How do you relate to downloading movies/music and such?

[tasmlab]

 

 

I'm merely saying that the company is offering the content with the intent of a commercial relationship, no differently than a hot dog vendor would say "I wish you to pay if you'd like to consume this hot dog."

No. It's actually as if the hot dog vendor said "I wish you to pay me, if you make your own hot dog to the same recipe."

For sure, the hot dog company wishes to have me as a customer. But I don't feel bad about making hot dogs at home.

And the hairdresser also wishes to have me as a customer, yet I don't feel that I've cheated them if I cut my own hair, even if it's to the same design that they would have used.

Today I drove into town, and I followed the same route that the cab drivers take. I'm sure the cab company wishes to have me as a customer and would prefer that I don't copy their route. But I don't feel bad about doing so.

Last year, I built a chair with four legs. I don't know who first decided to build a chair with four legs, but I'm sure that person would have liked to collect a payment every time someone else built a chair with four legs. But I don't feel bad that I built a four-legged chair.

 

 

More examples:

I bootleg a copy of Halo and play it on my XBox.  I've recreated the $130MM capital investment and the years of development time by doing so.

I download "Kill Bill Vol 1" and watch it, I'm filming a movie in the same style as Tarantino.

I download a PDF of Atlas Shrugged, it's like I've spent 13 years writing a novel.

They don't seem categorically the same.  In your examples you do the work yourself (making the hot dog, cutting your hair), in mine there is no work done.

It's probably economically utilitarian to treat content as rivalrous goods (to take the other gentleman's term).  Even if the digital content knows no scarity, the orginators time does.  And the process resembles creating physical goods too (time, capital, labor).  If we presume not to pay, then the content will become scarce.  It's just the sequencing that is backwards from innately rivalrous goods.

The original poster's question was on 'morality'. 

Someone might be able to make an elaborate case that it isn't immoral to grab a movie, a video game, photoshop, etc., but it is certainlly douchey.

 

[Libertus]

"Someone might be able to make an elaborate case that it isn't immoral to grab a movie, a video game, photoshop, etc., but it is certainlly douchey."

In a free (that is a not-totally-screwed up totalitarian nightmare) society, you wouldn't have to make a case that an action isn't immoral, but the burden of proof lies with the accuser to show that an action IS immoral. Whose right, and which one (property? contract?) is being violated by said action of making a copy? Can't answer that, evade the question, try to switch the burden of proof - no crime. Yes, it is that simple.

[Jose Perez]

Worrying about the morality of downloading is like worrying about taking unemployment benefits. A free society would never have produced these state-of-nature feasts of the Internet and the welfare state. 

I'd say we have more important things to worry about - and we can compensate producers as we feel is right and within our possibilities.

[tasmlab]

 

Worrying about the morality of downloading is like worrying about taking unemployment benefits. A free society would never have produced these state-of-nature feasts of the Internet and the welfare state. 

I'd say we have more important things to worry about - and we can compensate producers as we feel is right and within our possibilities.

 

 

I agree with this.  In the end, this is pretty trivial stuff.  It's sort of like wondering if using the bathroom at McDonalds without buying anything is immoral.  If someone without a lot of money needs to go through the inconvienence of finding a hacked movie, it's not really harming much.  I mostly don't do this because I just buy Netflix and cable and watch the movies on my big plasma.

It should be noted that Robin (the OP) chooses to pay the highest premium for FDR content.

 

[PatrickC]

I agree with this.  In the end, this is pretty trivial stuff.  It's sort of like wondering if using the bathroom at McDonalds without buying anything is immoral.  If someone without a lot of money needs to go through the inconvienence of finding a hacked movie, it's not really harming much.  I mostly don't do this because I just buy Netflix and cable and watch the movies on my big plasma.

I think in terms of UPB downloading probably fits into a category of APA. The one regarding rudeness in my opinion.

[Jose Perez]

 

I agree with this.  In the end, this is pretty trivial stuff.  It's sort of like wondering if using the bathroom at McDonalds without buying anything is immoral.  If someone without a lot of money needs to go through the inconvienence of finding a hacked movie, it's not really harming much.  I mostly don't do this because I just buy Netflix and cable and watch the movies on my big plasma.

I think in terms of UPB downloading probably fits into a category of APA. The one regarding rudeness in my opinion.

 

There is no agreement between the producer and the downloader; even with McDonald's there is a tacit agreement that the toilet is for customers. You could even picture a situation where someone needs to download stuff for a moral reason...

Aesthetically preferable behaviour is for situations that are not already a violation of greater preferability - like I am not precisely rude if I fail to pay my tax bill on time. Music and movie producers seem very happy to take advantage of this situation with the Internet being one such violation - is that rude as well?

Let's not even mention the fact that media content is largely built and inspired on the violations of children's property rights. Would you say someone who downloads a nazi documentary or any piece of media that promotes or builds upon immorality is also rude?

[PatrickC]

 

 

I agree with this.  In the end, this is pretty trivial stuff.  It's sort of like wondering if using the bathroom at McDonalds without buying anything is immoral.  If someone without a lot of money needs to go through the inconvienence of finding a hacked movie, it's not really harming much.  I mostly don't do this because I just buy Netflix and cable and watch the movies on my big plasma.

I think in terms of UPB downloading probably fits into a category of APA. The one regarding rudeness in my opinion.

 

There is no agreement between the producer and the downloader; even with McDonald's there is a tacit agreement that the toilet is for customers. You could even picture a situation where someone needs to download stuff for a moral reason...

Aesthetically preferable behaviour is for situations that are not already a violation of greater preferability - like I am not precisely rude if I fail to pay my tax bill on time. Music and movie producers seem very happy to take advantage of this situation with the Internet being one such violation - is that rude as well?

There maybe no agreement, but a content provider wants to be paid for their product of course. However, given the fact the product can be copied multiple times, payment is not particularly enforceable.

It still remains an amoral situation of course. But like someone pointed out earlier if you told me that you had downloaded my cookery recipe for free and were sat in your garden with your wife enjoying a great meal, I would probably consider you as rude, yes. Which completely fits within the parameters of APA. APA goes a long way in explaining some peoples ambiguity around the topic of content sharing. But of course not everyone feels that way, which is why I was careful to point out it was my opinion.

Let's not even mention the fact that media content is largely built and inspired on the violations of children's property rights. Would you say someone who downloads a nazi documentary or any piece of media that promotes or builds upon immorality is also rude?

I have no idea what to make of this, without considering it as some bizarre strawman.

[tasmlab]

 

 

 

I agree with this.  In the end, this is pretty trivial stuff.  It's sort of like wondering if using the bathroom at McDonalds without buying anything is immoral.  If someone without a lot of money needs to go through the inconvienence of finding a hacked movie, it's not really harming much.  I mostly don't do this because I just buy Netflix and cable and watch the movies on my big plasma.

I think in terms of UPB downloading probably fits into a category of APA. The one regarding rudeness in my opinion.

 

There is no agreement between the producer and the downloader; even with McDonald's there is a tacit agreement that the toilet is for customers. You could even picture a situation where someone needs to download stuff for a moral reason...

Aesthetically preferable behaviour is for situations that are not already a violation of greater preferability - like I am not precisely rude if I fail to pay my tax bill on time. Music and movie producers seem very happy to take advantage of this situation with the Internet being one such violation - is that rude as well?

There maybe no agreement, but a content provider wants to be paid for their product of course. However, given the fact the product can be copied multiple times, payment is not particularly enforceable.

It still remains an amoral situation of course. But like someone pointed out earlier if you told me that you had downloaded my cookery recipe for free and were sat in your garden with your wife enjoying a great meal, I would probably consider you as rude, yes. Which completely fits within the parameters of APA. APA goes a long way in explaining some peoples ambiguity around the topic of content sharing. But of course not everyone feels that way, which is why I was careful to point out it was my opinion.

Let's not even mention the fact that media content is largely built and inspired on the violations of children's property rights. Would you say someone who downloads a nazi documentary or any piece of media that promotes or builds upon immorality is also rude?

