Illegal Downloading

I think I've posted here before. I don't know what I said before, but this is what I'm currently thinking about it at the present time.

I would look at illegal downloading the same way I would stealing a CD or DVD. You're taking the content with the intention of using it, without paying. Leaving out the usage of iTunes and other download services like that(Which, as mentioned before, only allow you to use their copy. Which means you're purchasing a license to access rather than the item itself) because they themselves have problems. I think that if the producer wanted their tracks, programs or games to be free distributed, they'd put them up for that themselves.

Open source programs could be seen as an example of this(Of course, the producers can generally use this method as a free way of testing the software-and therefore benefit- but let's leave this out). You have Open Office- a free open source office suite. You have this free option; why do you have to get Microsoft's version illegally? MS Office is better? Okay, but you can't afford it. You're not allowed have it in the eyes of the law just because you want it...

I see a lot of "I can't buy it without knowing that it's good myself" excuses being thrown around. I think there's always a risk with purchasing anything, even with prior notice(You could know the veggie seller for 10 years, and get a bogey potato off of him. You could like a band for years, any they release an album you buy which is quite shit).

Looking at this without the downloading involved(You cannot download a potato either way), you cannot taste this potato before you buy it. You cannot listen to this album before you buy it. Now, samples exist so you can cover this problem(Singles going on sale before the album, for example) but you should be wary of what you buy anyways.

Caveat Emptor is something I'd always use when purchasing anything.

People download illegally because- honestly- it's so much easier and accessible to do. You don't have the funds or resources(Though, I do find it a bit hard to believe that an area with a decent download speed wouldn't be within distance of a significant population where therein business will be founded,but I do live in the city) so you have to get the media you want through these means. Generally, I download Anime illegally. Now, I could buy these volumes of overdramatic Japanese animation but honestly, I don't have the resources to do so. IS there a place where I could get them? I'm sure I could find a local place, or use amazon.

The point is, I choose to download these media items illegally because of ease of use. I don't like the fact I'm stealing someone else's work without a payment, but I do it because I want it. That in upon itself is a bit of a immature way of looking at it imo- I want it! They owe it to me because I like their stuff but It's so hard to find. Meh, I'll just take it. One little download won't affect anything.

The prices and hoops you have to go through to get some of these items are- on the other hand- ridiculous. I remember GTA IV being 70 euro here when it launched. 70 euro. That's a crazy price, madness when you look at the 40-50 euro general prices for other games.

There's problems in the industry, but it doesn't mean I have a right to go out and download that game or movie because the price is too high, or it's not so easily accessible. Whether you can prove there is a deficit involved or not, I do think you're stealing someone else's creation...

Of couse, I download illegally. I can't be the kettle calling the pot black... But I'm certainly not going to say that it's in my rights to do this. I don't think it is at all.

TL;DR: Illegal downloading is taking something you haven't entitlement to, in my eyes. There shouldn't be any airs or graces of "Oh, I don't know if my purchase is a good buy or not therefore I deserve to get this for free without consent to test", because you really can't do that with a physical product...

P.S. Netflix and Spotify services have, apparently, affected piracy levels as of 2011:

https://torrentfreak.com/netflix-is-killing-bittorrent-in-the-us-110427/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...y-and-Netflix-curb-music-and-film-piracy.html

I think I missed the whole point of the current direction the debate is going, but who honestly gives a fuck? :monster:
 
What I do think is IF you download music, let it be something already out. None of the early stuff before the official release of a product. Because lets be honest a Hastings (since that is the only decent music store I have where I live) does not have some of the hard to get stuff. Plus I do think you should be able to get to test the music before committing money, Reason being if you really love a band odds are you already have CDs of them. I will use the band Birthday massacre for example (who I love their music), they are hard to find at the town im at. So I download them because there is no possible way to get them otherwise. That is my rant about it take it or leave it.
 
