Is downloading tv series/films acceptable?

[ikat381]

Originally Posted by steven_munn

Wait what? Someone else should have equal rights to make money off of something that I created? Something I spent four hours writing, two weeks honing and four hours in the studio (plus two hours after-editing) paid for from my own pocket? Something I spent time promoting at local gigs, while I paid 60% of proceeds to people who had no part in the creative process but who help promote me and look after my legal affairs?

Pardon me for being vocal, but why exactly the fuck shouldn't I have sole monopoly rights on my own stuff? If someone wants some rights, let them write and produce their own shit.

Or maybe I misinterpreted you.

For most types of labor, your long days of hard work do not entitle you to monopoly rights. For intellectual labor, like making music, the reason we grant you monopoly rights is not because you deserve it, but because we think it's necessary in order to give you an incentive to create art.

I think we can demonstrate that downloading has not eliminated the incentive to create art, so I think it's fine to download whatever you want.

I think you have a right to benefit from your own productive labor, but I don't think monopoly rights are the proper way to do this.

[steven_munn]

It's hardly a monopoly, in most musician's cases - out of gigs and studio costs, I actually see about 34% of profit, and I get taxed on that. iTunes downloads are hardly expensive, compared to a CD - people should be prepared to pay something. If I'm not going to make anything because people are going to download it all anyway, why should I bother? It costs me time and my own money to get a song down, I'm not doing it for bog all.

[Smokey]

It's not a monopoly because you can get music, tv and films from plenty of other people. A monopoly involves one company having such a storng position in a market that they can abuse it. If you go to the cinema you can see films from a dozen different studios, HMV has CDs from hundreds of different labels and there are more TV production companies represented on telly than can actually be watched.

[ikat381]

Originally Posted by steven_munn

It's hardly a monopoly, in most musician's cases - out of gigs and studio costs, I actually see about 34% of profit, and I get taxed on that. iTunes downloads are hardly expensive, compared to a CD - people should be prepared to pay something. If I'm not going to make anything because people are going to download it all anyway, why should I bother? It costs me time and my own money to get a song down, I'm not doing it for bog all.

By "monopoly right," I don't mean that any one musician enjoys a monopoly position in the music market. What I mean is that even the poorest musician owns a monopoly right over copies of his own music, which is just another way of saying that he owns the copyright to it. You can waive this monopoly right, or sell it, or use it as a bargaining tool with record labels that will probably give you a lousy deal for it. My opinion is that there's no moral basis for allowing this monopoly right to extend so far that it prohibits people from downloading music for free.

Originally Posted by Smokey

It's not a monopoly because you can get music, tv and films from plenty of other people. A monopoly involves one company having such a storng position in a market that they can abuse it. If you go to the cinema you can see films from a dozen different studios, HMV has CDs from hundreds of different labels and there are more TV production companies represented on telly than can actually be watched.

I meant something different when I was talking about monopoly rights (see above). But since you brought it up, most of the record labels you see in the HMV are owned by either EMI, UMG, WMG or Sony. Television, movies and other media are similarly monopolized. And I think someone could successfully argue that current copyright laws have allowed these media giants to increase the cost of competing against them, which makes it harder for most artists to support themselves.

[Smokey]

Originally Posted by ikat381

My opinion is that there's no moral basis for allowing this monopoly right to extend so far that it prohibits people from downloading music for free.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you are saying there is no moral basis for letting someone sell something they have made. If people can't make any money selling their music then they won't make as much of it. If you don't pay to see a film at the cinema then it doesn't make money and those involved find it harder to get more work.

In fact only a large production company can deal with a massive flop. Smaller independant companies can be put out of business by a few bad films.

Also, the only reason HMV stocks large numbers of Sony etc records is because they produce more. However, there are still plenty of smaller indendant labels on show. If Sony did throw their weight around then they'd insist HMV didn't stock Indie labels, customers would go to other outlets and HMV would lose business.

[steven_munn]

Originally Posted by ikat381

But since you brought it up, most of the record labels you see in the HMV are owned by either EMI, UMG, WMG or Sony. Television, movies and other media are similarly monopolized.

Monopoly: The market condition that exists when there is only one seller.

I think what you're concerned about is, in fact, the presence of an Oligopoly.

[doctor_fruitbat]

Originally Posted by ikat381

By "monopoly right," I don't mean that any one musician enjoys a monopoly position in the music market. What I mean is that even the poorest musician owns a monopoly right over copies of his own music, which is just another way of saying that he owns the copyright to it. You can waive this monopoly right, or sell it, or use it as a bargaining tool with record labels that will probably give you a lousy deal for it. My opinion is that there's no moral basis for allowing this monopoly right to extend so far that it prohibits people from downloading music for free.

This is completely contradictory. If people can download something for free and copyright fails to protect the author's wishes to not have that happen, then the idea of paying for something or holding ownership over it becomes null and void. If you make something, it is yours. If you want to completely restrict it, maybe because it's personal, then that is entirely your right. Until someone decides their creation can enter the public realm, they should have every right to keep it to themselves.

[maxxy_p]

Originally Posted by steven_munn

If I'm not going to make anything because people are going to download it all anyway, why should I bother? It costs me time and my own money to get a song down, I'm not doing it for bog all.

To be blunt, you don't have to. If you're doing it entirely for your own enjoyment, fine, but anyone considering going into a career in music should understand the risk of not making money because of downloading or not becoming widely-known etc. If downloading then means the world loses a gifted musician, well, too bad for the world- we chose that path.

[steven_munn]

I think most people in the industry know the risks and have done for a long time; even before the advent of downloading. Christ, I can remember gigging in pubs and making sure I had a casual look behind the bar to make sure the landlord wasn't recording for a bootleg.

