This is for a debate at school and I can't really seem to get any good points, +thanks for good ideas. I'm on the Con side btw (I think downloading media is not unethical)
Doubt that there'll be any good points on downloading media unless if you use the argument that everyone can have access to it regardless of their economical status.
well it truly depends on which kind of media you are dling.. if you are talking about the news or just tv shows then it is fine because it was broadcasted and since it was made public then its good that you have it. Secondly tv shows well they say you can buy the dvd but then what if someone really taped all the episodes?? It doesnt make him wrong and you cant arrest him for it. Also there are some things that you just cant find anywhere else. Sometimes you find a song or show you really liked when you were younger and then no matter what store or where ever you cant find it and the internet lets you dled it. So is it wrong or unethical.....for you trying to obtain what you like even though you are trying to pay for it but then it dont cost money. hope this makes sense
- Downloading is an awesome way of recovering lost items. I have a legal version windows XP that I lost the CD to. I downloaded a copy and was able to use my legal key again. This isn't breaking any laws of course since the license is for the key, not the disc. (This is the same with songs that you've purchased via CD, cassette, etc. Downloading a back up of your purchased items is a perfectly sane thing to do.) - Downloading offers a lot of convenience. With shops like iTunes, you can preview and then download your music without having to leave your home. - Downloading provides you with more freedom. Instead of requiring yourself to sit infront of the television at a specific time, you can download the broadcast for a later private viewing. It's just like using your computer as a VCR or DVR.
i think the internets like a library..... downloading music is like borrowing a book..... as long as u dont try to sell the music for money theres nothing wrong......plus i show mo remorse for ppl that try to make money of their image and singing a couple words...
is debate about downloading media in general or downloading copyrighted/licensed things? there are plenty of reasons why downloading media is ethical (well, no reason to call it ethical because it really has nothing to do w/ ethics) like winamp, iTUNES, other things which is helpful and easy. plus there are a lot of free programs that can take the place of an expensive software that you have to buy at the store (of course prob not as good, but it can do the basic thing) if ur talking about the other way, then change the way u look at your debate to: how is stealing (or to make it sound better "borrowing w/o asking") ethical? makes it simpler.
(Just for the record: I still buy cd's and digital downloads to support the artist I really like) Sometimes you know a certain artist will produce 1 or 2 tracks that you'll love but don't feel like to buy a whole album because the rest of the songs aren't that great. I'm not sure about other countries, but over here it's not easy to find singles from artists in the store to buy. Secondly, those singles you can find are often way too overpriced for an A side and a B-side, so it's not worth it. Or a particular artist isn't even releasing a single or album in your country so you have to resort to the not-so-legal downloads. But if you can download 1 song for free on the internet, I think many people prefer to dl that for free instead of going through the hassle with creditcards and typing your personal info to buy a digital download. And above all, those F*CKING Digital Right Managements on the paid digital downloads are often a pain in the ass because if your computer had a crash or your motherboard died (like mine just a few weeks ago) you'll lose your music licence and won't be able to listen to those paid digital downloads anymore. (no back up) You have to buy it again...hence it's more tempting to dl stuff for free without, preferrable without DRM. And the DRM controls how you play the music you'd legally bought; only on your computer and not on your mp3, stereo installation or in the car because it prevents you from ripping.* Or maybe you just can't stand certain distribution software like iTunes and refuse to buy a digital dl from that canal (and the stuff you want is only made available on iTunes) so one might like to seek the illegal versions. * have to add that not every artist is using that tight DRM, sometimes you are able to rip the stuff into another media. My personal experience is that the smaller indie bands are likely to use less strict DRM, if at all.
I think downloading media is not unethical. Read this artical http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801EFDA1439F936A15752C0A9629C8B63 stupid copyright laws make it impossible to do anything without getting a license especially the encryption provision of the Digital Rights Millenium Copyright Act.
As mentioned above by winterfuyu, are you focusing on downloading media in general or downloading copyrighted/licensed things? I assume it is the latter, since you mentioned the issue of ethics. First define ethics, eg that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions. (dictionary meaning) In other words, ethics is about the moral implications of a particular action. Then list out what is right or wrong abt downloading copyrighted/licensed materials. Perhaps narrow down the scope of those materials you are covering, eg music, movie, mtv, software, etc. If your stand is that it is not unethical, then it is likely that you will have to argue against the idea of copyrights, whether it is even reasonable to begin with. Or perhaps you can touch on the idea of 'sharing' as a means of advertising for lesser known artists. E.g, without this 'sharing' phenomenon, I wouldn't even have heard of Jill Vidal. So maybe, instead of fighting against copyright, you can suggest changing them, such that it is a win win situation for the artists and consumers.
Heh, I have more than 100 working links to sites about this subject but here's one that can be interesting read for your debate: When DRM goes wrong or why I'm not using Microsoft Reader any more by Micheal Gartenberg. and my hero on the subject of digital copyrights and the public domain: Lawrence Lessig and his sites: http://www.lessig.org/blog/ http://free-culture.org/
^haha.. taxloss is the expert when it comes to such stuff.. taxloss: wat is it you study again? multimedia?
Yeah, most recent writers liks Lawrence Lessig, Ronald V. Bettig, Vaidhyanathan etc. don't argue for fighting against copyright in the traditional sense, but change them because the traditional copyrights aren't suitable for an cyber environment like the Internet with a whole different definition of time, space and network communities. Governments should try to seek a better alternative/solution for both consumers and creators (artists) instead of letting the powerful entertainment industry dictating the laws for their own goals. @XJ: Close enough, it's Media and Culture and my pet subject is indeed copyrights, fanculture and the digital public domain.
Yeah I agree. That Digital Rights Management is just bull as argued by Lessig and the "Copyleft." I wouldn't want to live in a society in which one buys a product and have to ask permission everytime they use it. Instead of owning it we are basically paying to use it. First it Itunes then the world. It is a capture-usage product. I think firms that create goods should have their products copyrighted for a limited amount of time such that the creators make money off of it and it does enter public domain in a limited span say 15-25 years like patents. The current copyright laws simply don't reflect the info. age we in.
