i think that consumers should not be blamed for piracy. the situation that the consumer is put into gives the consumer a limited choice. Given a choice of a really expensive album....half of which the cost goes into advertising and publicity...and an album that has all u want on it for a really cheap price....the consumer would undoubtly go for the latter.still the consumer should not be blamed as he/she has the right to choose...and he/she has chosen!
(by piracy ..i mean the simple term of pirating cds by burning them of the internet or of a illegal cd vendor)

what do you think? should consumers be blames for piracy?

Your argument isn't clear. Consumer's shouldn't be blamed for pirating music because they have chosen to pirate music? Should I not be blamed for, say, stealing my neighbour's car because I have chosen to steal his car?

Some would disagree, but I put recorded music and (in most situations) cars etc into the category of "luxuries". We don't need them, but we want them.

In contrast, food, basic clothing and shelter etc are "necessities". We need them...

In my opinion, different rules apply to each category.

I agree with you that music vendors demand unreasonably (I'd even say illegally) high prices from consumers. They appear to act in a monopolistic collusive manner - which I believe would be , if provable, in breach of US and other countries anti-trust laws. I also believe that this artificially high price is the major cause of the recent trend to "pirate" music, software etc. I'm not surprised that people "pirate" music, and I certainly don't care that they do.

But that's not the same as saying that consumers should not be "blamed" for "piracy".

We are responsible for our own actions. If food sellers charged such high prices that people could not feed their families, then I wouldn't "blame" them for stealing food. We need food (this subversive notion probably comes from my Aussie convict heritage ), but music is (as I mentioned above), not a necessity.

If it's too expensive, don't buy it. Instead, boycott music until the monopolistic manufacturers (the real pirates I reckon) offer the music at reasonable prices or (better yet), until musicians themselves realise that the manufacturers are redundant middlemen who are standing between the them and their audience. Music manufacturers are not facilitators, but loathsome shiny-suited Bridge Trolls.

Davdoodles
XXX

PS: A couple of other debates here and here, have dealt with music piracy and add some interesting points which you might want to consider.

[This message was edited on 02-17-04 at 05:43 PM.]

Why should consumers be blamed? Consumers simply buy what is available that would give them the best value for their money. If music piracy proliferates it is because prices are set exhorbitantly and it is a way of telling legitimate vendors that consumers have other options.

The market economy has this "invisible hand" that directs economic activities. There is a switchboard where market informations are conveyed from cosumers to manufacturers. The rampancy of piracy is a signal by the consumers to the manufacturers that they should reconsider their "pricing" strategy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jun:
Why should consumers be blamed? Consumers simply buy what is available that would give them the best value for their money.

---

So whom would we blame if everyone decided to buy black market electronics instead of paying for them legitimately. What about stealing satellite signals, whom do we blame for that? And with respect to satellite signals and music, where people are getting these things for free, what "pricing strategy" could possibly entice customers to buy the products rather than steal or pirate them. The government can't catch everyone, and stealing music and satellite signal are socially acceptable, even encouraged. With nearly every reason to steal and pirate (except for the slim chance of getting caught), it seems impossible to stop consumers from doing what they will. How can you argue that the consumer who is committing the crime is not culpable for the crime? Not only is it his choice to steal, but as I've pointed out, there is little anyone else (government, music industry, etc.) can even do to stop it.

______________________________________________
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AKG:
So whom would we blame if everyone decided to buy black market electronics instead of paying for them legitimately.
______________________________________________

I need not answer the question "who to blame" since the issue is whether or not consumers are to be blamed for piracy.I am simply making a statement of fact that if I buy a pirated music I shouldn't be blamed (as a consumer) for buying what is available where I can get the best value for my money. We can have a separate topic "who to blame" but for now that is not the issue. For all you know the music industry itself or the people who manufacture the pirated record is to be blamed but then again, that's a separate debate.

___________________________________________
How can you argue that the consumer who is committing the crime is not culpable for the crime?
____________________________________________

Your statement begs the question. In judicial proceedings, its called "leading question". I suggest you rephrase it, we won't get anywhere with that line of questioning.When one is commiting a crime, it means he is already culpable for it.You are running in circles.Roman logicians have a term for it; its called "Circulo Probando".

