Should people have the legal right to download copyrighted materials freely and without having to pay for it?
Many people are still upset at the music, movie and game industry. The industries in question have tried to install malware into peoples (and also their customers) computers and they are also trying to sue each single person for millions of pounds. You could argue they put themselves into this position, where people download/file share instead of buying their products. No company in any other market could ever afford treating their customers like that. Besides using file sharing as a medium of saying "we don't like the way you treat us", people have shared things since ages ago. Maybe it should be a right to spread the information. Is copying equal to stealing? Would you steal a car? Would you steal a movie? No, but I probably will download an album or movie sometimes. It will still be there after I downloaded it. Another good thing with downloading copyrighted materials is that a lot of people want a preview of what they are going to buy. A new music album cost a lot of money, so people want ot know what they exactly are buying.
On the other hand there is many problems with downloading copyrighted stuff. To make new music, movies and games you need money. To get this money the producers must be able to sell their work. It does cost a lot of money to make a movie like Harry Potter. The entertainment industry have since the last 10 years lost a lot of money. Although some might think it is their own fault, the fact remains; people have to pay for stuff instead of getting it for free. Also the entertainment industry have lately realised that people want to digitally download instead of buying it in a physical store. For a lot of music artists their money now comes mainly from concerts instead of sales of their albums. Some movies people prefer to watch in cinemas. Many jobs have been lost because of the illegal file sharing and some people even claim that piracy supports drug dealers and human trafficking.
So.. should people have the legal right to download just anything?
Hi Albin and hi everybody, it's a pleasure interacting with all you!
I think that you've explained this important topic very well, as you have underlined most of all aspects, positive and negative, that are involved in this issue.
In relation to your question, my answer is negative, that is to say that, in my opinion, we don't have the right to download freely everything we want.
Many people don't consider downloading a film, a cd, a dvd or a software a so serious crime, others consider it nearly a normal thing. On one hand there are our personal behaviour and our different sensibilities in relation to what is good and what is wrong but, on the other hand it seems to me that probably, according to several people's mentality, buying something means buying something that is material, or buying something that is a service in the traditional meaning of the word, while it still remains 'strange' to pay for something, a software, for example, that is not seen as a real product but as something 'volatile' that probably we will erase from our hard disk in a few days.
It's true, there are different reasons why the majority of us use to download - or have done it sometimes – material protected by copyright. Even those wo have a slow internet connection like mine have tried to download something, there are so many things on internet! However I consider that there are differences between who has some files in his computer and those who copy to sell pirate cds and dvds, and that is the position of some judges in Italy in relation to some legal cases relating to the possess of copyrighted material for a personal use.
The true main reason is that there's a problem relatively to prices: some softwares, dvds and cds are too expensive and many of us consider downlading a kind of protest.
In relation to what I mean for 'too expensive', I believe that there are two main reasons why peoples don't want to buy a cd, for example: I would define 'objective' the first, as the high price is seen as an exorbitant price in relation to the production costs, while 'subjective' the second, as it is given by how much is the value we assign to a product and the difference we perceive relating with the real price. Regarding to the first, it's true that, in realizing a cd – I'll take this example, as I know more about it – the strict 'production cost' represents just 7-8%; apart from the artists' fee (that is around 25-30%), the rest is composed by distribution (8%, more or less), promotion (15%), a 10% given to S.I.A.E. (which is the Italian Society that represents authors and editors), a 25% goes to the record label in compensation of general costs, research and profits, in the end we have to add the shop's fee and I.V.A. (that is the equivalent of the Value Added Tax). Prices of cds and dvds are too high, there are abundant margins of gain that can be cut to reduce the price. Besides, while in other European countries V.A.T. on cds and dvds moves from 16 to 18%, in Italy it is set at the ordinary level of 20 % and it isn't set at the 4% level of books. Many peoples complain about it, as they recognise - rightly, in my opinion - music as part of culture. A few years ago the issue of riducing IVA – that has increased from 9% of 1991 to the actual 20% - was discussed in Italy. Certainly lowering IVA would be a good political sign, addressing citizens to a culture that must be accessible to everyone - let's consider that the majority of customers is represented by youngs that don't have much money to spend -, but it is necessary a riduction of prices operated by editors and labels: it's true that V.A.T. is too high – and it has a negative connotation not being a progressive tax, I would add – but this measure alone is not efficient and there's the risk of a loss of gains by the state and not a real reduction of prices in the long term.
I'm sure that many customers would buy more original material if it costed less, what is better than the original?
What can be done?
