Downloading pirated software, music, TV shows, films, games etc.

[Rainbow Dash]

What do you guys think of it? Do you do it?

Honestly, I do it. I don't really see why I would pay money for something I can get for free for the same quality. Also, a lot of TV shows I watch I can't even watch here, or I'd have to wait months for it to air on British TV. Sometimes it's even easier to download something for free than paying for it :| I can't find every episode of an anime I like on DVD, the only way I can watch them all is to download them for free.

The only time I pay for music is if it's a charity single.

[Squidgy]

I used to download music all the time, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I still buy cd's though. As great as downloading music is there's just something about having your favourite band's cd.

[TheNumber42]

I personally don't see anything wrong with it. I download things I would never pay for anyway, so it's not like they are losing any money. If there is something I think deserves the money, I'll still pay for it to support them. I always pay for games and music, for example. Though honestly for the music that's mostly a way to keep myself in check and not get so much music that I can't listen to it all, I prefer to be able to hear any song on my MP3 player and know who it is by and what it's called (which still isn't easy with 2500+ songs ).

[dr2005]

I think it is wrong - mainly because, as I explained in this thread, if you take something on general sale without paying for it, or reverse-engineer something for that end, you are committing an act of theft, pure and simple. The fact that it's available for free elsewhere is not an excuse in my view - you could just as easily steal your weekly grocery shop as opposed to paying for it, but would you expect to be allowed to?

If someone can provide a valid reason why it should be distinguished from any other form of theft, then I may concede this point. I haven't come across one in over four years, though.

[youbetheanchor]

I'm fine with any form to be honest. When it comes to music, they make little anyway - In fact A Day To Remember encourages people to pirate the albums & buy merch instead.

When it comes to games I buy them. But I have nothing against pirating it.

I'm also a big supporter of pirated software like Photoshop, Dreamweaver, SAM Broadcaster, simply because their pricing is beyond ludicrous.

[Rainbow Dash]

I agree, the pricing is fucking ridiculous. It's is not worth £500 AT ALL.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Adobe-Creati...=pd_cp_sw_h__3

I could get a computer cheaper than that.

Adobe are the real criminals to expect people to pay that. It's stupid. No wonder people download it illegally if it was cheaper more people would buy it.

[youbetheanchor]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Dash

Adobe are the real criminals to expect people to pay that. It's stupid. No wonder people download it illegally if it was cheaper more people would buy it.

Damn right. Even if it was half the price I would consider it. Just like Apple, though, Adobe has a monopoly (in a sense) and will charge as much as they want.

[Baxter]

I do it without thinking twice, but that's because people just want free shit, plain and simple. I mean, I download everything without a care in the world, but I still think it's technically 'wrong'.

Yes, the consumer is supposed to dictate the price on a product, if it's too much he/she go's elsewhere. But the market is pretty fucked up when businesses have to set their prices to compete with "free".

Also, nice Karl avatar Ceilidh

[Maverick.]

I will admit, I will download a hard to find mp3 of a band that nobody has heard of. But I wouldn't download anything mainstream or popular.

Same with movies, I usually download indie movies from the 90s and 80s. I don't really download the current features just to bootleg them.

I never download video games. I just buy them off of amazon or ebay. You can never trust thepiratebay, they sometimes upload hidden viruses.

I wouldn't steal from a video store, so I wouldn't download any illegal movies. It's the same principle.

[Rainbow Dash]

Karl <3333 funnily enough I'm download some XFM's with Karl right now in my defence you can't even buy those.

I've always been pretty lucky with torrents. I've never really had a nasty virus due to them. Plus, I'm on a Mac right now so the chances of me getting infected are pretty damn slim.

[TheNumber42]

Originally Posted by dr2005

I think it is wrong - mainly because, as I explained in this thread, if you take something on general sale without paying for it, or reverse-engineer something for that end, you are committing an act of theft, pure and simple. The fact that it's available for free elsewhere is not an excuse in my view - you could just as easily steal your weekly grocery shop as opposed to paying for it, but would you expect to be allowed to?

