• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years old?

Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years old?

  • No, it's not wrong. We should change the law so material that old is public domain.

    Votes: 22 62.9%

  • It's technically wrong, but not really a big deal.

    Votes: 7 20.0%

  • Yes, it's wrong. The copyright owner has the right to control it, even if he's an heir.

    Votes: 5 14.3%

  • Not sure.

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • Total voters
    35
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

Jerry said:
Who even has a CD player anymore?
Click to expand...

cd's, records, mp3's, 8-tracks, whatever.

Jerry said:
I don't see how concerts are harmed by pirating.
Click to expand...

They aren't. To come full circle to what I was talking about earlier, the recording company's main function (like the agent I mentioned earlier) is to build popularity. Their take is obscene, but their promotion campaigns are what put musicians into the mainstream in the first place. I'm not saying I have this great love affair for the recording companies, but to say that pirating only takes money away from the companies ignores the role those companies had in bringing the artists to lime light.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

Hatuey said:
Who cares if it's immoral? It's illegal. Quit trying to justify stealing **** and buy the DVD.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the whole point? Generally speaking, we obey and support laws because they criminalize immoral behavior. If a law makes it illegal to breathe, is that not an unjust law that should be ignored? Are you a fan of arbitrary limits on human freedom?
 
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

Cardinal said:
cd's, records, mp3's, 8-tracks, whatever.
They aren't. To come full circle to what I was talking about earlier, the recording company's main function (like the agent I mentioned earlier) is to build popularity. Their take is obscene, but their promotion campaigns is what puts musicians into the mainstream in the first place. I'm not saying I have this great love affair for the recording companies, but to say that pirating only takes money away from the companies ignores the role those companies had in bringing the artists to lime light.
Click to expand...
I never said such a thing. I have no idea who pirating takes money away from and frankly I don't care. I have no information on that and I don't care to know, it's not a concern of mine.

I offered a suggestion on how artists can better make money off their music, but it's no skin of my noes if they do it or not. I'll follow the path of least resistance regardless, so if the artist can find a way to become that path while separating me from my money, more power to them. Right now I can search any song an YouTube and just convert the sound track of that video to an open MP3 format. It's not the best possible quality but it's good enough for my ears. If the artist can come up with a library of open MP3s of their music and let me buy that through paypall, they just saved me the hassle of converting each song from YouTube one at a time, so they'll get my money.

The choice is theirs.
 
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

Cardinal said:
cd's, records, mp3's, 8-tracks, whatever.



They aren't. To come full circle to what I was talking about earlier, the recording company's main function (like the agent I mentioned earlier) is to build popularity. Their take is obscene, but their promotion campaigns are what put musicians into the mainstream in the first place. I'm not saying I have this great love affair for the recording companies, but to say that pirating only takes money away from the companies ignores the role those companies had in bringing the artists to lime light.
Click to expand...

Popularity does not pay the rent. The performers and song writers depend on recorded media sales and royalties from mass media to pay for their life expenses, they tour simply to increase those sales. They make little or nothing "on the road" as travel expenses often exceed performance revenue. Absent that income we all suffer as fewer artists can make a decent living from their chosen trade.
 
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

Cardinal said:
Oh, I'm sure you can hunt those down. Never underestimate the nerd power of star wars fans.
Click to expand...

Yes. They aren't hard to find. You can buy old copies on ebay. His holiday special (2 hours of wookie talk) is easily searchable as well.

However, George is doing everything in his power to remove them from the market place.
 
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

Cardinal said:
cd's, records, mp3's, 8-tracks, whatever.



They aren't. To come full circle to what I was talking about earlier, the recording company's main function (like the agent I mentioned earlier) is to build popularity. Their take is obscene, but their promotion campaigns are what put musicians into the mainstream in the first place. I'm not saying I have this great love affair for the recording companies, but to say that pirating only takes money away from the companies ignores the role those companies had in bringing the artists to lime light.
Click to expand...

Just so. Producer Steve Albini has a long tirade available on the internet about how much record companies take away from new artists on their first CD's, but doesn't acknowledge that the only reason the whole nation knows about their new CD is because of the huge marketing machine that the label has, and that the little indie band that could can't even dream of replicating.

If you want to make a living, you can skip the major labels. If you to make it big...bite the bullet.
 
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

ttwtt78640 said:
Popularity does not pay the rent. The performers and song writers depend on recorded media sales and royalties from mass media to pay for their life expenses, they tour simply to increase those sales. They make little or nothing "on the road" as travel expenses often exceed performance revenue. Absent that income we all suffer as fewer artists can make a decent living from their chosen trade.
Click to expand...

