feel its high time the paradigm of "owning" patterns of digital info is just about as practical as owning gusts of wind.
I would post under my logon, but I have moderated here...
---------
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday June 21 2014, @01:49AM
Your "advertising" paradigm only works for musicians.
You simply can not take LOTR on the road as an off broadway theater production.
You can't expect to have every author spinning tales on stage before an attentive audience.
I suggest your broaden your worldview, and realize there is more to life, and more being pirated, than music.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by lhsi on Saturday June 21 2014, @06:44AM
The Soylent moderation system changed a little while ago. You can comment on a story you have moderated on and it won't undo moderations. Once you comment on a story you can no longer moderate it however.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday June 23 2014, @12:04PM
You realize most major artists barely make a dime off record sales as it is, right? Their major revenue comes from concerts already. So if ten or twenty years from now live shows become the only way to sell music...well, nothing much will have changed!
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110707/03264014993/riaa-accounting-how-to-sell-1-million-albums-still-owe-500000.shtml [techdirt.com]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday June 23 2014, @11:03PM
Other than the total absence of digital media?
Again, like the other poster, you are thinking only of music. Get out of your rut!
You can't take the LOTR trilogy on the road.
Also your characterization of record sales only applies to the idiots
that think they need a label to make money.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday June 24 2014, @12:18PM
Sorry, should have quoted; I was specifically responding to this line:
So yeah, we won't lose the big live concerts because that's still their main revenue stream. Killing purchased recordings it seems will only kill the false promises of the record companies!
Other media...yeah, it's a bit different. Cory Doctrow seems to be doing pretty well giving his books away for free, although I'll admit he's no Tolkein (although personally...I *can't stand* Tolkein's writing style anyway ;) But with how many ancient texts we still have despite them having lacked modern copyright protections, clearly there are other possible models. Based on Wikipedia, for The Hobbit and the full trilogy Tolkein spent a total of ten years -- while also working two other jobs. So the book was a side project and there's a chance he would have written it regardless. But still, at 2.5 years per book, it's not unheard of for even something on Kickstarter to earn over $250,000 which would have given Tolkein a very comfortable $100,000/year salary while he was writing -- in addition to what his other jobs were paying! Clearly more than whatever advance his traditional publisher may have given him.
Not saying Kickstarter and similar sites are the answer for all authors, but it's certainly not completely ridiculous as some would claim either. Hell, Zachary Weiner (of the SMBC webcomic) has already earned $285,000 to fund a children's book, and the campaign is still going! In any age with any technology, if you have the right idea people will always be willing to pay for it.
In fact, using something like Kickstarter may work out better than the current system for writers. Look at J.K. Rowling -- sure, she's quite well off now, but the first Harry Potter book was written over seven years while she was working two jobs and still requiring government assistance. She was given 2,500 GPB for that first manuscript. $105,000 for US publishing rights. Even a modest kickstarter getting $50,000 up-front probably would have done more to encourage its creation.
Our current publishing model is completely backwards, so it shouldn't be too hard to find something new and better. Copyright is supposed to encourage the creation of new works. But today, you don't get paid until the work is finished, published, and the royalty checks start coming in. Which means you could spend ten or twenty years working for free before you finally get a paycheck. Hardly sounds encouraging. Perhaps what we need is *more* free distribution. We need new venues to fill the role of some now-failed magazines which used to publish short stories. If you wanna be an author, get some short stories published or a website or something to build a bit of name recognition, then write your first chapter and use Kickstarter or Patreon or whatever to fund your writing of the rest of it. Places far less risk on the author that way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 21 2014, @01:33AM
law is *supposed* to represent the will of the people, not bind the people against their will.
I like that. A lot.
If it's original, you deserve laurels.
Even if you are merely repeating something that someone else created (you thief!), you get kudos from me for remembering it and bring it up at the ideal time.
voters who bother to actually vote
I've been watching the turnout numbers for the off-year election the others week.
I've got this bookmarked as Why we get the gov't we do.[1] [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [ca.gov]
If you scroll down past Yuba County to the Statewide totals, it's really depressing.
Fewer than 1 in 4 registered voters bothered to make the effort to make their opinions known on anything.
