Other than when my parents gifted me the Anti-Flag album Mobilize in 6th grade, I can't remember the last time I bought the physical copy of an album, T.V. show, or movie.
Yeah, I used to be all about punk-rock.
 |
| The cover of Anti-Flag's 4th album, Mobilize. Source |
The debate on copyrighted property and the illegal distribution of it online is just as much of a moralistic as it is a legal one. It is highly unlikely that the majority of those that torrent their media consciously reflect on the morally ambiguous nature of their actions, even if that same person would claim to never steal from another person. Perhaps this is because of the detached relationship that the individual has with large companies, unlike that with other individuals.
Imagine if an indie video game developer released a game on a market such as Steam, but no one bought it. Instead, everyone went to one of the numerous torrent sites found online to "pirate" (a term re-appropriated to designate the act of illegally downloading copyrighted media) the game. With no forethought, the cumulative decision by consumers to not pay the developer for the game directly results in the subsequent discontinuance of future game projects by the developer.
Now image the same scenario, except an equal amount of people that torrented the game in the first scenario bought the game instead from proper distribution channels. With the revenue generated from game sales, the developer is able to expand their operation and continue to develop games of increasing quality for video game fans to consume.
At a glace, one scenario benefits the consumer and the other the developer. However, when looked at from a more analytical point of view, it becomes clear that, technically, both benefit the consumer, while one only benefits the consumer and not the developer. In the latter scenario, the revenue generated from game sales allowed for the developer to keep creating games, which has a mutual benefit for both parties - the consumer gets to keep enjoying new games, and the developer is able to make money off of the consumer.
As demonstrated, the debate on whether or not it is "right" for people to illegally download media instead of paying for it is not as black and white as it may seem at face-value.
To be honest, I conveniently ignore the moral implications of torrenting. On one hand, it is stealing, no matter what mental gymnastics takes place in order to justify doing so. On the other hand, why wouldn't I take advantage of the ability to download nearly any movie, album, game, or show for free? I wouldn't steal from a store, and I wouldn't steal from another person, and it may be illegal, but am I really cheating the producers of media?
To answer my own question, yes, I probably am, but will I stop torrenting? ...Probably not.
In all honesty I am afraid to go to torrent websites. Its a roulette game where one download button will give you what you want, while the other 50 give your computer rectal cancer
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty I am afraid to go to torrent websites. Its a roulette game where one download button will give you what you want, while the other 50 give your computer rectal cancer
ReplyDeleteDownloading torrents can be risky when certain precautions aren't taken. A proper anti-malware, anti-virus, and internet security program can only work as well as the end-user's internet habits allow.
ReplyDeletePopular torrent sites have a large enough user-base to develop general consensuses on which torrents are safe to download. Making sure to only download from reputable sources isn't going to necessarily guarantee trojan and malware-free downloads, but it will mitigate the majority of potentially harmful torrents.
Hey Sharif (and Matthew),
ReplyDeleteI am of the Napster Nation (age-wise), and I am old enough to certainly remember my last CD bought. Actually, it was my mom, who surprised me with Crosby, Stills, and Nash's "Daylight Again" CD. (Man, I love that album!) Anyhow, once Napster came around, the idea of spending $20 on an album just went away as the technology was drastically changing. Back in college, I had stereo components I bought for my 21st birthday that cost me about $800, and that was about 1.5 months of my part-time job, that's how into music I was.
I think the idea of benefits for the consumer are important--isn't it the consumer that props up these companies in the first place, pays $150 for a concert ticket, $40 for the T-shirt, etc.? I'm not saying I disagree with the legality of the issue, but at least with music, one can now create playlists on YouTube and not even have to buy the .mp3.
I think a new economic model for the artists (and game designers) has to emerge that omits the distribution/company middlemen so that both artist/developer and consumer benefit at not a crazy cost. Until then, torrents will be in quite popular demand.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHello Julie,
ReplyDeleteI apologize for replying one whole month ahead of when you commented on my post.
You raised an interesting point when you mentioned Napster. If I'm not mistaken, the sole means of obtaining music "back then" was by purchasing the album directly from distribution sources, so if you were into music then you had to put some money forward to indulge in that interest. While that was great for the music companies goal of making money of their artists, it was bad for the average kid that wanted to listen to the Eagles but had no disposable income to do so.
However, since Napster and the proceeding innovations in file sharing, just about anybody with access to the internet can enjoy their favorite tunes for free, which in turn cripple the music company's coffers. Because music companies are unable to incentivize record sales as effectively as they could before the current era, there is a necessity to find new ways to make money, which ties into how you mentioned the consumer continues to prop up the companies by paying for exceedingly expensive concert tickets and venue merchandise.
A new economic model for artists could emerge that cuts out the middlemen, however, musicians are just that, musicians. I could not imagine how difficult it would be for an artist to micromanage the mass distribution of records, advertisement, sponsorship, and other miscellaneous managerial work while continuing to produce top notch music.
The way I see it, middle men are a necessary evil, and although the profits of record company executives are notoriously greater than that of the musicians, there is a certain capitalistic edge that the executives of record companies gain by employing musicians and not the other way around.
Sharif A.