Do you ever feel guilty for "stealing intellectual property"?

[atmosfear2012]

I know this isn't a question that pops into the minds of most torrenters, but have you ever stopped to think?

One side of me feels for the copyright holders - if I were the one that was putting my blood, sweat, and tears into making a music album or a film or a game, I'd livid that people were just putting it up for grabs for nothing in return. All my hard work would have been for nothing for those people.

But the other side of me - the side I find showing itself more and more often - justifies it. More copyright holders than ever are actually PRAISING bittorrent for its potential for market growth, calling it "the new radio." It gets their material out, so I see how this could be potentially HELPFUL, especially for indie artists who are struggling to get their names into the community. For this reason a lot of artists and producers don't even care that their material is being pirated, but corporations like the MPAA and RIAA are just copyright-trolling and filing ridiculous lawsuits on unsuspecting torrenters.

The other thing in my opinion, mainly for software, is that a professional quality production/editing program of any kind is not at all affordable for the casual hobbyist/prosumer. Software like Photoshop, Pro Tools, and Final Cut Pro are practically the industry standard, and due to their price they intimidate a lot of potential customers. Anyone that wants to learn how to edit videos can only go so far using Windows Movie Maker, and if they can't afford professional quality software that's all they'll ever get exposed to. As long as whoever's using the software isn't profiting and is just using it for personal/educational reasons I think it's acceptable. The professionsals who do this stuff for a living are the ones who should have to pay for a $2000 piece of software in my book.

But that's just my two cents. What are your guys' opinions on piracy? Do you ever feel guilty for everything we stand for?

[s2cuts]

I think the problem with your question is that people aren't "stealing", they're sharing. It's a brave new world, and we now demand content in electronic form, which is easily shareable. The old paradigm of making money on the sale of individual plastic discs no longer applies. Monetizing has to be done differently. There are already other models that have been quite successful, such as selling individual songs in e-form or on-line game play subscriptions.

No one is telling companies that they shouldn't make money off of their effort, but we are telling them that they can not make money the way that they have in the past. It's that simple. Out with the old model and in with the new.

[atmosfear2012]

I think the problem with your question is that people aren't "stealing", they're sharing. It's a brave new world, and we now demand content in electronic form, which is easily shareable. The old paradigm of making money on the sale of individual plastic discs no longer applies. Monetizing has to be done differently. There are already other models that have been quite successful, such as selling individual songs in e-form or on-line game play subscriptions.

No one is telling companies that they shouldn't make money off of their effort, but we are telling them that they can not make money the way that they have in the past. It's that simple. Out with the old model and in with the new.

The title of the post wasn't meant to affirm the philosophy that we are "stealing" things, but to question the general public and copyright holders' view of our actions. I can see your point that the old model of business no longer applies, however I somewhat disagree because the same basic principle applies. I read a post in another thread the other day which mentioned that years ago we recorded TV shows and movies to VHS. The philosophy remains the same, the media has changed. But people are still "stealing" or "sharing" or "copying" or whatever you want to call it. I'm curious what others' opinions are on this issue.

[IPv4]

I'm curious what others' opinions are on this issue.

Never. This also some kind of advertisement for them. For example, you can pre-listen song/album by downloading from What.CD for some indie band which you never heard before and if you really like it, go buy their CD from amazon or their personal site. I think in Panda.CD you can directly donate to artist. For movie, i once read activle saying so many producer hope that their movie got encode and release by axxo. People now more educated, so many provider, they will choose first, make comparison and then buy it anywhere they want.

[TechSupport]

If I went to the library got something and copied it I believe Ive done nothing wrong.Its only when you attempt to sell that copy and profit from someone elses work have you crossed a line.This was all perfectly legal until just a few years ago and in my mind its a stupid law in a world full of stupid laws.I also have to add the CD and DVD companies got what was comin to them.Prices on CDs and DVDs were overpriced for years and theyre a purposely inferior product.I hate DVDs.