I like some companies that, selling softwares indispensable for a pc , such as antivirus, firewalls, …, decide to give for free a basic version of the software, allowing everybody to surf on the web, and leaving the customer free to buy the more complete version of the software; or it's a good thing the release of free or open source softwares, where people can earn by selling additional parts or services, such as maintenance services, so that there's also a contribution to concorrency and the lowering of prices. And the same thing is good for other products: releasing free extracts from cds' songs, a more extended trailer of a movie, because, as you rightly said, Albin, 'a lot of people want a preview of what they are going to buy'. And this is related to the second reason I showed before: each person is willing to pay for something in relation to the value that it represents, so a lot of people don't want an entire cd because they are interested in only one or two songs, and it's a good thing the possibility to buy a song for a few euros.
Basicly, there's a problem of respect towards the artists involved, first of all, but also towards all peoples that work in a particular sector and that rightly must be compensated for their work, as it happens in other jobs. I think that we all should change our behaviour, I'm worried about the fact that going on in this situation we could arrive at a point in which production of books, music and films is strongly reduced, and this would be terrible especially for young artists and minor productions that would suffer fron this situation. However we have to say that file sharing has some positive aspects for some artists that are 'rediscovered' or for some new artists that have the opportunity to become more visible to public. We have to remember also that some important companies as Adobe used file sharing to promote their material. Obviously there should be more sensibilization about the problem, and not only violations of privacy to find the downloaders or the increasing of the prices of 'virgin' supports (I don't agree with it).
I agree with you about we don't have the right to download movies, music or games without the copyright owners permission. The producer and everyone behind a multimedia product should get paid for the work.
However we can't ignore that there a big community have been growing the last 10 years thinking everything they can download should be free and legal. Take the Pirate Bay (a Swedish torrent tracker) for example, not only did they ignore the entertainment industries complaints towards them, they also made fun of them and people cheered and some are even seeing the crew behind Pirate Bay as heroes.
If people don't want to pay for a cd, dvd or game anymore then maybe there should be other ways of finance new productions. A example of this would be a tax everyone would pay each month to be able to download anything they want. And this money would go directly to the producers of whatever's been downloaded.
You are right about the price for some software's and such. Some even cost more than an average person can afford. Also there probably is not any alternatives for people that want a software like that because the company have a patent on the idea of the software.
As you say we might end up in a situation where nobody even tries to sell any software, movie, game well you name it. Today there is a lot of music, games, softwares and movies that is legal to download and use. I hope to see more of that later on. For example we can now see a trend where more and more people prefer open source softwares instead of closed source. We have here Linux, FireFox and OpenOffice. These are free to download and use.. but people still make money. That is by offering services. Take Skype (closed source but still free to download) for example. You can use it for free to call other Skype users but if you want to call any landlines or cell phones you have to pay.
Hallo! I agree that this is a very important issue. I believe that if we want artists to be able to live of their art, whether they are musicians, actors or such, we need to make sure that people pay for the art they consume. But clearly the ways in which we can do that might be different from how we used to do it. Not so many people go out and buy records noadays but perhaps we would buy downloaded material, and either pay directly when we buy it or through license agreements, if pirate downloading were to be made illegal. One problem with the transition to a system where downloaders pay for what they consume is that controlling what peaople download is a very timeconsuming and cost enormous amounts of money. States would have to create entirely new systems for controlling that the law will be upheld. And in the same time technical legislation always tend to come later than new technicalities are invented, meaning that piracy always will find new clever ways to get around legislation and government control.
Hi everyone :) I'm a computer scientist and I follow this topic very closely. You all made very good remarks; I'll try to summarize them here.
First of all, strictly speaking, downloading isn't stealing: if I download a movie or a song, I actually make a copy of it, so no one is harmed; if I steal a CD from a store, no one else can buy it. This picture says it all: http://i33.tinypic.com/2yor21y.png . (I could also add that if I watch a movie in a library, I'm not paying anything; is this unethical?)
Second, it is false that the entertainment industry lost a lot of money in the last few years because of illegal downloads. There was a small drop, but we must also consider the combined effects of the economical crisis, a price hike, a cut in new releases, many stupid format wars (e.g. BluRay vs. HD-DVD) that damaged consumers, majors suing users for hundreds of thousands dollars, majors installing malware on customers' PCs, and so on. These reasons are far enough to explain why sales dropped, without ever considering downloading.