Bands can make money on tours; Ian Mackaye of Minor Threat/Fugazi fame once said that for some early tours, they couldn't justify paying an extra person to sell merchandise on tour, so they didn't sell merchandise at their shows. Even with their goal of having $5 per ticket shows (which was never a hard and fast rule; if they needed to charge more, they did), their tours still earned them money.

Like any other independent enterprise, being in a band is a business. Some people are good at business, some aren't.
 
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

Blue_State said:
However, George is doing everything in his power to remove them from the market place.
Click to expand...

Then **** George Lucas. If the abortions that were the most recent Star Wars movies, and before that the butchered versions of the original trilogy, weren't enough for you to lose your childhood love of his films, then you deserve all the hassle you get.

Our undue fascination with popular culture is feeding the beast we all complain about. Star Wars were entertaining movies...nothing more.

ADDED:
Black_Zawisza said:
Isn't that the whole point? Generally speaking, we obey and support laws because they criminalize immoral behavior. If a law makes it illegal to breathe, is that not an unjust law that should be ignored? Are you a fan of arbitrary limits on human freedom?
Click to expand...

Equating the right to consume entertainment with the right to breathe...thank you for making my point for me.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

In my opinion, anything put onto airwaves or the Internet should be able to legally copy. It is no different than someone taking a picture of a painting at an art gallery.

Unless the person is selling copyrighted items, a person can copy anything they see or hear in my opinion.
 
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

ChuckBerry said:
Bands can make money on tours; Ian Mackaye of Minor Threat/Fugazi fame once said that for some early tours, they couldn't justify paying an extra person to sell merchandise on tour, so they didn't sell merchandise at their shows. Even with their goal of having $5 per ticket shows (which was never a hard and fast rule; if they needed to charge more, they did), their tours still earned them money.

Like any other independent enterprise, being in a band is a business. Some people are good at business, some aren't.
Click to expand...

It is quite a leap from doing entertaining part time and making a living from it. The recording industry is usually essential for that to happen in most cases. Most of those performing now at SXSW are not "professional" musicians in the sense that it is their primary income source, although they do perform for money whenever possible. A few "unknowns", like Hootie and the Blowfish, get noticed but that is the exception, rather than the rule, absent a recording contract or major media exposure (touring as an opening act for another).
 
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

I don't know what the copyright laws are and I really could care less.

There are tons of crappy laws - so I only follow those that I agree with and/or those that are too inconvenient to circumvent.

My personal ideas on this question are - look hard for it on Amazon, iTunes, Best Buy, Target, WalMart, etc.. If you honestly try your best to find it, but cannot - then download it to your heart's content.

But the second you see it for sale new, then ditch the bootleg and either buy the original or do without.

That's how I do it.


Blindly following laws (or orders) is for weak, spineless sheep, imo.

Doing what you think is right no matter what - that is cool.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

Luna Tick said:
I'm asking when copyrights should expire. When do you think they should? Or do you think they should never expire? Do you think the works of Edgar Allan Poe should still be copyrighted even though he's been dead since 1849?
Click to expand...
What I think the law should be...

  • Copyrights would last for the life of the author +20 years (for heirs).
  • In the case where rights are sold, 20 years from date of first sale (no re-setting the clock for subsequent sales, just 20 years).
  • In the case a copyright is originally owned by a corporation, no limit, though the 20 year rule would kick in if sold (this would include the company itself being sold and the intellectual property being included)
 
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

Black_Zawisza said:
Isn't that the whole point? Generally speaking, we obey and support laws because they criminalize immoral behavior. If a law makes it illegal to breathe, is that not an unjust law that should be ignored? Are you a fan of arbitrary limits on human freedom?
Click to expand...

No. It's not. Laws aren't based on morality, they're based on the common good. Read your Locke again Libertarian.
 
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

Luna Tick said:
You would think that really old TV shows (40 years or more) would have expired copyrights, but that's often not the case. Do you believe it's wrong to download such shows from unauthorized sources such as torrents?

Just to be clear, the question is about shows 40 years old or more which do not have expired copyrights.
Click to expand...


Only if you put preserves on it instead of eating it plain.
 
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

Hatuey said:
No. It's not. Laws aren't based on morality, they're based on the common good. Read your Locke again Libertarian.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes! Don't you think Jim Crow served the public good just fabulously?

My opinions of Locke regardless, you claimed that people shouldn't downloading the work of others strictly because it was illegal, not out of any appeal to utilitarianism. I think we can all agree that laws are absurd unless they have some sort of justification, which you failed to provide.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

Black_Zawisza said:
Ah, yes! Don't you think Jim Crow served the public good just fabulously?
Click to expand...

