Piracy, Legal or Not? Options

[medic]

I've noticed on this forum that they shut down almost every topic that has to do with any P2P program. Its not piracy to have a P2P program, or to use it. Its the way people use it. RealPlayer records what you play and sends it to there datacenter, that invasion of privacy, why aren't they getting sued. And NO they don't ask you if you want to participate in a consumer deal, they do it on there own will. The program is made to share information, so if you find a P2P program illegal, shut down all topics about AIM, Yahoo Messenger and MSN Messenger - they all have P2P in there, you can send files through them - but for some odd reason there not considered ILLEGAL and don't get stereotyped as PIRACY. Consumers label a P2P program as Piracy, I think it is unjust. Why isn't TiVo illegal - it records movies without commercials and you can then burn them to a CD. If I wanted I could go set TiVo to make a copy of Assault on Precinct 13 on HBO or Stars and then burn it to a DVD. I didn't pay for that movie, I pay for the channel - but that still does not make it legal for me to do that. So in what ways does you downloading the same movie off a torrent site have any different effect. The RIAA and MPAA are just looking for more ways to screw consumers over.

I am doing what one of the mods said, to post it in debate - so I did. And I bet it gets shut down again.

[sweetxsimplicity]

We don't shut down every topic that has to do with a P2P program. You may discuss about the programs, but I don't think you can like talk about how to use it and stuff like that.
Like this topic is okay: http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=76602

And to your topic..
Because more people download music than record movies.

[medic]

Well what about this one. They were not talking about how to use it and stuff like that.

http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=86600

[*mona lisa*]

^That's why it was closed.

[*mipadi*]

Generally, if someone creates something, and you consume it, whether it be a chair, car, software, or music, it's expected that you give the creator compensation (unless they waive their right to compensation). Thus, it's not only a legal, but I feel, a moral and ethical requirement to pay the person for their work, and refrain from using that software or music without compensation.

The issue with recording TV shows or movies on a Tivo or similar device is a sticky one, but the creator has already been compensated for that product, in the form of revenue generated from advertising. I think it's okay to "time shift" TV recordings, as long as you do not sell or otherwise distribute those recordings.

And to specifically mention the thread you brought up: a person in that thread did specifically ask how to use a crack code he had for Photoshop, which means he was in violation of CreateBlog's no-piracy policy.

[antix10_kos]

I'm unclear on this issue....so if a mod looks at this post, please answer my questions.

Question 1: You can post about P2P programs on the boards, as long as your post has NOTHING to do with how to use them??? Is use defined as "troubleshoot/instruct" or "hack"? There is a big difference between someone posting about "how do i share this file?" and "how can i hack into other user's shared folders?"

Question 2: If "use" is defined as "troubleshoot/instruct" then why isn't ok to post on the boards asking for help, as long as it is in the appropriate place and follows board rules regarding content, langauge, etc.?

Question 3: In regards to the "crack code" post, the person was in violation of the no piracy policy, but why shut the whole topic down? That person should have been informed and the comment edited or deleted.

Question 4: Why put your head in the sand regarding this issue? I'd be willing to bet that at least a few people here use programs that they've "pirated" to make graphics, songs, etc. for their sites. People download things illegally and put them to use all of the time. Let's adknowledge this fact.

This one isn't aimed at anyone in particular, just a general statement about pay downloading.

There are a few reasons why "pirating" is popular.
1) It's free.
2) It's easy.
3) It's convienent.

There is only one reason why it is wrong
1) Record companies, retail shops, and artists don't get paid. Artists don't make a whole lot of money from record sales unless they are smaller band. Most larger bands make their money through touring, merchandising and endorsements. The real outcriers in this whole anti-piracy thing are the record companies, who are getting robbed blind.

I personally don't give a hoot about some record execs not being able to line their pockets. I buy enough albums (both cds and vinyls) to keep those jokers in business. I buy tickets to just about every show that comes my way. I own my fair share of band shirts, posters, books, etc. I support the industry and I still download music. I don't feel guilty about downloading, not at all.

Another point I'd like to bring up, what about buying used albums at CD Warehouse or pawn shops?? The record industry doesn't complain about that...I've bought about a 1/4 of collection used. No one makes money on those sales except the record store....

In regards to movies, TiVo is ok, people already pay for the TiVo reciever and their cable/ satelite service. Why slap yet another fee for recording or make it illegal to record with the TiVo? No one outlawed the VCR, which does basically the same thing....As long as you don't redistribute the content, it's ok.

Believe what you want to believe, but I refuse to pay for a song unless it's rare or something I really want.

NOTE: This post is not intended to be offensive or critical. I'm just trying to make a few points here, generate a bit of debate....

[medic]

The issue with recording TV shows or movies on a Tivo or similar device is a sticky one, but the creator has already been compensated for that product, in the form of revenue generated from advertising. I think it's okay to "time shift" TV recordings, as long as you do not sell or otherwise distribute those recordings.

A p2p program does not cost money, unless you wan't it too. They get very little ad revenue - the only way they make money is from private investors. That is how almost every company starts. And as for the whole

I think it's okay to "time shift" TV recordings, as long as you do not sell or otherwise distribute those recordings..

When I download A movie off of a BitTorrent site its the same deal, I dont burn it and sell it. So that is still unclear.

In regards to movies, TiVo is ok, people already pay for the TiVo receiver and their cable/ satelite service. Why slap yet another fee for recording or make it illegal to record with the TiVo? No one outlawed the VCR, which does basically the same thing....As long as you don't redistribute the content, it's ok.

