On the ethicality of altering or replacing media without repurchasing

[theweaselking]

EDIT: The intent of the first question is to ask if copying-for-free is ALWAYS okay, regardless of circumstance. If there is any circumstance where copying-for-free would not be okay, including "pirating" of software, films, music, etc, or other deliberate violations of copyright (assuming for personal non-profit use), you should check "Not Okay" to question 1.

I realise a couple of people were confused. If you were one of them, you can change your poll answer by clicking on the poll number and clicking Fill Out Poll - your new answer will replace your old answer, so you won't be counted twice. /EDIT

[Poll #1349276]

Comments

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

I'm baffled that anyone who isn't the RIAA/MPAA has a problem with any of them past the third one.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

The second-last one is very similar to the third. I find it interesting how people's reactions are different

[hurfadurf.livejournal.com]

Legally, it's almost universally taboo.

Ethically? I think anything that can exist in a format that makes it possible to share online *should* be free, and there are business models used by artists, musicians, and authors that prove that doing so doesn't necessarily hurt (see Nine Inch Nails, Stephen King, Scott Kurtz, et cetera et cetera). But that's not a universal thing. Yet.

[matgb]

I think I managed some inconsistencies in my answers, but that's because I do think the whole thing is a gray area and I'm not sure exactly where the line should be (definitely not where is currently is).

One thing did spring to mind was FTP software. When I first needed FTP software, I'd no knowledge of what Open Source was, and a friend highly recommended Terrapin, I DLd the trial, used it, got to like it and when the trial was up I paid for it. That was in 2002.

Despite it now being a bit outdated and similar, I still use Terrapin as a) it does what I need well and b) their policy on sales is a good one. I bought and paid for it. They keep my email address in a DB, if I switch PC I can DL the most recent version and they'll email me a key to open it up.

If they were still making new, decent software that I liked the look of, I'd be inclined to buy from them just because of that policy.

I bought it, it's mine, if I lose it or replace my machine, because it's digital I can get a new copy at no cost to them and am thus a happy customer. I suspect I'd even be happy for a nominal charge for a new key to cover download costs and similar if they asked for it.

People should get paid for their work, people should get paid for commercial exploitation of their work, I support strongly the original ideas behind copyright laws to ensure composers and similar made a living into retirement if their work was still popular. But the mass exploitation of the system now is far too far the wrong way and devalues the basic principles it was founded on.

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

However, I can't see a way to ensure that people who download are in the latter categories and not the first. DRM is too restrictive, and punishes those who actually buy. Relying on ethics runs up against that there are people who just want free stuff. The law is a rather crude instrument in such matters.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

For me, "okay" was one of two things (since there was no delineation: "Within the bounds of law within my jurisdiction," or "Such a minor offense, or so obviously ethical, that even if it is illegal, it's fine by me."

[dglenn.livejournal.com]

I answered based on whether I thought it was ethical/moral, which made me uncomfortable with the ones that were "I'd do it but feel guilty about it". I ignored the legalities except on the first one, where the law and the ethics of the situation both rest on an unstated assumption in the question.

[shemale.livejournal.com]

Wow, i'm surprised at how few people were okay with downloading without ever intending to pay.

[jagash.livejournal.com]

The one other factor which I thought might have been interesting to poll about is value for money. If I require program X to do a trivial task and program X costs over a thousand dollars, is it ok to download that program? Effectively, is it ok to pirate when you do not support the copyright holder's business model or actions.

I mean, I prefer to find an open-source alternative in those situations but it's not always possible.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Here, I'll chip in on this:

No. Not okay. "I want this for something trivial and am not willing to pay the price so I'll steal it" just comes across as an attempt to justify theft by saying "but it's all about me, and I don't think that (I'm using it for anything that) is a big deal, so it should be okay."

It's a trivial matter; if you can't afford to do it, don't.

[jerril]

Whereas to me, if I loan something to someone and they never ever return it, it's theft.

It's an "almost acceptable" type of theft and frankly I'm not likely to get bent out of shape over most paperback novels, but the terms of the arrangement were a loan, not a permanent transfer of ownership.

I'd be disappointed over a small item, but like many other small offences in a friendship, if there's not an overall pattern of abuse it can be forgiven by all the things your friend has done for you.

On the other hand, the bigger the item, the harder it is to forgive your friend: if they borrow your CAR and never give it back, I'm guessing they wouldn't be your friend any more. That's a sign that it IS theft, we just forgive friends more than we forgive strangers.

[chizzer.livejournal.com]

I also selected "Not Okay" for #1, but it's too general of a question to be able to always answer negatively to, so I had to go with "Okay."

Examples including downloading work that you KNOW the original artist is no longer making any money off of, or downloading IP directly from sites with ads that generate income for the artists. Not saying I necessarily do some or any of these things, but it's too much of a broad stroke to always disagree with.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

The point of the first question was to be an absolute - "it is always okay to pirate, yes/no". I probably should have been clearer.

[kafziel.livejournal.com]

How about downloading something that is not possible to actually buy?