Plus I do think you should be able to get to test the music before committing money, [...]
iTunes is actually great for this, it will give you between 30 seconds and 1 minute to preview, for every song they have, 100% free of charge :)

The fact that iTunes went from the most draconian DRM-laden pile of pish to being a completely open system that lets you copy the files and play your music on anything with speakers, I feel that music is the one piece of content that people have no excuse to pirate.
Obviously that doesn't apply to old music you cannot legally purchase any more, as it was never digitised officially, and stores don't carry game soundtracks from the 90s.

None of the problems I highlighted in my previous posts exist with music. In fact, iTunes has become a perfect example of what should happen to other content types; installed iTunes on a new computer? Great, just log in with your Apple ID and press a button to download all your purchased music. Sorted.

I should actually look into whether movies purchased on iTunes follow the same rules...
 
Mmm, I think internet theft is a pretty bad issue altogether. I'm not too sure what could be categorized as piracy anymore though. If you are storing stuff into a cloud or any other online storage, I think it is susceptible to theft. I always urge people to not buy into the whole Azure SQL database cloud quite yet. If you are stupid enough to store personal data such as bank account information into relational databases, then you will be hacked one day.

Now for "piracy" I think downloading music has been around since the beginning of the internet. Whether it be copying songs to a CD and giving the CD to a friend without making them pay, or just straight up getting back on Kazaa, Limewire, Napster from back in the day and downloading loads of music / music videos / movies, I think the music industry pays way to much to record labels. I mean most musicians make money by playing live shows anyway, not by music play on the air or cd/bluray sales. The record label usually profits off these.

So I have really no sympathy for music piracy as it's pretty much free advertisement. Honestly these days I can pop on spotify and get most of what I need anyway. I have a pretty eclectic taste, especially since I have quite the active lifestyle.

Now for game piracy.. I mean who cares? As long as everyone is paying a dang subscription fee these days, I think more and more games need to be free. It sucks for game developers, but just remember John Carmack from the creator of Doom/Quake/Wolfenstein 3d Series. Him and John Romero put most of the stuff on freeware and open sourced the code so that other programmers could come around and use the engines and the software to abstract new modifications. These mods created awesome games such as Team Fortress Classic and Counter Strike. Newer and better designs came out later down the line with the Q3 engine. If the market went completely digital, then honestly I would see no way people could get around paying for the game.

Let's talk movies. Hahahaha, really? I'm sorry.. Most movies are now streamed through Netflix/Hulu/HBO Go and other streaming networks. I think movies in this respect are pretty much free, due to you are paying like 8 bucks a month for these services. If you really want to watch movies, then I think we should open back up Packets again and stream the heck out of them. Now-a-days people are putting malware in the torrented stuff or stuff that has pretty crappy sound quality. I think actors in general are paid way too much. It's ludicrous that bad acting can amount to so much money. It's just another form of cheap entertainment. I think freely trading these, could contribute to better acting if people actually paid for the "good" movies.

I mean most common people still go to movie theaters when a good movie is out. Do I want to buy a movie that I've already seen? Not really.. Now if you haven't seen it.. then I think you should have to pay for it.

Also I think movies in the theaters these days, should never be pirated, until released to dvd/bluray.
 
@Shu

Whereas I see your point of view I still think it's a little off target to the point and rights that these industries are fighting for. Irregardless of the fact on whether or not we personally feel that record labels are making too much money, the fact remains that they are still entitled to the right to do so. Taking the music for free robs them of these rights. I personally feel that car manufacturers make too much money but I can't simply walk in and take that lovely Lexus I always wanted. Be it a solid object that one can touch or a digital file that one can download, these are all products that the producers and distributors have a right to make money from.

I don't really see your point in regards to streaming sites. You made the point that streaming sites render movies as being practically free but this doesn't justify illegally downloading anything. Regardless of how much it costs us to legally view a movie on Netflix, the movie companies have still (theoretically) given permission for these movies to be broadcasted (the same goes for Spotify in regards to the music industry). This is the entire point; the permission to use and distribute the created material.

