Is it wrong to pay for things that can be had for free?

[tbc]

like the title says, is it wrong to pay for things?

i've met a few people who say that it's wrong to buy music because it can be torrented.

thoughts?

[noisyturtle]

Shouldn't it be exactly the opposite? With that kind of attitude our grandchildren are going to grow up in a world devoid of music and film.

There's stealing out of necessity (i.e. you cannot afford it and would otherwise never be able to experience it) and then there's just straight and simple thievery. As someone that works their ass off and helps create entertainment content, I say **** people who steal just because they can.

[HoffmanMyster]

What exactly is their argument? Of course it might be easier to torrent, but it's definitely way more wrong to do that. I think that most (all?) people who torrent would agree that it's "wrong".

The only time I view it as morally acceptable is if you're downloading something that you already own the rights to.

By "wrong" do they maybe mean "the option that a sensible person would avoid"? It's pretty hard to argue against the legality of it...

[PunksDead]

i have arrrrrg'd alot of things in my younger years when i didnt have a job...

i pay for games/music now because i can afford to and enjoy supporting the devs. Im not saying anything is wrong if you pirate, but if you are in a comfortable place in life and its something you really enjoy toss them the $$$.

somethings i do refuse to pay alot for,

1.Photoshop, that price tag is just to rediculous
2.Food, your just gonna **** it out anyways
3.Kanye West music

[metalliqaz]

If noone paid for music, people would not stop making music.  In fact, there would probably be more musicians and more valuable additions to our culture.  Copyright was designed to encourage cultural livelihood, but all it does now is enable censorship.

[Novus]

It is of course but I have to say I like paying when developers make thing easier with no drm and such. I hate buying something and then having to deal with a gazillion restrictions.

[tbc]

i honestly don't know:

person #1: standard gay hippie from vancouver.  spends 15min doing his hair in the morning.  makes sure to wear sunglasses that color matches his backpack that matches his phone.  7 different colors of sunglasses apparently.

person #2: business student and works at family business with dad.  gamer.  asian.  doesn't create original work.  redditor.

person #3:  factory worker.  small towner.  wants to make music as a career.  not likely to happen

all 20smths if it matters.

i've literally never gotten a coherent statement from anyone in 15 years about why torrenting is good, so i didn't bother asking.

these are just the most extremists of free torrenting* supporters.

*there are people that torrent because they want a demo like you used to get or to showroom without actually going to the store.  they will buy afterwards if they plan to keep using the content. these are NOT 'free torrenters'; free torrenters want full access to current media without ever paying or watching ads

EDIT:

what is the current climte nowadays?  do people discriminate between music, movies. and games?  how about ebooks?

[noisyturtle]

Yeah, it's either pay for content or get it free with tons of ads. I'd rather see/hear/experience something closer to the way the artist(s) intended rather then have advertisements shoved down my throat.

[smknjoe]

That's a pretty a-moral opinion. Just like a twenty something I know that didn't think she should leave a note on a car she hit and was mad at her boyfriend for doing so. It's not "cool" to do the right thing any more. Especially, if your peers are watching. It's sad really.

[iri]

hope your sex is free, mates.

[smknjoe]

You always pay for it one way or other.

[azhdar]

Only reason I still don't pay for my contents (movies,tv shows, musics) is that I know where to get them easily for free. But I have no clues where to find them legally.

[smknjoe]

Only reason I still don't pay for my contents (movies,tv shows, musics) is that I know where to get them easily for free. But I have no clues where to find them legally.

...but you don't think it's morally wrong to pay for the content if you easily could do you? That's what the OPs question was.

[azhdar]

Only reason I still don't pay for my contents (movies,tv shows, musics) is that I know where to get them easily for free. But I have no clues where to find them legally.

...but you don't think it's morally wrong to pay for the content if you easily could do you? That's what the OPs question was.

It can be wrong in the sense that since you can get it for free, with bother.
But it's not morally wrong to pay for it.

[fohat.digs]

You always pay for it one way or other.

There is the famous Google quote: "If you are not paying, then YOU are the product."

Google-nomics has turned thousands of years of mercantile tradition on its ear overnight.

I still can't understand how the new information exchange system works, but I will say that for thousands of years musicians were paid for performing live music, then for a scant century an industry grew up wherein artists and an entire ecosystem of middlemen drew their paychecks from selling recorded music.

When I was a teenager, rock bands went on tours (@ $5 tickets) for the purpose of promoting the sales of $5 albums. The "real money" was in the album sales.