In Los Angeles County (the most populous county in the state), it was barely 1 in 6.
In San Bernardino County (the largest county in the USA by land mass), it was hardly any better.
On another tangent, that guy in Virginia who defeated Cantor spent less on his whole campaign than the incumbent spent on steak dinners for donors, so I'm confident on the **Money is not speech** front.
Now I'm wondering if, in that open primary (called a "jungle primary" in California), Blues crossed over to select a more-easily-defeated opponent.
.
[1] The numbers are still changing daily, so some of my highlighting probably won't work the same in a few hours.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 21 2014, @02:08AM
I saw that too, gewg_
I voted at nearly the closing time at the poll in Southern California. Los Angeles area.
The poll room was nearly deserted. The excitement of the afternoon was telling a handicapped girl in a wheelchair that she could have any booth she wanted. They were all vacant. One of the poll workers reconfigured a booth to make it easier for her.
I went to sign the poll book and I was the only one on the page.
We sure do not seem to be taking our voting seriously.
I feel I am almost as bad, because I did not study the situation as much as I should have, but one thing I am super pissed over is the 1%'ers buying their way into office with all these mailers advising us to vote one way or the other. One of the things I had done was cross reference the paid mailers to my election pamphlet and cross off those who were paying for mailer exposure... I figured if someone else was paying their way in the election, then chances were excellent they did not have my interests in mind.
The 1%'ers get law they like because 99% of us let them get away with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 23 2014, @09:41AM
the reason more and more people don't take voting serious is because:
the politicians are no longer the ones pulling the strings
instead they are now one of the strings being pulled
big finance rules all, they just have a 'power behind the throne' style of ruling
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Appalbarry on Friday June 20 2014, @09:24PM
The big media companies could have avoided this if from day one they had made it easy to buy fairly priced digital content.
Instead they've spent several decades attacking their own customers.
It's a global, electronic world out there, yet I find myself visiting Pirate Bay for media because:
Is it really any surprise that a majority of people choose to look elsewhere?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DECbot on Friday June 20 2014, @10:06PM
It is no surprise that people fitting the SN demographic visit Pirate Bay--artificial restrictions are artificial, restricting, and easily overcome with technology. The rest of the world's users do as they're told and bend over, 'cause technology is so intimidating and the digital businessman said so.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Friday June 20 2014, @11:19PM
I agree. I would rather have dickheads copy all my super secret awesaome files, than steal a single object, be it a fork or a spoon, from my house.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 21 2014, @01:21AM
Right but the problem is that corporate behaviour undermines the ability of artists to place a value their work. Big content isn't about art, it's about psychopaths running an extortion racket. Humanity will never stop placing a value on genuine culture and shared identity. We are social animals and it's a huge part of what what defines us.
So while the message from a defeated big business is that if they're not getting their cut then nobody else will, people involved in art still need to eat and pay rent!
(Score: 1, Troll) by sjames on Saturday June 21 2014, @02:05AM
Actually performing the work for the public still fetches a fair bit of money. Skipping the corporate middlemen and charging the public the pennies on the dollar the artist expected from the greed machine often shows good results.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by lgsoynews on Friday June 20 2014, @09:29PM
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 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.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by lgsoynews on Friday June 20 2014, @09:34PM
I forgot one condition:
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 20 2014, @09:40PM
> 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
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
> 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
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
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).
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).
Exactly the kind of behaviour I denounce: this is pure hypocrisy.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 21 2014, @02:45PM
> 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
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
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).
(Score: 5, Interesting) by kaganar on Friday June 20 2014, @09:48PM
I very much doubt that most of these people who think content should be free think that artists shouldn't be paid.
If I buy a song, movie, or game where does my money go? If I read the daily headlines it's easy to believe it goes to RIAA's/MPAA's/Publisher's lawyers, rich people's pocketbooks, and pointedly not the artists. Seeing as I can get the songs "for free" from file sharing and money wasn't going to the artists anyway, then I'm just cutting out the "bad" people.
I'm just choosing not to give money to already rich people for no service provided. That's not wrong, is it?
