|
With Limewire having just been closed permanently it got me thinking what would life be like without illegal file sharing. Sure its illegal but would you really want companies dictating the price of their items for instance music. I would imagine it would be alot more expensive. Illegal file sharing has made music in particular more openly available to people who may not have been open too it previously. I'm sure there’s been many many concert tickets and merchandise sold based on people having illegally downloaded and liked a band. Some bands even give their music away free just to get popular, and then once they're popular they get greedy. What do you think? Is file sharing bad or good competition for the industry? |
|
It is not evil. |
|
It is illegal, but I don't feel it is evil. On the rare occasion that I do download something it is something that I could not afford and would not normally be buying, so the company would not be losing out. I would not be using the software to make a profit, only for private home use, so I don't see that as evil Let's say that you walk into a retail store and you take a computer or other device. You aren't going to be using it for business purposes, and you aren't going to be making any money off of it. 1
That example does not apply to illegal downloading, this is closer to walking into a store, making a magic copy of the computer and walking out with it. It does not make either one right yet one it worse then the other, just like most things illegal activities, some are worse then others. Wrong is wrong, and you can never justify wrong no matter what it is. Stating that different crimes vary in severity does not imply justification for criminal activities of any kind. The legal system works on the the level of the offence and act accordingly. It is fact that stealing game for a store and downloading the same game from the internet are different types of crime with one being more severe based on the consequences of taking tangible property to digital. If someone came up to me and punched me for no reason that is a crime, not if someone shot me that crime is far worse then the first act yet both are criminal actions that have different levels of punishment, all crimes are not created equal. Which would bother you more? Someone going up to your car and making a copy of it or stealing your only car? Again, this is not about justification of stealing, it is clear that both actions are wrong and that is about the differences of the offence. I do not see how stating they are different could be interpreted as interpreted of stealing. I see this argument all too often that they are on the same level which they are not. It's nothing like walking into a retail store and stealing a computer. When you pirate software, you're damaging income. When you rob a store, you're doing this too, but not to such an extent. Computer companies give away free computers all the time, but if you steal from some little software company, you could be substantially hurting income. But would the people who illegally download (for personal use) buy the product if they where unable to do it illegally? no, i see physical theft differently, If I was to steal a computer they would never be able to sell it. by downloading a program, I would not be buying it, but other people still can There are a lot of little details when it comes to this issue, at worst it is a lost sale if the person was going to buy it, if not then it is just a copy of something that can still be sold, does it make it right? No, that is up to the person if they care enough, the level of theft is very different from stealing tangible property and the argument that they are the same is rather tiresome. I also notice anytime I say they are different yet can still be counted as different types of theft someone says I am trying to justify said persons actions, this has nothing to do with that only stating they are different. Piracy is not theft. In theft, the original copy is removed. In piracy, a copy is made of the original. These two things are not the same, no matter how you look at it.
showing 5 of 9
show all
|
|
People buy the content and then share it with other people. I don't see that as a bad thing. I won't judge pirates. |
|
For now, yes. File sharing is a necessary evil. Music should not be a business - at least not the sort of business that exists today. Not that I'm saying that artists shouldn't profit from their work, because it is hard work and it's costly to make good music. They should profit. But only the artists and those directly involved in producing the recording, not tons of unrelated suits who claim they're important to the artist's success. Someday very very soon, the industry is going to reach a breaking point where the business model currently in place can simply no longer sustain itself. Thankfully, more and more artists are wising up to this fact. Most people these days understand that independence is where it's at and that you don't need a label to succeed in music (something artists have been told for decades now). Good music will eventually be heard by the audience it's intended for if it's good enough and bad music won't, regardless of the delivery or distribution model. Piracy simply speeds up this process by allowing fans of music to get their hands on the material they want to listen to. I admit that I've "pirated" (whatever...) my fair share of music over the past few years and it's helped me discover things that I might not have ever heard otherwise, and it's allowed me to determine which music I want to purchase and which artists I want to support without having to go out and blindly purchase albums that I may or may not like. With sites like Bandcamp, though, it's now possible to hear an artist's work in its entirety as many times as one cares to (even on an internet-connected mobile device!) before committing to purchase it, which is a huge point of contention for people like myself who don't care to spend money on something before knowing if it's any good - very similar to the way that most people wouldn't buy a car before test driving it. Most good "pirates" (those of us with a conscience) purchase the music that they download and discover to be worth keeping, not only to have the best possible quality, but to at least try supporting the artist. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that most pirates think this way. While the Bandcamp model isn't exactly perfect, I think we've seen time and again that the pay-what-you-want model of distribution is a great idea for not just music, but any type of digital content (for instance, the Humble Indie Bundle, which is a great pay-what-you-want video game package), and adding functionality which allows one to listen to the content multiple times before making a purchase just makes that model even more appealing. And someday, something will probably come along that's even better than that - perhaps a system where all music is free to download and fans have the option to donate music directly to the artist any time they want, which I personally think is the system that will "solve" the piracy "problem" for good. To be completely honest, this is what most of us pirates are already doing - getting the music for free, and just buying CDs or merchandise in order to try to donate to the artist if we like the music. |
|
I will go with a company or person has a right to charge whatever they want and we can either buy it or say forget it until they lower the price to a more comfortable level. |
|
Your doing something that is illegal so I think that it is evil. It is like stealing from someone but this is much easier. However this does actually help develop technology to try and stop people stealing it and that creates jobs for people. |
