De discussie kan al worden aangewakkerd met bestaande discussie die ik alvast wens te injecteren hier:
Een interessant artikel dat een interessante discussie op reddit heeft veroorzaakt.
Enkele citaten uit die discussie op reddit (nadruk door mij toegevoegd):
(bron)it might be because I was slightly older when I got into downloading music? I have no idea.
I downloaded and still do download a literal shit ton of music. for me is it not about convenience or cost it is about EXPLORATION.
my first year with napster (the original napster the one that started all this) I bought more CD's that first year than I had ever purchased in my entire life combined. no joke. I kind of went a bit nuts. I was finally finding SO MUCH MUSIC I wanted music I would never have found otherwise were it not for napster.
maybe it is just me but ownership is important to me. Property Rights are important to me.
you can not own an mp3. not the same way you can own a CD.
I don't pay $10 to $15 for the music. if I just wanted the music I would just torrent the damned stuff. Most of the time you can find a decent 320kbit torrent instead of the "crap" people typically listen too. (yes it is a big difference if you have a system capable of playing it right especially for the kind of music I tend to lean toward)
I want to possess it. because all rights are derived from property. no property no rights. I know it might sound corny but that really is how I see it.
I don't OWN IT until I am holding it in my hands. I don't rent. I don't "license" (no matter what they THINK I do I do not recognize "licensing" for personal ownership)
I am one of those weirdo's who would not buy a DVD or DVD Player until I could "rip" dvd's with DRM you can't own it until you can rip it without someone elses permission. I can not describe how aggravated that "FBI warning" that you can not skip is. I would rip them SOLELY to remove that. it was not the warning. it was the reaching INTO MY HOME and taking "control" of my property in my own home and dictating to me "we are in control here" and I would not have any of that. ever.
I just started my BluRay collection this past holiday season. why? because now I can "RIP" them. I have never ripped a bluray yet (no point I Just download the 1080p torrent much easier and they probably would do a better job than me) but "I CAN" which means "I can" own it. so I don't mind buying them now and have a rather massive collection already (kind of went nuts with all the killer deals over the holiday's)
but downloading is like the most massive real time on demand radio station in all history.
on napster I would find someone with a T1 or Frac T1 (rare in those days) and simply slurp down his entire hard disk of music.
and then just "browse" the music. yick yick yick WOH what is that. FInd more of that.
go to FYE/Tower and buy the CD (this was before amazon which is what I do now)
I lost count of how many CD's I had to hunt high and low to order from japan or thailand or korea. figuring out how to fill out a non english form and hoping I got it right (hint the "coding" is usually english so I would look at the HTML code to figure out what fields were)
yesasia was a wonderful resource when it came out.
Point is. I bought a LOT OF CD's thanks to downloading and still do. when I slurp down some music and decide I like it I whip out my phone click amazon and click order. less than 48 hours later it is in my mail box.
Piracy does not hurt music. it helps music. what is hurts is LABELS which is why they fight so hard against it.
LABELS survive by control. piracy removes that control.
(bron)The entire moral exercise of the article is found in just these two paragraphs:In common theft, the owner of property is entirely deprived of its use, as well as their ability to share it and dispose of it as they choose. Common theft is zero-sum: when I steal your handbag, my gain really is your loss.
The same is not true when I download a digital file of your copyrighted property. In downloading your film, I have not excluded you from its use, or your ability to benefit from it. I have simply circumvented your ability to exclude me from its use. To draw an analogy, this seems more like trespassing on your land than taking your land away from you
The problem lies in the second paragraph, specifically "...or your ability to benefit from it".
In terms of entertainment, if the sole purpose of its creation is to make money in exchange for consuming it, then by consuming it without paying for it you have excluded the creator's ability to benefit from it in the way it was intended.
That leads to what is a much more murky moral and intellectual gray area:
Those two questions are the heart of the debate about the morality of piracy, and I wish the article had gone into greater detail on.
- Would you have otherwise paid for it had you no other choice?
