To see piracy as the same as theft?

[SquidgeOps]

Cos it is right? Sure, the software/film companies are loaded. But so are retail stores and supermarkets etc. Why is it any different from stealing?

People who are saying about the music industry all being manufactured bands, I have heard a convincing argument that one major reason for that is that those are the bands that the record companies will make money off, as most music nowadays is apparently bought by or for young teenagers, who are the least likely to pirate it... Whether it's true or not I don't know, but it definitely sounded plausible.

Linux is a good case in point. Despite it being open source and effectively free people are making large wedges of cash from it because commercial organisations that use it need reliability and so pay heftily for support.

Pumpkin that's a ridiculous question. That's not what the OP is referring to. Recording a programme to watch at home later is a million miles away from making fake copies to sell.

And as a matter of fact, no I haven't since videos became obsolete. I don't anything which is capable of recording.

There needs to be more of a decent middle option between spending a fortune on dvds or whatever, and illegally downloading films. It's when digital media are priced virtually on a par with physical media that people opt for the easier but morally questionable route of illegally downloading. I want to be able to download and KEEP films, and will pay a reasonable price to do so if guaranteed a high quality, safe download from an official source. Basically nobody lets you do that. Netflix et al don't allow you to keep and own the media and is only usable when online. That's crap, and useless when I want stuff on transport with no Internet, for example. I swear that if such a thing was available at a lowish price, piracy would diminish significantly. Some steps towards this have been made in the music world, but cinema is lagging behind.

Doesn't most artist money come from songwriting credits for radio play (and letting your songs be used in ads) and tour merchandising?

And surely simon cowell's etc acts are salaried?

Forago that (about Linux) was exactly what I was trying to say but far more succinctly!

Pumpkin that's a ridiculous question. That's not what the OP is referring to. Recording a programme to watch at home later is a million miles away from making fake copies to sell.

I only read the OP and first few posts. I wasn't aware that she was referring to mass dissemination of the downloaded material but happy to stand corrected.

If someone pirates one of the books i have written they are stealing from me. If you don't want to pay at all to read a book, go to the library. At least the author will get a small amount (about 6p) each time you borrow the book, and obviously the original sale of the book to the library. You can usually buy the e-versions of my novels for between £2.00 and £4.50, sometimes less, depending on exchange rates and promotions, etc. Sometimes they cost as little as 99p. I do as much as I can to make my books available for a very reasonable cost and encourage the traditional publishers of any of them (not all are under my control) to do the same.

But please don't pirate books. Authors are mostly not well off and we rely on our royalties for things like food and heating, same as you rely on your earnings for those essentials.

OP wasn't I don't think - they were talking about individuals downloading for their personal use (and sharing with friends), and that is what the discussion has been largely about (clearly people who do it and then make many copies which they sell on are inviting prosecution)

Sometimes when I think of piracy, I think of this

theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

OP, have you never recorded a movie/programme off the telly?

That's entirely different. There are plenty of on-line references to this, which will lead you to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

It states that TV programmes can be recorded for time-shift purposes; in other words, to view at a more convenient time.

What you can't legally do is pass on that recording to anyone else.

I pay for ebooks, but it does piss me off when some books you want are priced at parity with the physical book. There's no way it costs as much to provide it for digital download compared to producing a lovely, big, hardback book. I appreciate that probably most are not priced thus, but it is reasonably common. It's all about striking that balance.

There are alternatives to concerts as well, like crowdsourcing - that's been done with films: they've been pitched online, then made once a certain level of voluntary donations have been made towards them. Once that's achieved they can either be disseminated for free, because the money's already been covered, or they can be sold, but with less concern about piracy for the same reason.

I want to stress again that I'm not saying piracy's right, especially from independent artists, but it happens, and it's not going to stop happening. The sooner artists, companies and so on find ways to adapt to that, the better off they'll be, completely regardless of the morality of it. That's not necessarily how it should be but imo it's how it is.

The last time that I went to the cinema it cost £10 for the seat, If I wanted a drink or food I had to buy it added to that was the cost of travel.

Once in the cinema there was a group that were noisy throwing stuff around and stopping people from enjoying the film. When I complained the cinema staff didn't want to know. It wasn't the first incident of its type but it was the last.

OP, if you want to examine something morally wrong then tackle that first.

I couldn't get too worked up people making copies for their own use. Not the same as stealing at all.

What you can't legally do is pass on that recording to anyone else.

Interesting. But I wonder how many otherwise law abiding people are unaware of this or just don't care.

I know some pillars of the community who are guilty of this one. looking at you, mummy

I agree - I will download an ebook from Amazon if it is less than around a fiver (despite knowing I could get it completely free) as it is easier and more convenient to click one button and it turns up on all my devices for me to read whenever convenient. And I can see the direct link between sales/downloads and the author (unlike the software industry where is is all buffered by sales and marketing and salaries imo).

I will not however pay the same as a traditional hardback book, or, as I am seeing increasingly, MORE than it actually costs to buy the book in Waterstones. But I am totally commited to the digital media now - I don't want physical books cluttering up my house and I want to be able to take 5 or 6 books with me on holiday without getting into grief with the airline baggage restrictions. But I don't expect for the ebooks to cost the same as traditional books did - because they clearly don't. I think book publishers (and self publishers) need to be careful of going down this route, otherwise piracy is the inevitable result I think.

Sallying isn't that very similar to downloading a TV show you've missed? Clearly in that case the supplier would be in the wrong, but is the person who's downloading it as well? And, does that make it not illegal to record and save things off the computer (from iplayer etc) if you don't pass them on? Is it illegal to keep a video recording after you've watched it, as clearly that's not to watch it at a more conveient time but to watch it as often as you want? (illegal in theory obviously, I'm not suggesting anyone's going to come round raiding people's homes for old Sound of Music tapes!)

Sorry for the barrage of questions, I have no idea if you know anything about this topic - I'm just curious

BoneyBack but then people would argue that you should buy the DVD if you want to watch it at home, surely I don't think anyone's saying it's wrong not to go to the cinema if you don't want to, but there are other ways of watching films...

Caruthers I'm sure you appreciate that artists are not necessarily performers. There are other forms of art.

It is a moral point here, as I think has been pointed out.

Once you release a artistic production, does it still belong to you?

complexnumber

I do understand the moral standpoint I just don't agree with them.

There is absolutely no morality involved in the industry to lower the cost to the consumer.

TheGirl

My point is that before cinemas etc. can complain about people downloading instead of going they should make it so that you can actually watch the film.

I download/stream films on to a very wide screen tv with surround sound. the cinemas around here are complaining around the drop in numbers due to streaming of films but they won't clean up their own act.

Thanks for your reply Caruthers

Just to confirm, you see no problem downloading an artist's music from the web?

Do you acknowledge that this does not 'belong' to you and could constitute part of the artist's income.

(Even if the actual % maybe quite small)

Just to confirm.

I have no problem with anyone else doing it.

Well side-stepped!