P2P filesharing. Ethical or not?

[Ctrackstar126]

I think its unethical I mean after all the government, recording industry and hollywood look out for us. They really do want the best for all of us and would never put themselves before us.

 

[The Batt?sai]

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by: jjones
Filesharing is not only ethical, it's fun!

 

[Brainonska511]

This thread brings to mind this article from the BBC: People who download spend more money on 'legal' music than those who don't download

And this speech about copyright laws: Text

Also with music, when you buy a CD, the artist (especially if they have not hit it big) will may be lucky to see pennies in royalties (after paying back the record studio for recording costs/promotional costs/random fees). File-sharing is a way for artists to get their name out there. If people really like the music, they'll go out and buy the CDs/merchandise/concert tickets. Just look at Audioslave back in the napster days. Their CD got leaked months in advance and the record studio thought it would flop in sales, instead, it was a huge hit, but the studio never thanked Napster for the free promotional tool that it was to the band/studio.

 

[Nik]

There's nothing wrong with filesharing, in and of itself. It's when people start sharing things they don't have the right to share that the problems begin -even then, it's not filesharing's fault they're breaking the law.

Copyright violation has nothing to do with morals or ethics, either.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: eos
I only download commercial music or programs to try before I buy. Really.

I download gb after gb of otherwise freely available material. Live audio and video concerts, WRC, television shows, radio shows, etc.

I have no problems downloading The Adam Carolla radio show because it's available for free, just not where I live.

I agree with this as well. If you record onto your TiVO a simpsons episode, and then FTP it to your PC and then share it - its fine. I download TV shows all the time and I don't feel like I'm doing anything wrong. With other things I agree its wrong, like most software and movies. I do own a copy of Windows XP, but I own two computers - I chose not to buy a second license because I disagree that I should have to. If I bought it, I should be able to put it on as many PCs as I own. This is just the way I feel, what is right or wrong in MS's mind isn't relevant to me.

Yea but you don't own Windows XP, you own a licence to use it, which you have violated. I'm not judging you, but that's not a good arguement. Just go with "Fight the man".

Edit: I agree with the TV show thing.

But thats where I disagree. I bought Windows XP, the whole "licensing" thing with software is BS and I disagree with it. Am I breaking the law? Yes. Am I violating MS's licensing agreement? Yes. But is it ethical or not, thats where there is gray area. I say it is and I couldn't give two fvcks what MS thinks, or the RIAA or anyone else including anyone on this forum.

Basically, to sum it all up Cartman style, "I do what I want, I do what I want"

And by "what I want", I mean I don't have any ethical or moral qualms with driving 5-10 over the speed limit (except school zones and speed traps) nor when I spark a joint on the weekends after a few beers with friends. And I feel the same way about my copy of Windows XP, everyone else be damned.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piracy is not condoned here.

You have clearly admitted as such.

Your attitude of flagrently choosing to break laws also is dangerous.
This is an attitude that chould be re-thought before you do any more harm to others

Everyone else may be dammed; however, our ethics and guidelines with respect to this WILL NOT BE DAMMED.

Take a couple of weeks to reflect accordingly

Mod

 

[zerocool1]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Tab
Absolutely not, it's not only illegal but immoral. Put yourself in the place of the artist/software/moive producer - you're fvcking themover.

Programmers get paid the same regardless, as do actors and producers and everything. It is the distributors who lose out - but only because they have a flawed business model.

Hah! That one is my favorite. You actually make it THEIR fault!

Oh man. Wow.

Nobody is here to change anyone's mind on how they feel about filesharing.

But I agree with Atheus, it isn't flawed in the sense of the word - only outdated. We have no need for record companies anymore, and the RIAA knows it. Thats why they fight so hard, not because of some moral high ground - because they know unless they can form a different and actually NEEDED business model, they won't be around much longer. A cornered dog fights the hardest.

I agree, now that Apple has proven that a digital distribution model works, the RIAA wants to be able to flex their muscles and control how much they go for, essentially to jack up prices.

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
This thread brings to mind this article from the BBC: People who download spend more money on 'legal' music than those who don't download

And this speech about copyright laws: Text

Also with music, when you buy a CD, the artist (especially if they have not hit it big) will may be lucky to see pennies in royalties (after paying back the record studio for recording costs/promotional costs/random fees). File-sharing is a way for artists to get their name out there. If people really like the music, they'll go out and buy the CDs/merchandise/concert tickets. Just look at Audioslave back in the napster days. Their CD got leaked months in advance and the record studio thought it would flop in sales, instead, it was a huge hit, but the studio never thanked Napster for the free promotional tool that it was to the band/studio.

I've read a similar article. But from what I've read. People will dload an indie band album or a few songs, if they like it they'll end up buying it to support the band.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: GuideBot
Copyright violation has nothing to do with morals or ethics, either.

Ethics? Probably not.

Morals? Well thats the thing. If somebody believes its a moral issue than all of a sudden it becomes one. Especially if that one person can get others to believe them. Then they go nuts and start telling everybody else what they can and cant do.
That never bothered me much. My beef is they sometimes call their congressmen and then its everybodies problem.