(Score: 1) by islisis on Friday June 20 2014, @11:48PM
I'm not claiming that this is the motivation of most file sharers, but in this day and age money is the only vote society as a whole will recognise. We each have a responsibility to decide where it is going. I believe your statement is not wrong, so long as do what you can to support an alternative to the current culture of consumption, and recognise the efforts of others who do the same. They are the ones who deserve our 'votes' first and foremost.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday June 23 2014, @12:13PM
Often, record sales can actually put the artist in *debt*!
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110707/03264014993/riaa-accounting-how-to-sell-1-million-albums-still-owe-500000.shtml [techdirt.com]
So if you want to actually support the artists -- either support them buy buying concert tickets, or don't buy from RIAA labels. Buying an RIAA-branded album doesn't give the artist a damn thing.
(Score: 2, Troll) by geb on Friday June 20 2014, @10:00PM
The way to achieve this is to drop the cost of making content.
We've already got there with images. Nobody thinks twice about whether they're supposed to pay before downloading a picture to look at it. If a picture is shown online, it's just accepted that people are going to look at it, save copies, and probably post copies elsewhere. In the vast majority of cases, the content creator doesn't care, and will only complain if their work is being used commercially. All of this is because photography, image editing, and digital drawing are all so easy that making pictures is a hobby, not a job.
Music has been going the same way for a long time. The cost and difficulty of recording music is the lowest it has ever been, and so if somebody wants to make free music then it's costing them very little to do so.
What we need is to bring down the cost of making films and games to match.
The amount of money spent on modern Hollywood films is absolutely ridiculous, and from an artistic point of view most of them are clearly not worth it. The only reason so much is spent on them is because filmmaking has become an industry instead of an artform, and the content is carefully designed to maximise profit. The more competition there is from amateur filmmakers, the better cinema would be for it, and inevitably it would mean lower prices and more content released freely.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bryan on Friday June 20 2014, @11:18PM
Or we could promote free content and free culture. Free software, Open Source, Creative Commons, a plethora of riches.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 21 2014, @01:48AM
In the beginning, the USA established a copyright term so you had an exclusive deal for 14 years.
If you were still alive at the end of that, you could even apply for another 14 years.
In return, after that time, your stuff entered the public domain.
From Article 1 Section 8: [wikipedia.org]
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
...then you guys in the content industry got greedy--again and again and again. [wikipedia.org]
In particular, Walt Disney's heirs.
The Mickey Mouse Curve [blogspot.com]
Times have changed; technology has advanced.
The marginal cost of reproducing your stuff is now zero.
The day of middlemen is over. Get used to it.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by art guerrilla on Saturday June 21 2014, @10:14AM
yes, thank you for that point, which is almost never talked about:
when we were dependent upon horses, 'snail mail', and town criers to get news/info from place to place at a relative glacial pace, the terms of copyright were a scant 14 years ? ? ?
NOW, when we have essentially instantaneous communication and dissemination of media/info, we have terms that are 'lifetime plus a bunch' ? ? ?
that makes NO SENSE logic-wise, but makes a LOT of cents, gatekeeper-wise...
secondly, as Big Media likes to elide, the ONLY REASON our forefathers thought to institute these monopolist protections, is for the -eventual- benefit of society as a whole, NOT TO GIVE UNLIMITED rights to RIGHTSHOLDERS... (i emphasize 'rightsholders' because it is NOT -by and large- the individual artists and creators who are really benefiting from this, it is Big Media korporations who benefit TO THE DETRIMENT OF SOCIETY/culture...)
further, the purported 'reason' WHY we give these state-sanctioned monopolies, is to encourage the originators to produce more... HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU PRODUCING 'MORE', when you are dead-plus-75-years ? ? ? that is total bullshit... it is ALL about the greed, it is all about the big korporations...
no, this is ALL ABOUT Big Media types not wanting to let loose of control, not wanting to give up the extortionist rent-seeking they manage to impose by (legally) bribing the right kongresskritters...
i'm sorry, i don't care HOW TALENTED your favorite band, director, dancer, comedian, writer, actor, etc is, THERE ARE A MILLION nekkid apes AS TALENTED who are right behind them, chomping at the bit for a chance, a break, an opportunity to show us they are JUST AS GOOD as the spoiled artiste who -by the brainwashing of Big Media- BELIEVE they are entitled to earn mega-bucks off their stupid pop song they banged out in 30 minutes, for the rest of their lives (PLUS 75 years!)...
that is elitest bullshit: the house plans i design/draft, don't i 'deserve' a cut every time someone copies those plans and uses them ? well, that's not how it works out, and that is okay: i have to produce AGAIN, not just get a one-hit wonder and retire... so should stupid artistes...