As you noticed, the price of albums, movies and especially software is very high, so people would like to get a preview or a sample before spending a lot of money. However, downloading isn't a good solution since the authors aren't rewarded for their work. Here it is better to distinguish: as Giancarlo explained, only a small part of the retail price of a music album is set aside for the authors; the biggest part is the major's one, and many people (including myself) don't see why. the greatest part (90-99%) of a movie's takings comes from box offices, therefore there is no point of selling movies at such high prices. there exist lots of software which is completely free to download and to use (but not always it is “free” - as in speech - software). Software is peculiar since it is a means, not an end (like instead music albums or movies). We use software to do something; we can exchange an expensive software for a cheaper one (or a free one) if they both do the same thing.
There are also other problems with the current system: for instance, there are lots of albums or movies that aren't published anymore since it's “not convenient”, or they are impossible to find; many of them are instead available on peer to peer networks and with few clicks we can download them. Another problem is that if I buy a movie, an album, or a software, actually I'm not buying the movie, the album or the software: I'm buying the support (the CD / DVD / whatever) that holds it. If I lose or break the support (and supports lifetime is very short!), I've to buy (and pay) another one. More, I've to buy another one if my support is good, but the technology changed and now I'm unable to use it! Think of Sony Minidiscs, or compact cassettes, or recently HD-DVD (which “lost” the format war against BluRay: in a few months no one will produce HD-DVD players any more. What should I do with my HD-DVD movies?). This doesn't have any sense; needless to say, downloading have none of these problems.
Is it possible to take advantage of the distribution model that Internet enables without damaging who produces the contents? In my opinion yes, and that's what people want. For instance, a music group could give freely low-quality versions of their songs on its website, and sell the high-quality ones at 1$ each as downloads; the whole album at 7-8$ as a download, and the CD boxed set at 12-15$. An online movie store could provide many movies and TV shows (even those impossible to find), with free samples, and very fast download of an high-quality version at 5$ or 7-8$ if it's a first release. And if my PC breaks, or the technology changes, I must be able to download everything again, free of charge.
Why don't we have all these things already? Because majors are stuck with their flawed business model, and they're trying to do everything to defend it at all costs.
Hi, this was an interesting topic to read about! Here are my inputs:
Downloading could be seen as rather sharing than stealing. When I was younger we copied cassettes and CD's and gave away to our friends. When my parents were young they recorded the songs from the radio and shared with each other. What is the difference? Although it might have been illegal if you consider copyright, was it a problem? More interesting, why is it a problem now and not then? Perhaps one could say that then it was only to your friends you shared, but now, with globalization and easier ways to communicate, people have a much broader and more international circle of acquaintances.
In response to Giancarlo regarding the price discussion: There is another aspect. Recently a friend of mine visited a big Swedish site that sells music and films. There you could buy a download film for the same price you could buy a regular DVD. But there were restrictions. You could not do a safety-copy to a DVD, not move it to another computer or move it to a portable device. Choosing between 1. downloading illegally, being able to make a DVD and not have to watch it on the computer or to have a copy if the comuter breaks down or you want to change computer in the future or 2. buy the film as a download, makes it hard to change peoples mind to start buying films or music over the internet instead of downloading illegally. There is no profit for the viewer/listener, only losses. To change the attitudes among consumers, it has to be more flexible and beneficial for the customer, the price has to be right, but it also has to be accessible and it can’t come with restrictions you wouldn’t have if you chose to buy it the regular way, as a DVD or CD.
Hi everyone! I think you have a very interesting discussion here and many interesting opinions. For me, this is a very exciting subject. I don’t think that it is right to download for example music and movies illegally from the internet, but it isn’t that simple as you all know. I have been downloading music from the internet for at least ten years. At first it was very hard to find the songs you wanted to download, but after a while new software came and made it easy to share music, and for example movies, with each other. Now, when it is illegal to distribute and download copyrighted material, the solution seems to be to return to the time when you couldn’t find the material you searched for. The legal sites where you can pay for the music and download it, that I have tried, can’t give me the music I am searching for. The illegal sites can. In a perfect world, or if I was a perfect girl, maybe I would download the music I find at the legal e-stores from that site and search for the music I don’t find there other where. Instead I download all the music illegally at sites where I can find everything that I want. Let me share music and other copyrighted material with others and let me pay for it, is my solution. Develop the ways to share music, movies, games and other things with each other and put a price on it – I will pay it. Regards Kristel
Hi Kristel! I can understand you and other participants of this forum about different opinions and behaviours on downloading or not copyrighted materials. Lack of rules leaves door open to all kind of opinions and behaviours that will be all allowed until a clear regulation isn’t provided. Of course, legislators can take from them useful advices in order to give the best content to future laws. Indeed, it isn’t easy at all to find suitable and coherent legal solutions to intricate problems like those caused by Information Technology. Suffice it to think to similar troubles that development of technologic communications has caused to privacy. I am one of those people who prefer not to risk making an illegal action, even if it is always unclear what is legal or not by surfing on web… It is impossible to find an official and exclusive advice about this problem one and various sources of communications (radio, TV, web sites) always give contrasting opinions, which don’t help you to make the correct choice: to download or not? So, there are people who use web’s potentiality better than people like me, because, for example, I think that it isn’t enough to justify a not authorized (neither by the author nor by the legislator) free download of a profit-making product by arguing that it will not be made subject of a trade. This behaviour one could damage its author, who in any case makes a “loss profit” as he hasn’t gained the price I should have paid to take benefit from it. From my point of view, whatever are the opinions we all have about the high and excessive prices practised by sellers, we can’t feel legitimated to take advantage of web’s potentiality to react against a system like this. We would risk cooperating to alter market’s rules so determining a likely long-term damage to the economic system. Wrong behaviour of sellers can’t justify equal and opposite behaviour of end users. That’s why I think that it is Legislator’s responsibility to establish a uniform regulation and provide order into this complicated issue that involves economic aspects, even by imposing a right and reasonable payment, as you suggested, for every not-free copyrighted material (unless the owner would like to distribute it freely all the same).