If someone can provide a valid reason why it should be distinguished from any other form of theft, then I may concede this point. I haven't come across one in over four years, though.

Well, there's always the argument that it costs them absolutely nothing when you "steal" a digital file. You could argue potential sales and BS like that, but when it comes down to it, they are out nothing because the file itself cost them no raw materials and likely wasn't hosted on their own server. Stealing a physical object, on the other hand, represents taking something that cost actual money to produce. A loaf of bread cost money to manufacture and ship to the store, for example. I think it's a totally different situation.

Though when it comes down to it, I couldn't care less whether it's right or wrong. Morals are all just societal constructs to make people behave. They really have no deeper meaning to me and, as such, walking all over them when it is beneficial to me doesn't bother me a bit.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TheNumber42

Well, there's always the argument that it costs them absolutely nothing when you "steal" a digital file. You could argue potential sales and BS like that, but when it comes down to it, they are out nothing because the file itself cost them no raw materials and likely wasn't hosted on their own server. Stealing a physical object, on the other hand, represents taking something that cost actual money to produce. A loaf of bread cost money to manufacture and ship to the store, for example. I think it's a totally different situation.

That seems to overlook the costs of the people actually creating the file in the first place, the hardware and software on which they did so, the electricity used to do so, the overheads of the facility, hosting costs etc...when you look into the detail of what actually goes into creating this file, it hardly costs them "absolutely nothing". Code doesn't write itself, music doesn't record itself, and TV/film doesn't make itself either. So for me that argument is a bit of a non-starter.

Originally Posted by TheNumber42

Though when it comes down to it, I couldn't care less whether it's right or wrong. Morals are all just societal constructs to make people behave. They really have no deeper meaning to me and, as such, walking all over them when it is beneficial to me doesn't bother me a bit.

All I can say to that is I wouldn't try that line in a court of law - it won't get you very far...

Originally Posted by Rainbow Dash

I agree, the pricing is fucking ridiculous. It's is not worth £500 AT ALL.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Adobe-Creati...=pd_cp_sw_h__3

I could get a computer cheaper than that.

Adobe are the real criminals to expect people to pay that. It's stupid. No wonder people download it illegally if it was cheaper more people would buy it.

In addition to the above about the cost of creating such software, look at it this way: how much would it cost you to learn how to code, produce software capable of replicating all of the functions within it, and get it to work with any file format you require it to do so? And how does that compare with the £500 asking price (or the £100 actual asking price if you qualify for the 80% discount it mentions on the page)?

Bottom line is, you're paying for the convenience of not having to create something like that from scratch yourself. It's market economics in action.

[youbetheanchor]

While your pricing argument does hold ground, there's no need to absurdly overprice.

Especially when GIMP is doing it free & open source. This is all not to mention how most "ideas" from Apple/Adobe are all stolen from jailbreakers and open sourcers.

[TheNumber42]

Originally Posted by dr2005

That seems to overlook the costs of the people actually creating the file in the first place, the hardware and software on which they did so, the electricity used to do so, the overheads of the facility, hosting costs etc...when you look into the detail of what actually goes into creating this file, it hardly costs them "absolutely nothing". Code doesn't write itself, music doesn't record itself, and TV/film doesn't make itself either. So for me that argument is a bit of a non-starter.

All I can say to that is I wouldn't try that line in a court of law - it won't get you very far...

No, it's not overlooking those at all. The file itself, what the person is actually stealing, cost them nothing. It's electronic data, nothing more. If the person never had any intention of buying the file, then they lost nothing. The cost of production can't be applied to non-physical object in the same way it could a book or a loaf of bread. It's a totally different situation because a file is not a physical entity. It's not like a book that they had to print and would take a direct loss on it if were stolen (cost of materials of the book, shipping the book, etc). At most they are losing out on potential revenue, and oftentimes the exposure that something gets because it was illegally downloaded leads to more sales than less (in my own anecdotal experience, at least).

