The culture of entitlement and illegal downloads

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Harmon

You have accused Ana of "illegal acts."

I've asked you to specify what acts she has committed that you believe to be illegal.

Instead of replying by identifying the acts, you just blow some smoke about "acts that are against the law."

It's not quibbling to request you to be specific. The reason is that some copying is legal, and some illegal. From what I've read in her posts, she has done nothing illegal, but perhaps your eagle eye has spotted something I missed.

So either retract your accusation, or back it up with specifics.

Thank you, Harmon.

(For the record, all this has been hypothetical; I haven't downloaded a bootleg copy of Wicked. I wouldn't know how to begin, to be honest, and don't plan to find out. So I very definitely haven't done illegal things because --> hypothetical. But I agree that there should be a backing up of what was said. Too much conflation of "Immoral, imho" and "Illegal" in this thread.)

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Harmon

You have accused Ana of "illegal acts."

I've asked you to specify what acts she has committed that you believe to be illegal.

Instead of replying by identifying the acts, you just blow some smoke about "acts that are against the law."

It's not quibbling to request you to be specific. The reason is that some copying is legal, and some illegal. From what I've read in her posts, she has done nothing illegal, but perhaps your eagle eye has spotted something I missed.

So either retract your accusation, or back it up with specifics.

Wow, you do hang on... it's just taken 10 minutes to back trace this whole damn section of the thread (which you could have done yourself) and which is as is usual once people start asking for specifics rather than reading what has been written... usually a good way to obscure what has been said in a morass of accusations that don't relate to the words written... but you're good at that in your postings...

Ana said, "So let me see if I get this straight.

If a digital edition will never exist, you think disabled people shouldn't download the pirate version, even though the pirate version will not hurt the artist because there is no legal legitimate version (in this case a DVD) and the disabled person cannot give money to the artist in the approved way (in this case live shows) because they are disabled?"

Now that clearly talks about downloading the pirate version and not being legitimate which is what I was referring to... I never accused ana of doing anything other than approving (or not disapproving) of such acts... next time you want specifics, read the damn thread yourself one word at a time so that you understand it before jumping up and down in mock outrage...

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by elcreative

If a digital edition will never exist, you think disabled people shouldn't download the pirate version, even though the pirate version will not hurt the artist because there is no legal legitimate version (in this case a DVD) and the disabled person cannot give money to the artist in the approved way (in this case live shows) because they are disabled?"

Now that clearly talks about downloading the pirate version and not being legitimate which is what I was referring to...

The "pirate version" may not be illegal; Gertner said, in Sony v Tenenbaum, that some unauthorized digital versions might be legal:

"For example, file sharing for the purposes of sampling music prior to purchase or space-shifting to store purchased music more efficiently might offer a compelling case for fair use. Likewise, a defendant who used the new file-sharing networks in the technological interregnum before digital media could be purchased legally, but who later shifted to paid outlets, might also be able to rely on the defense."

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Now that clearly talks about downloading the pirate version and not being legitimate which is what I was referring to... I never accused ana of doing anything other than approving (or not disapproving) of such acts... next time you want specifics, read the damn thread yourself one word at a time so that you understand it before jumping up and down in mock outrage...

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

I totally agree that one should read the thread, which is what I do. But when it is not clear to me what the poster are trying to say, I don't have any obligation to guess what he or she might mean. The best thing to do is to ask.

Judging from your answer, it seems to me that you, like most people, think that downloading "pirated" material is, in and of itself, illegal in the US. That's one of the problems that results from the indiscriminate use of the term "pirate" to describe what's going on, and from assuming that all copying to which the copyright holder does not agree is necessarily illegal.

As a broad statement, merely copying digital material for personal use, even without permission of the copyright owner, is not illegal. On the other hand, distributing copied material without that permission is, in most instances, illegal, with the exception being distributing for "fair use."