[opaqueplanet.livejournal.com]

like episodes of a long-gone tv show that the network has made it clear they won't put on DVD? Yeah. No fucking problem there! Send a cheque for a few bucks to the writers if you feel really bad about it, and dl to your heart's content!

[vagabond27.livejournal.com]

if you answered yes to the first one i guarantee that you don't rely on anything you produce for a living.

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

Most people in the developed world don't.

[stormfeather.livejournal.com]

Checking how many okay's there are on the baseline... maybe you should have picked another baseline. Like "Is it okay to walk into a store and take something that you haven't paid for."

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

No, that involves a physical loss of a physical object.

Although I got several people confused by it. It really was meant to be "copying for free is always okay, yes or no".

[opaqueplanet.livejournal.com]

I see keygenerator stuff as less ok than other infractions, since you may actually be fucking with someone else's use of a product they paid for (eg. kicking them off battle.net in the case of a Diablo 2 CD key - happened to me a few times; I was pissed).

[torrain.livejournal.com]

I was not aware of that--I play computer games, but avoid multiplayer like the plague. I shall go revise my answer in light of it.

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

Another one that might be interesting: Downloading a cracked copy of some software whose maker punishes its honest customers with ridiculous, crippling DRM (http://www.vinbreau.com/blog/?p=100). Okay if you own it? How about if you don't but want to avoid those problems, or you don't want to support a company that treats its customers like that?

Relatedly, what if you are boycotting a company? Obviously, traditionally boycotting something meant that you would be unable to enjoy their product. Now that you can, is it okay?

[kafziel.livejournal.com]

Ties into what I was asking up above. Essentially, games like EA's and Valve's that require online activation and tying your CD key to a permanent account ... well, there's two ways it could be. Either you're buying the game, which American law at least says you are even if they claim it's just a license, in which case they're ripping you off and denying you important rights; or you're not buying the game, and in fact can never actually buy the game, only rent it.

[the-paco.livejournal.com]

Artist/company protection has been broken for a good long while, I don't agree with any of it. I pirate things if I need/want to for personal use and have said aloud in public that artists/singers/dancers/etc that live off their work should go back to being the perceived exception, rather than the rule. A lot of those I associate with ARE, and are being hurt by the large companies efforts and patent systems quirks more than the end-users. Metallica and others killed one of the first and best ways to get new content out to new listeners, Napster. That was how I found a lot of artists I liked (and a lot more I despised), but because SonyBMG/ and friends couldn't make a buck off of everyone and couldn't control the positive/negative press their music got...

As for software and other works, I consider it mine if I buy it and treat it as such, since software companies are working more and more to actively punish everyone and mainly hitting only the paying users for their gall in thinking they can OWN something they pay for, I don't feel a lot of sympathy for those that abuse their position as 'creators'. I try to buy things like games and mods and such that play, as the effort that goes into them is more direct a lot of times. There needs to be a lot more direct compensation to the coders/artists/designers, I think, in large companies for sales/use.

The only thing I really think is bad is taking someone elses work and passing it off as your own or selling it to make profit yourself. I also try to see the artist directly and compensate them as I can, but even with concerts, that's still a piddly amount that gets to them, but it's better than nothing.

So rather than be on the fence or qualify things, I just say all piracy is good, get my entertainment and software from mostly free/open source sources where I can, and let everyone else decide if they want it or not based on what I say about it.

[the-paco.livejournal.com]

"a lot of those I associate with ARE..." the rule... that's what I would have typed had I not been retarded and wrapped up in my own mind. Right.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

My position has always been that I, and others, wouldn't BOTHER to copy etc etc if the industry was REASONABLE.

But it rarely is. Ok, some are becoming that way (DVDs and ebooks) but others are utterly reprehensible (music and especially computer software). If I have to pay a ridiculous sum to buy an album for ONE song worth having, or if the single costs double digits then my guilt over copying will be minimal (aside froma anything else, nearly my entire LEGITIMATE music collections comes from hearing a song illegitimately declaring it to rock and then buying everything the band ever did on the strength of it)

If a peice of software costs over £100 and contains an 80 page document/txt file telling me how I DON'T actually own what I just bought then I am going to feel no guilt about illegitimately acquiring it.

I'd never copy a book. It has reached a stage where copying a dvd would make me feel off. Because these industries are starting to play fair. But music, and especially software, are still hanging around in the "fair game" category because so much of their business habits are dubious to say the least

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Note that just because i consider something "not okay" does not necessarily mean that i won't do it at all. But i do firmly believe two wrongs don't make a right.

[cantkeepsilent.livejournal.com]

I'm getting near the point of feeling okay with copying dvd's, to upgrade my vhs collection. I mean, I paid for the entire run of Monty Python's Flying Circus. In my mind, I didn't buy VHS tapes, I bought MPFC and I don't feel like that access should expire any more than a book expires. I'm sure the law doesn't agree with me, but I don't feel like I had a seat at the table where that law was drafted so I'm not as remorseful as I might be.