And fair enough. I'm not terribly worried though.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TheNumber42

No, it's not overlooking those at all. The file itself, what the person is actually stealing, cost them nothing. It's electronic data, nothing more. If the person never had any intention of buying the file, then they lost nothing. The cost of production can't be applied to non-physical object in the same way it could a book or a loaf of bread. It's a totally different situation because a file is not a physical entity. It's not like a book that they had to print and would take a direct loss on it if were stolen (cost of materials of the book, shipping the book, etc). At most they are losing out on potential revenue, and oftentimes the exposure that something gets because it was illegally downloaded leads to more sales than less (in my own anecdotal experience, at least).

The file is the end product of those costs, and their sole means of recouping said costs, so claiming it "cost them nothing" is still inaccurate. They may be able to produce copies of it without cost (although I would still claim that is debatable in light of the hardware required to do so), but it is overshadowed by the broader production costs. Also, your claim that it is "non-physical" is with respect inaccurate as well, as it always exists on some form of storage media - hard drive, server, USB stick, CD/DVD etc. - and therefore has a physical element to it. What is more significant, however, in that such transactions you are not actually buying the file - as I pointed out in the SOPA thread, you are buying a licence to use the file as well, and by circumventing that element through piracy you are depriving them of legal ownership over their software. That does have a cost, in light of the issues already discussed, and that is very much theft.

[Koharuchan]

The only things I download are mp3 files, and only when I can't find the music anywhere else. I often have this problem though, because I love Japanese music. Even so, I don't download very often.

[Intoxication]

I download music. That's it.

[craz33me]

I'm not gonna lie I do it all the time.

[TigerTank77]

Let me just say this.

Piracy has never hurt a good band.
Piracy has never hurt a good game.
Piracy has never hurt a good movie.

If something is good, it's worth paying money for.
If it isn't, then people won't pay money for it. Most people who pirate movies and games fall into this category. They would not have payed for the product normally because they don't feel it's worth it.

Most companies and developers who blame piracy for their hard times, are doing so because they made a shitty product and are attempting to cover up for it.

[Brandon]

Here's my philosophy on pirating:

I've purchased a couple CD's and songs from lesser known musicians because they deserve more recognition than the artists who are well known and have accumulated millions of dollars from various concerts and whatnot. Bands like Dream Theater and Metallica...they're making plenty of money, and I think that the bands who aren't well known (but are decent) deserve some money as well. If Metallica comes out with a new CD, I don't buy the CD. However, if I find something on Pandora from a band that I've never even heard of that Youtube doesn't even have, I'll support it. I believe that music is created for expression and spreading that expression to people rather than making music that is created to make a profit. To me, that's kind of a bitch move. I want to feel good about the music I listen to rather than think about the composer being greedy when he makes a million dollars profit instead of two million.

[BDF]

Many "cyberspace products" are over priced like hell, music, films, software... especially some software.

I'll frequently illegally download something, to try it out fully. Listen to the music, see if I like it. Frequently enough, if I really like it, I'll genuinely buy the CD from Amazon. The only software that I like and respect enough out there to splash out supposedly extortionate amounts of money on, is FL Studio, but even then it's one of the cheapest of its kind, and at the same time one of the best.

It really depends on what price they set. Legal downloads, are FAR more reliable, no viruses, no fucking annoying old man porn and shit like that, no bugs or malfunctions usually. Plus the feeling that you're actually supporting something worthy of your support by paying money for it is also good. But legal downloads are out of the question if they're going to be mad expensive. It's daft marketing.

Besides... regarding music, music videos and even films frequently, you can get it a lot of them on youtube, and download it all with firefox plugins. Surely youtube polices this? No? I assume they do... so from that respect I can download what the hell I like through youtube and it's perfectly legal... and 99% of the time very fast and reliable, no old man porn!

[Nostalgia]

I download music illegally - If I can get it on Itunes I will, but some of the artists I like I cannot buy their music on Itunes and shops here do not seem to know who they are or stock their music, and when I go onto amazon it says it will cost £15. And it usually only one or two songs of theirs I want so I see no point in spending £15 on an album that I only want two songs from much easier to download it from an mp3 converter.