In Ana's purely hypothetical situation, let us suppose that she was given a bootleg physical copy of a dvd of Wicked from someone who recorded a live performance without permission. Ana has not committed any criminal violation under the copyright law (although the person from whom she got it has committed at least one, and probably two). It is possible, however, for the copyright holder to persuade a court to make Ana hand over the bootleg copy for destruction even though Ana herself has done nothing illegal. (Interestingly, the copyright holder would not seem to have the right to retain the bootleg copy for himself.)

Moving now to a free download of the digital version of the dvd, the same situation probably exists. However, there is one caveat - if Ana uses a torrent program to do the downloading, she will - perhaps unknowingly - be engaged not merely in downloading, but in distributing the file to other users. The distribution would be an illegal act. Or if she paid for it, she might be sufficiently involved in a commercial transaction to be considered a participant in a scheme of distribution.

The bottom line is that whenever the situation involves someone copying a digital file for personal use, you have to be very careful to understand exactly what happened. Sometimes there's a criminal violation, sometimes there's a civil violation, and sometimes there's no violation at all.

(And just to cut off the objection that all this is just my opinion, that's true, but it's an opinion I have formed as a lawyer who has read the copyright act and not a few of the cases.)

[gweeks]

:
If a digital edition will never exist, you think disabled people shouldn't download the pirate version, even though the pirate version will not hurt the artist because there is no legal legitimate version (in this case a DVD) and the disabled person cannot give money to the artist in the approved way (in this case live shows) because they are disabled?"

Now that clearly talks about downloading the pirate version and not being legitimate which is what I was referring to... I never accused ana of doing anything other than approving (or not disapproving) of such acts... next time you want specifics, read the damn thread yourself one word at a time so that you understand it before jumping up and down in mock outrage...

In the United States, a visually impaired person doing this would not be committing copyright infringement. The person providing the copy would not as well. However any copies they provided to non-impaired persons would still be infringements. No permission from the copyright holder is required.

That's part of the DMCA I like.

Greg Weeks

[schnitzel]

illegal downloading is seen by most people as either totally wrong or totally OK. Both of these 'extreme views' are dangerous and need to be questioned. To take the Music industry as an example. Before the advent of the recording industry and for a short period prior to that Sheet Music. Artists earned their keep with 'live' performance. As such they were mostly paid in accordance with their ability at the same time their total earnings were never more than their value to society as a whole.

With the advent of Sheet Music a whole new mass market industry started which led eventually to the recording industry. by the end of the 1990's we had a situation where it became possible for someone, whether they had talent or not, to earn millions of $$'s in a matter of minutes.

Now no one can tell me that is right or moral, How can someone who's only contribution to society is to gyrate around on TV in little or no clothing be of more value than say a Heart Surgeon?

At the other extreme there are talented performers who simply because they lack the ability to 'sell' themselves who struggle to earn a living.

What is happening now with the development of the net is, in my opinion a long overdue shake up of a media industry which had become greedy. With luck a more balanced way of selling music / books and the work of other artists will emerge where we no longer have idiots who have managed by just being obnoxious on Xfactor to be apparently of more value than my local dentist or even the man who unblocked my drains last week!

I don't pretend to know what the answer is, or how it will end. But I'm sure illegal downloading is a long overdue catalyst that will eventually be seen as necessary stage in the evolution of the entertainment industry.

In the meantime we cant, non of us, afford to let the media moguls win because if they do we will return to a form of censorship unseen since the middle ages in Europe when the Church decided what people could or could not read / sing / believe

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

I totally agree that one should read the thread, which is what I do. But when it is not clear to me what the poster are trying to say, I don't have any obligation to guess what he or she might mean. The best thing to do is to ask.

Judging from your answer, it seems to me that you, like most people, think that downloading "pirated" material is, in and of itself, illegal in the US. That's one of the problems that results from the indiscriminate use of the term "pirate" to describe what's going on, and from assuming that all copying to which the copyright holder does not agree is necessarily illegal.

