Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

I'd be interested to hear the opinions of the forum about the ethics of this.

"It's illegal, therefore it's wrong to do it." - You are, of course, entitled to this viewpoint. If this is more or less your viewpoint, or part of it, please don't be long winded about it! It amounts to stating the obvious and adds nothing new to this debate. On the other hand it is your democratic right to ramble about what doesn't need saying, hell know's I've done it often enough, so do what you want.

Just because it's freely capable of being duplicated, doesn't mean the creator isn't due some financial return on their effort to create it...

The only grey area in my opinion is where something has ALREADY been aired on TV, and you just forgot to record it to watch later - then I have no qualms about borrowing a recording from someone to watch.

J

And just what does that last lline in the poll mean?

(Voice rising to Banshee volume)

A MAN OWNING THE RIGHTS TO A WOMAN, WHAT CENTURY DO YOU LIVE IN?

jtaylor wrote:Just because it's freely capable of being duplicated, doesn't mean the creator isn't due some financial return on their effort to create it...

The only grey area in my opinion is where something has ALREADY been aired on TV, and you just forgot to record it to watch later - then I have no qualms about borrowing a recording from someone to watch.

J

Taking the most obvious example - music - artists (the creators) make about 20p per album (the most optimistic figure I've seen is 50p, but this is exceptional). For this reason an increasing number of them are asking fans to steal the album and pay to see them at shows instead and maybe buy a T-shirt (which you can only afford to do if you don't spend £16 on an album). When you go to a show, huge portion of the profit goes to the artists, of the T-shirt you buy from their merchandise stall 100% of the profit is theirs.

If a song has already been aired on the radio, that's also fair game to get off a mate. Glad we're in agreement on that one...

Re. music, and radio-play - yes, you can record off the radio, but if EVERYONE did that, what would be the logical consequence??

If we resign ourselves to that, then why do the recording artists bother releasing the album for download on iTunes, or to buy in the shops?
Why not just release them as downloadable mp3 files on an open website, with no copyright etc?
That way they'd get maximum number of fans, and hence many more would want to come to their concerts/buy their T-shirts?

Morality/fair-play comes in here somewhere - if we want musicians/artists to continue to make a living from what they do (and hence continue doing it) then we have to accept that we as individuals must pay something to help support them.

Similarly, when negotiating a selling price, we should always accept that a business needs to make a reasonable profit, otherwise what's in it for them?

Ultimately it's extremely selfish to want something-for-nothing in life...

I've numbered your points to make answering them easier

jtaylor wrote:1) Re. music, and radio-play - yes, you can record off the radio, but if EVERYONE did that, what would be the logical consequence??

2) If we resign ourselves to that, then why do the recording artists bother releasing the album for download on iTunes, or to buy in the shops?
Why not just release them as downloadable mp3 files on an open website, with no copyright etc?
That way they'd get maximum number of fans, and hence many more would want to come to their concerts/buy their T-shirts?

3) Morality/fair-play comes in here somewhere - if we want musicians/artists to continue to make a living from what they do (and hence continue doing it) then we have to accept that we as individuals must pay something to help support them.

Similarly, when negotiating a selling price, we should always accept that a business needs to make a reasonable profit, otherwise what's in it for them?

Ultimately it's extremely selfish to want something-for-nothing in life...

1) So piracy is okay as long as only some people do it? (And, yes, recording from the radio is piracy. The music industry made the same fuss and arguments as they do now when the home tape recorder gained popularity. Unfounded, it would seem...)

2) They do release them on an open website for free download. Donation option available but not compulsory. Radiohead are the first huge international band to have done. For an artist to be able to release an album in this way, they have to be able to buy their way out of a contract, or already be out of their contract. It's something we'll see more and more as time goes on. Once again, the obstacle is the management not the worker or consumer.

3) Artists would continue to get money by such releases, and also touring etc (REAL work).

What would Jesus do?
At the sermon on the mount, Jesus
a) decided to uphold the rights of the producers of the food, safeguard the baking and fishing industry, and eat the bread and fish himself; or
b) with complete and utter disregard to market forces and the incomes of the food producers/revenue that would be lost due to falling sales, shamelessly copied the bread and fish to several thousand recipients

I hope Jesus has a good lawyer

This link may be of interest:

http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSh ... ch2004.pdf

For those that can't be bothered to read through, this study concludes that file sharing has "no statistically significant effect" on record sales.

I rarely use P2P, but when I do it's usually for 'convenience'. For example: I have been looking for a music documentary on the web and was unable to find it. However, I managed to find a downloadable file of the video (and also information that the video will become available on DVD in January 2008). It is most likely that I will be buying the DVD when it comes out.

The Radiohead download that Hendrik mentioned is clearly a 'loss-leader' which is promoting their 'special edition' version of the album (aimed at the collectors market). A very clever marketing plan...

Hendrik wrote:1) So piracy is okay as long as only some people do it? (And, yes, recording from the radio is piracy. The music industry made the same fuss and arguments as they do now when the home tape recorder gained popularity. Unfounded, it would seem...)

No - I'm suggesting piracy is wrong full-stop. If something is released onto the market with certain agreed conditions, then we should not break the law (as agreed by our elected representatives). Accepted, the radio example was probably a bad one, as I was never clear on the legality of recording something (in poor quality) for your own use, but now understand it's illegal and hence wouldn't now do it.