Today, since "information wants to be free" bands are back to making their money from tickets, as it always was - except during the 20th century.

And the profits from junk food and T-shirts, of course.

[Puddsy]

if you plan to use a software to make money, buy your own licence after you torrent it

[Novus]

hope your sex is free, mates.

Sex is never free mate :/
You end up paying for it one way or the other.

[noisyturtle]

hope your sex is free, mates.

Sex is never free. ninja'd

hope your sex is free, mates.

Sex is never free mate :/
You end up paying for it one way or the other.

[neverused]

like the title says, is it wrong to pay for things?

i've met a few people who say that it's wrong to buy music because it can be torrented.

thoughts?

So can I come over to your house and take a few things that I like, because it would be wrong to pay for?

[Air tree]

People look at me refusing to torrent films for them as a "High and mighty, looking down on them" act. Yes, I used to pirate things, but I stopped because I realised how ****ty it is.

It makes no sense whatsoever for it to be wrong too buy something you can get for free.

[smknjoe]

There is a term commonly used in the open source community that goes something like this: "free as in the freedom to view, change, fix, and modify your software, not free as in free beer". Freedom of information does not mean that it doesn't or shouldn't cost anything.

[fohat.digs]

People look at me refusing to torrent films

I will admit that I occasionally torrent movies, but it is usually because they aren't available on Netflix, to whom I have paid monthly tribute for nearly 2 decades.

The promise and expectation was that Netflix's online offerings would catch up with, and eventually supplant, the mail-in disc exchange. Instead, it seems like they continually offer less, not more, online.

And I mostly watch weird, old, unpopular, oddball stuff, which should be exactly the "back-catalog" that they make most easily available.

PS - I have over 1K LPs and 2K CDs which I paid for, sometimes twice, once for each format, and if I download music it is almost always decades old, so I feel little guilt in that area

[smknjoe]

So, in the case of free software you usually don't pay for the code, but the support and maintenance of the code if you don't want to change it yourself. With music you are paying for the performance/performer not the data which you can play yourself.

[tbc]

like the title says, is it wrong to pay for things?

i've met a few people who say that it's wrong to buy music because it can be torrented.

thoughts?

So can I come over to your house and take a few things that I like, because it would be wrong to pay for?

you see...that's what i'm wondering, is this going to be a moral defense for robbery?  should i, in the future, be genuinely worried about getting robbed while others cheer because i didn't invest into a 10ft steel wall and armed security?

[smknjoe]

How is it a "moral" defense when the whole idea is immoral?

[tbc]

How is it a "moral" defense when the whole idea is immoral?

well, in every war, god is on everyone's side while smiting everyone at the same time.  when people choose to be 'dramatic', logic isn't a factor.

morals are rather elastic.  it used to be a husband's right to beat his wife as much as he saw fit; he simply had to legally dispose of the body afterwards (aka buy a grave instead of throwing it in yoir neighbor's lawn)

but such a thing would be frowned upon in the present north america yes?


so.....the real question becomes how long does a moral reversal take?

well within one lifetime.  there are still 60yr-80yr north american men who don't believe woman should have been granted 'person' status, whereas, this isn't even something most 20 smths even think about.

[smknjoe]

It has never been acceptable to take another man's property without cause in Western culture. Morality is elastic for sure, but we all know right from wrong which is what morality is.

[tbc]

It has never been acceptable to take another man's property without cause in Western culture. Morality is elastic for sure, but we all know right from wrong which is what morality is.

i could really go on for a long time on how morality has changed over the years, but google is far faster than i am.

EDIT:

western vs eastern views on female infanticide and abortion is a good place to start.  it still exists today and the current era of it is relatively short.

[smknjoe]

You don't need to "teach" me just because I, and others, don't agree with you or the changes in our culture that are now acceptable. I can think for myself.

[smknjoe]

Wikipedia is not a very good research tool BTW.

[tbc]

Wikipedia is not a very good research tool BTW.

you're right.

i learned in class

[smknjoe]

That's great. Seriously.

[tbc]

That's great. Seriously.

i am happy that you are happy for me!

[smknjoe]

Kisses.

[fohat.digs]

It has never been acceptable to take another man's property without cause

This may be a better avenue for debate: how long does the "content" remain the "property" of the "creator" ?