[black_coffee]

The internet and technology surrounding it hit the world like a ton of bricks. It gave us so many possibilities to change the way we do everything in life. Instead of embracing this technology and putting R&D into innovating technology to market their products faster, easier and cheaper to the consumer, the RIAA and MPAA decided to instead sue the very customers that enjoy their products. This is not a good business practice, and this will be the very reason why the recording giants will fail in the long run, being replace with more innovative forward thinking businesses that know how to deal with the modern age. This is how capitalism is supposed to work. But instead they try to rip the invisible hand off of it by lobbying for new legislation to change the laws to protect their archaic business models.

Fact of the mater is, they have been giving it to the consumer for a very long time. With the amount of money that a lot of pirates put into their effort, they could easily pay about 40-100 USD for a service that will give them what they want, when they want, and how they want. Most would be happy doing this. But this service does not exist. Why? It has nothing to do with technology being there (it's here) and more to do with greedy corporate profits. There is obviously consumer demand, and when there is a demand the consumers will get what they want regardless of the rules. How about making mechanisms to provide a supply to meet it?

I believe that people should get paid for their effort. I don't think an actor should make more than 1000000 per movie and have a corporation make loads more than that in profits. So instead of putting my money into the hands of people who would turn around and have no problem suing consumers, I would rather put it into the hands of the hard drive makers, my ISP (one of the few ones left who isn't in bed with the RIAA and MPAA), the seed box providers and the datacenter in which they are hosted, the true innovators in this day and age. I don't want to pay 100+ for 1000 channels of crap when I'm only going to watch a few channels. I don't want to pay 20 dollars on a DVD to only have to buy the same thing on the next format a few years later. I don't want to spend 200+ on a new operating system that I only use because of the monopoly the company has on certain products( read: gaming on windows).

This is maybe more of a justification, but fact of the matter is, pirates are not sitting on copious amounts of wealth, and the IP holders would more than likely not see too much money from them anyways.

[s2cuts]

The title of the post wasn't meant to affirm the philosophy that we are "stealing" things, but to question the general public and copyright holders' view of our actions. I can see your point that the old model of business no longer applies, however I somewhat disagree because the same basic principle applies. I read a post in another thread the other day which mentioned that years ago we recorded TV shows and movies to VHS. The philosophy remains the same, the media has changed. But people are still "stealing" or "sharing" or "copying" or whatever you want to call it. I'm curious what others' opinions are on this issue.

But you're still equating "stealing" with "sharing". The whole point of my post was to explain that sharing, not stealing, is the reality of today, and that entrepreneurial businesses should look for other ways to monetize their effort, because the old one no longer applies. If you keep using the word "stealing" you are simply reinforcing the tactics of these old dinosaurs that don't want to change.

So really, to your initial question, I'm making the point that there's nothing to feel "guilty" about, because we're not stealing. The internet is not going anywhere, and P2P is not going anywhere. IMO, calling this theft is incorrect and leading. If you were to phrase the poll question, "Do you ever feel guilty for sharing files online", I would surmise that you would get a completely different poll result. So I think it's fair to point out the issue with how the question is framed. It's not a personal attack or anything like that.

[atmosfear2012]

But you're still equating "stealing" with "sharing". The whole point of my post was to explain that sharing, not stealing, is the reality of today, and that entrepreneurial businesses should look for other ways to monetize their effort, because the old one no longer applies. If you keep using the word "stealing" you are simply reinforcing the tactics of these old dinosaurs that don't want to change.

So really, to your initial question, I'm making the point that there's nothing to feel "guilty" about, because we're not stealing. The internet is not going anywhere, and P2P is not going anywhere. IMO, calling this theft is incorrect and leading. If you were to phrase the poll question, "Do you ever feel guilty for sharing files online", I would surmise that you would get a completely different poll result. So I think it's fair to point out the issue with how the question is framed. It's not a personal attack or anything like that.

A fair point indeed. I didn't intend to undermine the quality of your post, and for the record I do agree with you that we're not stealing. But I wouldn't consider it "sharing" either, in my mind the answer is somewhere in between. Some people say we "copy," I would say that's a more appropriate term.

[hsharma]

Nice 4th option there.