I'm attending the last year of master's degree in Mechanical Engineering, for my study I need many expensive software; I have downloaded all these software. In the same way one of my friends had installed an illegal software, two weeks ago she was summoned by Guardia di Finanza, now she had to pay a big fine. Yes, exist student licenses that are very cheap in comparison with the full licenses but already too much exspensive for a student. There are also free licenses but they expire after one or two months. So I want to say that, in my opinion, the student should obtain useful software for free for the period of their study. I also think that if I learn to use a software during the years of the university problably I will use it (if it's possible) also for work; so the distribution of software among the students could be an invenstement for the producers. However I don't love to use software in illegal way, when I can choose I strongly prefer free sofware: everyday I use Linux, Firefox, Thunderbird, Openoffice and others. I hope I don't go off topic with my statements on software. What about music and films? I always buy original cd of my favourite artists and I watch film at the cinema if they are interesting. That is my way to reward artists for their works, also if I know that only a few percentage of the money goes to them. You can say that a cd is too expensive, yes perhaps, but some solutions could exist. For example the Radiohead has sell his later cd via web, every fan can download the album after the payment. How much does it cost? How much you want from 0 to infinite.
I'm attending the last year of master's degree in Mechanical Engineering, for my study I need many expensive software; I have downloaded all these software. In the same way one of my friends had installed an illegal software, one months ago she was summoned by Guardia di Finanza, now she had to pay a big fine. I don't agree with the use of software without license, but what else we can do? Yes, exist student licenses that are very cheap in comparison with the full licenses but already too much expensive for a student. There are also free licenses but they expire after one or two months. So I want to say that, in my opinion, the student should obtain useful software for free for the period of their study. I also think that if I learn to use a software during the years of the university probably I will use it (if it's possible) also for work; so the distribution of software among the students could be an investment for the producers. However I don't love to use software in illegal way, when I can choose I strongly prefer free software: everyday I use Linux, Firefox, Thunderbird, Openoffice and others. I hope I don't go off topic with my statements on software. What about music and films? I always buy original cd of my favorite artists and I watch film at the cinema if they are interesting. That is my way to reward artists for their works, also if I know that only a few percentage of the money goes to them. You can say that a cd is too expensive, yes perhaps, but some solutions could exist. For example the Radiohead has sell his later cd via web, every fan can download the album after the payment. How much does it cost? How much you want from 0 to infinite.
It’s difficult for me to comment upon internet piracy because sometimes I use some illegal software form my work and I download music or film; so it might seem strange that I tell internet piracy is an bad activity. There is some clarifications to do: first, as Giuseppe told in his comment, I think downloading is not stealing; second, in most cases I would not buy that I have downloaded. I think also that if I were the president of a music or film company I would speak differently and I would find some way to tackle copyright infringement in order to avoid losing money. Last week Andrew Lloyd Webber (a famous English composer of musical theatre) accused British internet service providers blaming them for facilitating online piracy. He implored also the government not to invest money in improving the national broadband network until a solution to illegal file sharing can be found. In the same time the French government proposed an anti-piracy law that aims to punish people who repeatedly illegally download music and films by cutting off their internet access for up to a year: it has been accused of “Big Brother tactics”. I think that the governments have to tackle the piracy beginning from the “sellers” of illegal files, that often are part of criminality.
11 comments:
Should people have the legal right to download copyrighted materials freely and without having to pay for it?