Also, if we justify the stealing of this kind of material (i.e. games, music, films) then that will create a precident that will open the door to a whole bigger picture. Do we really want a meltdown of these laws, ideals and rights? Where would it stop? To take away the rights from these people to make their living in the way that they see fit because we feel they are getting too much money for what they have produced is indeed inhibiting and controlling personal freedom. It may seem over the top and way too zealous to put it that way but, in fairness, it is a backdoor to...well other law systems...like communism. If this is what nations want then fine, if not, then well...

Lastly I would like to point out that there are a lot of people who still prefer to watch a DVD in the evening or put on a CD during dinner or even get comfy in a sofa and play a game on the telly. Not everyone has fast internet connection flowing into thier homes and has the wish to be online to do all these things. It matters not that Netflix offers unlimited streams for eight something a month, some just want to put on the DVD and not have to worry about their internet being a prima donna. For these, (who are not as small a number as one would think) there is still a market for the genuine products because simply put, not everyone wants to live half their life online. A little off the topic at hand but there you are. :)
 
Last edited:
I remember back in the early 2000's we downloaded alot, ALOT of music. I'm sure you all know the biggest players when it came to downloading music/music videos back then. Back in them dinosaur days when AOL was the "go to" internet and getting 1 song completed took days to complete.

I don't download anymore. Not with all of the viruses out there and the risk of being taken to court and fined for doing so.
My feelings on downloading is that if you download an artists music and you love it, you should buy their albums to support them. I feel it shows more appreciation for the artists work and it affects them personally in a positive way. No matter how very small the amount they get from your purchase is, it still goes to THEM.
 
If I have paid for a game and then torrent it anyway is that still wrong?
 
If I have paid for a game and then torrent it anyway is that still wrong?

I don't see how it is. Unless you count the fact that you are using the services of a site that promotes illegal activity, the fact that you have purchased the content pretty much leaves you in the clear, at least, that's how I see it. I'm sure there are still some ethical issues there but, since you've shown good intent and action, I don't see the point in people getting bogged down with every nitty gritty detail.
 
I don't support the argument behind Intellectual Property to begin with since it's a violation of Private Property. I think having trademarks and copyrights to a degree is acceptable, and I've no problem with piracy whatsoever. If I enjoy something, I'll buy it; if I have practically no interest and really don't, then no one can claim a loss.
 
I don't support the argument behind Intellectual Property to begin with since it's a violation of Private Property. I think having trademarks and copyrights to a degree is acceptable, and I've no problem with piracy whatsoever. If I enjoy something, I'll buy it; if I have practically no interest and really don't, then no one can claim a loss.

I'm assuming here that if you have practically no interest in something, that instead of buying it, you would illegally download it. Which of course begs the question, why are you illegally downloading it if you have little to no interest in it? That doesn't seem to be a good enough reason to allow people to steal. If you wouldn't buy it, then you shouldn't have the material, period.
 
I guess the only piracy I commit these days is so that I can watch Game of Thrones (and I also did so with Daredevil) so that I can keep up to date and avoid spoilers ruining the enjoyment for me. Since I don't have any of the very select channels or services which these air on, I need (or, I guess, I want) to watch it somewhere else on streaming websites (I don't use torrents).

However, I always buy every season of Game of Thrones on DVD when they release, so I buy back whatever they may have lost from me. As for Daredevil I'm assuming (and hoping) that they release that on DVD as well, and that they aren't being asses to everybody who doesn't have Netflix. Daredevil is simply too good for them to be elitist on this, and therefore they're denying themselves a much larger audience by only having it available on Netflix. That's the nature of the deal that they made though, I guess. It is referred to as 'Netflix's Daredevil', but I do hope for a DVD still? I would like to pay for it and own it rather than pay for a service which allows me to watch it for a month before I unsubscribe.

I guess I support piracy in some cases when it comes to downloading things that are impossible to buy. Perhaps a soundtrack for a game was never officially released, but you love it, and somebody ripped the soundtrack somehow and has posted it online. This sort of piracy is done with love and respect for the music and game, and since it isn't on sale then nothing is being lost. I have a few tracks from Croc and Medievil in this way. If an OST was released for these games I may buy them, but it seems unlikely that these will be released 15 years on...

