If you download music/movies, do you ... *new: post 300 rant*

When you purchase a CD/Movie it is up to you what you do with your copy, you can lend it to your friend, there is no moral issue there. The artist chose to sell that one copy to you and you chose to pay it for that particular price. I draw the line at "burning" a copy for a friend, unless you had explicit permission from the artist.

OK - so I have a copy of all of the songs on my IPOD, and now my buddy has the CD. Is this still moral?

typed it all up sitting on the shitter, no chairs at home, hope you are happy :lol:

You will be able to torrent your chairs back to your house soon - they will arrive in small pieces and require some reassembly…

As to the argument about record companies… why should it matter if you are stealing from a company or an individual. The issue we are discussing here is not about them, it is about us, it is about our behavior and what we should or should not do.

What needs to be considered is how did the law governing the use/copying/sale of digital files come into being? Who lobbied for it in the first place? IMO this is much more a "legal" than a "moral" issue.

Hey Joe. Since you obviously pay for all your music, videos etc, do you feel like the record companies are stealing from you with the tax on blank CDs and DVDs?

If there was proof that my $0.99 per song was actually going to the artists, or at least a sizeable percentage going to the artist and not to some record label corporate fat-cat taking advantage of them I'd probably pay more often.

Sleeping like a baby.

anyone have an idea of how much of the $0.99 itunes gives to the artists?

just found out today while in london drugs that cds are still sold.:lol:

As to the argument about record companies… why should it matter if you are stealing from a company or an individual. The issue we are discussing here is not about them, it is about us, it is about our behavior and what we should or should not do.

I never said that stealing from a company is any different than stealing from an individual. Downloading pirated material is stealing, no argument there. The way I and other attempt to justify that theft differs depending on the circumstances in which I/they've stolen something. I'm merely trying to point out that, when dealing with most major studio releases, the studio has already stolen the music from the artist, I'm stealing stolen goods from a thief, and unless there is a way for me to directly make reparations to THE ARTIST, I don't feel bad about it.

anyone have an idea of how much of the $0.99 itunes gives to the artists?

just found out today while in london drugs that cds are still sold.:lol:

Check this little article out, it's by a musician and tends to give a little insight into how studios f*ck artists over with digital DLs….

I use the "don't download Joe Kickass's torrents" on utorrent. That way I know I'm only borrowing copies from friends.

Give it 5 years and everything will be streaming and "on-demand".

Welcome to last year.

anyone have an idea of how much of the $0.99 itunes gives to the artists?

just found out today while in london drugs that cds are still sold.:lol:

I think it depends if you release through a label or independently. I'll ask my brother in law when I see him at christmas, his band has stuff on iTunes.

I downloaded NIN's last album - was that stealing?

Welcome to last year.

Last year (and right now even) it is slow, not all HD and patchy in when/where you get it.

I'm talking near instant DL's, HD streaming with no lag time/stoppages in streaming etc.

In other words - a revolution!

Hey Joe. Since you obviously pay for all your music, videos etc, do you feel like the record companies are stealing from you with the tax on blank CDs and DVDs?

Obviously, I mean just as you have been obviously paying attention in this thread ;).

I never said that stealing from a company is any different than stealing from an individual. Downloading pirated material is stealing, no argument there. The way I and other attempt to justify that theft differs depending on the circumstances in which I/they've stolen something. I'm merely trying to point out that, when dealing with most major studio releases, the studio has already stolen the music from the artist, I'm stealing stolen goods from a thief, and unless there is a way for me to directly make reparations to THE ARTIST, I don't feel bad about it.

Good, we agree on the part in bold.

Let me ask you this then, if you had an opportunity to steal a stolen bike and get away with it, would you do it? The key here is to look at both a) your motives and b)your personal benefit. If you stole a bike and had no benefit from it (that is, you didn't use it, didn't sell it etc.) and your motivation was to discourage the thief from stealing again - then I'd say you are morally OK to steal that bike. But the minute you benefit from such theft (and this is important) you lose the ability to call such act a moral one - this is because once you benefit we cannot differentiate your good motives from personal greed. The same applies to the record companies.

I understand that many of you chose to focus on the record companies because they seem evil (and carefully avoid the issue of downloading the latest movies), and that may be, but it should have no bearing on how one feels about theft that benefits YOU.

What needs to be considered is how did the law governing the use/copying/sale of digital files come into being? Who lobbied for it in the first place? IMO this is much more a "legal" than a "moral" issue.

As far as legal vs moral issue is concerned, I tried to be careful and only use words moral and ethical because _legal _issues are different. **There are times when an act is legal, yet immoral and the other way around.

**

OK - so I have a copy of all of the songs on my IPOD, and now my buddy has the CD. Is this still moral?

You know the answer to that!

Good, we agree on the part in bold.

Let me ask you this then, if you had an opportunity to steal a stolen bike and get away with it, would you do it? The key here is to look at both a) your motives and b)your personal benefit. If you stole a bike and had no benefit from it (that is, you didn't use it, didn't sell it etc.) and your motivation was to discourage the thief from stealing again - then I'd say you are morally OK to steal that bike. But the minute you benefit from such theft (and this is important) you lose the ability to call such act a moral one - this is because once you benefit we cannot differentiate your good motives from personal greed. The same applies to the record companies.

I understand that many of you chose to focus on the record companies because they seem evil (and carefully avoid the issue of downloading the latest movies), and that may be, but it should have no bearing on how one feels about theft that benefits YOU.

That's not a very good analogy.

The question should read: if you had an opportunity to steal a COPY of a stolen bike, leaving the original in it's place, and get away with it, would you do it?

By my COPYING the material I'm not depriving anyone of the material itself. Particularly in the digital age, content can be copied infinitely, without ever depriving anyone access to the content. Come up with a proper analogy and I'll answer your question.

That's not a very good analogy.

The question should read: if you had an opportunity to steal a COPY of a stolen bike, leaving the original in it's place, and get away with it, would you do it?

By my COPYING the material I'm not depriving anyone of the material itself. Particularly in the digital age, content can be copied infinitely, without ever depriving anyone access to the content. Come up with a proper analogy and I'll answer your question.

So how do you feel that I just copied your post?

So how do you feel that I just copied your post?

Pretty good….. kinda gave me a boner actually……. seriously.