The Morality of a Download

DeletedUser50935

Guest
Is it ever right to download something owned by another off the internet?
Pretty much everything is available to download free of charge... Even those that can be purchased, so the question here is it ever right to download a paid piece of software off the internet for free in any situation?
I will argue for whichever side has the least supporters...
 

DeletedUser

Guest
No, it isn't. It doesn't matter how big or small the artist is, or the owner of said item if we aren't talking music, the owner has put work into the product and makes a living off of selling it. People downloading things for free are wrong. I myself buy albums, and I have an itunes subscription so at least a bit of my money goes to the artists per renewal. But this is pushing it really. If I had more money I would buy each album (i'm 15 so I can't) to show my support for the music.
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
No, it isn't. It doesn't matter how big or small the artist is, or the owner of said item if we aren't talking music, the owner has put work into the product and makes a living off of selling it. People downloading things for free are wrong. I myself buy albums, and I have an itunes subscription so at least a bit of my money goes to the artists per renewal. But this is pushing it really. If I had more money I would buy each album (i'm 15 so I can't) to show my support for the music.

Although I agree, I feel like arguing the opposite lol...cause why not? Do know, this argument is going to be some intense load of bull.

The act in question is, more or less, asking whether or not theft is immoral when the item stolen is digital. I would say no, and this is why:

The act of theft, in non digital items, is deemed as wrong by society for two reasons: the product itself is deprived of the owner without payment and the payment itself is deprived of the seller. Were I to steal the car, I am both depriving them of the car itself and the payment of the car. The point is, they now have less of it to sell and are not being compensated for it.

However, when we look at the digital world, these are easily excused. It does not cost anything to reproduce digital copies. For example, youtube essentially creates millions of "digital copies" of a song with every view. It does not cost them much in the way of doing this. Let me take an analogy

You have the artist (let's say Taylor Swift) who spends time and money producing an album. That album is then uploaded to a pirating site and others download it for free. Here I will be assuming that the downloaders could not afford to buy it outright and, even if they could, would not have downloaded it whatsoever had the free, pirated version not been available. What we see here is that the amount of the item is not deprived of Taylor Swift, as she has an unlimited amount of digital copies, nor is she deprived of profits since the piraters in question would not have bought the album had the pirated version not been available. Taylor suffers no loss whatsoever and the piraters receive pleasure from the album. Essentially, what we see here, is a total increase in pleasure, with no justified feelings of pain felt by another party (unless they didn't like the album...but thats another matter :p)

Now, I would concede that were the individuals capable of buying it outright and were going to buy the album even if there was no free version available, then that would be immoral as they are depriving Taylor of the profits she would have had.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Funny you should use Taylor Swift as an example - the only well known artist to disallow Apple to let people who buy the subscription listen to her music for free, as my girlfriend informed me just earlier today :)

And even though I know you've made this argument up, you've done it quite well in all honesty xD

But as my response, I'll say that although she's not directly lost any money due to pirating, she has indirectly because those people will not then go and buy her album, because they have it for free. And her own fans are probably more likely to download the pirated version because it's free and it is human nature to take the cheapest option if the product will have the same outcome (unless you have more money than sense). Only her truly devoted fans will pay for the album, or the elder generation who are likely not to own a digital device nor know about pirating websites. However, in this example, the elderly generation aren't too likely to listen to Taylor Swift. Let's be honest ;)
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Funny you should use Taylor Swift as an example - the only well known artist to disallow Apple to let people who buy the subscription listen to her music for free, as my girlfriend informed me just earlier today :)

And even though I know you've made this argument up, you've done it quite well in all honesty xD

But as my response, I'll say that although she's not directly lost any money due to pirating, she has indirectly because those people will not then go and buy her album, because they have it for free. And her own fans are probably more likely to download the pirated version because it's free and it is human nature to take the cheapest option if the product will have the same outcome (unless you have more money than sense). Only her truly devoted fans will pay for the album, or the elder generation who are likely not to own a digital device nor know about pirating websites. However, in this example, the elderly generation aren't too likely to listen to Taylor Swift. Let's be honest ;)

Here I will be assuming that the downloaders could not afford to buy it outright and, even if they could, would not have downloaded it whatsoever had the free, pirated version not been available.

And then:

...nor is she deprived of profits since the piraters in question would not have bought the album had the pirated version not been available.

Also, as per her fans taking the option, I said that would be immoral in the final paragraph :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
If you cannot afford to buy an album, then you don't get it until you can afford it. Or get it as a present for your birthday, christmas (or other religious festivals). At least then the artist eventually gets the money. Simples :)
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
If you cannot afford to buy an album, then you don't get it until you can afford it. Or get it as a present for your birthday, christmas (or other religious festivals). At least then the artist eventually gets the money. Simples :)

Oh. I was implying that they wouldnt ever have the excess funds to buy it.

This actually gives me an idea for a debate thread...
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Yes, but I'm sure that if you can't afford £10-£15 (work out exchange rates ;)) excess money ever in your life, you either live in the third world and won't have a music player (and also buying an album will be at the bottom of your priorities), or you are insanely poor and again buying said album will be at the bottom of your priorities. If you are so poor, I don't believe you would have a device that plays music.
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Yes, but I'm sure that if you can't afford £10-£15 (work out exchange rates ;)) excess money ever in your life, you either live in the third world and won't have a music player (and also buying an album will be at the bottom of your priorities), or you are insanely poor and again buying said album will be at the bottom of your priorities. If you are so poor, I don't believe you would have a device that plays music.