I tend to buy the things I like. If I don't buy CDs for music then I purchase tracks on itunes. If I want to trial music before I buy it then I see if it is available on Spotify. If it isn't on Spotify then it is most likely on Youtube.

There are fewer excuses for being a pirate these days. There's a lot of things on the internet which can be found and trialed without having to download rips from torrent sites.
 
I'm assuming here that if you have practically no interest in something, that instead of buying it, you would illegally download it. Which of course begs the question, why are you illegally downloading it if you have little to no interest in it? That doesn't seem to be a good enough reason to allow people to steal. If you wouldn't buy it, then you shouldn't have the material, period.

Since you ignore that I don't accept it is stealing, that the idea of piracy being theft is a violation of private property rights, I'll ask you this: how do you figure stealing is wrong? That is, by what system of logic (or beliefs) do you claim stealing is wrong?
 
Since you ignore that I don't accept it is stealing, that the idea of piracy being theft is a violation of private property rights, I'll ask you this: how do you figure stealing is wrong? That is, by what system of logic (or beliefs) do you claim stealing is wrong?

I think you'll find the answer to that question in the laws that protect private and intellectual property rights; Google it. Also how do you figure that just because you don't accept that it is stealing that it should become an OK thing to help yourself? And for that matter, would you deem it alright for someone to start helping themselves to your stuff, if they stole a bit of money here and bit of cash there, that would be cool with you? How very obliging.
 
I think you'll find the answer to that question in the laws that protect private and intellectual property rights; Google it.

So you base your logic of acceptability and morals on the legal system? Would you've said the same about slavery? We're pretty much done here (or at least I am since I did not ask what the logic behind the law is, I asked you what system of logic or beliefs YOU use to come to your conclusion; needless to say, I have no interest in what the law says in any sort of debate), but I'll continue along.

Also how do you figure that just because you don't accept that it is stealing that it should become an OK thing to help yourself?

It is by every definition that when one finds something acceptable or moral it does make it okay in their view for them do such a thing. I don't even see how you can question that.

And for that matter, would you deem it alright for someone to start helping themselves to your stuff, if they stole a bit of money here and bit of cash there, that would be cool with you? How very obliging.

No one is being deprived of an object when it comes to piracy. You can make claims all you want, but stealing has been regarded as being wrong in every self-respecting society due to the fact it deprives its owner of the object's use (a physical coercion being involved). It simply cannot apply to intellectual property, no matter what the courts say (especially when such courts and legal systems are absolute blunders beholden to ideas that criminalize self-ownership).
 
Last edited:
Music was my main downloading item. I have a lot of it, and I haven't don't it in about 4 to 5 years. It's not that I got worried or anything, it just hasn't been a priority for me anymore. I had used everything from the original Napster, to Kazaa, to Frostwire and Limewire. A little bit of whatever I could in order to fill my iPod with the latest and greatest songs at parties.
 
Music was my main downloading item. I have a lot of it, and I haven't don't it in about 4 to 5 years. It's not that I got worried or anything, it just hasn't been a priority for me anymore. I had used everything from the original Napster, to Kazaa, to Frostwire and Limewire. A little bit of whatever I could in order to fill my iPod with the latest and greatest songs at parties.

Those that matter while condemning piracy (RIAA, Metallica, EA) don't care. Whether you pirated one thing or you've pirated dozens of things, you're just no different. Even once you pay, you're still a pirate. One thing I respect Microsoft for, they've come out time and time again preferring people to pirate their software than using nothing at all.

Nor do I mind that they implement DRM or throw on DLC, I understand the need to minimize the cost. However, none of it was in response to piracy; DRM from day-1 has been to prevent second-hand selling of a product in the '90s.

For that matter, no one would accept a chair if it came with a contract requiring that it be disposed of or turned back into the manufacturer instead of selling it, yet we do so with software all the time.

