Legality and Age for Media

A while ago, we had the discussion of legality about using P2P programs like bittorrent. Some us view it as acceptable, others don't, and some others view only certain aspects of it acceptable. Based on that argument, I thought how long do you think needs to be waited before various media becomes acceptable for obtaining a free electronic copy of it. There is the obvious stipulation that there is no income to be made from the media and it is only for personal use.

My opinion on this issue is that once a movie is available on public television, then it becomes acceptable. Also games and software are acceptable after 5 or more years depending on if a) there is no equivalent product like the King Quest Series DVD being sold or b)the company is no longer making any money on the product. If I wanted to download a copy of Windows 95, then it wouldn't affect Microsoft sales at all.

As I mentioned in the other thread, I kind of view it as I do the library. Sales are certainly being lost so I get the piracy thing, but it has also been shown that the majority of people who download things actually purchase more than the average consumer. I've certainly purchased far more items than I've ever downloaded.

That said, I do have some moral quibbles with downloading brand-new products which are available at the store. At least buy one of the songs or a copy of the comic or something. However, if it is old and the original artist is dead, I don't actually have any issue whatsoever. No one in Nelson Riddle's orchestra ever got royalties from Sinatra's recordings and all the artists associated with those works who *did* benefit are dead, so I don't have a lot of qualms about people downloading things like that.

Being on public TV shouldn't be a determiner, I don't think, because the artists involved are still getting paid for that. The superstars don't need the money, but everyone else who worked on that movie should get a taste if they're eligible for residuals. Basically you're screwing the little guy who needs it the most.

If it's not otherwise available, however, I don't see a problem with downloading it.

I really hate it when they lump BitTorrent with other P2P programs because it's really just a clever download protocall that allows someone to distribute a large file to lots of people using very little personal bandwidth. It doesn't list what's out there, it doesn't provide a search, it's simply a way to transfer a file. But that's a separate issue.

As for what you suggested, no. Just because something has been publicly shown or is no longer available doesn't mean the owners have given up their rights to make money on it.

If you apply your TV example to music then as soon as a song is played on the radio then it should be free to download. Gee a found a copy of that book in my public library, guess that means I can download a copy for free for my Kindle, right?

As for "abandonware", GoG, Good Old Games, has created a business model around the concept of polishing up old DOS games to run on modern hardware. They make money and I'm sure some of that is kicked back to the original game owners or they would have been shut down soon after they started. And a lot of these games haven't been making money for their owners for a while before GoG started.

Also for software in general, you are buying a license, not a copy of it. The disks, DVD, CD, download, memory stick is simply a means to provide you with a copy of the software but permission to use it is a separate issue. E-books are following the same model with Amazon having the ability to revoke access and refunding your money.

It costs money to produce books, movies, music and software. Their creators have the right to make as much money off of their works as the public is willing to give them. If the public doesn't want to pay them, by getting there works for free or through an overactive used marketplace (GameStop) then guess what happens. It takes the incentive out of making new books, movies, music and software.

Now I have no problems with subscription services. Pay $X for access rights to this large library of stuff. Or a digital store that will allow me to purchase a copy of something and allow me to access it anywhere at anytime. The online streaming NetFlix service for example. Why should I have a wall of my living room devoted to DVDs when I can access the same material over my TV anytime I want for $8 a month? And it is obviously working too well because the major studios have forced NetFlix to give DVDs 30 days worth of sale time before they become available to the service.

I've think we've reached the Napster generation, people who always thought music was always free online from one source or another.

There are many issues...

For games... in all reality... most people buy their games at game stop used and as such they are not giving any money to the makers and thus it makes no difference to the makers whether you buy the game used or torrented...

For movies... it depends on your personal habbits. I can't get out to the movies and thus for me no money is lost or gained from just straight viewing, however, money can still be gained/lost by me giving my opinion which neutralizes whether it's ok or not, but then I buy movies i like on DVD sooo it then allows me to say that the overall process adds money to that market and thus the torrenting/streaming is perfectly alright from day one. However for someone that watches movies at the theatre a lot and simply doesn't want to pay for it that is a different story because that is taking money out of the hands of the makers...

And that pretty much applies to all media... more or less it is a matter of would you be giving money to the artist or not if the torrent was not possible? If not, then torrenting is fine. If yes, then torrenting is not.

Father Xmas and Local Man already summed up my feelings but I will just add - it is not the software itself that the OP should be questioning. The software itself is not inherently illegal, nor should it be. It is the use of that software to obtain or distribute materials illegally that is the problem.

it bothers me only when the same guy does it multiple times after it being explained.

And speaking on it legally is useless anyways because it's a 2 second convo that everyone knows the answer to ...

"Is torrenting x legal"
"no"

where x represents most things people ask about... obviously some things are legal to torrent.

Given the FIRST WORD IN THE THREAD TITLE is the word "Legality", the onus is NOT on me to assume you don't mean legality in your statements.

It is on YOU to explain if you are not talking about the stated subject.




-np

corporate media jr: sir, we have ants approaching the pikinik table.
corporate media sr: crush them all, and then send them the bill for the service.


ants: hey, there's food. let's go! foot incoming! crap, we lost mikey! but there's an invoice here?!


the neglected portion of game theory/pirates: not all the pirates are rational, they are pirates (killing/theft/etc is standard practice), and they all have cutlasses. to assume that the pirates at the top are rational beings and all others are not, or to assume that the pirates at the top have any interest in maintaining a stable crew is likely to cause a complete loss further down the chain as one's life is now in jeopardy, not the paycheck.

to assume the pirates at the bottom are not rational and all other are, or to assume that crew has any interest in maintaining a stable command, is likely to cause a complete loss of the command crew as their lives are now in jeopardy, not just the profits.

a failure to recognize a threat to one's life as opposed to a temporary threat of one's paycheck/profit will cause one to lose one's life.

a failure on the part of the 'command' crew will cause them to lose the crew, on a regular basis, unless the pool is large enough to consistently replenish the crew. at that point, giving them anything becomes a losing strategy for the 'command' crew as regular crew is essentially free. then all the 'command' crew pirates on all the other boats start to do the same thing, and reach a point where a starved crew decides all the command staff needs to take a long walk off a short board.

a failure on the part of the crew will likely cause them to lose the ship, and everyone/thing on board as well.

until a reasonable equilibrium exists between give and take of the entire crew, then the ship, or it's ability to operate, will be lost. regardless of any attempt to ensure the crew is kept in check by hook or by crook, history has been sensitive to excess on either side.

/yes, it's early here, maybe too much metaphor...and on a personal note, i download tv shows regularly, the occasional song and movie, and rarely a game. the game is generally used as a temp demo, and if i like it enough for repeat play, i'll buy it. ditto for a/v media. i will not, however, hand over cash for every bit of shiny being rammed down my throat, which is why i d/l tv especially, the lack of advertisements, and support good shows with dollars by buying the seasons. r.i.p. 'the middleman'.

Too true. If not, creative types won't be able to do it full time, reducing both the amount and the quality of entertainment for everyone.