I personally have never had a problem with it. I've never stolen anything in my life except one time a bag of chips (SHHHH DON'T TELL). It never felt like stealing to me. Even when i was maybe 8 years old and I got a playstation I eventually got into looking up ways to get games for free (getting a mod chip and burning the cds). It was always just in my nature to look for a free way to get something already available. Typically I don't talk about it with anyone who isn't a close friend or family because people have different reactions. Being a computer science major others in my major often have a negative idea about it, if we're making the software we shouldn't pirate software or games. Well people can go screw themselves because if I could I certainly would download a car.

[atmosfear2012]

Nice 4th option there.

I personally have never had a problem with it. I've never stolen anything in my life except one time a bag of chips (SHHHH DON'T TELL). It never felt like stealing to me. Even when i was maybe 8 years old and I got a playstation I eventually got into looking up ways to get games for free (getting a mod chip and burning the cds). It was always just in my nature to look for a free way to get something already available. Typically I don't talk about it with anyone who isn't a close friend or family because people have different reactions. Being a computer science major others in my major often have a negative idea about it, if we're making the software we shouldn't pirate software or games. Well people can go screw themselves because if I could I certainly would download a car.

You and I both, brother. I think the "problem" is that our generation lives in such a digital world that everything comes so easily to us. 20 years from now the next generation probably WILL be able to download material things like cars. I don't know whether to be excited or scared

[s2cuts]

A fair point indeed. I didn't intend to undermine the quality of your post, and for the record I do agree with you that we're not stealing. But I wouldn't consider it "sharing" either, in my mind the answer is somewhere in between. Some people say we "copy," I would say that's a more appropriate term.

Semantically, I can agree with just about anything except for the word "stealing". Just because it's a very loaded term that instantly paints us as criminals. I "copy" all the time for backups, and I see that as being a complete non-issue (although copy right holders are trying to make copying for backups illegal through DRM technology). To me, the term "sharing" is the in between term because it more accurately represents what's actually being done. Of course, this is all opinion.

[atmosfear2012]

Semantically, I can agree with just about anything except for the word "stealing". Just because it's a very loaded term that instantly paints us as criminals. I "copy" all the time for backups, and I see that as being a complete non-issue (although copy right holders are trying to make copying for backups illegal through DRM technology). To me, the term "sharing" is the in between term because it more accurately represents what's actually being done. Of course, this is all opinion.

"Sharing" to me implies that it's a physical thing that is rightfully bought and owned for every distribution. If a little kid "shares" his toys, he owns them and allows others to use them. The toy maker doesn't lose any money in the process because no new toys are being created by one kid allowing another kid to use them. However, if a person copies a band's new CD and gives it to a friend, the band doesn't make any money on that second CD because it wasn't rightfully acquired. That to me is why "copying" is a more appropriate term than "sharing," but again, just my two cents and I agree with everything else you've said. I'm sure copyright trolls will eventually find a way to screw people over for backing up their files anyway.

[s2cuts]

"Sharing" to me implies that it's a physical thing that is rightfully bought and owned for every distribution. If a little kid "shares" his toys, he owns them and allows others to use them. The toy maker doesn't lose any money in the process because no new toys are being created by one kid allowing another kid to use them. However, if a person copies a band's new CD and gives it to a friend, the band doesn't make any money on that second CD because it wasn't rightfully acquired. That to me is why "copying" is a more appropriate term than "sharing," but again, just my two cents and I agree with everything else you've said.

LOL, wow this never happens where two people on this board so narrowly pinpoint their differences.

I'll concede that there are some semantic issues that need to be ironed out. But since there's no profit in what you're calling "copying" and I'm calling "sharing", can we call it "shopying"?

[atmosfear2012]

can we call it "shopying"?

Hah, works for me;)

[Opt1k4l]

Voted "it depends".

I use to download and use every cracked software i needed but today, we have many good alternatives to paid software in the open source/free world. For example, i don't see the point in using a cracked WinRAR when i can use 7-zip/Peazip.

However, i don't want to pay for a Windows OS or an Office suite, because they took a great care of eliminating the competition.

I can't pay for the audio apps i use too, no real free alternatives and really pricy stuff. Same for music, no real possibilities to buy digital versions of tracks i like, because it's mainly pressed on vinyl, like in the old days or because i simply can't afford it at the moment.