__________________________________________
Not only is it his choice to steal, but as I've pointed out, there is little anyone else (government, music industry, etc.) can even do to stop it
___________________________________________


When I buy a pirated item for personal use and not to make money out of it by reproducing the same, I am not stealing. The primary element in the crime of theft is the intent to gain. That element is absent in the case of piracy. If at all, the consumer can only be charged in violation of anti-fencing laws, if it is in effect but that is different from stealing. Maybe the manufacturers of pirated items are the ones guilty of theft but that is a different debate. I am simply saying that consumers cannot be charged of theft.

___________________________________________
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AKG:
Should I not be blamed for, say, stealing my neighbour's car because I have chosen to steal his car?
____________________________________________


This is wrong analogy. Stealing ones neighbour's car and buying a pirated CD are substantially different. If I buy a pirated CD for personal use and without intention of reproducing it in order sell, it's not stealing. Manufacturers of pirated items are the ones culpable of theft but not the consumers.

The primary element of theft is "intent to gain" which is absent when you buy a pirated item for personal use.

quote:

---

originally posted by AKG:
So whom would we blame if everyone decided to buy black market electronics instead of paying for them legitimately.

---

Why should people not buy black market electronics? In India nobody buys branded stuff in the electronics industry. Firstly it is exhorbitantly priced, secondly the dollar rupee rate is inflated. thirdly, when we can get excellent Chinese and taiwanese makes of the same kind, which sensible person would buy a branded computer that costs almost 4 times the price?

My Mowgli, my computer, is fully assembled. All parts from different companies, mostly Chinese. I think all those Dell, Sony and the likes are a complete waste of money.

Moreover being in the advertising field is also a non-starter as far as branded shopping goes. I very well know that most products are not what they are all hyped up about. The consumer ends up paying more for the packaging and advertising of the product, more than the product itself. Most products don't even meet the standards which they advertise.

I think it is all very well that consumers are becoming smarter these days and are boycotting exhorbitantly priced stuff by going in for lesser bargains. That should teach the corporate money swingers to get their prices down.

I can't help but shout out my anti-capitalist slogan.

DOWN WITH THE WTO


*************************************************************************

In a consumer society there are inevitably two kinds of slaves: the prisoners of addiction and the prisoners of envy.
-- Ivan Illich

*************************************************************************

-

much love, light and laughter,
ananya.

*~Come play with my children feel the peace and Scatter some joy.~*
~*Blowing out someone else's candle doesn't make your's burn any brighter.*~
*** Heck was created for those who refuse to believe in Gosh. ***

Refusing to submit to the music cartels can be seen as a corporate disobedience every bit as legitimate as civil disobedience used to protest policy.

Sorry, but whether or not a person can be 'blamed' for piracy, there are hardly worse pirates out there than the media giants lording their possession of art over us in order to extort money from us.

It is one thing to say that a copyright protects intellectual property for the sake of the artist, it is quite another thing to abuse copyright law in order to hold art hostage and demand ridiculous ransom from society.

---

I'm the bad guy here, let's not forget that.

Yes yes but the fact remains that it is stealing. A high end fashion company charges US$150 for a white cotton t-shirt. That is way too much. That does not mean I can steal it.

I agree with Davdoodles that if you are taking about basic human needs it is different. A starving man stealing food is different from a consumer stealing merchandise or services simply because they think it is unfairly priced, or the recording labels follow unfair practices.

The union fight over Safeway Supermarket’s labor practices means you should not shop there if you sympathize with the labor union. You can even picket, lobby, or distribute flyers. It doesn’t mean you should steal food there.

McDonald’s charges US$1.50 for a Coke. It costs them way less to buy it. And McDonald’s turns a bind eye to horrible conditions in the meatpacking industry, while being their biggest customer. Does that means I can steal their product?

Nike made a sneaker that sold for $150 and they used child labor to make it. That STILL doesn’t mean I’m justified in stealing it.

You can’t steal something just because you think it’s too expensive.

Saying that “consumers choose what is the best value for their money” does not apply to stealing music. You are not getting value as you have not paid anything.