Whether you would have access isn't relevant :p And there are certainly individuals who can't spare 15 bucks on a Swiftie album lol
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I can't, but that's because I despise her music on a personal level ;)

And you're clutching at straws there mate :D
 

DeletedUser40768

Guest
For argument sake what if it is released before the album does. That would hurt the sales of the albums and directly affect the singer. Aside from that these singers are rich enough so having access to free songs shouldn't bother them. They should consider it giving back to the community ;)

On another note, what about the risk of viruses from downloading songs or whatever it is. It would be immoral for the piraters (if that is a word) to lure people with free songs to mess up their computer and have access to their personal information.


I don't really have a strong opinion on this, just wanted to point some things out that I didn't see mentioned.
 

DeletedUser50332

Guest
In relation to this discussion, I think that it is relevant to draw players attention to an Italian writers collective called "Wu Ming".
http://www.wumingfoundation.com/english/englishmenu.htm

They are authors of several books, which can be downloaded for free from their website.
They have actually sold more than half a million books across Europe, even though it is available for free on their website.
However, they also acknowledge that for them as artists, they could not survive and continue to write if everyone downloaded their books.

Whilst the focus is often on wealthy individuals who can afford to have their work pirated, there are lots of lesser known artists (musicians, writers, etc) who would not be able to offer us something more interesting and different from the mainstream.

My point is that I see no problem in pirating wealthy pop stars, but if we downloaded lesser known artists, then all that we would be left with is bland, soul-less music!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I reckon the way to go are probably cheap subsriptions to certain platforms. Music for example jsut pay 10 Bucks a month for spotify. Wanna watch movies and Series? Do the same thing with netflix. Gives you a legal access to media without having to spend heaps of money on it.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
In relation to this discussion, I think that it is relevant to draw players attention to an Italian writers collective called "Wu Ming".
http://www.wumingfoundation.com/english/englishmenu.htm

They are authors of several books, which can be downloaded for free from their website.
They have actually sold more than half a million books across Europe, even though it is available for free on their website.
However, they also acknowledge that for them as artists, they could not survive and continue to write if everyone downloaded their books.

Whilst the focus is often on wealthy individuals who can afford to have their work pirated, there are lots of lesser known artists (musicians, writers, etc) who would not be able to offer us something more interesting and different from the mainstream.

My point is that I see no problem in pirating wealthy pop stars, but if we downloaded lesser known artists, then all that we would be left with is bland, soul-less music!

Unfortunately the thing is, authors generally reach out to an intellectual audience, if they are intellectual they most likely aren't struggling for money. I'm not saying every book is meant for clever people but generally they are, or their children. If they aren't struggling for money they'll buy it regardless.

With music this isn't the same. Music appeals to everyone and anyone. But that's just my opinion :)

All in One, unfortunately this doesn't pay well for the producers of the work, I wouldn't think. Better than pirating, but only a tad bit better. It's like YouTube red.
 

DeletedUser50332

Guest
I reckon the way to go are probably cheap subsriptions to certain platforms. Music for example jsut pay 10 Bucks a month for spotify. Wanna watch movies and Series? Do the same thing with netflix. Gives you a legal access to media without having to spend heaps of money on it.

Yeah, you could be right that this is the way that things will go. And this supports what I am saying, namely that these media outlets will be controlling the content to large numbers of subscribers, and they will want to go for populist options. So there will end up being more Swift and Bieber, but also more bland rock and hip-hop music that appeals to as wide an audience as possible.

if they are intellectual they most likely aren't struggling for money.
Ha ha!!!

With music this isn't the same. Music appeals to everyone and anyone.
Perhaps I hadn't made my point very well. I am not trying to equate music with writing. What am trying to say is that if we want to have wide and diverse types of music or of books, then we need to pay for it. There is a danger that smaller companies and less well known artists would not survive without being able to sell their products. The only ones who will survive are the large scale distributors and companies for whom profit is the main motive. As indicated above, this would lead to them aiming for mainstream audiences and middle-of-the-road bands in every musical genre.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Piracy is a service problem. Archaic ideas on how to sell media is the sole reason piracy exists on a large scale. Almost nobody thinks it's 'right' to do, it's just often the most convenient way; which is a problem content producers have to fix, not the consumers.
 

DeletedUser2413

Guest
If this argument were solely about music it would be one for the record companies as the artists themselves are well aware that record sales are not going to sustain their career and that live shows are the major source of income. Many of artists have said themselves that they would rather have an album downloaded and heard as it is a form of exposure.

In the early to mid naught's, for nearly a decade the RIAA has sued upwards to over 35,000 individuals for piracy. With many ludicrous lawsuits to have taken place during that time. They are just a stakeholder for representation within an industry. The record labels themselves are not fairly paying artists for the majority of the industry.

I'll quote Lyle Lovett, who signed his deal back in 1985 - selling over 4.6 million records, well before even the likes of Napster. ~ "I've never made a dime from a record sale in the history of my record deal. I've been very happy with my sales, and certainly my audience has been very supportive. I make a living going out and playing shows.

In short I will say that piracy in the music industry mainly hurts the producers and distributors - however the artist themselves actually make very little off of the actual production of music. However in an interlocking economy changes in supply or demand in one industry can and does in turn affect many other industries.
 
Top