Hendrik wrote:2) They do release them on an open website for free download. Donation option available but not compulsory. Radiohead are the first huge international band to have done. For an artist to be able to release an album in this way, they have to be able to buy their way out of a contract, or already be out of their contract. It's something we'll see more and more as time goes on. Once again, the obstacle is the management not the worker or consumer.

Yes, some do release them on an open website. But, the bands which signed-up to the usual paid-for distribution mechanism agreed a price and a set of conditions with a business partner/organisation (the distributor). What's now happening is that they're realising the cost/business model can change, and that there are new options. Yes, they have to wait or buy themselves out of their contracts - that's business! It wouldn't be fair on the distributor if they could just break their agreement and walk away.

Hendrik wrote:3) Artists would continue to get money by such releases, and also touring etc (REAL work).

Agreed - hence, I hope more bands do it this way and make money in this way.

Hendrik wrote:What would Jesus do?
At the sermon on the mount, Jesus
a) decided to uphold the rights of the producers of the food, safeguard the baking and fishing industry, and eat the bread and fish himself; or
b) with complete and utter disregard to market forces and the incomes of the food producers/revenue that would be lost due to falling sales, shamelessly copied the bread and fish to several thousand recipients

Or c) demonstrated that if everyone shares what they've brought to the party, everyone has enough to go around! Depends on the way it's interpreted, at least based on some of the discussion I've read...

Hendrik wrote:I hope Jesus has a good lawyer

I still find it funny that "Act of God" is used in the insurance business!

Incidentally, 'The Man Who Sued God' is a very worthy film starring Billy Connelly, about the insurance companies' 'Act of God' escape clause.

As for downloading out of convenience, same for me. I've just downloaded two Offspring albums which I already own on CD, but I can't be bothered to leave the computer to look for them, and converting them to mp3 wold take half an hour as opposed to about 10 minutes to download them. I defy anyone to beat my laziness!
No pretending that that's normal for most people, of course, most downloading is for new material.

The legal argument is a very steadfast one. But as with other failing prohibitions, it may be time for a policy rethink. DRM and other technology can't work, once it's cracked it's useless. As far as I know, all DRM encryptions known to date are already obsolete. It seems some fairly radical thinking outside the box is needed. Any suggestions?

As for the sermon on the mount, no one other than two or three people brought anything to the party did they? I thought that was the whole point of the story. Two loaves and five fish, don't remember anything about Pringles, guacamole, Diet Coke, cheap wine and that weird foreign stuff no one quite trusts enough to actually drink...

I was refering to this type of discussion which crops up from time-to-time:-

Discussion: Many Christians are scandalized today when they hear someone say that Jesus didn’t really multiply the loaves and fishes for the 5,000 people on a hillside in Galilee. Some contemporary scholars say that this Gospel account in Jn. 6:1-14 was merely a story made up by the early Christian community in order to express Christ’s message on the importance of sharing and serving those in need. They speculate that the story of Jesus’ miraculously multiplying loaves and fishes probably was not an actual event that occurred in history.
http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=22

Although Digital Rights Mangement can be considered obsolete due to its 'crackability', it's still another step that gets in the way of the 'cracker'/downloader, as decoding is a time-consuming process in itself; taking away the 'convenience' of illegal copying.

If iTunes could monopolise the industry (they have up to around 80% of the market haven't got any solid back up on that one, was informed by a Music Business lecturer) then perhaps they could install some kind of uncrackable DRM management into the actual iPod? However, this wouldn't necessarily stop P2P sharing. Is the Internet service provider to blame in any way? It's interesting that Branson has sold Virgin record stores and the label and now runs Virgin Media (Internet Service Provider).... It appears that he is cashing in on people that are downloading music illegally (and legally) and therefore diverting the 'music industry' revenue his way. If so, he's still making money out of the music; smart guy!

Hendrik, I recommend "Promises to Keep - Technology, Law and the Future of Entertainment" by William W. Fisher III (it should be on Amazon) if you haven't read it already.

englishangel wrote:And just what does that last lline in the poll mean?

(Voice rising to Banshee volume)

A MAN OWNING THE RIGHTS TO A WOMAN, WHAT CENTURY DO YOU LIVE IN?

I'm with you on this one,Mary. What a nerve.

Thank you Maggie, file sharing is relatively minor compared with that.

englishangel wrote:And just what does that last lline in the poll mean?

(Voice rising to Banshee volume)

A MAN OWNING THE RIGHTS TO A WOMAN, WHAT CENTURY DO YOU LIVE IN?

Hendrik must be winding us up. Musn't he? Musn't he?

He has ruined his chances with the lovely Fiona now!

Munch

Fiona Bruce was being used as an analogy, what with the long running joke of her random appearances in polls on this forum. Glad none of that was wasted on you two.

Yes the concept of owning a woman is absurd. The concept of owning ANYONE is absurd. Whether it be owning mine workers in the Third World or owning a rock group. Another point which I'm glad wasn't wasted on you two.

And if you read the 'offending' sentence again, it talks about owning the rights to people. Not the people themselves. Glad we're of one opinion that owning the rights to someone is also a crap idea.
Go forth and multiply! By that I mean share things over the web, obviously, two women would have a hard time multiplying. Without a turkey baster anyway.

JT: you mean the Bible isn't real? This is probably the most earth-shattering day of my life...