Edit: My quoting of BustaMo is one of convenience. That's all.
 
Last edited:
So you base your logic of acceptability and morals on the legal system? Would you've said the same about slavery? We're pretty much done here (or at least I am since I did not ask what the logic behind the law is, I asked you what system of logic or beliefs YOU use to come to your conclusion; needless to say, I have no interest in what the law says in any sort of debate), but I'll continue along.

In obeying a law, a person is not giving up their right to question nor their right to assemble. When people can't accept a law they should challenge it, not sit back and blatantly disregard it and participate in illegal activity.

It is by every definition that when one finds something acceptable or moral it does make it okay in their view for them do such a thing. I don't even see how you can question that.

That's a very elastic sense of logic. Also, it's flawed. A person may find it completely acceptable to be racist or have no moral quandaries discriminating against someone; hell, the KKK thought they were doing their country a favour! Does it make it alright for them to do as they please because this was their point of view? Not so much.

Now, really we're talking about petty theft here and don't need to look at such radical examples like I've pointed out above, but since you were arguing the fundamentals we can see where such logic can lead us.

No one is being deprived of an object when it comes to piracy. You can make claims all you want, but stealing has been regarded as being wrong in every self-respecting society due to the fact it deprives its owner of the object's use (a physical coercion being involved). It simply cannot apply to intellectual property, no matter what the courts say (especially when such courts and legal systems are absolute blunders beholden to ideas that criminalize self-ownership).

The potential for making a living is being deprived from them (artists, producers, software designers, etc.) when they're product gets used without remuneration. The physical object is not the point, the loss of income is. This has already been covered in depth in this discussion already so there's no need to rehash this.
 
In obeying a law, a person is not giving up their right to question nor their right to assemble. When people can't accept a law they should challenge it, not sit back and blatantly disregard it and participate in illegal activity.

That has nothing to do with what I asked. That being by what system of logic or set of beliefs do you use to find it wrong or unacceptable? I said we're done because I know you're not going to come around on this, knowing you would claim that we should try to change the law like as if that's even remotely reasonable. Since I am a moral individual, it is my obligation to break any law that contradicts my morals and furthermore, I am innocent until proven guilty - no matter what the court claims - and doing something illegal does not make me guilty which even the court system still acknowledges at least.

That's a very elastic sense of logic. Also, it's flawed. A person may find it completely acceptable to be racist or have no moral quandaries discriminating against someone; hell, the KKK thought they were doing their country a favour! Does it make it alright for them to do as they please because this was their point of view? Not so much.

My "elastic" sense of logic is nowhere as you make it to be. I said very clearly if someone finds something acceptable, that they of course are going to have no quandary to doing such things.

Now, really we're talking about petty theft here and don't need to look at such radical examples like I've pointed out above, but since you were arguing the fundamentals we can see where such logic can lead us.

My logic starts with that of the Non-Aggression Pact. If there's no act of aggression (which is: theft, assault, murder, rape), it is perfectly fine to do whatever one wants. (Edit: Which yes, I defend as both objective and efficiently-pragmatic in/upon itself.)

The potential for making a living is being deprived from them (artists, producers, software designers, etc.) when they're product gets used without remuneration. The physical object is not the point, the loss of income is. This has already been covered in depth in this discussion already so there's no need to rehash this.

The object itself is not the point, that much I never claimed. The point is the reason behind why and how stealing is wrong: there's actual deprivation occurring (to be exact, someone is being coerced out of an object), whereas potential damages is an entirely-arbitrary concept, no objectivity at all.
 
I tend to download stuff i'm curious about. There are rarely decent Demos anymore because companies distort and control demos in such a way I dont feel they are representative of the final products in alot of scenarios these days so I tend to download stuff I want to try before buying, that said; I don't have a 100% conversion rate. There have been some things i've downloaded, enjoyed, and not bought, but i'd like to say im pretty good when it comes to stuff like that. 85% or so
 
Back
Top