Many people are still upset at the music, movie and game industry. The industries in question have tried to install malware into peoples (and also their customers) computers and they are also trying to sue each single person for millions of pounds. You could argue they put themselves into this position, where people download/file share instead of buying their products. No company in any other market could ever afford treating their customers like that.
Besides using file sharing as a medium of saying "we don't like the way you treat us", people have shared things since ages ago. Maybe it should be a right to spread the information. Is copying equal to stealing? Would you steal a car? Would you steal a movie? No, but I probably will download an album or movie sometimes. It will still be there after I downloaded it.
Another good thing with downloading copyrighted materials is that a lot of people want a preview of what they are going to buy. A new music album cost a lot of money, so people want ot know what they exactly are buying.
On the other hand there is many problems with downloading copyrighted stuff. To make new music, movies and games you need money. To get this money the producers must be able to sell their work. It does cost a lot of money to make a movie like Harry Potter. The entertainment industry have since the last 10 years lost a lot of money. Although some might think it is their own fault, the fact remains; people have to pay for stuff instead of getting it for free. Also the entertainment industry have lately realised that people want to digitally download instead of buying it in a physical store. For a lot of music artists their money now comes mainly from concerts instead of sales of their albums. Some movies people prefer to watch in cinemas. Many jobs have been lost because of the illegal file sharing and some people even claim that piracy supports drug dealers and human trafficking.
So.. should people have the legal right to download just anything?
Albin Klingstedt
Hi Albin and hi everybody, it's a pleasure interacting with all you!
I think that you've explained this important topic very well, as you have underlined most of all aspects, positive and negative, that are involved in this issue.
In relation to your question, my answer is negative, that is to say that, in my opinion, we don't have the right to download freely everything we want.
Many people don't consider downloading a film, a cd, a dvd or a software a so serious crime, others consider it nearly a normal thing.
On one hand there are our personal behaviour and our different sensibilities in relation to what is good and what is wrong but, on the other hand it seems to me that probably, according to several people's mentality, buying something means buying something that is material, or buying something that is a service in the traditional meaning of the word, while it still remains 'strange' to pay for something, a software, for example, that is not seen as a real product but as something 'volatile' that probably we will erase from our hard disk in a few days.
It's true, there are different reasons why the majority of us use to download - or have done it sometimes – material protected by copyright. Even those wo have a slow internet connection like mine have tried to download something, there are so many things on internet! However I consider that there are differences between who has some files in his computer and those who copy to sell pirate cds and dvds, and that is the position of some judges in Italy in relation to some legal cases relating to the possess of copyrighted material for a personal use.
The true main reason is that there's a problem relatively to prices: some softwares, dvds and cds are too expensive and many of us consider downlading a kind of protest.
In relation to what I mean for 'too expensive', I believe that there are two main reasons why peoples don't want to buy a cd, for example: I would define 'objective' the first, as the high price is seen as an exorbitant price in relation to the production costs, while 'subjective' the second, as it is given by how much is the value we assign to a product and the difference we perceive relating with the real price.
Regarding to the first, it's true that, in realizing a cd – I'll take this example, as I know more about it – the strict 'production cost' represents just 7-8%; apart from the artists' fee (that is around 25-30%), the rest is composed by distribution (8%, more or less), promotion (15%), a 10% given to S.I.A.E. (which is the Italian Society that represents authors and editors), a 25% goes to the record label in compensation of general costs, research and profits, in the end we have to add the shop's fee and I.V.A. (that is the equivalent of the Value Added Tax).
Prices of cds and dvds are too high, there are abundant margins of gain that can be cut to reduce the price.
Besides, while in other European countries V.A.T. on cds and dvds moves from 16 to 18%, in Italy it is set at the ordinary level of 20 % and it isn't set at the 4% level of books. Many peoples complain about it, as they recognise - rightly, in my opinion - music as part of culture. A few years ago the issue of riducing IVA – that has increased from 9% of 1991 to the actual 20% - was discussed in Italy.
Certainly lowering IVA would be a good political sign, addressing citizens to a culture that must be accessible to everyone - let's consider that the majority of customers is represented by youngs that don't have much money to spend -, but it is necessary a riduction of prices operated by editors and labels: it's true that V.A.T. is too high – and it has a negative connotation not being a progressive tax, I would add – but this measure alone is not efficient and there's the risk of a loss of gains by the state and not a real reduction of prices in the long term.
I'm sure that many customers would buy more original material if it costed less, what is better than the original?
What can be done?
I like some companies that, selling softwares indispensable for a pc , such as antivirus, firewalls, …, decide to give for free a basic version of the software, allowing everybody to surf on the web, and leaving the customer free to buy the more complete version of the software; or it's a good thing the release of free or open source softwares, where people can earn by selling additional parts or services, such as maintenance services, so that there's also a contribution to concorrency and the lowering of prices.