When I buy a pirated item for personal use and not to make money out of it by reproducing the same, I am not stealing.

Yes you are. If you take a cab ride then run off without paying you are guilty of theft of services. If you steal a shirt and wear it you are guilty of larceny.


The definition of stealing is to take without right or permission. Regardless of your views on the music industry, those views do not give you the right to steal. Corporate disobedience doesn’t apply here. You’re not being disobedient. Stealing an apple form the corner grocer because he charges too much isn’t disobedience. Boycotting is.

Actually petrarch, theft is a criminal offense. Downloading and trading music files is a civil matter. It's not theft in the sense that stealing bread is. It's copyright violation. Copyrights have different laws because they ARE different. There are public domain issues. There are the rights of society at large to certain ideas issues. Who can forget a few years ago when the lawyers were messing with quoteland over Einstein quotes. Was quoteland 'stealing" Einstein's words? No.

Not according to any legal standard that I am familiar with, and therefore, the downloading or distribution of music is the same thing, ie. NOT THEFT.

Copyright law is being abused daily by media corporations and 'the man' in general. Art, music, even people's faces and image are being withheld from the public for a fee. It's a travesty and a misuse of the law.

---

I'm the bad guy here, let's not forget that.

______________________________________________
Saying that “consumers choose what is the best value for their money” does not apply to stealing music. You are not getting value as you have not paid anything.
______________________________________________


What? "Have not paid anything"? If i buy a pirated item, it means i paid for it. Buying presupposes paying. How can you buy something without paying for it? When a willing buyer pays an amount to a willing seller, that's not stealing.

_____________________________________________
The definition of stealing is to take without right or permission.
_____________________________________________


You don't know what your talking about. You better check your Penal Code. If i took an item that belongs to others on the mistaken belief that it was mine, am i guilty of theft? Under your definition, it appears that i am guilty of stealing since the elements you mentioned are present (take without right or permission).Please check your definition again.

quote:

---

Why should people not buy black market electronics?

---

When did I say they shouldn't? Personally, I don't care for the music industry or the electronics industry, and if they go to pieces because of theft and piracy, I remain unaffected. They aren't the most noble of industries, and we don't need them. They provide no benefit to me, nor do I need them to make the world better for me. However, a crime is still a crime, and the perpetrators should still be blamed. The industries have the right to protect their interests as do the customers. Stealing and pirating luxuries is pretty pathetic. I can't see why one would be so materialistic. Personally, I have no sympathy for the industry or the average consumer, so when it comes to who does what, I won't say which side is right and which is wrong. However, given that there is a law against piracy, and the act of piracy is truly the responsibility of the would-be consumer, that consumer certainly is to blame.

jun

In a capitalist system, there is the idea that the average consumer is smart enough to make his or her own decisions. He knows what he wants, and supply meets demand, and things work out nicely. I think, far too often, corporations influence people through advertising, create "unnecessary demand," and you end up with a population of mindless insatiable consumers. Anyways, while the consumers continue to support their economic system and their culture, they remain responsible for their actions and their demands. Things don't get sold, produced, supplied, etc, if there is no demand. Demand is what drives our demand economy. If consumers demand illegal, pirated software and music, etc, they are to be blamed for having that demand. I dont' know whether the consumer should be blamed for theft or piracy or both, I'm not sure of the specific legal denotations of those words, but there is certainly a crime being committed, a violation of legal rights, and the consumer is certainly responsible, at least in part.

________________________________________
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AKG:
Demand is what drives our demand economy. If consumers demand illegal, pirated software and music, etc, they are to be blamed for having that demand.
_________________________________________


The buck shouldn't stop with the consumers. Consumer behaviour happens as a reaction to something. If there is a great demand for piracy it is because of the vast disparity in pricing between legitimate items and pirated items. In my place, the price difference between a pirated CD and legit CD is almost ten times. Consumers take the risk of buying inferior quality items because of price difference. If big corporations are greedy for profit, the consumers have every right to protect their hard earned money by maximizing its value rather than giving it to corporate swindlers.

quote:

---

The buck shouldn't stop with the consumers. Consumer behaviour happens as a reaction to something. If there is a great demand for piracy it is because of the vast disparity in pricing between legitimate items and pirated items. In my place, the price difference between a pirated CD and legit CD is almost ten times. Consumers take the risk of buying inferior quality items because of price difference. If big corporations are greedy for profit, the consumers have every right to protect their hard earned money by maximizing its value rather than giving it to corporate swindlers.

