Is Pirating Wrong?

For me I'll download what I can get my hands on unless they are things which require legitimate products. So online gaming for example I would have to buy the game instead of pirating it. With music I generally download FLAC everyday but that doesn't stop me from forking out money going to see concerts and buying physical items such as clothing, art and other things.

Also as a musician wouldn't you want your music to be heard by the masses and if pirating was getting your music heard so be it. I'm not sure whether my opinion is likely to change should I ever become a musician but you see my point.

« Last edited by *smithy* on Feb 14th 2010 »

Damn good point
If you're only in it for the money, you deserve to get ripped off.
And, as stated before, they'll get's loads of money from other stuff, so no worries

CRAZY CHEATS said:

Damn good point
If you're only in it for the money, you deserve to get ripped off.
And, as stated before, they'll get's loads of money from other stuff, so no worries

That doesn't justify stealing from someone. If you robbed a bank, you could say that they deserve it and that they have plenty of money, but that would not make it right.

*smithy* said:

For me I'll download what I can get my hands on unless they are things which require legitimate products. So online gaming for example I would have to buy the game instead of pirating it. With music I generally download FLAC everyday but that doesn't stop me from forking out money going to see concerts and buying physical items such as clothing, art and other things.

Also as a musician wouldn't you want your music to be heard by the masses and if pirating was getting your music heard so be it. I'm not sure whether my opinion is likely to change should I ever become a musician but you see my point.

But as a musician you also want to pay for things like instruments and studio time. Food, clothing, and shelter are also good.

If I said that I stole breakfast everyday, but it's okay because I pay for lunch, I'm sure this discussion would go totally differently.

Both the examples made by Patriot and Ju are in a completely different context.
I'm pretty sure it's been said before, but if you doodled something amazing, would prefer it to be bought be an art gallery for 1 million, and it to be viewed by hundreds of people, or to be bought by a single art collector for two million, and maybe a dozen people get to see it.

Maybe I was a tad extreme saying "if you're in it for the money you deserve to get ripped off", but the genral idea (in a less extreme sense) is the same.

I suppose that is true in some sense but personally (it might be that I'm just greedy) but I would rather take the two million dollar option. I can't speak for the artists, but I don't think it is right to make their choice for them by pirating their songs.

CRAZY CHEATS said:

I'm pretty sure it's been said before, but if you doodled something amazing, would prefer it to be bought be an art gallery for 1 million, and it to be viewed by hundreds of people, or to be bought by a single art collector for two million, and maybe a dozen people get to see it.

The point is that it's the artist's decision, not anyone else's.

Exactly, the artist is the only one who should be able to say whether or not their album can be given away for free. Buyers (or thieves) like you or me can not say whether they should let people have them without paying.

Patriot X said:

Exactly, the artist is the only one who should be able to say whether or not their album can be given away for free. Buyers (or thieves) like you or me can not say whether they should let people have them without paying.

But because of the restrictive nature of many record labels, the artist often can't make that choice. Several established artists have given away their albums for free, or given them away with a suggestion that people pay whatever they want for the album. But they've only been able to do so once their contracts with their record label have expired and they're allowed to do so.

I don't deny that people who would buy the albums if there wasn't such an easy alternative who then proceed never to support the artists in any way are a blight on the music industry, and many artists would look down on those so-called fans. But if you download a band's album, like it, and then proceed to go see them live, buy a couple of t-shirts and maybe a poster, I don't think many bands would particularly mind that they didn't get payment for the album (especially as people who buy merchandise will often buy newer merchandise as well when it's released, and people who like attending live shows will usually try and attend any time a band they like plays locally). Indeed, they probably make more money off that type of person than off a person who buys an album but then decides not to get any merchandise and can't be bothered to see the band live.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that buying an album isn't a way to support the music you like, but there's plenty of other ways too. This is why some artists speak out saying that they don't especially mind people downloading their albums.

But Catharsis, as soon as a label signs a band, they speak on behalf of the band whether the band likes it or not. Illegally downloading something is wrong, not because it is illegal, but because it simply is wrong.

YoSoyJu said:

But Catharsis, as soon as a label signs a band, they speak on behalf of the band whether the band likes it or not. Illegally downloading something is wrong, not because it is illegal, but because it simply is wrong.

While I realise that my attempt at playing Devil's Advocate isn't likely to succeed and my arguments aren't especially strong, that post isn't exactly great either. You've basically said "Illegal downloading is wrong because it is wrong". I'm left with no choice but to come back with the equally tautological counterargument, which is that there's nothing wrong with illegal downloading because there's nothing wrong with it.

I see your point. It was more of just a thought to distance myself from the point of illegality, which I don't really care about.

celebs have already got enough money so whydo they need more so i say it isnt wrong like the haiti earthquake celebs have got proberly more money than the rest of the world and normal people gave proberly like 20 million per country when alls celebs do is make a song so basiclly its just normal people giving money again

bowow said:

celebs have already got enough money so whydo they need more so i say it isnt wrong like the haiti earthquake celebs have got proberly more money than the rest of the world and normal people gave proberly like 20 million per country when alls celebs do is make a song so basiclly its just normal people giving money again

So it would be okay to steal a TV, as long as you only steal from a rich person's house?

yh they might have hundreds kinda like robin hood

« Last edited by bowow on Mar 1st 2010 »

Yes it`s technically wrong, but then I`m not going to spend over a dollar to buy a song I like. I`m thrilled to purchase music off itunes, and I probably would always download music off itunes if they had not increased the prices. If I have the money I`m going to buy the songs, if I don`t then I`ll download them in another, cheaper way. It`s not hurting anybody, and while I would like to support the bands I like, sometimes I can`t buy the music. So instead I recommend music I like, I show music to friends, and I will be making music videos with music I like. Advertisement I`d say is an equal trade.

i always buy music and if i can i buy films but films are getting to expensive to buy or even go the cinema and watch so if i can i will buy a film but if icant then i get a copyrighted one any way arent films supposed to be for people to watch and enjoy not to put money in peoples pockets

The problem is that it is not up to you to decide what films should be for. The reason that companies like disney make movies is to make money.