And the same thing is good for other products: releasing free extracts from cds' songs, a more extended trailer of a movie, because, as you rightly said, Albin, 'a lot of people want a preview of what they are going to buy'. And this is related to the second reason I showed before: each person is willing to pay for something in relation to the value that it represents, so a lot of people don't want an entire cd because they are interested in only one or two songs, and it's a good thing the possibility to buy a song for a few euros.
Basicly, there's a problem of respect towards the artists involved, first of all, but also towards all peoples that work in a particular sector and that rightly must be compensated for their work, as it happens in other jobs.
I think that we all should change our behaviour, I'm worried about the fact that going on in this situation we could arrive at a point in which production of books, music and films is strongly reduced, and this would be terrible especially for young artists and minor productions that would suffer fron this situation. However we have to say that file sharing has some positive aspects for some artists that are 'rediscovered' or for some new artists that have the opportunity to become more visible to public. We have to remember also that some important companies as Adobe used file sharing to promote their material.
Obviously there should be more sensibilization about the problem, and not only violations of privacy to find the downloaders or the increasing of the prices of 'virgin' supports (I don't agree with it).
Giancarlo.
Hi Giancarlo!
I agree with you about we don't have the right to download movies, music or games without the copyright owners permission. The producer and everyone behind a multimedia product should get paid for the work.
However we can't ignore that there a big community have been growing the last 10 years thinking everything they can download should be free and legal. Take the Pirate Bay (a Swedish torrent tracker) for example, not only did they ignore the entertainment industries complaints towards them, they also made fun of them and people cheered and some are even seeing the crew behind Pirate Bay as heroes.
If people don't want to pay for a cd, dvd or game anymore then maybe there should be other ways of finance new productions. A example of this would be a tax everyone would pay each month to be able to download anything they want. And this money would go directly to the producers of whatever's been downloaded.
You are right about the price for some software's and such. Some even cost more than an average person can afford. Also there probably is not any alternatives for people that want a software like that because the company have a patent on the idea of the software.
As you say we might end up in a situation where nobody even tries to sell any software, movie, game well you name it. Today there is a lot of music, games, softwares and movies that is legal to download and use. I hope to see more of that later on. For example we can now see a trend where more and more people prefer open source softwares instead of closed source. We have here Linux, FireFox and OpenOffice. These are free to download and use.. but people still make money. That is by offering services. Take Skype (closed source but still free to download) for example. You can use it for free to call other Skype users but if you want to call any landlines or cell phones you have to pay.
That's just my two pennies.
Albin Klingstedt
Hallo!
I agree that this is a very important issue. I believe that if we want artists to be able to live of their art, whether they are musicians, actors or such, we need to make sure that people pay for the art they consume.
But clearly the ways in which we can do that might be different from how we used to do it. Not so many people go out and buy records noadays but perhaps we would buy downloaded material, and either pay directly when we buy it or through license agreements, if pirate downloading were to be made illegal.
One problem with the transition to a system where downloaders pay for what they consume is that controlling what peaople download is a very timeconsuming and cost enormous amounts of money. States would have to create entirely new systems for controlling that the law will be upheld. And in the same time technical legislation always tend to come later than new technicalities are invented, meaning that piracy always will find new clever ways to get around legislation and government control.
/Sofia
Hi everyone :)
I'm a computer scientist and I follow this topic very closely. You all made very good remarks; I'll try to summarize them here.
First of all, strictly speaking, downloading isn't stealing: if I download a movie or a song, I actually make a copy of it, so no one is harmed; if I steal a CD from a store, no one else can buy it. This picture says it all: http://i33.tinypic.com/2yor21y.png . (I could also add that if I watch a movie in a library, I'm not paying anything; is this unethical?)
Second, it is false that the entertainment industry lost a lot of money in the last few years because of illegal downloads. There was a small drop, but we must also consider the combined effects of the economical crisis, a price hike, a cut in new releases, many stupid format wars (e.g. BluRay vs. HD-DVD) that damaged consumers, majors suing users for hundreds of thousands dollars, majors installing malware on customers' PCs, and so on. These reasons are far enough to explain why sales dropped, without ever considering downloading.