This comparison is so ridiculously stupid I'm almost shocked a Libertarian would argue it. Restricting 15% of the population from enjoying the same rights and privilegies as the other 85% is in no way comparable to arguing you should be allowed to steal intellectual property because you can't afford it, it's old or whatever other nonsense intellectual property thieves argue. It's simple. Can't afford it? Don't steal it. Thanks.
 
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

Hatuey said:
This comparison is so ridiculously stupid I'm almost shocked a Libertarian would argue it. Restricting 15% of the population from enjoying the same rights and privilegies as the other 85% is in no way comparable to arguing you should be allowed to steal intellectual property because you can't afford it, it's old or whatever other nonsense intellectual property thieves argue. It's simple. Can't afford it? Don't steal it. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Why would you be surprised by a stupid argument coming from a libertarian, given your unusually condescending attitude towards their ilk?

I'm not sure what you're getting worked about. A majority of the Southern population seemed to feel that Jim Crow served their interests, unless some form of anti-democratic political corruption I'm unaware of caused such things to be.

You haven't outlined why you feel that, for example, illegal song downloading shouldn't be practiced. It would seem to me that the definition of stealing necessarily entails infringing on the owner's ability to use property. Jacking someone's car certainly qualifies, but does a synthesized audio clip? What's your take?

You refer to the "age" justification for illegal intellectual property usage rather derisively. Do you feel that such property rights should be protected indefinitely?
 
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

Black_Zawisza said:
Why would you be surprised by a stupid argument coming from a libertarian, given your unusually condescending attitude towards their ilk?
Click to expand...

I said "almost". Didn't I?

I'm not sure what you're getting worked about. A majority of the Southern population seemed to feel that Jim Crow served their interests, unless some form of anti-democratic political corruption I'm unaware of caused such things to be.
Click to expand...

Then again, denying 15% of the population rights with another 40-50% of the population in opposition to said denial, hardly seems like the "common good".

You haven't outlined why you feel that, for example, illegal song downloading shouldn't be practiced.
Click to expand...

I have. Many times. You are stealing intellectual property you haven't paid for the right to use. :shrug:

It would seem to me that the definition of stealing necessarily entails infringing on the owner's ability to use property. Jacking someone's car certainly qualifies, but does a synthesized audio clip? What's your take?
Click to expand...

What's the use of synthesized audio? It's a good sold. Stealing it is no different than stealing cars being sold. :shrug:

You refer to the "age" justification for illegal intellectual property usage rather derisively. Do you feel that such property rights should be protected indefinitely?
Click to expand...

As long as the owner of the copyright can defend his ownership. :shrug:
 
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

It's not immoral to download any TV shows, music, movies, etc.
 
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

The question asks about old shows. I don't think it makes a difference what the age is. There are rights to property.
 
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

Superfly said:
I guess my issue with piracy has always been -- was it all "ooh piracy sucks and I'm butthurt" when I videotaped a TV show on my VCR? How is it any different to videotape Game of Thrones while you are working, and watch it the next day, and download it from a website and watch it the next day?

Same as recording songs off the radio, onto cassettes. Y'all do remember that technology, don't you? Is that music piracy, to record a song off the radio onto a blank tape?

What's the difference??
Click to expand...

lack of means to mass distribute that tape with a few mouse clicks
 
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

Some say its illegal to download a TV show (new or old) but then why do people legally use DVR's then? Bits are bits no matter how you obtained them....
 
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

For things like books, movies, and music copyright laws should last a maximum of 20-30 years. For things like technological advancements and such the copyrights should only last a maximum of 10-15 years.

I understand wanting to leave things for your children and setting them up to have a better life than you did. But that is what money and actual physical property is for. Excessive copyrights are a detriment to society as a whole because they restrict advancements just because the "idea" is copyrighted as much as the actual product.

I am also a big, HUGE believer in making knowledge freely available to everyone. Because of that I make a huge compromise in agreeing that some copyrighting is essential.
 
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

Surtr said:
Meh, I do it out of convenience. Not going to put money into something unless I know I'm going to like it. I'll download something to see what it's like. If I like and it's available for sale at that time, I'll buy it. If not, then I'm not stuck with a 20 dollar pile of ****.
Click to expand...

Yeah, downloaded made "searching the bins" possible again. It's also one of the big reasons i miss the old p2p services. Due to the fact you could find someone who had similar tastes and raid their collection
 
Re: Is it immoral to download from unauthorized sources (c) TV shows over 39 years ol

Dr. Chuckles said:
lack of means to mass distribute that tape with a few mouse clicks
Click to expand...

No, instead of a few mouse clicks they would just push a couple of buttons to record onto another tape and then mass distribute it that way. The way it is done may be different but mass distributing happened just as much back then with cassette tapes as it is done today with the computer and internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom