How do you keep moral integrity when it comes to downloading stuff

[Otenka]

This is assuming you download stuff, do you? I watched Waking Life on Youtube (really interesting if I might add) and I download them, convert them to mp3 to listen in my MP3 player, come of the stuff is really inspirational.

Of couse my super-ego triggered a sense of guilt afterwards. The most effective way to deal with that is just not thinking too much about it.

Your thoughts?

[Cran]

Don't know about the copyright of the specific video you're refering to, but the best moral way to deal with failure in morality (often called sin...) is to regret it, not to do it again and make amends if possible.

In the case of downloading, I am of the opinion that, as soon as you realize that it is wrong, stop using the songs/videos you downloaded and buy them.

Not thinking about it is just fooling yourself.

If you do not think it wrong and feel guilty anyway, that would be an issue with your ueber-ich

[magi13]

Originally Posted by Otenka

This is assuming you download stuff, do you? I watched Waking Life on Youtube (really interesting if I might add) and I download them, convert them to mp3 to listen in my MP3 player, come of the stuff is really inspirational.

Of couse my super-ego triggered a sense of guilt afterwards. The most effective way to deal with that is just not thinking too much about it.

Your thoughts?

^^, guilty. >.< I do not want to think about it.

I just believe in this philosophy, if we share it without selling it to others then it's like lending. >,< but i know it's legally wrong. haha.

[Eric Roosevelt]

Originally Posted by Otenka

Of couse my super-ego triggered a sense of guilt afterwards. The most effective way to deal with that is just not thinking too much about it.

No, if it's making you feel guilty then you should probably keep thinking about it. Don't let yourself drop down to a lower state of consciousness. If you think downloading files is immoral (and this could be a matter of contention, depending on what you're downloading), then you should probably start cutting back. If you can find a good enough reason to keep downloading, then do so. Do whatever seems right to you.

[Daffy Duck]

I don't mind downloading a movie since I could have just rented it for free from a library. Either way, the information is freely available to me. I'm not concerned about how I get it.

However, I wouldn't steal a copyrighted version from a physical store. Downloading a digital copy and taking a physical copy are two different things in my opinion.

[Chris Cade]

I used to download tons of music, most of which I didn't listen to... some of which I did. One day I realized that whether or not I downloaded it or took it off the shelves in a store, I felt like I was stealing.

The fact that it is in digital form doesn't diminish the fact that somebody took time and effort to create this, and I feel that they deserve to be compensated for their hard work.

It reminds me of downloadable ebooks. If something is *only* available in digital form, I would feel like I was stealing if I downloaded it without compensating the creator. For me, the fact that a physical version of it exists does not change what I just described.

Another example is downloading software. Just because somebody can burn me a CD of Photoshop doesn't change whether or not Adobe Systems invested millions of dollars to create that software. I used to have pirated copies of almost all of Adobe's software -- my logic was, "Well I wouldn't actually buy it, and they're not losing money (since I wouldn't buy it anyway), so it's okay for me to have digital copies and use them." I was blind to the fact that I was lying to myself and ignoring that part of me which knew I was stealing.

So anyway, once I started seeing things this way... and really understanding that somebody created something and I am partaking in the fruits of their labor, I deleted all of my stolen mp3s. I then went out and bought used (or digital) versions of the songs and albums I truly did want to listen to. When it comes to software, I either buy it or I get freeware.

Ever since then, I've kept a consistent stance that if the creator did not intend for it to be free, then I won't accept it as free.

If I can go to the library and get it, then I will... and if there's a waiting list, then I'll wait. But I'm not going to take something off the digital shelf because I'm impatient or can effectively rationalize away something that feels wrong to me.

I say all this not to impose judgment or tell others what their moral values should be. This is just an explanation of what I went through in this regard, how I felt, and the conclusions I came to.

For others, they may have a different feeling, different logic, different experience... and it may very well feel right to them to download digital versions of things without compensating the creator for their efforts.

It all really just comes down to how we feel inside when we do things... if it feels good, then we're probably on the right track. If it feels bad or out of alignment, then we probably need to look at what we're doing and why we're feeling the way we are.

[Parthon]

Hmmm, I'm in a weird boat then. I went on an honesty kick a while back and deleted all of my pirated stuff, but then started pirating again. I still do pirate particular stuff, I know it's wrong, and I'm not going to stop soon, but I may later.

Ignoring your actions though lowers your awareness, but I'm wondering what about if you weigh up the options and choose to do the wrong thing, where does that stand?

Time for some more soul discovery me thinks.

[Eric Revelin]

I don't download anything unless...

