What do you download ?

[Abe]

@Abe: I download tv shows, and if I like it I buy the box set which comes with bonus features. Maybe you are willing to sit through 20 minutes of adverts per episode but I am not. Don't try and play the moral high ground because I'm not profiting.

Unfortunately I think that you are the exception and not the rule by doing this.

Also I see nothing worng with partially sharing a torent because you did not distribute the entire thing, rendering the parts that you do share useless. It's like breaking a DVD into 4 pieces and selling a quarter DVD at a time.

No, it's like saying you are not responsible for the bank robery because you only drove the car.

We are under South African law, meaning it is only illegal if you distribute what you download. If you feel so strongly about defending American law then by all means go and live there.

I an not defending US law. I believe in paying for what you get. I disagree with most of the US law especially the DCMA. There is nothing that tramples on peoples rights more then that piece of crap. You are welcome to do what you want downloads, torrents etc. I am not in the habit of reporting people. I just don't accept most of the excuses people give. If things are too expensive then don't get it. End of story.

Cheers

Abe

 

[hj2k_x]

If things are too expensive then don't get it. End of story.

Problem with this kind of passive attitude is that then things will never change- things will never come down in price. The internet and downloading of music should at least have made the dat cats sit up and take notice and at least maybe rethink their pricing and content....

 

[Highflyer_GP]

If things are too expensive then don't get it. End of story.

It's not about being expensive for me, it's about watching something ad-free and if I like it then I buy the DVD box set. It's simple really. Yes I have a DSTV subscription which I use mainly for sport and the information channels (Discovery etc.). If I don't want to watch an ad-infested tv series on DSTV then I don't have to because I'm paying my monthly subscription for the entire boquet. You stated earlier that advertisers lose out and honestly I fail to see the point because if I was watching something and an ad came on I would probably switch the channel anyway.

 

[youradsl]

Well, I've done my share of downloading TV shows, etc, but to say it's legal - are you guys dreaming?

...it's about watching something ad-free and if I like it then I buy the DVD box set.

That's should be legal then - Do you also go into the shop, have a taste of all the chocolates and buy the once you like?
For f sakes it’s not legal to download copyrighted music or shows. If you say it over and over it still won’t make it legal.

 

[Highflyer_GP]

lol we going to go round and round in circles with this argument
read the post by Peter_J further up, and follow the links for more clarity.

 

[bwana]

That may be the case right now but more and more it is becoming a global marketplace. Even then, you just have to look at DSTV cancelling the show because of lost revenue.

DSTV will therefore be just as likely to cancel a show if I download it from a legal source such as the iTunes store (which I frequently do).

Should I still feel bad - even though I'm doing the right thing?

 

[Peter_J]

You also have to look at the ECT Act as it may also be relevent.

...

The problem with Acts is that they are open to interpretation. A song could be classed as information. Courts try to look at what the intention of the Act is when deciding this sort of thing.

Legal implications aside (I would hate to be a test case). There is the moral question which people need to ask themselves. Who is going to start writing songs if they cannot get paid anything for their effort. I write software for a living and hate it when people just copy software as and when they feel like it.

Well I will stick to the opinion of my close relative on this, who is a very senior lawyer/partner in one of the country's few patent/trademark/copyright law firms and has been practising in the field for over 30 years and who dismissed the ECT act in my discussions with him as long as you have authorised access to the server source. It is an issue of copyright. Over your legal interpretations anyway.

In that Cipro reference you even have your own government telling you this.

The issue is not one of downloading for personal private use - if the poor songwriters have an issue they have recourse and remedies against the uploaders and other distributors.

The moral issue was not the argument though I agree there might be an issue for some people - we were debating legality.

I have also supported myself by writing and selling software over the years, and I used to hate warez versions of my programs, and the publishing of workable keys on serial number lists. Until I realised that the more my software got distributed in whatever way, the more I ended up selling. This effect was demonstrated with regard to music in an ivy-league university study some time back. The only people whose sales went down were the really really top artists. I will try to find the url and post it for you.

 

[Abe]

DSTV will therefore be just as likely to cancel a show if I download it from a legal source such as the iTunes store (which I frequently do).

Should I still feel bad - even though I'm doing the right thing?

As I said in the same message, broadcast is being replaced by broadband. DSTV will have to adapt or die. They are welcome to start selling their shows on the internet. Musica charges too much for their songs and because of this they won't be as successful as someone like Apple. At the end of the day, at least the artist/movie house gets their cut which means they will make more music/movies.

To have companies fold because of illegal activities (I know, not likely) is tragic but to have them fold because they are unable to adapt is business.

Cheers

Abe

 

[Abe]

Over your legal interpretations anyway.

I am not even slightly involved in the legal field so that is wise

The issue is not one of downloading for personal private use - if the poor songwriters have an issue they have recourse and remedies against the uploaders and other distributors.

And the P2P uploaders

I have also supported myself by writing and selling software over the years, and I used to hate warez versions of my programs, and the publishing of workable keys on serial number lists. Until I realised that the more my software got distributed in whatever way, the more I ended up selling. This effect was demonstrated with regard to music in an ivy-league university study some time back. The only people whose sales went down were the really really top artists. I will try to find the url and post it for you.

I have heard this and actually agree with the results. For every 100 people who don't buy, you get 1 who does buy and would never have heard the song otherwise. The other 99 people are the problem as they don't believe in paying for anything. The casual guys tend to buy most of what they download. There are people with 10000+ songs in their MP3 collection who don't buy a thing. The danger is that these people become a larger and larger percentage as the culture of getting everything for free becomes more prevelent.

On software side, warez will always be there. The best way to stop that is to release frequent, valuable updates. This makes it worthwhile to buy the software. There will still however be companies that can afford to buy your software and would but will happily use an illegal copy and those are the ones that hurt.

I prefer the model of giving software to the small guy and making your money off the companies. What people use at home, they want to use in the office as well.

Cheers

Abe

 

[Peter_J]

A couple of interesting studies on the effects of file sharing on music sales:

http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/~dblackbu/papers/blackburn_fs.pdf

Results differ somewhat!