Now with that, that's what a BitTorrent .mpg or .avi is, so why shut down sites for it? And one other thing, on local channels they show Family guy and such, and well a Torrent site had links to download for such TV shows, and they got shut down for what reason. Those TV shows are free on local channels aren't they. There not making any profit from someone using bunny ears to get that channel on the TV. Plus TiVo is not under fire due to its affiliation with the MPAA, that's about one answer I have found so far.

Its not like its killing me, I just like have somewhat intelligent conversations with people - and this one has tickled my pickle. This beats the discussion on condoms I do say.

[*mipadi*]

A p2p program does not cost money, unless you wan't it too. They get very little ad revenue - the only way they make money is from private investors. That is how almost every company starts.

Riiiiggghhttt...but I'm not sure how that relates to my statement. I pointed out that recording TV programs with a Tivo is okay, because the creator still gets compensation (from the TV company, who gets compensation from advertising and user subscriptions). I don't believe a P2P program compensates the creator in this manner (or at all).

When I download A movie off of a BitTorrent site its the same deal, I dont burn it and sell it. So that is still unclear.

It's only unclear because you took my quote out of context. The difference is that, with, say, a Tivo, the creator is compensated (as noted above) even if you time-shift; with P2P, it is not. You never paid for that media, and no one was compensated for it.

Now with that, that's what a BitTorrent .mpg or .avi is, so why shut down sites for it?

Because that's not time-shifting--it's distribution. That P2P program never paid for the content it is distributing--and, in fact, since many P2P programs contain adware and advertising, they are, in effect, getting paid for that illegal distribution.

And one other thing, on local channels they show Family guy and such, and well a Torrent site had links to download for such TV shows, and they got shut down for what reason. Those TV shows are free on local channels aren't they. There not making any profit from someone using bunny ears to get that channel on the TV.

Yes, they are--the TV company gets money for advertising--advertising that is priced proportional to how many people view it. But if you get the shows off of a torrent site, you're not being figured into the advertising population.

The way I see it, artists, executives, and everyone involved in the process of creating media, have a right to be compensated. If you don't like that, no one is making you buy their products; but it's not fair to try to get something for free that someone else created, unless they specifically say it's okay to get it for free. We can sit here and debate the legality of it, but I think it really comes down to a moral/ethical issue.

[medic]

TiVo only gets the money when someone buys the receiver I think its 200 or 300 now. The monthly payment it to keep the upkeep for the TiVo/DVR/Digital Cable(and or dish) systems that the cable company/dish providers own. That's why Dish Network came out with the "Dish DVR" so they can get hte $200 dollars for the DVR and the $5. Now with say a movie, someone has to buy it or rent it to rip it, so in some ways they are gitting compensated. Very little at that though.

That P2P program never paid for the content it is distributing--and, in fact, since many P2P programs contain adware and advertising, they are, in effect, getting paid for that illegal distribution.

Now I have noticed that, but its done in a good way though, quite ninja like. They have the little boxes on the install screen and such. For say a google toolbar, or a program that saves your passwords and fills them in when you go to that site. They dont do it "illegaly" considering that you agreed to the TOS and in those TOS it states add on programs. You know that people speed though installs and keep clicking the next button and don't read anything.

[antix10_kos]

God, I know all about the hidden spyware. I lost a computer to Kazaa's madness. Most programs come bundled with the adware and spyware. I don't really trust anything that's free on the net. I've had WinMX for almost 2 years now, no bs and it's still working great. My computer is a happy camper, I must say.

However, I find it wrong that they "hide" those creepy little bugs in the TOS, which they bog down with all the tedious langauge and small print, knowing that 99% of people don't read past the first paragraph or read it at all. I think that any and all add-ons should be clearly outlined and listed in the TOS, in big, bold print so that people can make informed decisions about whether or not it's really worth it to have a P2P program.

Also, a friend of mine subscribes to cable on her computer and has it auto-record her favorite shows and movies while she's at work and school so that she can watch it on her own schedule. If it's legal for a person to use their computer as TV/VCR and time-delay their shows and all, then why should anyone have a problem with TiVo??

Another point: Very few of these so-called free P2P programs are really free because they are actually being financed by the companies that have their adware installed on the computers alongside the programs... Of course, I think that's been hinted at in the previous post, but hey, it's true, it needs to be repeated.

[madchenallein]

I think it's crappy to tell people what they can and can't do with something they buy (a cd, for example). If artists care that much, then don't distribute their work on media that can be copied. If I pay for a cd, I ought to be able to copy it and give it to whoever I want. If the artists put out their work on copy/scan protected media no one is going to buy hundreds of CD-Rs and burn and burn and burn cds for the sheer joy of ripping off artists for an easy profit.

If I like an artist's work well enough, I will pay for a cd. If not, I probably won't bother adding it to my collection.

I agree that it's basically a moral question, and I do think an artist deserves compensation for their work. On the other hand, if it's a question of whether their Ferrari has the standard champagne colored unborn calfskin leather upholstery or the dyed red color; I find it hard to care. I think it's pointless to make laws that the government is unwilling/unable to enforce. Again, it's a problem of big government. Artists don't like it, they can use their millions of dollars to protect their work. If it costs more to put their music on a copy protected media, you know as a consumer that they are just going to pass that cost along to you.

And if you like their music enough, you'll buy it. This is basically what your average small business owner has to do, ensure his profit via alarm systems, employee training, etc. It is just an entertainment industry specific concern. In an ideal world, yeah right, every artist would do that and the cost of copy protected media would fall, making the artists' work more affordable for all.

The free-enterprise system should take care of this, not the government.