Copyright Alert System

[kelvinf]

It is NOT moral or fair to not pay for something that properly comes with a fee. People who use the internet sites to gain free access to things they should pay for, are acting immorally–THAT is my point.

The rights and freedoms of citizens ALSO include the ability to charge for the work they do, to get paid for labor done with the intention of charging for the products made.

Oh, I could choose between watching a show on tv/on the internet or buying the show on DVD. If I choose the one that’s free, then it’s immoral, eh?

It’s one and the same creation and one product–a tv show. You can either pay for it or not. You have the choice.

 

[Cristiano]

Oh, I could choose between watching a show on tv/on the internet or buying the show on DVD. If I choose the one that’s free, then it’s immoral, eh?

It’s one and the same creation and one product–a tv show. You can either pay for it or not. You have the choice.

I think that either you are misreading the statements or sopporting immoral behaviors. If the availability on the web site is legal then you have a moral right to watch it only when it is made available on the site. If you by a DVD you have a moral right to watch it whenever you want. It is the same moral scenarion of watching the same movie on television vs. buying the DVD. However, the provious poster was talking about watching a movie that is illegaly made available on internet vs. buying a DVD. In the first discussion you pay for right to convenience, in the second case you pay for the right to watch the movie at all. I am not sure that the poster, that you are arguing with, understands that the site that you mentioned have legal right to make the movies accessible.

 

[irishpatrick]

Oh, I could choose between watching a show on tv/on the internet or buying the show on DVD. If I choose the one that’s free, then it’s immoral, eh?

It’s one and the same creation and one product–a tv show. You can either pay for it or not. You have the choice.

Yes, it is immoral if the show still has a fee from the owner. Many internet sites obtain copies of various shows that should be paid for and people illicitly view them knowing that the actual copyright owner charges a fee.

Would you walk into a music store and just take a cd off the self without paying?

Say you are muscian X, you make a CD with 15 tracks. You sell the CD, and someone who buys a copy places all 15 tracks on the internet for “free” downloads by anyone who wants the music–that is theft by the people doing the downloading, and it is at a very minimum an immoral act by the person placing the material on the internet for free.

Artists by the thousands are losing billions that they have a right to make through those actions. Theft, plain and simple. People are literally taking their money from them by avoiding paying for products that they know come with a charge.

Now, majors like NBC, CBS, etc., will place their shows on the net for free, in most cases to help create interest and viewer loyalty. Yet, when a product has a copyright, and the owner charges a fee, anyone not paying that fee is directly, or unknowingly, stealing.

 

[Cristiano]

I have worked in a company where they paid for Adobe products each worth about € 7.000. Never have these products come in disc formats. What’s a disc got to do with accountability…

It has a lot to do with legal systems, contract law and civil disputes in court. A simple piece of evidence could save you $1000’s in billing hours for lawyers.

 

[irishpatrick]

I think that either you are misreading the statements or sopporting immoral behaviors. If the availability on the web site is legal then you have a moral right to watch it only when it is made available on the site. If you by a DVD you have a moral right to watch it whenever you want. It is the same moral scenarion of watching the same movie on television vs. buying the DVD. However, the provious poster was talking about watching a movie that is illegaly made available on internet vs. buying a DVD. In the first discussion you pay for right to convenience, in the second case you pay for the right to watch the movie at all. I am not sure that the poster, that you are arguing with, understands that the site that you mentioned have legal right to make the movies accessible.

I do know some sites have the legal right, many sites do not, and that is what I am arguing against–sites that have not paid a fee to allow downloads are commiting immoral acts, and people downloading from those sites are as well–even if indirectly.

Many people seem to think that everything on the internet automatically becomes licit and moral just because it can be distributed so easily–that is just not the case, and many billions are lost through such immoral actions.

Some artists may not want their material on the internet at all–yet in today’s world, someone will illicitly place it on the net and many others will download the same. The moral right for the artist to do what they want with their own property vanishes in those cases and they lose revenue in the process.