But hoo boy. Back in the day, Infocom went out of business before I stopped being poor, and I didn't get a chance to legally buy all of the games I played until it was Activision that got the money. And I feel genuinely bad about that; I think that artists should be paid at least once for for-sale art that makes a difference in my life.

Re: Question 1

[rdmasters.livejournal.com]

My answer there presupposes that you would otherwise be required to pay for the item (which I what I figured you intended).

However, I download many items with no intention of paying for them because they are available (legitimately) at zero cost.

OTOH, I have also ended up paying for some them (or other works by the same creator(s)), because I had such a good time with them.
Examples: Amie Street and Magnatune(music), and Baen (books) - and there are a couple of others.

How do *you* feel about the "First hit is always free" approach to marketing?

Re: Question 1

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

My answer there presupposes that you would otherwise be required to pay for the item (which I what I figured you intended).

Question 1 was really intended to be a catchall: "Do you feel that it is always in all circumstances acceptable to download without paying, yes or no".

If there is any situation in which you feel it is "not okay" - a deliberately ambiguous term - to obtain any arbitrary thing for free, you should hit "not okay".

I download many items with no intention of paying for them because they are available (legitimately) at zero cost.

I did word the first question badly. The idea is that zero cost is already automatically "paid" for this, and the question is meant to provide a separation, rtight from the start, of people who feel that ALL downloading/sharing/copying/whatever is ALWAYS acceptable.

How do *you* feel about the "First hit is always free" approach to marketing?

I love it. as my answer to #2 implies, I tend to engage in it myself even if the creators haven't done so - pulling TV episodes off BitTorrent, watching "non-official" music videos on YouTube, finding a scanned PDF of a book, downloading someone's collection of "my favourite 300 random songs" to see if there's any I like, and then either deleting the media or buying the DVD collection, paying for the album, or purchasing the book on hard copy if I found it useful and worth paying for.

[glitteringlynx.livejournal.com]

I really like this survey. :) It was very well thought-out. I'm thinking of linking to it from my own LJ.

[thesquirrelfish.livejournal.com]

I feel that different standards apply to music, movies, books and video games. Music and movies are one set of general standards, books and video games another. I think the primary issue for me is artist/author/designer/actor/worker compensation, and industry track record of fairness etc.

I feel that many movie studios actually stifled the careers of the creative at different times, so they have a weaker moral stance on the issue. The same with the big music labels, and some very bad contracts they lock new artists into. Some publishing houses do it too, but in general I feel that publishing does get a wider variety of authors out. Video games I feel is enough of an emerging industry that its historic track record is less important, and I like supporting the games I like.

A question I have is: would people check the same Ok vs Not Ok if they are taking said book/cd/video game/move from Border's(assuming good chance of not getting caught)?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

would people check the same Ok vs Not Ok if they are taking said book/cd/video game/move from Border's(assuming good chance of not getting caught)?

Unlikely. My examples are all *specifically* to never include the physical taking of a physical item. In no case (well, except the keygenerator possibly getting someone else's legit key and getting them booted from online play - I didn't think of that!) do any of these examples deprive anyone else of either a physical copy or the ability to use their copy.

[jaffa-tamarin.livejournal.com]

It is definitely "not okay" to distribute free copies of copyrighted material without the copyright-holder's consent. So anything which relies on other people distributing free copies of copyrighted material is at least in a grey area, and I lean towards "not okay". The only case you have which doesn't rely on other people giving away copyrighted material is where you write your own no-CD crack for a game you own.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

A No-CD crack does not involve giving away copyrighted property. It *allows* it, but banning No-CD cracks is like banning BitTorrent clients. They *can* be used for illegal things, they are *often* used for illegal things, but there are not only legit uses for them, but also a large community of people using them legitimately.

("I hate swapping disks" is most common, followed closely by "I want a backup that works because I/my kids/whoever are really hard on disks")

[glass-beddau.livejournal.com]

FWIW: I answered "Not Okay" to "You owned a book, CD, film, etc in the past, but now cannot locate it." on the theory that that kind of situation can cover your deliberate decision to ditch it. You ditch it or let it go, you don't have rights to it; it's the difference between owning in the past tense and currently owning but not finding or being able to use.

--and I just realized I wasn't posting from my torrain account. Sorry.

[wherever.livejournal.com]

Personally I think you should just buy a lifetime license to a particular media and then forever be allowed to re-download it, get new copies, etc. It's really annoying when you have to replace a beloved CD a few years later because the media has worn out. You shouldn't have to pay for it again. Of course a smart person would back up their CD's and then not use the original media, but the way some regulations/policies are worded, even that is technically illegal.

I guess we're getting to that point with iPods and the like.

I download music that I don't pay for. My rationale is that if I like the artist I will support them in other ways. I'm a huge concert goer, and a much larger chunk of that dollar goes to the artist than they will ever see from CD sales. As it is now most of that money goes to the record companies, and they can choke on a bowl of dicks for all I care.

I do think that people should be paid for what they do, but the systems as we have them set up now are flawed, especially where music is concerned.