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Despite it now being a bit outdated and similar, I still use Terrapin as a) it does what I need well and b) their policy on sales is a good one.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.

[seriesfinale.livejournal.com]

I work for an entertainment union and even I don't have a problem with any of them past the first one, really.

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

I would also note that nearly everything on the list was banned by the DMCA.

[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."

[shemale.livejournal.com]

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

[dglenn.livejournal.com]

a) There were a couple of pairs that I saw as logically equivalent but noticed my own gut reaction differed with the different wording. agree that this is interesting.

b) First question: unstated assumption -- bad survey-writer, no cookie. (I've downloaded several e-books and MP3 files with no intention of payng for them. I did not steal them. I think I know what you meant, but given *IAA rhetoric intentionally blurring this dstinction, I'm not entirely certain my guess is right.

c) Yeah, I skipped a few because I didn't feel sure of my answer or because my answer was "it depends" or "I'd do it even though I know it's not quite kosher (unlike a few others that I avoid) so I'm not comfortable with either answer here".

[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.

[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.

[hurfadurf.livejournal.com]

Your statement seems backwards to me. I would submit that it's a lot easier to give away things for free than it is to make people pay for it -- especially if you're a newcomer. Being well known makes it easier to get people to *buy* stuff -- because there's a pre-existing trust in the "brand", so to speak.

[hurfadurf.livejournal.com]

...er, "easier to give away things for free than it is to make people pay for them." I just woke up.

[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.

[chizzer.livejournal.com]

I think the third question's wording makes it different. "Lent away" includes an element of personal responsibility. People are less comfortable stealing something that they are personally responsible for giving away in the first place.

[kafziel.livejournal.com]

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

[eatsoylentgreen.livejournal.com]

yar

[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.

[eatsoylentgreen.livejournal.com]

I was leaning "no" on 3 but leaning "yes" on second-to-last. If I give it away (and lending is a form of giving it away. Never lend something if you aren't ok with it never coming back) then it is no longer mine, it belongs to the other person. It'd be wrong for me and the other person to be playing a certain videogame that was only paid for once.

For the penultimate, if I bought something but just lost it, it's still mine, still bought and paid for. That would only be not-true if I had given it to someone.

One other caveat, if I owned the Harry Potter series of books, and some Joe Smiley guy made a free mp3 of him reading them, that would be ok to download, but if Richard Brannagh made a copy of him reading them and sold it, it would be wrong for me to download it for free.

[hurfadurf.livejournal.com]

"the premise of your original statement was that business models exist that allow artists to give their work away for free, while still being able to, you know, eat and have shelter."

My statement wasn't false. The *bulk* of every web comic's content is free, every day, all the time -- and a lot of them are able to quit their day jobs within a year, due to sales of merch, books, et cetera. Everything most mashup DJs produce is free, and they are paid a great deal of money to do shows at clubs.

Popularity is a byproduct of being *good at something people like*. Had Nine Inch Nails come into existence a year ago, they'd likely be as popular as they are now, because word of mouth moves a lot faster than it did in 1988. I'm not saying you can expect the same level of instant riches that NIN does, but lots and lots of people are living on their craft at this point, *by* giving away their stuff. The business model's been out there for a long time.

[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."

[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!

[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).

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Luckily, the DMCA is only enforceable law in insignificant intellectual backwaters.