Free Downloads why not?

Yar in "The rhetorics and myths of anti-piracy campaigns: criminalization, moral pedagogy and capitalist property relations in the classroom" notes the many ways in which copyright industries attempt to challenge what they call "copyright theft" especially via the internet.
This highlights just how powerful the internet has become.
Why would people decide to leave the comfort of their homes to go watch a movie when they can do it in the comforts of their homes and if lucky in high quality without spending a cent?
There are two reasons why people would choose otherwise.
1. Is the experience achieved at the cinema which you can not get at home
2. Is peoples choice to not watch illegally downloaded movies
Yes copyright issues especially on the internet are getting worse and companies are losing Billions of dollars but is it mostly due to young people?
A UK based poll in 2004 found that 18-29 year olds owned pirated intellectual property of some type have young people really lost all morals? do they not care about the creative process, time, money and labour gone into making a movie, song or even game?
Most would say that they dont have enough money to buy the physical item from a store so do it illegally via the internet others would argue that everyone else is doing it so why not?
There is also the issue that when you download something from the internet the link is still there, others can download the same file an infinite number of times however when you take a physical object it no longer exists unless ofcourse its replaced but that particular movie or cd can no longer be purchased.
The truth is, downloading property of the internet has become not only easy but people can do so without being punished, why is it that people are less likely to steal a physical object from a store than download information off the internet...its simple there are less risks involved so why not??
Yes downloading other peoples property is bad, illegal and not moral does that mean people will no longer download files from the internet? No.
So until industries find a way to stop people from downloading illegally of the internet copyright issues will be a problem for a long time coming.

Exaggeration of Harm: Pirate Style

I download music and movies regularly.

I share downloaded music and movies with my friends.

They share it with me.

And I don't think there's anything illegal about that.

In Yar’s article he (or she?) talks about the differences between tangible goods and intangibles goods. I thoroughly agree with him on this matter and believe that by downloading music or movie is not stealing because you are not in actual fact taking something from someone and depriving them of its use or value. You are simply making another reproduced copy of it and that marks the difference between tangible and intangible. If on the other hand you were to make a reproduced copy with the intention of selling it for self profit, then that is another story altogether.

I honestly do not see what is so morally bad about piracy. Authorities and major anti-piracy associations make downloading seem like such a criminal act correlating it with acts of theft such as stealing a handbag from an old lady or stealing a car. That’s grand theft auto! I don’t think downloading is that major to be used as simile for stealing a car! Now is it just me or is that too far?

So i was looking up some anti-piracy ads on Youtube and came across this PRO-piracy ad. It’s pretty awesome and the song is very very catchy. Read the first comment, totally true.

Sharing is Caring: Pro-piracy Commercial - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orEhUEcxHeY&feature=related

Nice song. Graphics not so good. Maybe should download a better copy?

I found plenty of anti-piracy ads featuring celebrities. There were two that really stood out to me. The first includes an all-star cast of adult entertainers speaking out about how piracy is affecting their lives. Funny how we were on the subject of online pornography near the start of the course and to find this video links up to the beginning.

All-Star Anti-Piracy PSA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqW7fHPCdtk

The second Youtube clip I found stars a comedic genius talking about how piracy is wrong. I really like this actor so this clip kept me kinda on the fence on piracy but still didn't stop me from downloading.

Tenacious D on Piracy - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA&feature=related

Who is piracy really harming? The big industry giants and stars who have enough money as is or noone?

Don't be a douche and buy into anything these anti-piracy commercials are saying. It's jsut loud noise.

The Price We Pay to Enjoy Media

In my tutorial this week, we discussed (or argued) on the topic of copyrighting. However, someone in class made a good point about the pricing of CDs and DVDs being quite ridiculous and I definitely agree. I never really thought about it but now that it was mentioned, it has been bugging me.

On my usual trip to my favourite technology-filled store, I would enter, my eyes light up at all the new pretty gadgets, I look over the laptops, cellphones, games...to put it simply, it is my version of the Willy Wonka Factory to Augustus Gloop.
I end up at the DVD section. This is my favourite section of the whole entire store because I love collecting DVDs. I will immediately get sucked into the obvious marketing scheme of "Cheap DVDs!", "Sale!", "Everything under (a price that is actually quite expensive when you think about it)!" and that dreaded yellow sticker on the cover that has been placed over another sticker to make you think that the DVD is on sale - when it isn't!!!
Yes, studying FTVMS has made me aware of these blatant schemes but for some unknown reason, I still get sucked into buying an over-priced DVD.

But back to the tutorial...the person in my class mentioned that it is cheap to produce a CD or DVD, a few dollars maybe. All that is needed to be done is copying the movie/music onto a cheap CD and then printing out the cover and sticking it into a case. I mean, how expensive can it really be to make?
However, Luke made a good rebuttal that made me realise that it isn't just the making of the product that has costs. Things like transporting the product, paying the people to transport it, paying for the gas, paying for the truck, paying for the packers who put the product onto the truck....I could go on and on. It is like a vicious cycle.

When I think of these costs, it does make me feel that I am justifying the throwing away of my hard earned cash on a cheap CD. And on the topic of copyrighting, at least I'm paying for a genuine copy of a movie, right? So I would like to think that I'm paying to enjoy this over-priced DVD for the greater good because no, I don't steal people's handbags, I don't steal from the video store and I certainly don't steal cars because "downloading pirated DVDs is stealing."
Oh wait, did I just get sucked into another marketing scheme?!? :P

I'm joking. No, I'm not going to stop buying genuine DVDs just because downloading pirated movies are free. People should be buying genuine copies because firstly, it makes you feel better about yourself, secondly, it's a much better feeling when you're exchanging money for a physical object and lastly, I'm sure you're taking this paper because you enjoy films and media so you should be supporting this industry, not ripping it off. How would you feel if your film was being distributed illegally? It's sort of an insult, as if your "fans" are saying that your film isn't good enough to be paid for.