I have no idea what to make of this, without considering it as some bizarre strawman.

 

 

I feel fairly certain that the general anonymity of the Internet and the distant relationship between some corporation owned by murderous GE in Hollywood and the low-income downloader makes this seem less rude.

If you personalize it, the rudeness (or morality) becomes more apparent.  If the downloader and the content originator were in the same room and were friends and had to talk about the act, I think both parties would find it rude.

[Jose Perez]

 

 

 

I agree with this.  In the end, this is pretty trivial stuff.  It's sort of like wondering if using the bathroom at McDonalds without buying anything is immoral.  If someone without a lot of money needs to go through the inconvienence of finding a hacked movie, it's not really harming much.  I mostly don't do this because I just buy Netflix and cable and watch the movies on my big plasma.

I think in terms of UPB downloading probably fits into a category of APA. The one regarding rudeness in my opinion.

 

There is no agreement between the producer and the downloader; even with McDonald's there is a tacit agreement that the toilet is for customers. You could even picture a situation where someone needs to download stuff for a moral reason...

Aesthetically preferable behaviour is for situations that are not already a violation of greater preferability - like I am not precisely rude if I fail to pay my tax bill on time. Music and movie producers seem very happy to take advantage of this situation with the Internet being one such violation - is that rude as well?

There maybe no agreement, but a content provider wants to be paid for their product of course. However, given the fact the product can be copied multiple times, payment is not particularly enforceable.

[/font]

Again (first you left out my text tasmlab was referring to) you ignore my argument that the Internet - or digital media in general - is not a place where you should massively sell your goods if you are very concerned with getting payed for every item. I obviously understand that people want to get payed for their products - obviously not as much as they just want to make a profit regardless of people's "rudeness".

[/font]It still remains an amoral situation of course. But like someone pointed out earlier if you told me that you had downloaded my cookery recipe for free and were sat in your garden with your wife enjoying a great meal, I would probably consider you as rude, yes.

[/font]

It is not an amoral situation, as I keep saying. Downloading is an amoral action but it is not done in an amoral situation.

It's no problem, you may call me rude as I enjoy my meals - which is a shame, because if you so wanted compensation you would have probably been able to easily persuade me.

[/font]

Which completely fits within the parameters of APA. APA goes a long way in explaining some peoples ambiguity around the topic of content sharing. But of course not everyone feels that way, which is why I was careful to point out it was my opinion.

[/font]

If APA is as rational and objective standard then it is hardly a matter of feelings or opinions. Interesting how you don't seem to think it's just your opinion or be careful to express that I would be "rude, yes" for downloading your cookery recipe. 

[/font]

Let's not even mention the fact that media content is largely built and inspired on the violations of children's property rights. Would you say someone who downloads a nazi documentary or any piece of media that promotes or builds upon immorality is also rude?

I have no idea what to make of this, without considering it as some bizarre strawman.

 

If you ignore my arguments from the start it is understandable you encounter weird "strawmen". 

[PatrickC]

 

 

 

 

I agree with this.  In the end, this is pretty trivial stuff.  It's sort of like wondering if using the bathroom at McDonalds without buying anything is immoral.  If someone without a lot of money needs to go through the inconvienence of finding a hacked movie, it's not really harming much.  I mostly don't do this because I just buy Netflix and cable and watch the movies on my big plasma.

I think in terms of UPB downloading probably fits into a category of APA. The one regarding rudeness in my opinion.

 

There is no agreement between the producer and the downloader; even with McDonald's there is a tacit agreement that the toilet is for customers. You could even picture a situation where someone needs to download stuff for a moral reason...

Aesthetically preferable behaviour is for situations that are not already a violation of greater preferability - like I am not precisely rude if I fail to pay my tax bill on time. Music and movie producers seem very happy to take advantage of this situation with the Internet being one such violation - is that rude as well?

There maybe no agreement, but a content provider wants to be paid for their product of course. However, given the fact the product can be copied multiple times, payment is not particularly enforceable.