1. I bought it in another format or I lost my original copy.

2. It's no longer being sold. If the original creator isn't making any money off of it then it's up for grabs as far as I'm concerned.

3. I want to try it out. Thirty second sound bites aren't enough for me to gauge how much I'll like an artist or album, and with the acts I like there's no chance that I'll find their stuff at my local library. In fact if it wasn't for file sharing I would've never heard of a lot of my favorite musical acts, like God is an Astronaut or The Decemberists, and I never would have seen films like "Waking Life".

4. I plan to buy it anyway. That's what I did with Electric Six's latest album, "Flashy". I got an advance copy a few weeks before it went on sale and then I bought it through Amazon as soon as I could.

5. It's produced or distributed by the RIAA/MPAA. I adore artists like Weird Al, and The Dark Knight is one of my favorite films of all time, but there is no way in hell I'm giving my money to conglomerates that think suing individual downloaders is a viable business model. I'm all for making sure artists get their fair share, but the RIAA doesn't care about that. Oftentimes they're the ones denying the artist the money they deserve. The MPAA isn't much better. I hate having to sit through the anti-piracy ads they put at the beginning of so many DVDs. If they're going to treat me like a criminal and they're going to make it excruciatingly hard for me to legitimately use a product I purchased (IE, ripping the movie to my computer) then I'm going to go outside their distribution methods if only because it's less hassle.

--------------

As an aside, downloading material isn't a valueless transaction. Yes, I believe it's better to pay for what you get most of the time (with RIAA bands I'll try to get merchandise of equal monetary value to the music I have), but with everything being freely available these days you can experiment and expose yourself to a lot of things you'd have otherwise never come across. In broadening your horizons you give artists and filmmakers exposure, and it expands outward from there.

A fine example of someone who has built his career on this model is Jonathan Coulton. (Jonathan Coulton) His songs fall into the geek/folk rock niche and he's got a very loyal fan-base. I doubt his success would be possible without file sharing.

This is a matter of personal conviction and motive. Do you download stuff just because you're a cheapskate, or do you download things to try something new and explore ill-lit aspects of our vast global culture? Either way I think most of us can agree that it's best to give back when we can.

[Brutha]

Of couse my super-ego triggered a sense of guilt afterwards. The most effective way to deal with that is just not thinking too much about it.

If you do something with conflicts with your morals you shouldn't do it again.
Different people have different moral standards (some have no problems with copying other intellectual property while some have) but simply ignoring your own moral standards when you feel guilty leads to lower consciousness.

[pyrogen]

Originally Posted by Chris Cade

Another example is downloading software. Just because somebody can burn me a CD of Photoshop doesn't change whether or not Adobe Systems invested millions of dollars to create that software. I used to have pirated copies of almost all of Adobe's software -- my logic was, "Well I wouldn't actually buy it, and they're not losing money (since I wouldn't buy it anyway), so it's okay for me to have digital copies and use them." I was blind to the fact that I was lying to myself and ignoring that part of me which knew I was stealing.

I'm neither endorsing nor criticizing copyright violation, but I used to work in both software (including for Macromedia, now owned by Adobe) and graphics and I discovered an ugly truth on the inside. Theft IS part of their business model and the model of most companies I worked for, during the height of the dot coms. I don't know how it is now, but when I was in the industry, of course everyone said "Oh no, piracy bad, money good", but then within the company it was another story entirely. Rips being passed around left and right. Your BOSS sending you home with rips. You had to take the stuff home to learn it, and it was and is priced beyond the reach of most people who are going to use it at home. Very few people can actually buy a full version of Photoshop; it's beyond their reach. Even few people in the industry who do this for a living. Companies still need you to know it.

I actually had a little moral struggle with the whole thing. Piracy's supposed to be wrong, companies I work for (including a major manufacturer of said pirated software) say "piracy wrong!" with one hand then giving you a rip with the other hand, or telling you to go get a rip and they're going to turn a blind eye. It's not actually morally consistent. Left the industry over it! Too much of a headache trying to figure it all out! I do Open Source now!

I've also worked in retail like almost everyone else has and the "downloading = walking in and stealing it" argument makes my head hurt.

In terms of retail store shrinkage and loss prevention and stuff, downloading isn't exactly the same as walking into a store and stealing it. It's not the same as walking into Barnes & Noble and walking out with a book hidden in your coat.

What downloading is morally equivalent to, is buying a book, then photocopying it and giving the copies to your friends.

That comparison just makes me have spasms. In terms of "having something you're not supposed to have", okay, maybe it's the same, but in terms of how much money is lost and who loses it, it's not.