As you noticed, the price of albums, movies and especially software is very high, so people would like to get a preview or a sample before spending a lot of money. However, downloading isn't a good solution since the authors aren't rewarded for their work. Here it is better to distinguish:
as Giancarlo explained, only a small part of the retail price of a music album is set aside for the authors; the biggest part is the major's one, and many people (including myself) don't see why.
the greatest part (90-99%) of a movie's takings comes from box offices, therefore there is no point of selling movies at such high prices.
there exist lots of software which is completely free to download and to use (but not always it is “free” - as in speech - software). Software is peculiar since it is a means, not an end (like instead music albums or movies). We use software to do something; we can exchange an expensive software for a cheaper one (or a free one) if they both do the same thing.
There are also other problems with the current system: for instance, there are lots of albums or movies that aren't published anymore since it's “not convenient”, or they are impossible to find; many of them are instead available on peer to peer networks and with few clicks we can download them.
Another problem is that if I buy a movie, an album, or a software, actually I'm not buying the movie, the album or the software: I'm buying the support (the CD / DVD / whatever) that holds it. If I lose or break the support (and supports lifetime is very short!), I've to buy (and pay) another one. More, I've to buy another one if my support is good, but the technology changed and now I'm unable to use it! Think of Sony Minidiscs, or compact cassettes, or recently HD-DVD (which “lost” the format war against BluRay: in a few months no one will produce HD-DVD players any more. What should I do with my HD-DVD movies?). This doesn't have any sense; needless to say, downloading have none of these problems.
Is it possible to take advantage of the distribution model that Internet enables without damaging who produces the contents? In my opinion yes, and that's what people want. For instance, a music group could give freely low-quality versions of their songs on its website, and sell the high-quality ones at 1$ each as downloads; the whole album at 7-8$ as a download, and the CD boxed set at 12-15$. An online movie store could provide many movies and TV shows (even those impossible to find), with free samples, and very fast download of an high-quality version at 5$ or 7-8$ if it's a first release.
And if my PC breaks, or the technology changes, I must be able to download everything again, free of charge.
Why don't we have all these things already? Because majors are stuck with their flawed business model, and they're trying to do everything to defend it at all costs.
Hi, this was an interesting topic to read about! Here are my inputs:
Downloading could be seen as rather sharing than stealing. When I was younger we copied cassettes and CD's and gave away to our friends. When my parents were young they recorded the songs from the radio and shared with each other. What is the difference? Although it might have been illegal if you consider copyright, was it a problem? More interesting, why is it a problem now and not then? Perhaps one could say that then it was only to your friends you shared, but now, with globalization and easier ways to communicate, people have a much broader and more international circle of acquaintances.
In response to Giancarlo regarding the price discussion:
There is another aspect. Recently a friend of mine visited a big Swedish site that sells music and films. There you could buy a download film for the same price you could buy a regular DVD. But there were restrictions. You could not do a safety-copy to a DVD, not move it to another computer or move it to a portable device. Choosing between
1. downloading illegally, being able to make a DVD and not have to watch it on the computer or to have a copy if the comuter breaks down or you want to change computer in the future
or
2. buy the film as a download,
makes it hard to change peoples mind to start buying films or music over the internet instead of downloading illegally. There is no profit for the viewer/listener, only losses. To change the attitudes among consumers, it has to be more flexible and beneficial for the customer, the price has to be right, but it also has to be accessible and it can’t come with restrictions you wouldn’t have if you chose to buy it the regular way, as a DVD or CD.
Regards,
Sara
Hi everyone!
I think you have a very interesting discussion here and many interesting opinions. For me, this is a very exciting subject. I don’t think that it is right to download for example music and movies illegally from the internet, but it isn’t that simple as you all know. I have been downloading music from the internet for at least ten years. At first it was very hard to find the songs you wanted to download, but after a while new software came and made it easy to share music, and for example movies, with each other. Now, when it is illegal to distribute and download copyrighted material, the solution seems to be to return to the time when you couldn’t find the material you searched for. The legal sites where you can pay for the music and download it, that I have tried, can’t give me the music I am searching for. The illegal sites can. In a perfect world, or if I was a perfect girl, maybe I would download the music I find at the legal e-stores from that site and search for the music I don’t find there other where. Instead I download all the music illegally at sites where I can find everything that I want. Let me share music and other copyrighted material with others and let me pay for it, is my solution. Develop the ways to share music, movies, games and other things with each other and put a price on it – I will pay it.
Regards
Kristel
In response to Kristel
Hi Kristel!
I can understand you and other participants of this forum about different opinions and behaviours on downloading or not copyrighted materials.
Lack of rules leaves door open to all kind of opinions and behaviours that will be all allowed until a clear regulation isn’t provided. Of course, legislators can take from them useful advices in order to give the best content to future laws. Indeed, it isn’t easy at all to find suitable and coherent legal solutions to intricate problems like those caused by Information Technology. Suffice it to think to similar troubles that development of technologic communications has caused to privacy.