Big Media ? they can FOAD and the world would be a better place...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tathra on Saturday June 21 2014, @11:54AM
and there's the real issue right there, imo.
they are quite literally stealing from the public domain, and thus actively working to destroy our culture out of greed and selfishness.
they started a war on culture, locking everything down that they can for well beyond the human lifespan, and they're shocked that people are 'fighting back'? fuck you. i'll stop "stealing" from them when they stop stealing from society.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 21 2014, @08:12AM
I'll listen to music that fucking moves me, not to music that's licensed or distributed this or that way, or by this or that entity. If you choose your music on the basis of rational considerations, you are the saddest person in the world.
And if you hope for a world where Wikipedia is the encyclopedia of choice, sorry but you are an idiot too. Plain and simple.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ButchDeLoria on Saturday June 21 2014, @03:11AM
Being 19 and fitting into the survey's demographic, maybe it would help if I gave my perspective. I generally only pirate content that I can't easily access (rare albums off of what.cd that are expensive as hell to own or even play), or games from developers that I like but publishers that I find reprehensible (Ubisoft, EA, Activision), though usually I don't even bother with the piracy. I'll also add in that I am the type to pirate to try. When developers/publishers don't provide a playable demo (both to test gameplay and performance on my system), I'm happy to grab a copy off TPB.
However, I don't necessarily like to pirate. Sure, it's fast and easy, but I like quality content producers to keep creating content, without publishers getting in the way. That's why I support things like the Humble Indie Bundles, Kickstarter, Indiegogo, Patreon, etc. I hate to give my money to an exploitive publisher or record label, who will give the actual creators pennies for an album, when I can just buy the album directly from the artist/band off their Bandcamp page, or buy my books DRM-free through Humble Indie Bundle or other low-royalty book sources. Or hell, I could throw my money at people that are trying to get an idea that I want off the ground, like with Double Fine Adventure nee Broken Age. There's now even a multitude of crowdsourcing methodologies now; Kickstarter requires you to hit a minimum and encourages stretch goals after hitting your initial goal; Indiegogo works similarly to Kickstarter, but allows you the option of claiming on even undefunded listings; and Patreon lets you just dump money in randomly to see what will come of it.
While there are plenty of people that just think they shouldn't have to pay for anything (whether cheapskates or opponents of capitalism), far from all people of Generation Y just want their content for free. In fact, I'd love to pay for things. Voting with my wallet tells content creators what I want to buy (or whether or not to make it in the case of Kickstarter). But I don't want my money going to a scummy, artist-enslaving, DRM-implementing corporate behemoth when in the past handful of years alone, several highly successful alternatives to publisher funding have become available. I realize that many artists and creators have Stockholm Syndrome, and think that being free of middlemen would be harmful to all, but they only need to look at the top funded kickstarters to see that that isn't true. Broken Age was the first example that entertainment, even of a bygone era, wasn't reliant on publishers. The Kickstarter-funded Pebble smartwatch was the pioneer in what could be the next big leap in the smartphone form factor. Of course, not everything can simply be crowdfunded, especially once you hit the millions of dollars requirements. But not every game, film, or theatrical project needs to have the budget of GTA V, Avatar, or Spiderman The Musical.
I don't want a gratis future where no one can live off of their creations, but a libre future, free of DRM restricting the number of devices or uses of software or region of use, free of publishers holding content creators at legal gunpoint, and where I can say what I want rather than be told what to want by monolithic, marketing-driven slave masters. The age of patronage is back, but for the first time accessible to the masses. The kids/young adults surveyed don't want the death of monetized content and information; they want the death of pointless middlemen that only raise prices and restrict users. DRM, region locking and similar restrictions may be intended to stop piracy, but in the end the pirates are free of corporate tyranny and paying customers are forced to endure further reduction of rights of use.