 

[Cristiano]

Yes, it is immoral if the show still has a fee from the owner. Many internet sites obtain copies of various shows that should be paid for and people illicitly view them knowing that the actual copyright owner charges a fee.

Would you walk into a music store and just take a cd off the self without paying?

Say you are muscian X, you make a CD with 15 tracks. You sell the CD, and someone who buys a copy places all 15 tracks on the internet for “free” downloads by anyone who wants the music–that is theft by the people doing the downloading, and it is at a very minimum an immoral act by the person placing the material on the internet for free.

Artists by the thousands are losing billions that they have a right to make through those actions. Theft, plain and simple. People are literally taking their money from them by avoiding paying for products that they know come with a charge.

Now, majors like NBC, CBS, etc., will place their shows on the net for free, in most cases to help create interest and viewer loyalty. Yet, when a product has a copyright, and the owner charges a fee, anyone not paying that fee is directly, or unknowingly, stealing.

I think that you are making a generalization that is false. The previous poster mentioned specific sites that have legal rights to show those movies. Such sites work in collaboration with broadcasting companies. If I can get something free on Hulu or pay for it on NetFlix then I am in the same moral position of watching a rerun on TV or buying a DVD.

 

[Cristiano]

I do know some sites have the legal right, many sites do not, and that is what I am arguing against–sites that have not paid a fee to allow downloads are commiting immoral acts, and people downloading from those sites are as well–even if indirectly.

People seem to think that everything on the internet automatically becomes licit and moral just because it can be distributed so easily–that is just not the case, and many billions are lost through such immoral actions.

It seems to me that the poster, that you are arguing with, agrees with you. The case that he made was in reference to a legal site.

 

[irishpatrick]

It seems to me that the poster, that you are arguing with, agrees with you. The case that he made was in reference to a legal site.

Perhaps, I could not quite tell.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I made no such assumption, I am simply saying that is where the problem lies. Artists have every right to make money from their labor, and yet in today’s world their work is often stolen without any thought to payment. Many people say, “well they will make their money anyway,” but the truth is the artists often get the short end. The music industry is a shadow of its former self because it is so hard to maintain product to sell, and the same with movies, with books now becoming the third leg. It is all immoral and unfair to the artists and companies who produce the stuff.

It used to be people would buy an entire album or cd, and after they listen to all the tracks, they might two or three hidden gems that they would not know about if they just bought the one song from Itunes. It is destroying creativity and it is picking the pockets of the artists.

You do also realize that the muscians do not make most of their money from CD sales or digitial downloads, right?

Even if they did, the markets want to buy single tracks/songs. Now the technology exsists to do this efficiently. Also, the onus is on the artists to release and market their material. If people do not like their music, and.or it’s not marketed properly they will go out of business, just like any other endevour.

Also - Ed brought up the point that George Lucas should be compensated if he makes more Star Wars movies. I have no problem with that statement. But, if no one likes the stories, special effects, music, actors, etc. then he will not make as much money because people deem his work not valuable. That is a risk that any creator takes.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Please, cease with the snarkiness…no reason for any of that.

I am all for capitalism. I believe you are not understanding my point. I have no problem with technology, and it is NOT technology like the internet that has done so much damage–it is the inability to make profits in the face of so much creative property theft that has caused all the damage.

Example: BlockBuster did not respond in time to meet the challenge made by NetFlix, so BlockBuster is slowly passing into history–that is capitalism at work and I have no issue with that, at all.

However,

Music, movie, and books sales are all down, and a significant reason for that is the near immediate free sharing of copyrighted product that people should be paying for, and yet they are not paying anything. There is no weak argument for saying that the creative process itself has been damaged because all anyone cares about now is getting their product out their for a very quick dollar (because people will take it for free so quickly), which in turns damages the quality of the product (vicious circle).