---

Where I live, I can get music and movies and an entire TV series (as in, all episodes from all seasons) for absolutely no cost. Well, I shouldn't say no cost, it might turn out to be something like $30 a month. There is NO WAY legitimate corporations can compete with this. Unless they expect to make NO PROFIT and in fact, incur great losses, they cannot compete. However, the consumer still has the right to not buy products or services deemed to be overpriced. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY CAN STEAL OR PIRATE SAID PRODUCTS OR SERVICES! You are right in that consumers have the right to maximize the value of their money, but that means that they can spend money on what they want to spend it on, and can refrain from spending on things that don't meet their demands. They are NOT, however, entitled to steal things or demand pirated/illegal software or music or whatever. They can boycott, that's perfectly fine, legal, sensible, etc. However, simply taking the music they want is not acceptable.

________________________________________
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AKG:
I won't say which side is right and which is wrong. However, given that there is a law against piracy, and the act of piracy is truly the responsibility of the would-be consumer, that consumer certainly is to blame.
________________________________________


This argument misses the entire point of this debate. If your position on the issue is merely grounded on the fact that there is a law against piracy and not on its merits, then you shouldn't be participating here. Everyone knows that there is a law on piracy and that settles the issue as far as you're concerned.

But this debate is not only about legal niceties. It is also about the moral/ethical aspect of the issue. To say that consumers are to be blamed because piracy is a crime is to confine the subject matter into mere "legalistic gobbledygook". This has a far wider socio-economic implications. To maintain otherwise is nothing but "Polyannish".

jun

My point remains that the consumer does have a choice. The choice to demand stolen or pirated goods is solely the consumers. Unlike food, which people cannot help demanding, the demand for music is, theoretically, the consumer's choice. If piracy is going on, then it's the consumer's fault because the piracy occurs only if there is a demand. I strongly doubt that the original thieves or pirates would do what they do, take the risk that they take, if they knew that there was no money or gains to be made, i.e. the demand is necessarily the cause of piracy and theft of music.

Now, like I said, I won't say who's right or wrong, because personally, if both the greedy music industry and the greedy consumers stealing/pirating music all went broke, I wouldn't care. Neither party deserves my sympathy or approval.

However, the question of the debate is "can consumers be blamed for piracy?" and I've answered that question, and the answer is yes. Piracy exists because there is a demand. Demand is the determining factor in the event of piracy. The existence of demand is the consumer's responsibility, thus the consumer is ultimately responsible for piracy. Since the consumer is responsible, YES, he should be blamed.

And like I've shown, the consumer is indeed responsible. Nature is not responsible, it is not something like food which we naturally demand, and can't help it. The music industry is not responsible, since they do not OWE the consumer cheap music. The advertisers are not responsible, because technically, consumers are supposed to be smart enough to make their own decisions. The choice is entirely the consumers'. The blame, is thus, entirely the consumers'.

Let me do a quick summary here…

Everyone seems to agree that downloading music that is copyright-protected is breaking a law.

Whether or not it is wrong is where the debate lies. More specifically, the debate seems to have evolved into the question of whether the unfair situation created by the recording industry demands the breaking of that law in order to effect change in an unfair system.

People seem split here: some say yes, it is justified. Others say no, you should boycott or do something else to change the system but stealing is not acceptable on moral grounds. That is, stealing is not an acceptable solution to high prices. Or a monopoly. (Should I steal software just because I feel Microsoft has an unfair situation and unfair pricing going on?)

Have we covered this or is there another issue bubbling underneath we need to separate as well?

I think it would be useful to settle once and for all if it is in fact stealing from a legal standpoint. Considering there are no criminal charges against music downloaders, I have my doubts.

---

I'm the bad guy here, let's not forget that.