[Smokey]

Originally Posted by maxxy_p

To be blunt, you don't have to. If you're doing it entirely for your own enjoyment, fine, but anyone considering going into a career in music should understand the risk of not making money because of downloading or not becoming widely-known etc. If downloading then means the world loses a gifted musician, well, too bad for the world- we chose that path.

Perhaps that gifted musician would like the opportunity to share their music with a wide audience and devote their lives to their art but they can't because they have to work a 40 hour week to pay for a roof and food. Is it right that this person loses their potential life because people can't be arsed paying a tenner for a CD?

[capidosia]

forgiveness if i repeat anything already said, but i haven't had time to read everything said.

My view is simple. Download sensably, and don't take the piss. I understand that it can be expensive to buy the latest stuff, but if the industry wasn't profitable then nothing would be made, and if it was it would all be low-tech, and very dull.

on the other hand, download freely, nick everything, and never buy anything, and be not supprised when artists and companys dissapear. the only one i won't quibble is if you are a british tax payer and dling something made by the BBC... you've paied for it once already, so there is no need to pay again.

my 2pence worth,

[Tweekish]

I pay for music downloads and any that I have aquired have been because I couldn't find somewhere that had a particular song for sale. I have even imported albums from Japan rather than copy from someone else. Out of the 10,000 or so songs I have downloaded probably less than 10 are a bit naughty.

Same thing goes for tv series and films. I have a lot of region 1 DVDs because the program I want hasn't been released here. Mystery Science Theatre 3000 for example, I have to import boxsets if I want any of that. However there have been a few shows that I downloaded because I couldn't buy them but when they do become avaliable I replace them with a legal copy. Everything else I legally download through iTunes, Amazon or Tesco. If I want to watch a program from the BBC or Channel 4 I find it through their online stuffs.

[ikat381]

Originally Posted by doctor_fruitbat

This is completely contradictory. If people can download something for free and copyright fails to protect the author's wishes to not have that happen, then the idea of paying for something or holding ownership over it becomes null and void. If you make something, it is yours. If you want to completely restrict it, maybe because it's personal, then that is entirely your right. Until someone decides their creation can enter the public realm, they should have every right to keep it to themselves.

There’s a few reasons why I don’t think it’s completely contradictory to let people download things freely:

1) There’s other ways to make money with your art besides selling copies of it.
2) We know that free downloading has not stopped people from successfully selling copies.
3) We know that in many cases, free downloading has actually increased the sale of copies.

It is true that you have the right to restrict access for anything that is personal to you. You can exercise that right by keeping your private song in your room and only playing it for people you trust. There are privacy laws that will protect you for that, but copyright is not one of them. Copyright is a commercial right that was designed to help you make money off copies of your work.

Originally Posted by Smokey

Correct me if I'm wrong but you are saying there is no moral basis for letting someone sell something they have made….

Well for this thread I was trying to stick to the argument that there’s no moral basis for stopping people from downloading things freely for themselves. I was worried that we’d get sidetracked if I started talking about whether or not people can sell their downloads. See above for the reasons why I think it’s possible for artists to make money even though people download things freely.

Originally Posted by Smokey

In fact only a large production company can deal with a massive flop. Smaller independant companies can be put out of business by a few bad films.

To me, this is an example of how copyright has been used to block artists from making careers for themselves. Right now the mainstream production & distribution businesses have it set up so that it’s hard to compete in the movie industry without making huge up-front investments in your film, which means that only big players can afford to fail. This saves the big studios from having too many competitors. I think copyright laws played a big part in creating this problem, so here we have an example of how copyright can serve as an obstacle to independent artists.

Originally Posted by steven_munn

Monopoly: The market condition that exists when there is only one seller.
I think what you're concerned about is, in fact, the presence of an Oligopoly.

If I got to pick I would still use the word monopoly for the Sony/EMI/Warner/UMG situation, since there's not usually such a thing as a "pure monopoly," and
oligopolys' generally suggest a cartel. But I can use some other term if you prefer.

But when I say that copyrights are a monopoly right over copies of your own work, I think the word "monopoly" is accurate.

[maxxy_p]

Originally Posted by Smokey

Perhaps that gifted musician would like the opportunity to share their music with a wide audience and devote their lives to their art but they can't because they have to work a 40 hour week to pay for a roof and food. Is it right that this person loses their potential life because people can't be arsed paying a tenner for a CD?

On the other hand, can the musician be said to have a right to a career in music if people aren't willing to pay for it? The buck starts and stops with the consumer. If there's no market for him, he'll just have to work a 40 hour week like everybody else.

[Smokey]

Originally Posted by maxxy_p

On the other hand, can the musician be said to have a right to a career in music if people aren't willing to pay for it? The buck starts and stops with the consumer. If there's no market for him, he'll just have to work a 40 hour week like everybody else.

But if people are downloading the music for free there is obviously a market who are interested in him. However, any potential earnings are reduced and to a small artist this can be vital.

Originally Posted by ikat381

There’s a few reasons why I don’t think it’s completely contradictory to let people download things freely:

1) There’s other ways to make money with your art besides selling copies of it.
2) We know that free downloading has not stopped people from successfully selling copies.
3) We know that in many cases, free downloading has actually increased the sale of copies.

Point 1. Just because an artist can earn money through touring doesn't mean you can steal their music. Also, what about the film industry? Does that mean I can justify downloading a film because they can still make money through selling DVDs? Heck, I'll steal a DVD as well since they can make money through merchandising.

Point 2. That might be because some people are obeying the law

Point 3. In even more cases it has decreased sales. There's not even the lure of getting the real thing for increased quality so the "free trial argument" falls down a bit there.