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

The majority of internet users are NOT ok with downloading copyright material. Per capita, Canada is the biggest offender in the world for it and many still frown on it. Tell an American you download illegal stuff and they'll get quite upset. It isn't something you bring up in public.

You watch too much industry sponsored TV news, because as an American, I don't
care if you d/l music or not.

Tell an American you download illegal stuff and they'll get quite upset. It isn't something you bring up in public.

bwahahahaha …. that was a good one. thx for the laugh

Canada

A blank media levy was introduced in Canada in 1997, by the addition of Part VIII, "Private Copying", to the Canadian Copyright Act. The power to set rates and to set the distribution allocation is vested in the Copyright Board of Canada. The Copyright Board has handed the task of collecting and distributing the funds to the Canadian Private Copying Collective, which is a non-profit private organization.

In Canada:

• The levy applies to "blank audio recording media", such as CD-Rs.
• The levy is paid by importers and manufacturers of such media sold within Canada (and typically passed on to the retailer, and passed on to the purchaser).
• The levy is collected regardless of the purchaser's end use of the media.
• The private copying levy is distributed as per the Copyright Board's allocation as: 66% to eligible authors and publishers,18.9% to eligible performers and 15.1% to eligible record companies.
• The Canadian Private Copying Collective has developed a methodology by which the proceeds are distributed to rights holders based on commercial radio airplay and commercial sales samples, ignoring radio/college airplay and independent record sales not logged by Soundscan. This methodology has been criticized as favouring major-label artists at the expense of the long-tail. As of September 7, 2007 over one hundred million dollars has been distributed.
• In conjunction with the levy, the Copyright Act allows individuals to make copies of sound recordings for their own private, non-commercial use. They may not distribute the copy.
• On December 17, 2004, a Canadian judge ruled that the blank media tax no longer applied to MP3 players such as Apple Inc.'s iPod. Before this, the rates were $2 for players with less than 1 GB of capacity, $15 for players up to 15 GB, and $25 for players 15 GB and over.
• On 2007-2-12, CPCC asked the Copyright Board of Canada to reintroduce the levy of $5 to $75 into the sale price of MP3 players in Canada.[1] In addition, CPCC also proposed levies of $2 to $10 for memory cards (since withdrawn), 8 cent increases to CD, CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio and MiniDiscs.[2]
• On 2007-9, Canadian Recording Industry Association filed lawsuit to Federal Court of Appeal to repeal private copying levy, claiming it legalizes copying for the private use of the person making the copy, regardless of whether the source is non-infringing or not.[3] On 2007-10-26, the court granted CRIA's request to intervene in the private copying/iPod levy judicial review.[4]
• On 2008-01-11, The Federal Court of Appeal rejected the Copyright Board of Canada's proposed new levy on MP3 players, stating that the board erred in law, ruling that they do not have the regulatory authority to impose such levies.[5]

Canada's current levies are as follows: $0.24 per unit for Audio Cassette tape (40min or longer), and $0.29 per unit for CD-R, CD-RW, CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio and MiniDisc.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy

I just dled 5gb of music tonight.

i need to switch torrent sites now

The plane will take off.

The plane will not take off.

Your question is invalid.

Morals are socially accepted behaviours. Society (millions of people as per your post) accepts and endorses that behaviour. Thus Morality.

It is moral to chop of someones head in Saudi. It is not in Canada. Morality is not some universal constant. It changes with geographic location AND with time, as per Andrews post.

Millions of people (society) are ok with downloading, therefore society is ok with downloading. Therefore downloading IS moral.
We are simply seeing a slow to react provider (the music and film industry) try to force us not to change our 'new morality'.

Duncan,

Good post, thanks.

You are quite right that we often describe morality as simply a set of socially acceptable rules of behavior. Unfortunately taking such view limits us in terms of understanding universal morality. Religious groups tend to condemn homosexuality as immoral, and while there may be millions of religious followers who adopt that view, millions of rational thinkers will deem such view as immoral. So, how do we know which morals one should adopt? I try to adopt the normative account of morality, where morality is primarily concerned with avoiding and preventing harm.
By that logic, I think it is immoral to condemn homosexuality as immoral (avoiding harm) and feel the obligation to discuss this issue (preventing harm) should it come up in a conversation with a person of such strong religious beliefs. Because the view that homosexuality is immoral harms homosexuals in limiting their freedom. Do you agree with me?

Similarly, just because a large group of our society views downloading as acceptable behavior, it does not make such behavior moral. When an artist creates a song, that artist should have control over how his product is being used. By taking that power of choice from that person, we cause harm to that person. Causing harm is immoral.