I might consider making the argument that "content" passes into "the public domain" very quickly today (seconds/hours/days/weeks) vs (years/decades - or inane constructs such as "the life of the author + 75 years") and that the toothpaste is already out of the tube.

[smknjoe]

To be clear: I'm not judging anyone for copying some files. I may have or may not have done it in the past myself, but I knew it was "wrong" by society's standards.

For the sake of argument, I don't believe the content in the context of digital media is the property. I believe it's the creator's time you should pay for.

[sethk_]

I personally don't ARRGGHH any games, but I will for movies that I can't find on Netflix. I also ARRGGHH music if I can't find it off of YouTube in decent quality, but not so much anymore since I have Spotify.

[smknjoe]

Some argue that code, formulas, and even recipes should all be free. I don't necessarily disagree with that. So, let's throw music in there as a "recipe". You can read the code, formula, recipe and try to re-create it or modify it or "cook" it and it may turn out like ****. If you can't do it yourself and you enjoy the results that others produce then why shouldn't you reimburse them for their effort?

[berserkfan]

Here’s my view

You shouldn’t have to pay for garbage and propaganda. Which is what most ‘content’ is. Because there is always someone funding the production of the content (before any end users pay for it), and the sponsor/investor has his opinions, and he rarely controls himself from the temptation to promote his views in some form or other. The recording companies and movie producers then manipulate people into buying this content, which has no real content, so once again people are suckered into buying trash. I call it a scam, and don’t feel obliged to pay for trash.

I used to be a big supporter of indie films when younger. Especially in Singapore, where independent filmmakers not affiliated to the government really struggle. These people often have some brains and sincerity about producing their heartfelt content and they have to fight so much oppression. So I would pay money for movie tickets and watch the latest Hong Kong or Thai or whatever indie movie. (In the US, everyone with a videocam can call himself an indie producer, and there is so much noise and chaff that finding a few kernels of content in that cacophony is much harder.)

Nowadays it is almost unheard of for a ‘mainstream’ artist to be producing his genuine content. Long before his movie or music video or novel is produced, he will have gone through how many meetings with investors/ studio bosses/ marketers/ psychologists/ market analysts/ etc. These slickly produced things are made to manipulate and have little artistic or moral content.

Most of the content I want, like Fohat, is already free (and time-tested, as opposed to the latest Miley Cyrus video of her masturbating or doing whatever outrageous thing to get attention). I don’t want to watch Hollywood garbage, so I don’t pirate their stuff. One time I downloaded Transformers (the movie) because the kids wanted to watch it at a Birthday party. BAD IDEA. The cartoon that I knew as a kid (which was free to air), has become a propaganda video for the US Armed Forces and an advertorial for General Motors.  It was a freaking waste of time. Quite fortunately, the kids didn’t like the movie too because they felt the robots looked scary (as opposed to the nice talkative round yellow bug that Bumblebee is in the cartoons) so all the kids, except for an autistic boy, left within 10-15 minutes of the movie. Should I have paid for this? If I had, I would feel so miserable, because I could have more pleasure setting fire to a handful of dollar bills.

BTW, for those who have never watched it, Transformers is strictly a movie for the male 15-25 year old demographic with a maximum IQ of 100 and maximum education of high school. For all older or more intelligent/ educated males, I would recommend porn.

[fanpeople]

Wikipedia is not a very good research tool BTW.

But it is a good place to get an idea of where to go with something. I never reference Wikipedia for uni stuff, but I have used it to get an overview and find keywords for expanding on a search. In that way you shouldn't trust information on Wikipedia but it is still a tool for developing your research.

[tp4tissue]

Farmers get sunlight for free. Sunlight is utilized to grow the crops. Farmers sell the crops to the consumer.

Now you're telling me, we should turn around, thank the sun, and pay it for the sunlight...



Anything that can be pirated WILL be pirated..  Why is this? Because while the Creator himself makes less money thus lowering his PERSONAL happiness...  The millions of Pirates INCREASE their collective happiness..

So the net result is greater happiness towards society AT LARGE, given that same original input, despite it not being profitable for the ones involved in that creation.


What is failing is NOT motivational, it is NOT a dearth of content creators or creative people.

The business model is what has begun to fail. The DIRECT sell method from media creator TO end-user is Failing..

This is the result of increased average level of technological access..

They used to ****ing sell ice.. but when everyone bought refrigerators, those ice to your door companies went out of business..  we STILL have Ice today, they just happen to come out of personal refrigerators..  So the ICE business is NOT DEAD, it's changed.