Bottom line, pay to enjoy media the proper way, I say!

My Proposed Copyright and Piracy Law

I've thought of copyright and piracy issues once or twice, but I dismissed it at those moments. I think I did because I would have felt slightly guilty if I actually thought deeply about the whole system of who owns what, whose money gets lost, whose music am I supposedly 'stealing' and what's going to happen to such artist. Well, the days following the Intellectual Property lecture only gave me the obligation to actually think about the issue. Concerning the differing opinions and arguments whether piracy is wrong or right, the lecture and the reading propelled me to either take a side, sit on the fence, or just remain far away from the fence as I've been. What did I choose? I chose to sit on the fence. Let me just point out that I'm not entirely sitting on the fence, I mean, I'm not planning to tip over or something, so let's just imagine the fence has a wide platform and I'm only sitting at one side of it. But anyway, there are two reasons why I'm sitting on the fence - 1) To support the notion of the mass-produced product as publicly-owned,  2) and the notion of the mass-produced product as an emblem of profit for the "original" makers of it.

For me, there's something not quite right about piracy being 'ethically' wrong - actually, that word just blows everything out of proportion - 'ethical' (RHETORIC FAIL..!). No. 1: Ethics is a pre-given societal rules that preach on about honesty and sincerity, and doing the 'right thing'. Well, when it comes to downloading a song off the net, who says it is wrong? Who says it is right? Who decides? I guess this is where the ownership issue comes in where I'd just like to start by saying something resembling the thesis statement for this post: I don't believe the owner of the song - be it the artist or the big fat recording company that produced it - completely owns the song. Why? Because it's out there in the public. So, if it is out there, it belongs to the people out there, it is out of the corporations' hands. I remember thinking this way about 'privacy' in one of my other blog posts and how I reckon if your private information gets out, it is no longer under your control, but the public's.

I have just established the first reason why I'm sitting on the fence and this is the fact that anything mass-produced and then disseminated into the public sphere - whether bound by profit or not - partially belongs to the public. Thus, it is the public's right to make use of whatever they want to do with it for their own pleasures. In fact, I'd like to support my argument with Walter Benjamin's idea that something may be "original" but when it becomes mass-produced, it loses its value and is no longer an original but a simulacrum (a Baudrillard notion meaning 'copy'). (His study made specific reference to photography e.g. the Mona Lisa becoming reproduced around the world that the real painting loses its aura). To apply this to mass-produced products that has found its ground in the public sphere, downloading and re-creating/ re-producing them does nothing to the authenticity or value of the original. In fact, where is the original? Does anyone know, more importantly, does anyone care? 'Original' is contestable if we're looking at it from the Barthes' "nothing is new under the sun" line of thought. Looking at it from that angle, downloading stuff does nothing to the value of the "original" simply because there is no original. HOWEVER............ my other side of the fence argument asks the question: "If there is no kind of authenticity lost, isn't there any other kind of loss great enough to stand for the 'piracy is ethically wrong' rhetorical argument?" Well, yes there is, and the answer is somewhat obvious: MONEY MONEY MONEY. But note: I still wouldn't use the word 'ethically' here, that word is just so unfit.

But anyway, I say money is the big loss. Sure, companies might over-exaggerate on losses due to piracy by adding extra zeros at the end of the factual losses. But still, money is a major loss that can make me feel sorry for upcoming artists that had a hit song I didn't buy but download. (Put the likes of Gaga aside, download or not, she'll still have money growing in her backyard). I'm talking about artists who are pushed to the back of the line, non-mainstream artists, World artists, and so on. Some of these artists are either signed with Indie labels or regional small sub-labels under the big 4 who themselves are trying to make ends meet. Here, I'm trying to establish one point that it doesn't matter whether an artist is "keeping it real" by investing real art and personal creativity guided by personal values or "selling out" by privileging the bland, predictable, pop-type, commercialization in their work. The bottom line is this fact: Mass-produced cultural products are primarily meant for public consumption in return for profit. In another light, the only way to make up for the loss of authenticity at the moment of distribution is profit (and yes, in cash). This is why I think even though a product has been distributed and is thereby the public's possession, I believe the public has an obligation to give something back. I've gotta admit, one of the Copyright kids argument is pretty convincing but it lacks a certain something. It goes along the lines of: "If you made something out of your time and sweat (regardless whether there are inter-textual influences), wouldn't you be mad if someone just took it from you". Sure, I'd be mad, heck, I'd be mad! I'd stick my head out the window and scream, 'I can't take it anymore!'. However, this fails to take into consideration that we're talking about mass-produced product and not one thing one makes and someone steals. Moreover, I think the sentence is incomplete as it does not make any mention of money. Therefore, I think the sentence best suitable for my argument would be: "If you made copies of something out of your time and sweat (regardless of inter-textual influences) for the purpose of selling it indirectly to the public for profit, wouldn't you be mad if someone just took it without paying, knowing that you've just lost a few cents or dollar?". This question is honest as opposed to the first. It tells it like it is: Artists make mass-produced music to get money in return even though there may be other reasons like "to impact lives" or what not. Seeing it this way then, I think piracy is wrong as the public has an obligation to give back to the artist who shared the product in the first place.

Concluding, I maintain my split position on the fence by advocating for the public's right to own a cultural product (screw copyright). As an artist, if you put your stuff out there, it belongs out there and less under your control. But at the same time, the public also has an obligation to pay for the work at its exchange-use value. It's no contradiction, it's simply a two-way thing: "I'll make you this record, do whatever the heck you want with it, as long as you give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar". That, colleagues, I think should be the new copyright and piracy law.