[Dagan]

i suppose downloading/pirating a movie and actually stealing it are two different things physically, first of all your not holding something like the actual disc or the cover but these are just the tools/means to sell the article (sort of like an advertisment), not the actual value that is within the disc, when you look at it this way you will see that essentually they are the same thing but the only differance is the way we percieve each act.

Downloading and pirating are socially acceptable and almost everyone does it or knows someone who does. you can talk about it freely to most people without worrying, but stealing a DVD is different, its a lot harder and riskier and alot less acceptable.

even though the company made no effort in creating the "copy" which you have downloaded/pirated the fact is that you are stealing the oportunity wich the company had to sell you the article. lets face it you are obviously interested in it even if it is the smallest amount and therefore the was a chance of purchasing it even if it is the smallest amount. and you are also stealing the artists right to compensation for their great work, blood, sweat and tears.

i used to be a downloader. but i am a movie buff and an aspiring film director and business euntrepenuer and i decided that one day if everyone interested in my product downloaded/pirated my products my oportunity to continue with my dreams will have been stolen from me. this is when i decided to buy and support everyone that i had interest in. and if i cant affor it i will wait.

im not saying that it is wrong, because socially it is ok, this is just my opinion and even my girlfriend and friends all pirates movies and songs and it doesnt bother me much as it is the way it is.

[Eric Roosevelt]

Originally Posted by Brutha

If you do something with conflicts with your morals you shouldn't do it again.
Different people have different moral standards (some have no problems with copying other intellectual property while some have) but simply ignoring your own moral standards when you feel guilty leads to lower consciousness.

Yes, I agree with that. It's one thing to be a relativist and say "each one to his own", but it's another thing to blatantly ignore your own opinions or intuitions.

On the topic of intellectual property, I can't really say I'm very sympathetic towards the giant corporations who lose money when we download their material. The ones I feel sorry for are the small groups of artists, directors or whatever whose material is freely distributed before they've had a chance to establish themselves.

[Brutha]

even though the company made no effort in creating the "copy" which you have downloaded/pirated the fact is that you are stealing the oportunity wich the company had to sell you the article.

Stealing opportunities isn't against the law or against traditional western morals.
That's what a free market is all about.
By writing good content Steve stole the opportunity to be the #1 result at google for some keywords from other people.
If you create a great product you will steal the opportunities from other people to sell worse products in that niche.

Additionally there are still people who buy the product after they downloaded it, so the opportunity to sell the product isn't entirely lost.

when you look at it this way you will see that essentually they are the same thing but the only differance is the way we percieve each act.

Physical property comes from a different place than intellectual property.
Intellectual property is a monopoly that is given out by the government to reward creative people. It's given out for a certain amount of time and afterwards things go to the public domain.

[Parthon]

That's where I'm stuck on the whole deal.

I know intellectually that the law says that piracy is wrong, and that it's illegal and all that. I also know in my heart that artists should be fairly compensated for their work.

The part that I'm stuck on is that this is a great work that should be enjoyed by as many people as possible, and the internet is a great tool for creating, yet not for the record companies. They stand in the way of creative self expression and free enterprise. They want everyone to pay $2 a song so they can keep 99+% of it and give the artist only a little tiny bit. It's not fair at all. I know that music is a business, but it's hard to believe that the record companies are adding enough value to equate to their massive profit margin.

So unfortunately, given a choice between living my life devoid of the beauty and majesty that's out there, giving money to those that aren't providing the value, or breaking a law that just provides for the already wealthy, I'd have to go for the last. I still find ways to reward those artists that I can get in contact with, but until there's better ways of doing it, I'll be downloading all the free music I can find, and pirating the other stuff that inspires me.

[astra]

One thought kept running through my head as I read this. In my teens, I owned a tape recorder, and every weekend I'd listen to the top 40 and record my favourite new songs, then play them over and over all week. To this day, I still own not only some of those cassettes, but old VHS of my favourite shows I recorded and also watched over and over again.

They actually used to sell tape recorders and VHS recorders with two slots so that you could copy tapes. I don't recall any discussion whatsoever on wether this should be legal or illegal. So, I figure why should I feel guilty when I download a song I heard on the radio that I like, or an episode of one of my favourite tv shows that's already aired when it's basically the same thing? It's just that the huge spread of technology such as the internet, pay tv etc has now made it easier for people to do this, and the huge corporations are kicking up a stink because it's affecting their bottom line more than ever. Food for thought.