Like all things, the internet and technology offers a lot of good benefits, yet there is always the other side, and in the case of creative work, the downside is lost revenues due to people taking things for free.

Capitalism works the other way as well. If people are pirating things, they could also deem that your work has little value.

If you sell your novel for $50, but is a poorly written story with grammar and spelling issues, the general public probably value it at something less than $50. Not to say piracy is right.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Note: I am not advocating piracy.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I do know some sites have the legal right, many sites do not, and that is what I am arguing against–sites that have not paid a fee to allow downloads are commiting immoral acts, and people downloading from those sites are as well–even if indirectly.

Many people seem to think that everything on the internet automatically becomes licit and moral just because it can be distributed so easily–that is just not the case, and many billions are lost through such immoral actions.

Agree with you here. Illegal downloading of coprighted works is immoral. You won’t get an arguement from me.

Some artists may not want their material on the internet at all–yet in today’s world, someone will illicitly place it on the net and many others will download the same. The moral right for the artist to do what they want with their own property vanishes in those cases and they lose revenue in the process.

There are several issues at play here:

Technology has made it easier to access, deliver and transport. I now have my boxes of CD’s on my iPod, which I can put into my pocket. I have a bookshelf of books now on a 7" tablet. I can also watch movies on said tablet and pick up where I left off on my TV.

Because of this, there are market pressure for content creators to move into digital distrbution.

There are also issues of first sale doctorine and fair use at play. What happens if I want to get rid of my digital copies? Transfer to a different format? What about stores who had a model of second hand sales?

Also with digital creation and distribution, the barrier to entry has become lower. Creators are now, more than ever, feeling pressures to create better content.

Another problem - Brick and Mortar stores have always had shrink. It is the cost of doing business. That doesn’t mean we have to submit to cavity searches every time we enter and exit the local Wal-Mart.

 

[edwest2]

Making a copy of something is called copying and not stealing. That’s why they call it "copy"right or "copy"left

Copyright means the right to copy, and no one has the right to copy my hard work on a whim. It’s wrong, it’s immoral and it’s illegal.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Why is it that I, the person who lives in what’s affectionately called Soviet Canuckistan, always have to point these things out?

It’s called capitalism. Sometimes industries die. It’s called voting with your dollars. If your music sucks, then I won’t buy it; a name is no longer enough to sell stuff, it actually has to be good. Artists don’t deserve money just because they’re an artist, they have to do work too.

Nobody gets angry that we don’t have horse-drawn taxi’s anymore (although I’m sure the industry cried foul when automobiles became ubiquitous) because cars are better.

Again, it’s called capitalism. Seriously, I’m not the only capitalist on this forum, right?

It just means they have to work harder and that money is not guaranteed anymore. I fail to see why that’s a bad thing.

Been there, done that. New DVDs stopped playing on an older DVD player so we had to get a new one. That is actually unjust and unfair, and I could make a good RICO case if I really tried.

That is complete nonsense and simple chest thumping. If companies that make quality work die off because they can’t afford to pay anyone - you will get what you’re wishing for.

No - we don’t have to work harder. Never. It takes years to become a professional in your craft. I know this from years of being a professional. But if I can’t pay my staff - we close our doors.

Just yesterday, I was given the task of assistant art director on our newest book cover. If I was incompetent, then I wouldn’t know what to do or say. Instead, working under a strict deadline, I worked with the head art director and artist and made significant contributions toward producing a professional book cover. When done, the artist got a check.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

There a lots of sites (and ways) people can listen to music, watch TV shows online,… without doing anything illegal. It’s all thanks to internet technology.

Uh huh. That’s why, a few years back, all Hollywood writers staged a strike. They shut down the production of some movies and caused some TV shows to go to reruns. Why? They wanted to get paid if their movie or TV show was shown again on the internet or any mobile device. It’s in their contracts now.

Legal does not always mean doing the right thing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Nopes. Again, I wonder whether people still buy software in form of discs. I think you would usually get a link where you can download the stuff (legally).

