Terminalcoffee discussion
Pop Culture / Celebrities
>
Is file sharing unethical?
date
newest »
newest »
Is that like sharing a file with someone who is in jail?
i did Limewire for a while a few years back and downloaded lots of songs. then when my kids got to where they were messing around with downloading it was difficult for me to tell them what was right while i was doing it. i don't file share now with movies or music. there is lots of ways to do it right that is still free or affordable.
I think that more or less it is unethical. Essentially it kind of is stealing seen as the person that created the work is not getting anything for it...where as under normal circumstances they would.Back in the day of Napster I used to download songs. Not anymore. I've had my mac now for @least 6 years and I never put a downloading program on there. So its definitely been awhile.
with my fake adress no one will know who i am so i can confess right? i still buy cd's when i have the money. when i listen to something i didn't pay for and like i still talk about it to friends who might buy it.
I'm really torn on this one, honestly. Three things:1) I think the "CD" price for albums is too high, so file-sharing, pay sites, etc. has caused the price to go down, I assume. I've rolled my eyes when I've heard some musicians say things like "illegal downloading is taking money from my family" on tv. Uh, didn't I see you on Mtv Cribs with a shark tank in your garage wall, right next to your seventeen cars? But I know that's not the majority of musicians by a long shot.
2. Our CD shebangs share music and maybe generate fans for other bands. How is that different? Is it because the music was (presumably) purchased first by one person? A couple years ago I passed some Stars of the Lid CDs around Chicago and in turn got three people to see them in concert with me. They generated income in that way. What about if you rent a movie and have ten people over to watch it? Should they all pay individually?
3. Then again, if you really like something, like Janine said, you should help support the artist. Unfortunately there's no easy way to do that outside of purchasing the music. So I do, with musicians I really like. If you try out some new band, through file sharing, and don't like them, you should erase their material or at minimum don't listen to it anymore. Then I don't think you should have to pay.
it's stealing. whether you steal an apple from a beggar or a millionaire it is still stealing. there are so many ways around actually buying music that it boils down to a personal choice of actions. i don't always make the right choice. if you were a professor and students paid good money to be in your class/lectures and some students recorded them so they could give them to other students who didn't want to pay the price but wanted to hear and then your class/lecture size went down and you were subsequently paid less - would you feel this was the same thing?
Personally, I think as long as I get paid for teaching the class, anyone can listen. But that's a different situation, to be fair. I don't think anyone would want to listen to my classes over and over again. Hell, some of my students don't want to listen the first time:) I don't get paid by the student. Maybe if I did I would feel different, but I also assess/give feedback, and that couldn't be filed shared. I guess that's the equivalent of a concert. This is a confusing analogy:)
Yes, I hear you on the millionaire/apple thing; my point is that I'm curious about the economics of CDs, etc., and how much a song or album should fairly cost. When CDs were the only game in town, some (a few?) musicians got very, very rich. Now the market has changed. I imagine the people are hurt the most are the musicians who weren't making much in the first place.
But what about file sharing to hear an album, and then buying it if you like it and not buying it if you don't listen to it? What if file sharing brings new fans?
I do think if you listen to a song, like it, and keep it in your collection the musician should be paid. I don't know how much, etc.
i want sarah pi's opinion on this. she is a musician right in the thick of this convo. i know part of the CD cost used to be the elaborate packaging they used. now more and more are in small cardboard boxes barely bigger than the CD. there have to be less cost not to even produce CD's as much and .99 a song from itunes seems like a lot when you think about basically no cost to reproduce after it is put into digital formatyeah, was trying to sucker you in with the teacher analogy :)
Yeah, I'm curious about what Sarah Pi says, too. She's busy runnin' a bar, though. No file sharing alcohol, to my knowledge...:)
Yep, it's stealing. I try not to even accept burned CDs from friends. Plus Limewire gave my daughter's laptop some nasty viruses.
Part of the ongoing battle between the RIAA and file sharing systems like iTunes and Napster is the implication that once you've purchased the CD, you're free to do with it as you wish, and a lot of times that means sharing the music you've purchased. The RIAA sees this as stealing, which I don't. I bought the CD. If I want to make 100 copies for my friends, I should have that right.
Same with file downloads from iTunes. When the MPGs were all DRM, it was a bitch and a half to break that DRM encryption and make a shebang with legally downloaded songs. When Steve Jobs told the RIAA that DRM was horseshit and started offering songs without the DRM encryption, that made my shebanging life a lot easier.
Same with file downloads from iTunes. When the MPGs were all DRM, it was a bitch and a half to break that DRM encryption and make a shebang with legally downloaded songs. When Steve Jobs told the RIAA that DRM was horseshit and started offering songs without the DRM encryption, that made my shebanging life a lot easier.