As for the artists who make these things, I agree that yes they should be compensated for their hard work, but selling CD's or tv shows isn't the only revenue these people get from their work. Example? A couple of years ago, one of my favourite rock bands came to town. I had downloaded all their songs, never bought an album. But I paid $100 to go and see them live in concert. Around 10,000 other people also came to see them live in concert. A quick calculation shows they made $1,000,000 that night, and they done 5 concerts in Australia over a week. Obviously there's costs involved, so say around half of that, they still took $2.5million home over a week, or half a mil each. That'd be plenty for me! 5 times what I make in a (good) year. Artists have other potential streams of income generated from their work. Obviously it's not exactly like this for every artist (especially those starting out), but it is something to consider.

[Chris Cade]

Paulo Coelho says that as a budding writer, writers will give their work away to anybody who will read it, just to gather a following. And he says, "Why should that change?" just because he sells millions of copies.

He has actively encouraged pirating of all of his books for years. In countries where sales were floundering (and his publisher even dropped him), he found a new publisher and started distributing digital copies of his books online... the result was print books massively increased.

In the past, I liked to download bootleg songs from concerts of my favorite bands. In some cases, those live performances were the reason I decided to go see the band in concert.

The issue for me isn't that there's something fundamentally wrong with downloading and copying music, it's that many of the current systems in place don't support it very well to compensate the creators adequately.

In my own business, I produce a ton of free content that I encourage people to share. I also produce some paid content... and I accept and acknowledge the fact that some of it may be distributed without permission nor compensation.

My perspective is that regardless of what the moral feelings are, from a business perspective it's a great opportunity for niche information publishers. Every "pirated" copy of my program does one of two things:

1) Gets discarded
2) Creates a loyal fan

#1 means nothing gained, nothing lost. #2 means that person will be more likely to buy future products from me knowing the quality I deliver.

Does that mean it's morally "right" to copy, distribute, or steal my digital products? Just because I don't have an issue with it?

Is there a difference between, say, copying and distributing Paulo Coelho's works which he actively encourages (and engages in!) pirating... vs. say.... copying and distributing the latest and greatest music album?

I dunno... this whole topic is so convoluted with so many issues surrounding it. I couldn't say what is right or wrong with absolute certainty in every situation.

Like other posters pointed out... it's about how we feel. When I set my mind aside and just see how I feel, I usually know whether or not what I'm doing is "right" or "wrong" (not morally, just experientially for me).

[Eric Revelin]

Originally Posted by Eric Roosevelt

The ones I feel sorry for are the small groups of artists, directors or whatever whose material is freely distributed before they've had a chance to establish themselves.

Actually, having their work passed around is a great way for them to get exposure. Again I'd point to Jonathan Coulton. He started his "Thing a Week" series by giving away everything that he recorded. In time this drew a sizable following. It's possible that it would have been much harder for him to gain traction without doing that.

Every time a song is heard it's good for the artist. If people like it they'll want to know who made it and where they can find it. They'll pay for merchandise and concert tickets even if they don't want to buy copies of the music. What's happened is that compressed digital copies have made recorded music worthless. People will pay for CDs, and there's a market for loss-less music files, but MP3s are unattractive to anyone that doesn't want to buy them simply to support the artist. Case in point- I'll buy an independent artist's music on Amazon and then I'll go download a lossless version of what I bought. 99 cents for an MP3 is ridiculous.

The RIAA is trying to fight new technology by creating a moral stigma around its use. They've done this ever since tapes allowed people to record music off the radio. Like always they're losing, but the stakes are lot higher this time since the digital revolution is threatening to make them entirely irrelevant. If they were smart they'd have switched to selling MP3s in bulk at the turn of the century- 5 cents per song with a subscription service allowing unlimited downloads. They didn't, and their current digital distribution models are evolving way too slowly. Personally, I'm not going to abide by laws that reward a stubborn refusal to adapt to the times.

[Trezker]

Ironically, it's the pirating that keeps the old business models alive. Sounds strange, but I'm convinced that is the case. My reasoning is not about pirating directly helping those businesses, but about what would happen if people didn't pirate.

Imagine if all the people that pirate stuff from the old businesses would stop and decide that they're not gonna go against their wishes. These companies don't want you to have their products if you don't pay, so if you don't want to/can pay then you shouldn't have it, end of discussion.

What would happen? We'd have a huge audience craving free culture that is not produced by companies that don't want to produce free culture. This would give free culture a huge boost in their market share. Profits would go up dramatically in the free culture business, then quality, then popularity. Eventually free culture would be so big that the old business models simply fail.

This may be hard to believe, but I believe it.

[Eric Roosevelt]

Originally Posted by Eric Revelin

Actually, having their work passed around is a great way for them to get exposure. Again I'd point to Jonathan Coulton. He started his "Thing a Week" series by giving away everything that he recorded. In time this drew a sizable following. It's possible that it would have been much harder for him to gain traction without doing that.