At least software folks are smarter enough and try to use technology to ensure the kind of restrictions they want. E.g limiting the number of computers the SW could be installed on. However, technology is for everyone and there are always work arounds without doing anything illegal. A company could pay for a single copy, install it on a central computer where all the workers remotely have access to…Or maybe there are laws that disallow this. But that would still be fighting against tech.

Oh, with the birth of cloud computing, the dynamics completely change. Again, you guys can only blame technology.

Nope. We can only blame people who think stealing is a good thing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

But they are still pay-for-products. What difference does it make if I watch a TV show on TV or if I watch it online or if I download it? Same thing: consumption without pay; which seems to be some people’s problem.

You’re looking at it wrong. TV shows are paid for how? With advertising. The people who pay for the commercials pay for that episode. And if more people start watching that TV show. Guess what? The people who make the show charge them more money for the commercials because more eyeballs are watching.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

How is it moral or fair to watch TV shows on Hulu (even outside N. America) while folks pay for the stuff on Netflix?

Man, I am tired of this discussion. We simply differ in opinion and nothing would change.

We have been seeing how strong the pirate parties have been emerging in Europe especially in Germany–they have been gaining seats in all local elections and are now also in the parliament. This is simply to show that people are fed up with how far some people can go as concerns copyrights and patent rights. The rights and freedom of citizens are worth more than intellectual property rights. No new IP right that violates or restricts the rights of man would ever be passed in this information era. Period. We have all been witnessing this new trend.

What new trend?

nytimes.com/2012/01/20/technology/indictment-charges-megaupload-site-with-piracy.html

fbi.gov/buffalo/press-releases/2012/rochester-man-charged-with-copyright-infringement

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Agree with you here. Illegal downloading of coprighted works is immoral. You won’t get an arguement from me.

There are several issues at play here:

Technology has made it easier to access, deliver and transport. I now have my boxes of CD’s on my iPod, which I can put into my pocket. I have a bookshelf of books now on a 7" tablet. I can also watch movies on said tablet and pick up where I left off on my TV.

Because of this, there are market pressure for content creators to move into digital distrbution.

There are also issues of first sale doctorine and fair use at play. What happens if I want to get rid of my digital copies? Transfer to a different format? What about stores who had a model of second hand sales?

Also with digital creation and distribution, the barrier to entry has become lower. Creators are now, more than ever, feeling pressures to create better content.

Another problem - Brick and Mortar stores have always had shrink. It is the cost of doing business. That doesn’t mean we have to submit to cavity searches every time we enter and exit the local Wal-Mart.

Nope. You have it the wrong way around. The barrier of entry has left, for example, the digital book market flooded with the exact same manuscripts my company routinely rejects.

We never felt any pressure now or in the past, to create “better” content. We know what our customers want today which is why we have been in business for so long. Digital delivery doesn’t change anything.

Finally, brick and mortar? The owners get a choice too:

nytimes.com/2012/05/03/business/after-warning-amazon-about-sales-tactics-target-will-stop-selling-kindles.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[kelvinf]

It seems to me that the poster, that you are arguing with, agrees with you. The case that he made was in reference to a legal site.

Perhaps, I could not quite tell.

Yes, the example I made is supposedly a legal site. But how do you know whether a site is legal or not?

But you guys still don’t get my point. What difference does it make if a person, who has 3 options of watching a tv show, simply chooses one of them?

 

[kelvinf]

Legal does not always mean doing the right thing.

Peace,
Ed

:clapping: You just hit the nail on the head. Go tell that to the industries involved. Also tell them the opposite: that illegal does not mean doing the wrong thing. As I said before, I am partially anti-copyrights and anti-patent rights (Apple vs. Samsung, LG vs. Apple… just crazy). Meaning, I don’t fully recognise the legality of such rights. Of course, it means I stand ready to challenge such laws whenever possible.