I did not respond to Andrew[HTML_REMOVED]#8217;s post, while it seemed to have a good logical flow to it, the argument that an artist who worked hard at creating a song has no rights over that song is not valid. The difference between making a song and making say, a chair is that after creation of a song (due to technological advances) one can be duplicate it with ease, which obviously cannot be done with a chair. It does not change the fact that the owner should have a choice in how that chair/song is being used.

i should be able to dl transformers for free since it was one big gm ad

The plane will take off.

The plane will not take off.

Your question is invalid.

Morals are socially accepted behaviours. Society (millions of people as per your post) accepts and endorses that behaviour. Thus Morality.

It is moral to chop of someones head in Saudi. It is not in Canada. Morality is not some universal constant. It changes with geographic location AND with time, as per Andrews post.

Millions of people (society) are ok with downloading, therefore society is ok with downloading. Therefore downloading IS moral.
We are simply seeing a slow to react provider (the music and film industry) try to force us not to change our 'new morality'.

Wow. Im impressed with that. Only one issue. I dont agree with you take on morality. It should be somewhat universal. As in, it should not be moral to chop off someones head, EVER.

Is the downloading the "New Normal", yes. Morality is the wrong term I think in this case.

Thats why the whole bike analogy doesnt work.

The proof of this is that many artists and new media providers have gone with the flow and have had great financial success since this "New Normal" arrived.

We are living in a rapidly changing world people. Business models dont last 25 to 50 yrs like in Grandpas day.

Bike Theives will NEVER be tolerated.

Dammit, now that opened my mouth I cant even chop off their heads anymore if I catch one.

Wow. Im impressed with that. Only one issue. I dont agree with you take on morality. It should be somewhat universal. As in, it should not be moral to chop off someones head, EVER.

Is the downloading the "New Normal", yes. Morality is the wrong term I think in this case.

Thats why the whole bike analogy doesnt work.

The proof of this is that many artists and new media providers have gone with the flow and have had great financial success since this "New Normal" arrived.

We are living in a rapidly changing world people. Business models dont last 25 to 50 yrs like in Grandpas day.

Using the argument that "many artists have gone with the flow" is not a proof, and I think that this issue is indeed an issue of morality (universal). Imagine that the slaves tried to rebel but failed, had no support from the owners and then many of them "have gone with the flow" and tried to make the best of it, would it make it morally right to have slaves? The idea is that just because one adjusts to the social "norm" that adjustment does not make that "norm" a moral one. Just like people in Saudi accept that beheading is a "norm".

Its funny that the world is hald HD/Blueray crazy and the rest are watching 320x480 movies. lol.

It's funny that people still think this is what movie downloaders are forced to watch.

I download DVD image files and then burn them onto to discs. Comes complete with the menu screens and everything.

I did not respond to Andrews post, while it seemed to have a good logical flow to it, the argument that an artist who worked hard at creating a song has no rights over that song is not valid. The difference between making a song and making say, a chair is that after creation of a song (due to technological advances) one can be duplicate it with ease, which obviously cannot be done with a chair. It does not change the fact that the owner should have a choice in how that chair/song is being used.

Pretty sure that my copying a set of U2 songs from one of our last summer students had very little effect, if any, on the fortunes of U2 - i.e. I do not think I did them any harm at all.

In fact - since I had such a selection of U2 to listen to, and I didn't pay for it so the occasional crappy song didn't make me mad at the band for charging me $30 for a CD, I decided to go to their concert. Now we have an example of illegal file sharing causing a benefit to the original artist. Oh noes!!!!

Also - are you really gonna tell me I couldn't copy a chair I saw if I liked it! Are you srs!?!

Pretty sure that my copying a set of U2 songs from one of our last summer students had very little effect, if any, on the fortunes of U2 - i.e. I do not think I did them any harm at all.

I just emailed this post to Bono and he is hopping mad.

Pretty sure that my copying a set of U2 songs from one of our last summer students had very little effect, if any, on the fortunes of U2 - i.e. I do not think I did them any harm at all.

In fact - since I had such a selection of U2 to listen to, and I didn't pay for it so the occasional crappy song didn't make me mad at the band for charging me $30 for a CD, I decided to go to their concert. Now we have an example of illegal file sharing causing a benefit to the original artist. Oh noes!!!!

Also - are you really gonna tell me I couldn't copy a chair I saw if I liked it! Are you srs!?!

Andrew, you can listen to a song, remember it and then record it from scratch, I see no moral issue with that.

That said, stealing the drawings from a creator of a unique chair just to replicate it (and perhaps even slap on his logo on it) is not moral.

You are wasting way too much energy fighting an ebattle bro. Arguing wether or not downloading is ethical on a web forum is as pointless as holding a lecture about the the ethics of stealing booty(treasure) at a pirate convention.

After over 100 replies, I'd like to quote my favorite, so true and yet I can't seem to stay away from this thread. :lol: I am sure I'll be checking in tomorrow again.