As a broad statement, merely copying digital material for personal use, even without permission of the copyright owner, is not illegal. On the other hand, distributing copied material without that permission is, in most instances, illegal, with the exception being distributing for "fair use."

In Ana's purely hypothetical situation, let us suppose that she was given a bootleg physical copy of a dvd of Wicked from someone who recorded a live performance without permission. Ana has not committed any criminal violation under the copyright law (although the person from whom she got it has committed at least one, and probably two). It is possible, however, for the copyright holder to persuade a court to make Ana hand over the bootleg copy for destruction even though Ana herself has done nothing illegal. (Interestingly, the copyright holder would not seem to have the right to retain the bootleg copy for himself.)

Moving now to a free download of the digital version of the dvd, the same situation probably exists. However, there is one caveat - if Ana uses a torrent program to do the downloading, she will - perhaps unknowingly - be engaged not merely in downloading, but in distributing the file to other users. The distribution would be an illegal act. Or if she paid for it, she might be sufficiently involved in a commercial transaction to be considered a participant in a scheme of distribution.

The bottom line is that whenever the situation involves someone copying a digital file for personal use, you have to be very careful to understand exactly what happened. Sometimes there's a criminal violation, sometimes there's a civil violation, and sometimes there's no violation at all.

(And just to cut off the objection that all this is just my opinion, that's true, but it's an opinion I have formed as a lawyer who has read the copyright act and not a few of the cases.)

Actually the last thing I was considering was anything concerning the US, I know it's hard to follow but there is a lot more to the world than the US... and quite a bit of it regards possession of copied, counterfeited or other than paid-for genuine things (whether physical or digital) as a civil and/or criminal offence regardless of the reason for having it...

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Right now, I wish I'd never started writing...

Why? There's never been a better time to write.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Actually the last thing I was considering was anything concerning the US, I know it's hard to follow but there is a lot more to the world than the US... and quite a bit of it regards possession of copied, counterfeited or other than paid-for genuine things (whether physical or digital) as a civil and/or criminal offence regardless of the reason for having it...

Yeah, I've lived in some of those other parts, back when I was an army brat. The old man even married one of them folks. So I'm a firm believer in "when in Rome, you'd better find out what the Romans think."

But Ana is, I believe, an American.

[anamardoll]

Yup. Says so under the picture of me chasing a butterfly even.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Why? There's never been a better time to write.

Sure... if you don't mind having absolutely no control over your product, and being treated like a pariah for not wanting to be stolen from.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Sure... if you don't mind having absolutely no control over your product, and being treated like a pariah for not wanting to be stolen from.

IMO, if you think of your words as a product then that is your first problem.

We do not think of ourselves as stealing from you when we pirate your works, we are simply searching for a better understanding of the human condition. Perhaps we can find this understanding in your words, perhaps not. Only by reading can we know whether or not your words have any value, we cannot allow you to make this judgement beforehand for us. Well we could, but we would be doing ourselves a disservice I think.

[StephenM]

<sarcasm>Personally, I blame Gutenberg. Look at all the harm he has caused to society with his infernal book copying machine. Society fell because he was able to take one of a kind books that traveled from town to town, and mass produce them for everyone to read! The shame! The horror! His was the first system capable of large scale piracy of intellectual property! Look at what has happened to society since!</sarcasm>

Society didn't fall then, and it won't now.

[ProDigit]

I download illegal sometimes!
It all started with the movie industries! They did get too much money for what it's worth, especially if they get people like Tina Turner, Michael Jackson, Celine Dion, etc.. in their contracts!

However what I hate most, is not that they get a lot of money. What I hate most, is paying for a seemingly good movie or CD, and regretting you paid as soon as you actually listen to it!
Many crapware is overcharged!

