Referring to the post on http://isohunt.com/
Quote:
File sharers share different kinds of content. We can divide these different kinds into four types.
A. There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD, these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who would. The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead of purchasing.
B. There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he's not heard of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed. If the friend recommending the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased.
C. There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a solid weekend "recalling" old songs. She was astonished at the range and mix of content that was available.) For content not sold, this is still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is zero--the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s 45-rpm records to a local collector.
D. Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.
And based on comments here and elsewhere, one I'm reminded I've heard before, I venture to add a 5th case:
UPDATED wrote:
E. Those who use sharing networks to download what they already bought in another digital form. Aka. format shifting, for various reasons including DRM or for backup purposes. Examples include:
End Quote
So, group B are also so called pirates because they copy copyrighted material without authorization. However, I doubt any company would complain about such essentially free advertising. Therefore, morally they are not doing anything wrong and nobody would really start a lawsuit against them. The right to sample before buying is important. Many times people buy songs, movies, games that they cannot preview or if they can preview they are not really given the true taste of the product but a false teaser. So they are hustled into paying for something that end of not liking. How much money have you spent on movies you did not like? Even going to cinema does not guarantee a good movie. Sure there are differences in taste but sometimes even cinemas show movies that 99% of the audience will agree are meaningless and provided no pleasure. Why let others con you into giving them your money for making something that is not worth the money? I know many people who first watch a movie and then pay for it. They first play a game and then pay for it. Is this illegal? Most definitely it is, but is it immoral? I would say most defintitely it is NOT because it gives you choice and disables con artists from making something that has no substance, flashing it around with marketing and then conning you into giving them over you hard earnt money so that they can get rich without really having any talents but being tricksters.
Group C could really be divided into 2 groups - those who download content that is no longer available for sale and those who download because the purchase cost is too high. Again, if you download
Slashdot Mirror
Referring to the post on http://isohunt.com/ Quote: File sharers share different kinds of content. We can divide these different kinds into four types. A. There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD, these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who would. The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead of purchasing. B. There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he's not heard of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed. If the friend recommending the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased. C. There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a solid weekend "recalling" old songs. She was astonished at the range and mix of content that was available.) For content not sold, this is still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is zero--the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s 45-rpm records to a local collector. D. Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away. And based on comments here and elsewhere, one I'm reminded I've heard before, I venture to add a 5th case: UPDATED wrote: E. Those who use sharing networks to download what they already bought in another digital form. Aka. format shifting, for various reasons including DRM or for backup purposes. Examples include: End Quote So, group B are also so called pirates because they copy copyrighted material without authorization. However, I doubt any company would complain about such essentially free advertising. Therefore, morally they are not doing anything wrong and nobody would really start a lawsuit against them. The right to sample before buying is important. Many times people buy songs, movies, games that they cannot preview or if they can preview they are not really given the true taste of the product but a false teaser. So they are hustled into paying for something that end of not liking. How much money have you spent on movies you did not like? Even going to cinema does not guarantee a good movie. Sure there are differences in taste but sometimes even cinemas show movies that 99% of the audience will agree are meaningless and provided no pleasure. Why let others con you into giving them your money for making something that is not worth the money? I know many people who first watch a movie and then pay for it. They first play a game and then pay for it. Is this illegal? Most definitely it is, but is it immoral? I would say most defintitely it is NOT because it gives you choice and disables con artists from making something that has no substance, flashing it around with marketing and then conning you into giving them over you hard earnt money so that they can get rich without really having any talents but being tricksters. Group C could really be divided into 2 groups - those who download content that is no longer available for sale and those who download because the purchase cost is too high. Again, if you download