It still remains an amoral situation of course. But like someone pointed out earlier if you told me that you had downloaded my cookery recipe for free and were sat in your garden with your wife enjoying a great meal, I would probably consider you as rude, yes. Which completely fits within the parameters of APA. APA goes a long way in explaining some peoples ambiguity around the topic of content sharing. But of course not everyone feels that way, which is why I was careful to point out it was my opinion.

Let's not even mention the fact that media content is largely built and inspired on the violations of children's property rights. Would you say someone who downloads a nazi documentary or any piece of media that promotes or builds upon immorality is also rude?

I have no idea what to make of this, without considering it as some bizarre strawman.

 

 

I feel fairly certain that the general anonymity of the Internet and the distant relationship between some corporation owned by murderous GE in Hollywood and the low-income downloader makes this seem less rude.

If you personalize it, the rudeness (or morality) becomes more apparent.  If the downloader and the content originator were in the same room and were friends and had to talk about the act, I think both parties would find it rude.

 

Yea, you could be right. Certainly APA would encourage you to look at the past actions of agencies and individuals as a guide towards your eventual decision. But generally it is concerned with the action in hand. Aesthetics are of course open to interpretation, insofar as there isn't any moral obligation. APA is a subjective decision one makes in a given situation, sometimes dependent on the desires and wishes of the other party (good or bad), sometimes not. If I recall rightly Stef actually categorises APA into different parts, but I don't have the book to hand here at work. APA is generally the start to real integrity. APA are often the hardest decisions we make.

Having said all that, this is just the way I see it at the moment, because I understand the ambiguity with this particular topic. No one has convinced me yet of a decisive answer. APA is about the only way I can begin to unravel those ambiguous parts, if that makes sense. And just to be clear it doesn't mean that I am pro IP. This is all about finding voluntary solutions and personal integrity of course.

 

[Existing Alternatives]

It looks like I’m late to the party and most aspects of this already had been taken apart. One thing that seems to be missing from the discussion is the creator’s intent.

When a DVD is produced it is explicit that the intent of the creators was to sell it. Moreover, they explicitly request that you do not copy their work, even threaten violence if you do. The expectation on their part is that the user will respect their wishes. Knowingly going against those wishes is a violation of some sorts for sure.

The creator made a conscious decision to create something in order to get compensation. Without that compensation there would not be a creation process or that product regardless how ethereal the product is.

Focusing on the intent removes the burden of having to compare with physical goods or channels of distribution or even ease of copying

[Jose Perez]

 

When a DVD is produced it is explicit that the intent of the creators was to sell it. Moreover, they explicitly request that you do not copy their work, even threaten violence if you do. The expectation on their part is that the user will respect their wishes. Knowingly going against those wishes is a violation of some sorts for sure.

The creator's intent is also to persuade the consumer to buy, and the consumer's intent is to own the product, so the creator cannot be – and often isn't – so strict about this wish. Owning the product means that you can copy it, as a result of which copies may disseminate – and indirectly be also a good thing for the creator. Property is cool. Downloading is cool. [pom-poms]

[Existing Alternatives]

 

 

When a DVD is produced it is explicit that the intent of the creators was to sell it. Moreover, they explicitly request that you do not copy their work, even threaten violence if you do. The expectation on their part is that the user will respect their wishes. Knowingly going against those wishes is a violation of some sorts for sure.

The creator's intent is also to persuade the consumer to buy, and the consumer's intent is to own the product, so the creator cannot be – and often isn't – so strict about this wish. Owning the product means that you can copy it, as a result of which copies may disseminate – and indirectly be also a good thing for the creator. Property is cool. Downloading is cool. /emoticons/pom_poms.gif

 

Maybe. Although it does sound like a special case of “ownership.” This ownership has certain clauses attached to it, which the original buyer has agreed to (one of them being “no copy”). If you think of slave ownership (yeah, let’s put all ethics aside), throughout history there were always restrictions as to what could and could not be done with slaves. For that matter, I can’t think of any example of absolute, do-which-you-please, type of ownership. All of them come with restrictions.