And although everyone's ideas about doing harm is different, for me personally I would never have given my money to 50% I own, if I had known it would be so crappy!
(like that terminator or Streetfighter knockoff movie that sucked more than Mr beans on BBC).

My policy is, I download, I see, and if I like it, I buy it!
Many never get to that second stage, but I actually do buy the things I like!
Among the things I purchased after seeing them online, are a whole bunch of disney movies (including Aladdin, the Lion King, etc..), the whole Star Trek Series (and those are a few hundred dollars for all the seasons (both the originals, the pilots, the animated versions, the next generation, and all following); a whole bunch of anime, and techno-trance CD's.

As for books, I'm mainly reading free ones. Once I caught up to that, I will read free PDF's, mainly science and engineering. The ones you can read for free in the library too.

As for books, I find myself less eager to buy them, nevertheless I do have found a few exceptional books that I purchased, (some I've purchased even more than three of the same book, to give to friends).

I want to have control on what I want to pay and not. I'm by all means not a poor man, but neither rich enough to be able to afford all the media I consume.
I think I should pay for those things that you find worth buying, after all, what do you do when your new car constantly breaks down? Don't you take it back to the dealer, and get of another model or brand instead?
Something you can't do when a book, or video is not what you expected it to be!

Besides, I don't believe in 'harming' the industry! It's a term widely used, but many movies and songs are bought by radio and television stations, which many will see 'for free' anyways, only a bit after they could get it off the internet.

If there was no illegal file sharing, there would be more radio and TV addicts.

For books this might be a bit different, though I presume there will be more people in the library. If people want it free, they will be able to get it for free, even if it means spending a few days in the library; but hopefully paying for a copy if it proves them to be a good item or help in their lives.


It's a misconception to believe that 1000 illegal downloads mean 1000 copies lost to sale!

Many of the illegal downloads are actually file hoarders. Those who download copies to make them available to others. I had a torrent site once, and of the 1000 downloaded copies, I know that about 600 are by file hoarders, perhaps 90% of those hoarders will never open or read or see the file other than to store to share it with others.

I'd roughly say that 50% of the downloads are potential customers (500), meaning people who download for more than hoarding files.

out of them (the 500) more than 25% will never have bought the book or video, even if it was priced at 50% off, because they find no interest in it, or the book/video/music just does not speak to them (125)!

50% of the potential customers (250) will not pay, even if they liked it; and only 25% (125) would support the author

Out of these last 375 people, about 25% of them do pay for the book or video or CD either by buying a legal copy, or supporting the author through other means (100 people).
60% (225) won't pay for the book, and about 50 of them pay for the item they would never had a chance paying if it wasn't for meeting that book through illegal channels.

In other words, 4 people out of 10 buy the book, where as before (when illegal download rules would be restricted) 7.5 people would have bought the book.

That concludes, out of 1000 illegal downloads, about 150 people buy the products.
Without illegal downloads, about 325 people would have to buy the products, however for half of those that won't pay for it, would probably still try to save their money.
So in the end if file sharing would be impossible, about 215 people would be buying the book.

That's a difference of 65 people, or less than 7%

For this reason not much is done about illegal file sharing, because it takes a very high toll and cost to try to find them, and reducing the network in the end, would only amount to 7% revenue increase! Of those 7% there will be some that aren't too happy buyers, who want the product badly, and have cashed out the money, but who would have easily bought it if the product was only priced lower.

Ofcourse media wants you to believe that they are losing 1000 sales for every 1000 illegal downloads, in reality they only lose about 65 sales; or about 6.5% of their revenue.

Although the number rises significantly for popular downloads (like bestsellers), but also decreases for small releases.

This system is actually a great system to make sure some people on the top aren't earning too much money, while the unknown writer would actually gain popularity and sales thanks to illegal file sharing!

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Sure... if you don't mind having absolutely no control over your product, and being treated like a pariah for not wanting to be stolen from.

We have more control over the "product" now than we ever had in the past.