Why is it considered by many "OK" to violate copyright?

Like many on these forums I come from an older generation where we had vinyl and cassette recorders (if we were lucky - paper round withstanding) and in glorious mono.

Ok technology has changed making the distribution of media simple and that will only get simpler as time goes on. So without having another "legal" type thread defining copyright "theft", what has driven the majority of a whole generation to view (and if the surveys are correct) downloading copyrighted material as acceptable?
There's also a paradox here too, because whilst most see it as a "normal" thing to do, many of those youngsters are savvy enough to use P2P applications and know what they are doing is not quite cosha.

I have no pirated software or music, buy a DVD especially a series when I can afford it and wouldn't even let a P2P application anywhere near my laptop/PC. Yet these days you can be almost sure that the youngsters PC, let alone a family PC will have a P2P application on it before anything else gets installed on it.

So why after all this time are people confused as to why the industry (and government) are getting more and more heavy handed, am I the only one who saw this coming?

What I want to understand without getting into a legal mumbo jumbo nonsense debate, is why is it NOT acceptable for many people to pay for copyrighted material that has a monetary value when sold/distributed by legitimate means? Why should it be seen acceptable and then taking whilst giving nothing in return for it? Moreover why do people argue about this when they know said material has a monetary value and downloading through any unofficial channel which normally means they don't pay anything is clearly wrong?

So what's the score? are people saying it's ok to steal if they deem what they are stealing should be free? Isn't that a sort of Looting?

Questions:-
1) Does everyone agree that taking without permission copyrighted material is wrong?
2) If not, what do they see taking something with a monetary value without paying is?
3) If people do see it as wrong on any level, do they agree with the government proposals?
4) If they don't agree about the way the government is going about things but admit there is a problem, how would they tackle it?
5) Should the copyright holders play a bigger role and if so should it be a compromise of sorts between them and potential customers/customers without the intevention of government?

I'm also of the older generation, so take that into account.

1) Does everyone agree that taking without permission copyrighted material is wrong?
Whatever the law it is clearly morally wrong.

2) If not, what do they see taking something with a monetary value without paying is?
n/a

3) If people do see it as wrong on any level, do they agree with the government proposals?
Yes, but with reservations.

4) If they don't agree about the way the government is going about things but admit there is a problem, how would they tackle it?
Thats the $64,000 question. I can't think of anything workable other than what is suggested; the question is whether what is suggested is workable.

5) Should the copyright holders play a bigger role and if so should it be a compromise of sorts between them and potential customers/customers without the intevention of government?
A compromise would be great, but I think we can already see that isn't going to happen.

The problem, to my mind, is that people don't think it is wrong. They think that it is stealing from a faceless corporation when really it is stealing from struggling artists. I really don't know how one can instill moral judgement in people who lack it.

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

Questions:-
1) Does everyone agree that taking without permission copyrighted material is wrong?

No. I think most of the offenders just don't think about it. I also think that some people are just downloading for the sake of it. I call it 'digital hoarding'. The get all their excitement from knowing that they have GB or even TB of ones and zeros stored in their bedroom.

2) If not, what do they see taking something with a monetary value without paying is?

As above - I suspect they just don't think about it. They might worry about the law coming to get them but somehow they avoid thinking about the 'victim'.

3) If people do see it as wrong on any level, do they agree with the government proposals?

I think it's wrong but I think the government is trying to do the impossible. There comes a point when fighting the flow is a waste of money and it's better to go with it.

4) If they don't agree about the way the government is going about things but admit there is a problem, how would they tackle it?

Make it easier for people to obtain the material for a lower cost. I favour getting rid of the record companies and video distributors. They are just leeches creaming off a %ge for doing very little.

5) Should the copyright holders play a bigger role and if so should it be a compromise of sorts between them and potential customers/customers without the intevention of government?

Yes and yes. The Internet has the potential to allow the customer to talk to the copyright holder direct. Get rid of the middle man.

I really don't know how one can instill moral judgement in people who lack it.

quite. There was a time where if it wasn't yours, you weren't given it or didn't have permission to take it then you went without it. Simple. Now the prevailing approach is that your needs have priority and you take it anyway, regardless.

The Internet has the potential to allow the customer to talk to the copyright holder direct. Get rid of the middle man.

I help out a couple of artists with IT issues and I would have to say that there is currently no efficient mechanism for customers to find artists from the vast swathe of music etc out there. Publishers and distributors do at least act as some form of quality control and concentration mechanism. Didn't someone show that the music being downloaded was primarily mainstream stuff out on CD via record labels rather than a thriving direct sector.

http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-mus... has interesting numbers.

The Internet has the potential to allow the customer to talk to the copyright holder direct. Get rid of the middle man.

I'm afraid that I think that's a little simplistic. Record companies and book publishers do a valuable job for artists helping with the production of the material, publicity, and distribution. I don't think that we are at a stage where all artists can successfully produce and promote their own material - I'm sure that many are only too happy for someone to take care of that side of the business so that they can concentrate on the art.

http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/entanet/t/3752291-r...

That ^^ reply is right on the money!

You are all here moralising about kids and students downloading a tune or two or watching an episode of their favourite show, while the real pirates are manipulating members of the goverment in an attempt to ensure their empires don't crumble at the expense of everyone's privacy.

Very sad indeed.

Edited by Finguz (Fri 04-Dec-09 09:41:11)

Rubbish! If it is that simple then, as Andrue suggests, let the artists be responsible for the production, marketing, and distribution of their own material. It's easy nowadays, thanks to the Internet, but very few do.

Blaming publishers, who artists choose to use rather than trying to make it on their own, is a complete cop-out.

In reply to a post by AnotherExPipex:

If it is that simple then, as Andrue suggests, let the artists be responsible for the production, marketing, and distribution of their own material. It's easy nowadays, thanks to the Internet, but very few do.

Blaming publishers, who artists choose to use rather than trying to make it on their own, is a complete cop-out.

It might be easy for you to do your own production, marketing and distribution. They can perform.

How easily could you do what they can?

Apart from which, how you you propose any artist doing their own production and distribution, which a few do, should manage to get revenue from more than the first download of their product? Or should they rely on advertising revenue from visits to their site, and what sort of adverts?

I agree with everything that you say. Which is why I think that the phrase

a bloated useless corporation that absorbs nearly all the income from programming for doing next to nothing

used to describe a record or publishing company is totally inappropriate. They provide a valuable service (protecting copyright amongst other things) and so earn their money.

The mechanics of doing these things is - apparently - easy, but the devil is in the detail.

I'm all for artists being artists and relying on publishers to add value to their product.