Totally unethical, no question.Then again, the cd mixes friends have sent have introduced me to new musicians, and then I go and buy another track or the entire cd....
So, am I unethical?
rats!
Ethical or unethical I honestly don't care. The thing for me is that it's illegal. That's enough to keep me from doing it. I don't judge though, I just ask not to be involved.
Stealing my work without paying a royalty or giving a reference is evil. It's ok if I do it to other people, however.
I think sharing with friends is okay, to a limited extent. I wasn't going to buy that music, because I didn't even KNOW about it before. But now I might buy some songs from that artist on iTunes, now that my friend has introduced me to them with a mix CD.But file sharing online, I disagree with, because then you are purposely avoiding paying for something you know you want.
iTunes allows you to burn seven copies of a playlist onto CDs, including tunes purchased online.
It's apparent that the internet is turning upside down many of our long-standing beliefs about property, and especially intellectual property. Writers, musicians and others are in danger of losing their livelihoods just as in earlier generations manuscript gave way to printing, live music-hall and theatre lost out to the cinema and the horse-drawn carriage was supplanted by the motor car. There are real pressures from record companies, artists and others to restore some kind of status quo ante. However, there are other pressures that seem to be leading heaven knows where. These latter are perceived by many to be radically liberating. My guess is that, after a few years, new, hitherto unheard of commercial relations will emerge, but that some people will be crushed as old values give way to new.
Is it just me, or is Anthony discussing a new world order?::shivers::
Is that a black helicopter I see outside my window?
Kevin "El Liso Grande" wrote: "that was sort of random, anthony"Kevin is on today.
It is stealing. Is it unethical?-- personally, I think that if it is stealing, then it is unethical. However, the recording industry is built upon unethcial practices-- ask any artist that has been cheated out of royalties, or who does not own their own music-- Beatles/Paul McCartney, anyone?. I don't feel a bit sorry for the record labels or the RIAA. They have been gouging consumers for years with the prices of CDs. There is no reason why CDs have to cost as much as the do. The record labels more often than not, own the rights to the music, not the musicians. So unless the artist is well represented and can negotiate retaining the rights to the music, the label gets the lions share of the money generated from music-- and spare me any arguments about record labels putting up 'all-kinds' of money to promote album sales and tours, please. I will listen to something through Napster and if I like it, I will buy it, if not, I will delete it. Lately, I will try to purchase CDs directly from the artist to make sure they are receiving more of the profits.
Sorry, didn't mean to sound as jaded as this does :)
Sorry, didn't mean to sound as jaded as this does :)
Larry wrote, iTunes allows you to burn seven copies of a playlist onto CDs, including tunes purchased online.
The newest release of iTunes, version 9.x, allows unlimited burns.
The newest release of iTunes, version 9.x, allows unlimited burns.
whoa mike. easy big fella. remember, the artists at some point sign the contracts that screw themselves (if you call making millions and having rockstar idol status being screwed)
Gus wrote: "Larry wrote, iTunes allows you to burn seven copies of a playlist onto CDs, including tunes purchased online. The newest release of iTunes, version 9.x, allows unlimited burns."
Did not know this.
Kevin "El Liso Grande" wrote: "whoa mike. easy big fella. remember, the artists at some point sign the contracts that screw themselves (if you call making millions and having rockstar idol status being screwed)"
You are totally right, they do sign the contract. But it seems that the record labels are being opportunistic and predatory in the way they handle contract issues. :)
You are totally right, they do sign the contract. But it seems that the record labels are being opportunistic and predatory in the way they handle contract issues. :)
well, not if you're living in a small town, somewhere in a third world country and missing on a lot of things. I do purchase, that has never been a problem, but sometimes I just can't help it.
Mike wrote: "I don't feel a bit sorry for the record labels or the RIAA. They have been gouging consumers for years with the prices of CDs."Ah yes, the justification defense. "It's okay to steal from that shop owner -- his price on Twinkies is outrageous!"
I don't have a problem with a guy making a mix tape to win back his girl, but I can not agree that it's okay for people to use filesharing sites to steal what they won't pay for.
I might never leave the house if WiFi disappeared in public...
Misha wrote: "I think it's a perfect example of an industry trying to influence lawmakers to preserve a business model that's failing..."Frankly, the failure of business models due to the internet is only one such failure. Watching the credit crunch was like watching a souffle collapse. The souffle is still there, but nobody believes it worth eating.
It is plain that old ways are no longer satisfactory, but nobody knows what will replace them.
Is online file sharing, whether it's movies, music, etc. unethical? Where do you stand?
(Note...don't incriminate yourself, lest TC end up in court...:)