Patrick The Extremist
From a blog post at Chu Yeow’s blog:
START
Chu Yeow:
I just downloaded and watched the latest episode of The Simpsons…
Patrick:
Downloaded and watched? Kind of disappointing.
Chu Yeow:
Patrick: Hmm? Did I say something wrong?
Stephan:
I don’t think there is anything wrong with downloading the newest episodes to your computer. What’s the difference with that and recording them onto a tape? As long as you do not sell the recording you, by law, are not doing anything wrong. Fox has released only up to season 4 and there are 11 more to go, it took them almost 7 yrs. to get those out, it will take them a lot longer to get the others out.
Patrick:
I don’t really approve of the practice, that’s all. Where the difference is, from what Stephan said, is distribution. If you record it for your own private viewing, that is one thing… making copies available for mass distribution is another. That is what is wrong. While I sympathize with you not being able to watch new episodes… that isn’t an excuse and it doesn’t give you the right. Neither does “Fox takes too long for the DVDs, I don’t want to wait!” It just doesn’t. That is why I am disappointed. But, it seems you may not have known it was wrong, so its not that big a deal. I don’t think you’d knowingly do it.
The sad thing is that it’ll stay up, most likely. This is a trend… a lot of people just don’t care about the property of others. I guess you’d have to have someone steal, copy, distribute and mess with your stuff to fully appreciate it. People like to try to take advantage of the communities I run - my property and sweat and tears - all the time, so I am very hardened to this type of thing.
Stephan:
Patrick,
I think the difference though, is the fact that not everyone has a TV tuner video card in their PC and no one is making a profit by disitributing these episodes. So, there really is no harm. Now, there are people who get these episodes and use something like DVD Shrink to make a DVD compilation of them and sell them which is wrong, because in the long run it does affect the sales of Fox.
I have friends that used to rent movies, watch them, and then copy them to a blank videocassette. Is that wrong? They weren’t selling the copies, just making a single one for their viewing. I think the whole Digital Rights Management issue is still a very touchy thing that has not been defined very well by the government.
I have episodes from seasons 10, 11, 12, and 13. I don’t give them to anybody but I like to watch them from time to time. I did not obtain them by recording them but from a friend. He did not sell them to me. Does that make it right? I don’t know. I know that when those seasons come out on DVD I will buy them anyway because I want to be able to get the features of the DVD and watch them on my television.
Patrick:
Stephen,
Plenty of people would agree with you. There is no harm, no one is profiting. To me, that doesn’t matter. Just because someone is not profiting off of something, that doesn’t make it less wrong. If someone copies my logo and throws it on their non-profit website, is that cool? No, its not. More than not cool, it is unethical and despicable. Besides, this does affect Fox long term. If you can download every episode, why wait for the DVD at all? Forget DVDs, we don’t need to buy them, we can just download every episode we want! In fact, Fox doesn’t need our money - they’re just an evil corporation! I’m the average working man who is scraping together a living - I DESERVE IT!!! (I know that’s exagerating and that’s not you, but there are people out there like that…) You say you will buy the DVDs and I believe you, but there is more to it then that, for me. Copies of a program are not to be distributed without permission from the property owner of the program. That is what I respect above all else.
Yes, what your friends did was wrong. For example, if you buy a CD, you now own one license of each song on that CD for you any of your personal listening pleasure. Burn the songs and listen to them on your PC and your iPod. Don’t distribute them. If you rent, you are doing just that - renting, a temporary situation. You can view it for as long as your rental period is current. If you rent a movie for 5 days, you can view it for 5 days, for example. Making copies to view beyond that 5 days is what makes it wrong. If you want to view the movie beyond that, rent it again or buy (a single household license, in essence) of that movie. If people make a copy or two of that and give it to their mother and brother, that’s not a big deal. But, when someone is making copies and sending to more than a couple of people (bunches of family, friends, even people they don’t know that well), that is pretty bad, in my opinion.
Patrick:
Stephan! Sorry, typo. (That is like the first time I have ever spelt Stephan, Stephen. :))
Dumb Anonymous Person:
It’s a cartoon. Get a life and take off that Star-Trek costume.
Patrick:
I expected comments like that (that was on the rude/disrespectful side, though). I know I am in the minority when it comes to this issue. Online, at least. But, like I said, I’ve been hardened to this by having people take advantage of me and the media (”cartoons”) that I have created, so that’s my perspective, for what it is worth.
END
So, yeah. I am the extemist here, I guess. :) I probably shouldn’t have said anything.
It’s good to see that I can disagree in such detail with one of my best friends and not have it become disrespectful or something that makes us less of friends.