- If no, is it then immoral to consume the content? (this also includes whether you feel the price was worth its derived value)
Question #1 is the key question. Going by the Game of Thrones example, I don't have HBO and I don't have an interest in Game of Thrones (I'm sure it's a great show, but I don't have enough time to watch it). I am a non-customer as far as HBO is concerned, they will simply never see any of my money. Were I to pirate the show, HBO has not actually lost a sale or any earning potential as a result. From a financial point of view, my piracy of the show is irrelevant.
But that leads to the next question: if I was not willing to pay for the show, do I have a moral right to derive benefit from it without paying for it, given the intention of the creators was that in exchange for temporarily improving my life in some small way, I would give them some of my money. What then is the morality of a scenario where I benefit from their work, but never give them the benefit they seek? Unlike the article's SILLY trespassing analogy, the real analogy is closer to borrowing a neighbor's tools, but then being stingy about letting them borrow my tools. Technically it doesn't hurt my neighbor to lend me tools when he doesn't need them, even if he gets nothing in exchange, but am I an immoral asshole when I say he can't borrow my tools?
And that leads to the next question: what is considered a FAIR exchange? In a traditional commercial exchange, the seller dictates the terms of the sale, and the buyer either agrees or walks away. $300 for a box of nails is a rip off, but those are the terms. Either I get the box of nails or I don't. The fairness of the exchange is limited to being able to just walk away from the transaction if I don't believe the value is right for me. But speaking of value and fairness and morality, how about this question? Why does a transaction have to be binary? Should the seller have full control over the terms of the sale where my only recourse is to walk away? Is there any moral room for the buyer to dictate the terms of value? In terms of physical goods, no, not really. Scarcity is what it is. But digital goods? That changes things entirely.
In a digital product/service exchange, scarcity and cost of materials is almost a non-issue. Cost to create is still there and needs to be recouped, but that's a one-time production cost. But that leaves the relationship between buyer and seller in a different place. If I were to buy a game for $60, and I don't like it, then I will perceive it as a ripoff at $60. To me, maybe the experience was worth $5. In that situation, do I have moral standing to say "I am only going to pay you $5, because that's all I felt the experience was worth to me"?
To bring that back to piracy and morality, my stance on the matter is this:
You have a moral obligation to pay the content creator what you feel the experience was worth to you. If you watch Season 1 of Game of Thrones and hate it, then morally you don't owe HBO a damn thing. If you watch Season 1 of Game of Thrones and love it, then morally, you owe HBO what you feel the experience was worth.
And that includes the service model, by the way. If HBO Go's streaming video is atrocious and buggy, and you had to go out of your way to buy an Apple product to watch it on (or you waited for the exclusivity to be over, or you were already paying for cable in order to get access to the HBO package), then you have every right to factor those things into what you feel the value/experience of the show was worth to you.
To continue my stance on things based on questions I've posed:
Btw, this also brings into focus another aspect of digital content that differs from physical goods. With physical goods, you pay up front and return later if you feel that the value was not worthwhile. With digital goods, you can't just return them if you feel they were poor quality - you've already consumed the content, and you can't unconsume it.
- If you pirated something just because you could, but were willing to pay for it otherwise, you're an immoral asshole.
- If you pirated something, really enjoyed it (regardless of whether you planned to buy it or not), and then didn't seek to repay its creator for the benefit it gave you in some way, you're an immoral asshole.
- If the content and/or access to the content was shit, by all means, don't feel guilty about not compensating its creator for it.
This is why I feel digital content pricing needs a "consume first, pay later" pricing model. With physical goods, there is little risk to a poor quality product because you can always return it or get it fixed under warranty. But digital goods have no similar safety nets for consumers - consumers take on all of the risk.
Nu enkele citaten van medeforumgangers:
r2504 schreef:Muziek/films/series zijn producten net zoals een stoel, een kast en een PC... wat er bij jou niet ingeklopt geraakt is dat daar een vergoeding tegenover staat en je dit niet zomaar "neemt".
Een fysiek object kan je altijd terugbrengen als de aankoop ervan jou niet zint, dat kan je nooit met een auteursrechtelijk bescherm werk. Je krijgt niet de kans te proeven van hetgeen waar je zogezegd je zuurverdiende centen aan moet geven. Piraterij kan zo'n mensen die kans geven.