Every time a song is heard it's good for the artist. If people like it they'll want to know who made it and where they can find it. They'll pay for merchandise and concert tickets even if they don't want to buy copies of the music. What's happened is that compressed digital copies have made recorded music worthless. People will pay for CDs, and there's a market for loss-less music files, but MP3s are unattractive to anyone that doesn't want to buy them simply to support the artist. Case in point- I'll buy an independent artist's music on Amazon and then I'll go download a lossless version of what I bought. 99 cents for an MP3 is ridiculous.

The RIAA is trying to fight new technology by creating a moral stigma around its use. They've done this ever since tapes allowed people to record music off the radio. Like always they're losing, but the stakes are lot higher this time since the digital revolution is threatening to make them entirely irrelevant. If they were smart they'd have switched to selling MP3s in bulk at the turn of the century- 5 cents per song with a subscription service allowing unlimited downloads. They didn't, and their current digital distribution models are evolving way too slowly. Personally, I'm not going to abide by laws that reward a stubborn refusal to adapt to the times.

There are some new music services which are financed by allowing random commercials to interrupt songs, which I think is a decent idea. The interruptions only occur about every 30 minutes. I can't remember the name of the service now.

[TheIronStar]

Originally Posted by Eric Roosevelt

There are some new music services which are financed by allowing random commercials to interrupt songs, which I think is a decent idea. The interruptions only occur about every 30 minutes. I can't remember the name of the service now.

Ad-sponsored music media? Isn't that called "music radio"?

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

[Eric Roosevelt]

Originally Posted by TheIronStar

Ad-sponsored music media? Isn't that called "music radio"?

Radio is part of it, but you can also search freely for any song you want and create playlists.

Spotify is the name of one of these services. Apparently you need some sort of invitation to get access to it.

Spotify - everyone loves music

[pyrogen]

What singer David Draiman of Disturbed had to say about downloading:

[I'm] Very positive about the internet, Napster. I think it's a tremendous tool for reaching many more people than we ever could without it. When you release music you want it to be heard by people. Artists really want to have their music heard. They want to have their creation heard by people. Nothing is going to do that better than Napster. I can't tell you how many kids have come up to me and said, 'I downloaded a couple of tunes off Napster and I went out and bought the album.' Or they say, 'I want to come see you play.' I don't really make money off of record sales anyway.

[missing]

Originally Posted by pyrogen

What singer David Draiman of Disturbed had to say about downloading:

[I'm] Very positive about the internet, Napster. I think it's a tremendous tool for reaching many more people than we ever could without it. When you release music you want it to be heard by people. Artists really want to have their music heard. They want to have their creation heard by people. Nothing is going to do that better than Napster. I can't tell you how many kids have come up to me and said, 'I downloaded a couple of tunes off Napster and I went out and bought the album.' Or they say, 'I want to come see you play.' I don't really make money off of record sales anyway.

"Disturbed" is relatively well known, which changes one's perspective. One of my favorite artist's whose much less well known (though a cult figure) worked his whole life to create a record label that he felt pirating software tried to destroy. As far as I know his label is still up and running and putting out great music, but for who knows how long, and how much money they've lost. I'm not a moralist about pirating, especially when it comes to big labels, but this guy made me think about some of the problems involved.

[Plato]

You could reject the principle of property

[dice]

I refuse to download any kind of quality, well done, noteworthy or independant movies, and I am so ashamed of friends I have that want to go into the movie-biz, yet have 800+ bootlegged movies sitting on their shelf.

However, when stuff like "House Bunny" hits screens I don't worry too much. Best to discourage that kind of 'entertainment'.

Same with music, I try not to download artists that I respect or admire. I usually borrow CD's from the library and load from those.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Otenka

I watched Waking Life on Youtube (really interesting if I might add) and I download them, convert them to mp3 to listen in my MP3 player, come of the stuff is really inspirational.

Of couse my super-ego triggered a sense of guilt afterwards. The most effective way to deal with that is just not thinking too much about it.

Your thoughts?

If it's troubling you then "just not thinking too much about it" isn't a solution. You're causing yourself low level stress until you make a firm and congruent decision one way or the other.

This might be "No, I believe that copyright infringement is theft and I will not do it". It might be "If I have no interest in buying it anyway, then my copying it costs the creator nothing". It might be "Property, 'intellectual' or otherwise is an affront to my anarcho-idealistic ideals".

But if you don't resolve it one way or other, you'll pay for it with your blood pressure.