and on a wholly different note

[nyarhotep]

¿could someone explain to my Capitalistic, Luddite ass the morality behind file-sharing copywritten material? the three answers i've heard are: Corporations are evil and kick puppies, therefore i'm justified in ripping them off; copywriting "information" is ludicrous on its face, my actions aren't illegal they're progressive; i don't give a crap,

Comments

[smeddley]

If you find out, let me know. I buy all my books, cds, and dvds - or I rent (and do not copy) them from the library.

I put myself in the artist's/band's/author's position. This is how they are trying to make money, and if I want it, I should pay them for their services. How would I feel if my plans were taken and I didn't get paid for them? I mean, I worked on them, and I should reap the benefits.

I'd love to be able to handle option 3, but... I just can't. The only exception to me are things people - the owners - put on the internet (like craft patterns and, yes, icons). And then I only use them for personal use and don't sell them or the product. But then, I expect people would do the same for anything I put on the internet.

i'm not sure which of our avatars is scarier

[nyarhotep]

i agree there should be some kind of investment->return on these ideas. a CD is a completed product which rests upon hundreds of employees, thousands of workhours, millions in infrastructure - unless that product is sold at a profit, the line of products can no longer be produced. in terms of a band, that means no music, no tours, nothing

now, the real question, ¿what is a logical, legitimate price for these informations? methinks the idea which leads to most file-sharing is the thought that CDs/DVDs are overpriced. ¿is a CD really worth $15? a DVD $20? would $10 be more reasonable? $3? would a reduced cost-rate of information stem file-sharing?

Re: i'm not sure which of our avatars is scarier

[smeddley]

The argument there is, like most things, they have to charge more because more are being stolen, so to keep the overall profit the same, the price per product must go up. Which leads to more stealing, which...

This goes outside the bounds of music and movies, but I always said I'd be willing to shop in a wet-suit only store that eliminates theft (because, really, where would you hide it?!) and has low prices, despite the fact that wet suits are 1) uncomfortable and 2) unattractive, at least on me.

And no matter how much you lower the price, people will still 'steal' these things because they can. And that is sad.

I also look at it as (and this is especially true when it comes to computer games) if I don't buy it, and it doesn't sell well, they won't make more. And in the case of my favorite type of game, I want them to make more.

The funny thing is, half the people I know who bitch and moan about not wanting to pay for CDs and DVDs will go spend hundreds on alcohol and cigarettes - so it's not about the money, really.

[atlanticat]

To go off on a slight but related tangent, what if the copywritten material is a set of song lyrics?

though, i admit no Legal expertise or acumen in reference to terminology

[nyarhotep]

i'm trying to think in terms of 'information packets'. i'm using a definition of file-sharing as a transfer of "owned" information without release of or remuneration to the "owner" of that information. i believe lyrics would fall under that broad umbrella. now, humming a catchy tune or Karaoke would be an obvious disenfranchisement under my loosely stitched definition, but methinks you understand what i'm generally getting at

[aedynn]

My psuedo-justification runs thusly: I am poor and would not be able to justify the expense of said media, therefore I won't be buying it regardless of it's availability in less-than-legal form. However, I have come across several new artists/movies/etc. that I can preview and then decide it *is* worth money to support said artist/movie/etc.. then sharing this media will spread my discovery, in fact boasting sales for my new-found fav. Yes, it's full of holes and probably only works in my brain.. but it's what I think.

[akirad]

I'm not poor at all and I could easily afford to buy CD/DVDs but to me the commercial arena is like an economic Darwinian jungle. They have something I want and they force me to "suffer" a financial penalty to get it. If I can get it without suffering that penalty (and without having to go to jail or whatever else) then I'll do it. It's like an evolutionary response.

The moral argument doesn't sway me at all. Corporations are not moral organisations. They are machines without a conscience. If they could legally make you suffer to increase their profits they would. And in mass redundencies, unsafe ingredients, known design faults, pollution, price fixing, profiteering and a million other ways they do. So I have no qualms at all about taking my small advantages while I can.

[nyarhotep]

methinks, the hole in your logic is divorcing corporations from the individuals which make up that corp. in the end, a corp is just a group of people working together to make a profit (feed their family). it's easy to dehumanize Corps into raving CEOs and Mindless Bureaucratic Automata, but that's forgetting that those stereotypes are bound to real people in a real world

[akirad]

"now, i understand what you're saying about Darwinian Economics, but ¿are you really comfortable with the fact that you're preyin off the minimum wage disc-press operator working in Podunk Bumsville

[somerled]

Copyright law is unenforceable. Content creators need to adjust to a new business environment. It is a hopeless and socially harmful endeavor, to protect defunct industries through legislation.

It doesn't justify breaking the law, but does justify changing the law.

i wholeheartedly agree

[nyarhotep]

of this, we think as one. i'm an advocate of working within the system until extrema are the only viable solution (and even then, such must be practiced with restraint)

however, i still can't quite wrap my mind around an business ethic which encourages the creation of unique information while still maintaining the profit margin to run a business. ¿is there a way to conceive of the Information Resale Business which doesn't reify information?

[akirad]

I have a real blind spot considering corporations as having a presence or identity that demands a moral response.

ie I don't think of stealing from corporations as "wrong" in any meaningful way.

Which isn't to say the law is wrong to protect the interests of commercial entities. I just don't feel compelled to extend to them the same consideration I give to individuals.

I know, it doesn't really make any sense, does it? ::goes off to think::