But, the attention should be off of me there because a guy just posted that Mozilla is … poop, essentially. Poor guy. Good thing he didn’t leave an e-mail address! :)
.jpg "SodaRatings.com")
December 17th, 2004 at 3:12 am
Patrick,
I know exactly where you are coming from and believe me, you aren’t an extremist in any way. As soon as I get a TV tuner card in my PC I will record the episodes that I want to watch later on. I won’t distribute them, just keep them on my PC for later viewing.
The problem comes when people get greedy and decide to start a "down with some ‘evil’ organization" just so they can make a little cash or just try and con someone else over by not sending business their way. That’s wrong, end of story.
We are still learning the effects of Napster on the music industry and from the early looks of it, they didn’t struggle as much as they said they did. However, there is a big difference in music and in movies/television. Musicians don’t make a lot of money to begin with, so, if by buying their music may keep them recording, I’ll do it. Fox, Disney, etc. are not struggling by any means. Does that make ripping them off right? No. But, there is a difference in the standards of how they are looked upon. People who pirate music aren’t trying to screw over the artist, they are trying to screw over the record label (who usually gouge artists). I am really stuck in the middle on this issue because morally it is wrong, but then again, at points it is morally wrong to support the recording industry. I guess it comes down to which is the lesser of two evils.
December 17th, 2004 at 10:42 am
Hey Stephan,
Thanks and I know where you are coming from. :)
As far as it being morallly wrong to support the record labels… for me, that’s overcomplicating it. One issue at a time. They sign artists to have the exclusive right to release their music. So, the right thing to do is to legally obtain their music. That’s that issue. Now, if you want to not support that particular label, that’s fine, but your options aren’t obtain illegally or not buy at all. They are simply not buy at all.
Even if labels gouge artists, how much a new artist sells is directly related to if they will be allowed to release another album and how much money they can make. For instance, promoters want to book acts that have sold a lot of records because they will sell a lot of seats. So those that try to screw over the record label, are also screwing over the artist.
The health of the corporation shouldn’t change your conscience (as you said, it’s still wrong), but since you mentioned it, are you for making the "rich" (I guess people with income of 200k or over, although that’s not "rich") pay higher taxes than everyone else?
December 17th, 2004 at 11:06 am
I am definitely not for making the wealthy pay more in taxes. But, there is a difference in individual wealth and corporate wealth. This is where corporations become greedy and do things like cook the books.
I agree that screwing over the studio is screwing over the artists, but then again I have been to concerts where the artist hands out CDs and tells people to share with their friends so that they can move away from their label.
It all comes down to personal morals. If in your gut you feel like something you are doing is wrong, then it probably is, even if others tell you it isn’t.
December 17th, 2004 at 11:42 am
It is different in some ways, but what you are saying is that because a company has more money and, in the eyes of some, "doesn’t need more"… that their property rights are treated differently than those who have less money or "need it more". I think that’s unfair. I don’t like to penalize success.
Whether you are individually wealthy or coporate wealthy, you want to be the best … there is no difference. Individual wealthy, you want to do the best for you, your family and those around you. Corporate wealthy you want to do the best for the corporation, your employees and your shareholders so that they can be individually wealthy in order to do the best for themselves, their families and those around them.
I just don’t like the fact that corporations/people are slighted for being corporations or for being rich. They have rights like everyone else. In a way, each corporation is a single human being.
They sign the best acts they can to sell the most records to make the most money and do the best that they can for themselves. I want to be just like them. I want to do the best that I can in the right way to do the best for myself and everyone around me.
There are corrupt, greedy people like there are corrupt, greedy corporations. That goes for both and shouldn’t affect the core values.
Yes, that is true (about personal morals).
December 17th, 2004 at 2:54 pm
The difference is that those corporations have investors and by lying, they not only effect the company but everyone who ever invested in them. The backlash of the Enron scandal is still being felt in Houston. Some employees and investors lost everything and I mean everything.
With money comes responsibility, whether you be a corporation or an individual. The problem is that corporations think that is where the responsibility ends, which isn’t true. Their responsibility extends to everyone in their organization to uphold the law. You have to do what’s best for you and at the same time do what’s best for everyone around you. Sometimes those two things aren’t accomplished together and that’s where we see problems.
December 17th, 2004 at 3:01 pm
Yes, that is true about Enron. But, individuals have people that invest in them. In a different way, though. People that trust in them and rely in them, just as corporations have. And when those inividuals lie, sometimes they cause those that rely on them to lose "everything" or more than any corporation can take away. You cannot compare the loss of a child whose father leaves them to any amount of money.
But, we’re getting sidetracked. Not all corporations think that way. Some. But it doesn’t give anyone the right to disregard their property rights. This isn’t an eye for an eye thing. If the corporation does wrong and you do wrong, you are not any better. The corny old saying, two wrongs don’t make a right, is accurate. The choice is not to buy or obtain illegally. It is to buy or not obtain at all. That is all I am saying.
That’s me, anyway. :) We’ve probably talked this to death.