I am one of those people who prefer not to risk making an illegal action, even if it is always unclear what is legal or not by surfing on web… It is impossible to find an official and exclusive advice about this problem one and various sources of communications (radio, TV, web sites) always give contrasting opinions, which don’t help you to make the correct choice: to download or not?
So, there are people who use web’s potentiality better than people like me, because, for example, I think that it isn’t enough to justify a not authorized (neither by the author nor by the legislator) free download of a profit-making product by arguing that it will not be made subject of a trade. This behaviour one could damage its author, who in any case makes a “loss profit” as he hasn’t gained the price I should have paid to take benefit from it. From my point of view, whatever are the opinions we all have about the high and excessive prices practised by sellers, we can’t feel legitimated to take advantage of web’s potentiality to react against a system like this. We would risk cooperating to alter market’s rules so determining a likely long-term damage to the economic system. Wrong behaviour of sellers can’t justify equal and opposite behaviour of end users.
That’s why I think that it is Legislator’s responsibility to establish a uniform regulation and provide order into this complicated issue that involves economic aspects, even by imposing a right and reasonable payment, as you suggested, for every not-free copyrighted material (unless the owner would like to distribute it freely all the same).
I'm attending the last year of master's degree in Mechanical Engineering, for my study I need many expensive software; I have downloaded all these software. In the same way one of my friends had installed an illegal software, two weeks ago she was summoned by Guardia di Finanza, now she had to pay a big fine. Yes, exist student licenses that are very cheap in comparison with the full licenses but already too much exspensive for a student. There are also free licenses but they expire after one or two months. So I want to say that, in my opinion, the student should obtain useful software for free for the period of their study. I also think that if I learn to use a software during the years of the university problably I will use it (if it's possible) also for work; so the distribution of software among the students could be an invenstement for the producers.
However I don't love to use software in illegal way, when I can choose I strongly prefer free sofware: everyday I use Linux, Firefox, Thunderbird, Openoffice and others.
I hope I don't go off topic with my statements on software.
What about music and films? I always buy original cd of my favourite artists and I watch film at the cinema if they are interesting. That is my way to reward artists for their works, also if I know that only a few percentage of the money goes to them. You can say that a cd is too expensive, yes perhaps, but some solutions could exist. For example the Radiohead has sell his later cd via web, every fan can download the album after the payment. How much does it cost? How much you want from 0 to infinite.
Matteo
I'm attending the last year of master's degree in Mechanical Engineering, for my study I need many expensive software; I have downloaded all these software. In the same way one of my friends had installed an illegal software, one months ago she was summoned by Guardia di Finanza, now she had to pay a big fine. I don't agree with the use of software without license, but what else we can do? Yes, exist student licenses that are very cheap in comparison with the full licenses but already too much expensive for a student. There are also free licenses but they expire after one or two months. So I want to say that, in my opinion, the student should obtain useful software for free for the period of their study. I also think that if I learn to use a software during the years of the university probably I will use it (if it's possible) also for work; so the distribution of software among the students could be an investment for the producers.
However I don't love to use software in illegal way, when I can choose I strongly prefer free software: everyday I use Linux, Firefox, Thunderbird, Openoffice and others.
I hope I don't go off topic with my statements on software.
What about music and films? I always buy original cd of my favorite artists and I watch film at the cinema if they are interesting. That is my way to reward artists for their works, also if I know that only a few percentage of the money goes to them. You can say that a cd is too expensive, yes perhaps, but some solutions could exist. For example the Radiohead has sell his later cd via web, every fan can download the album after the payment. How much does it cost? How much you want from 0 to infinite.
Matteo
It’s difficult for me to comment upon internet piracy because sometimes I use some illegal software form my work and I download music or film; so it might seem strange that I tell internet piracy is an bad activity.
There is some clarifications to do: first, as Giuseppe told in his comment, I think downloading is not stealing; second, in most cases I would not buy that I have downloaded.
I think also that if I were the president of a music or film company I would speak differently and I would find some way to tackle copyright infringement in order to avoid losing money.
Last week Andrew Lloyd Webber (a famous English composer of musical theatre) accused British internet service providers blaming them for facilitating online piracy. He implored also the government not to invest money in improving the national broadband network until a solution to illegal file sharing can be found.
In the same time the French government proposed an anti-piracy law that aims to punish people who repeatedly illegally download music and films by cutting off their internet access for up to a year: it has been accused of “Big Brother tactics”.
I think that the governments have to tackle the piracy beginning from the “sellers” of illegal files, that often are part of criminality.
Post a Comment