Generation Gap

solaris · **Generation Gap -** 12-26-2007, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Morals are often defined by what the general public sees as right or wrong. Most people don’t feel that they’re doing wrong when they download an MP3 or share a movie, but in most countries they are actually breaking laws, laws which do not reflect what the general public considers to be legal, fair use, or even moral.

Law and morals are clearly out of sync when it concerns sharing copyrighted works on the Internet. To give an example, David Pogue, technology writer for the New York Times often questions his public during talks to find out where the line between wrong and right lies in this case. He starts of with a simple statement such as:

“I own a certain CD, but it got scratched. So I borrow the same CD from the library and rip it to my computer.”

He then asks the public whether they think it’s wrong or not. Normally the more extreme the examples are, the more hands are raised, but when he spoke to an audience of 500 college students, something different happened.

Finally, with mock exasperation, I said, “O.K., let’s try one that’s a little less complicated: You want a movie or an album. You don’t want to pay for it. So you download it.” There it was: the bald-faced, worst-case example, without any nuance or mitigating factors whatsoever. “Who thinks that might be wrong?” Two hands out of 500.

Pogue was blown away by this response, and he realized that there is a clear generation gap when it comes to copyright morals. Indeed there is, but what else do you expect from a generation grew up with iPods, CD-burners and the biggest copying machine ever invented (the Internet) at their fingertips.

There’s a whole industry built around filesharing, take the 160GB iPod for example, any idea how much it costs to fill that with legally purchased songs?

Link to the full article here: Piracy, Morals and The Need for Change | TorrentFreak

Nightfly · 12-26-2007, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by solaris

Link to the full article here: Piracy, Morals and The Need for Change | TorrentFreak

Solaris,

Thanks,this is a brilliant article and contains many
of my personal views, and probably many our fellow
members as well.
It is definitely worth reading the entire article.

skyforger · 12-27-2007, 05:52 PM

hey, we're all getting paranoid regarding all this "copyright crap" when things go further and further.

no doubt, i will ask myself very soon - is it legal for me to even post phrase containing "copyright" word, because it can be "copyrighted" already.

so what gives? has the copyright law any single sense as far as 2 out of 500 consider "the heaviest violation" of that law to be completely fair/legal ?

pa-ra-no-id.

RedSmurf · 01-02-2008, 04:26 PM

This article contains a wise message for the entertainment industry indeed, but I don't think they'll get it. They will probably kill themselves by clinging on to their outdated business model to the bitter end, and will then be replaced by new companies who do the right thing from the start.
I don't think there's any more "loss due to piracy" now, than before broadband Internet made sharing so much easier. I still have a cupboard full of cassettes and VHS tapes which contain music and movies I never bought. The fact that people have more 'shared' music now, doesn't mean at all that they would have bought more music, if it had been impossible to get it for free. Most of that music on my cassettes I just copied because I could: it's the kind of music that's OK enough to listen to, but not good enough to exceed the threshold of the high price of a CD. I would never have bought it if I couldn't copy it. But this is something the dinosaurs of the entertainment industry simply won't grasp. They still believe that every shared song is a net loss of $[fill in way too large number here].

Nevertheless, I don't believe copyright should be obliterated. A complete lack of protection of creative works would be demotivating for most artists. Why would one release a song if the only income they'll get from it is dependent on the mercy of the public? Especially now that thanks to the RIAA & Co, the mercy of the public has pretty much been killed?

Let's put it this way: if I download a song I really like from a filesharing network, I don't feel very happy because I know the artist won't get anything, although I'd like to reward him/her for making that song. However, if I have to pay a ridiculous amount for the (probably DRM-crippled) song, knowing that almost all of it will go to music industry agents, I feel even worse. So if I could buy that song for a reasonable fee of which most is certain to go to the artist, both me and the artist would be most happy. But at this moment the latter option simply is not available (except for that single Radiohead album and maybe some others). AllofMP3/Sparks comes close, because the fee is reasonable, the quality is good, there's no DRM, and there's at least a slim chance that some of the money will eventually reach the artists.

sike · 05:34 AM

I completely agree with the article. Why should consumers be forced to pay to support outdated CD and DVD fabricators, that are decreasing in quality, when a few file servers could replace that entire side of the industry?

The artists and consumers are both losing; the outdated distributors are winning at the moment. But they can't win this war.

I feel no qualms downloading music, because if I desperately wanted to pay an artist, I would download their music, then mail them $5. The problem is, that's not worth my time. But when a modern music industry makes it easy for me to do the equivalent, I'll do it. DJ'ing can probably be just as expensive as making music, and there's something wrong with this.

The problem the RIAA truly faces is the fact that music is no longer the focus of the entertainment industry it once was. People are buying expensive movies, software, and hardware, that make the legal price of most music silly and prohibitive to many consumers' entertainment budgets.

Piracy is not doing any significant harm to the music industry; they just make a big deal out of it because they want to make a little side-money suing teenagers. Because suing college students is the right thing to do.

Nightfly · 01-04-2008, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sike

I completely agree with the article. Why should consumers be forced to pay to support outdated CD and DVD fabricators, that are decreasing in quality, when a few file servers could replace that entire side of the industry?

The artists and consumers are both losing; the outdated distributors are winning at the moment. But they can't win this war.

I feel no qualms downloading music, because if I desperately wanted to pay an artist, I would download their music, then mail them $5. The problem is, that's not worth my time. But when a modern music industry makes it easy for me to do the equivalent, I'll do it. DJ'ing can probably be just as expensive as making music, and there's something wrong with this.

The problem the RIAA truly faces is the fact that music is no longer the focus of the entertainment industry it once was. People are buying expensive movies, software, and hardware, that make the legal price of most music silly and prohibitive to many consumers' entertainment budgets.

Piracy is not doing any significant harm to the music industry; they just make a big deal out of it because they want to make a little side-money suing teenagers. Because suing college students is the right thing to do.

Welcome to the Forum and thanks for your great post.