That is exactly what's happening to MEDIA creation and curating...  The cost will now shift to another sector..

The very obvious next-sector to now bankroll the shift will be companies like Netflix, Google, ISPs, Large Caps with Advertising.. ETC..






If we are looking through the narrow lens of HUMAN market. COST, is purely an organizational tool.  There is NO REAL VALUE in money, the numbers..

VALUE is what those Red people said a long time ago, when you put HAMMER to RAW MATERIALS.. 

VALUE is the people who swing those hammers, VALUE is in the living..


MONEY is not physically part of the living.. MONEY is the tabulation of opportunity costs at any given time pegged against the # of souls that are currently alive.

[noisyturtle]

[Novus]

Can I haz ergodox?

[Air tree]

Can I haz ergodox?

Egdx*

[tp4tissue]

Can I haz ergodox?

This is how the NEW WORLD works..

You see angelina jolie looking super sexy while hacking the computer across a pciex bus..

She's doing all of this while typing into an Ergodox..   An ergodox producer pays into that..  She's looking into a Dell monitor, dell pays for that, she's wearing Victoria secrets lingerie, Victoria secrets pay for that..


This ad component has already been part of the movie industry for the longest time, but NOW because distribution can no longer be monopolized, The cost to produce will fall heavier on investors and advertisers..

THE UPSIDE however, is that the more the movie is seen, either On the silver screen, or FREE at home, OVERALL  MORE people are able to see it than before.. So the cost is merely OFFSET and rebalanced versus the traditional model..

[baldgye]

free =/= stealing

[jacobolus]

Wikipedia is not a very good research tool BTW.

Are you kidding? What are you trying to research, and at what level of detail?

There are many many subjects where Wikipedia is the best single source online, and to get better results you need to hit the library for some obscure book or find a buddy at a university campus to look up paywalled academic journals.

Of course, there are other subjects where Wikipedia is garbage, but the same can be said for any paper encyclopedia, or e.g. to pick an institution usually considered credible, the New York Times.

[jacobolus]

The promise and expectation was that Netflix's online offerings would catch up with, and eventually supplant, the mail-in disc exchange. Instead, it seems like they continually offer less, not more, online.

And I mostly watch weird, old, unpopular, oddball stuff, which should be exactly the "back-catalog" that they make most easily available.

It’s obvious why it isn’t... Netflix has to explicitly negotiate the rights for every bit of content they want to host digitally, and for obscure old stuff, it’s just not worth the trouble, and often not even clear who to negotiate with.

The “long tail” material was much easier when Netflix was sending physical disks, because they don’t need any special license to do that; instead, the right to view the content is considered to be embedded with the physical object.

This is precisely the problem with the current copyright regime. Copyright should last no more than 20–30 years, tops, or at the very least should require increasingly expensive registration as the years go by, to make sure people are serious about keeping stuff out of public reach. Otherwise, there’s a giant back catalog of material that will be basically forgotten and ignored, because no one has the legal rights to distribute it.

[jalaj]

Farmers get sunlight for free. Sunlight is utilized to grow the crops. Farmers sell the crops to the consumer.

Now you're telling me, we should turn around, thank the sun, and pay it for the sunlight...

Here's what aint free for the farmer (excluding subsidies):
Labor, materials, heavy machinery, distribution, logistics, gas, electricity, water, seeds, fertilizer, & land.

[fanpeople]

The promise and expectation was that Netflix's online offerings would catch up with, and eventually supplant, the mail-in disc exchange. Instead, it seems like they continually offer less, not more, online.

And I mostly watch weird, old, unpopular, oddball stuff, which should be exactly the "back-catalog" that they make most easily available.

It’s obvious why it isn’t... Netflix has to explicitly negotiate the rights for every bit of content they want to host digitally, and for obscure old stuff, it’s just not worth the trouble, and often not even clear who to negotiate with.

The “long tail” material was much easier when Netflix was sending physical disks, because they don’t need any special license to do that; instead, the right to view the content is considered to be embedded with the physical object.

This is precisely the problem with the current copyright regime. Copyright should last no more than 20–30 years, tops, or at the very least should require increasingly expensive registration as the years go by, to make sure people are serious about keeping stuff out of public reach. Otherwise, there’s a giant back catalog of material that will be basically forgotten and ignored, because no one has the legal rights to distribute it.

Mickey Mouse

http://artlawjournal.com/mickey-mouse-keeps-changing-copyright-law/