Filesharing: Inalienable right or punishable by death?

[Beyondthewall]

It's called the free rider problem. If music is distributed for free, individually you get the benefit of all music produced whether you contribute towards it or not. Therefore, as a rational actor you will choose not to contribute towards it, because contributing brings you no benefit.

First off, I've always heard that referred to as the tragedy of the commons.
Anyway, you do get benefit. Sure, it's small, and everyone else shares in it, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Additionally, if your donation results in the production of a fraction one additional song, then the music reaches a few more people, some of whom may donate. It's like a feedback loop, only not.

There's still a problem, though: finding music you actually like.

This isn't much of a problem, really. Filesharing actually provides a better solution: the songs that get distributed are the ones people like, which are probably the good ones. Also, have you ever heard of pandora.com?

Edit: just realized I double posted. Apologies for that.

[EvanED]

Anyway, you do get benefit. Sure, it's small, and everyone else shares in it, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

It's also very indirect, which means it's hard to measure. If I have to pay 99 cents for a song from iTunes to get it legally, I know exactly what I got for my 99 cents: I got a few minutes of music.

If someone offers it for free with a request for donation, I have the choice as to whether I spend that 99 cents. If I do spend that 99 cents, what do I get that I wouldn't if I didn't donate? Well, it's impossible to say. I get some abstract notion of "supporting the arts" or "making it possible for the artist to do more work in the future." Is the artist going to produce less if I don't pay? Who knows. Is another artist going to say "hey, he's making enough money, I'll do that too" if I donate 99 cents, but not if I don't? Who knows.

I know personally that I'm putting a lot more money into music and movies than I would if it were free. I'm a grad student. I make enough money to live pretty comfortably, a lot more than some people, but at the same time I can't afford a lot of luxuries. Soon I'm going to splurge and buy the complete boxed set of Pink Floyd that's coming out in a couple weeks, because Pink Floyd is the best band ever and I only have The Wall and DSotM. If I could download it all for free, legally, would I do that? Almost certainly not.

[trickster721]

I really doubt that this will come to pass. I could equally say that the internet will result in more draconian IP laws as these rights become harder to protect. So far legal trends follow my opinion, unfortunately.

Like the man with the goggles says, there's no possible future in which bits become harder to copy.

[Beyondthewall]

Anyway, you do get benefit. Sure, it's small, and everyone else shares in it, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

It's also very indirect, which means it's hard to measure. If I have to pay 99 cents for a song from iTunes to get it legally, I know exactly what I got for my 99 cents: I got a few minutes of music.

If someone offers it for free with a request for donation, I have the choice as to whether I spend that 99 cents. If I do spend that 99 cents, what do I get that I wouldn't if I didn't donate? Well, it's impossible to say. I get some abstract notion of "supporting the arts" or "making it possible for the artist to do more work in the future." Is the artist going to produce less if I don't pay? Who knows. Is another artist going to say "hey, he's making enough money, I'll do that too" if I donate 99 cents, but not if I don't? Who knows.

Ah, but we were discussing the behavior of perfectly rational actors. If artists average one song produced for every $1000 contributed (which they don't, but what the hey), then donating a dollar is essentially the same as paying for the production of 1/1000^th of a song If you assume 10000 people heard the song and liked it enough to donate an average of $1, you could view it as buying ten more songs. Sure, almost no one would actually behave this way, but once we leave the realm of perfect rationality, we get such things as a feeling of moral obligation to repay artists for value given.

I know personally that I'm putting a lot more money into music and movies than I would if it were free.

But if it were free, then such money as you did put in would go almost entirely to the artist, as opposed to the 10-20% (I think) of the money they receive from what you donate now.

[EvanED]

I know personally that I'm putting a lot more money into music and movies than I would if it were free.

But if it were free, then such money as you did put in would go almost entirely to the artist, as opposed to the 10-20% (I think) of the money they receive from what you donate now.

But I'm almost positive I would put in less than that percentage of what I do now. This would at least be true in the case of movies & TV.

[trickster721]

But I'm almost positive I would put in less than that percentage of what I do now. This would at least be true in the case of movies & TV.

Right now, movies are intended to make back their production costs in the theaters and television production is entirely paid for by advertisers.

[Dingbats]

I know personally that I'm putting a lot more money into music and movies than I would if it were free. I'm a grad student. I make enough money to live pretty comfortably, a lot more than some people, but at the same time I can't afford a lot of luxuries. Soon I'm going to splurge and buy the complete boxed set of Pink Floyd that's coming out in a couple weeks, because Pink Floyd is the best band ever and I only have The Wall and DSotM. If I could download it all for free, legally, would I do that? Almost certainly not.

That's probably true for most of us, but I also know that if it weren't for filesharing I wouldn't have discovered even half of what I'm listening to now.

[zenten]

I want a product. I'm paying for the product, because I want it. Why do I care if other people are paying for it?

You have a choice. You can pay for the product and receive it, or not pay for the product but still receive it. Which do you choose?

But we're talking about situations where the product is not out, and will not be out unless enough people pay for it.

I was thinking about this the other day, and I figure that someday soon, the concept of "intellectual property" will become antiquated and people will only produce art because (gasp) they want to share their creative expression.

I really doubt that this will come to pass. I could equally say that the internet will result in more draconian IP laws as these rights become harder to protect. So far legal trends follow my opinion, unfortunately.

Depends on where you are. European countries have largely been loosening their laws.

And anyway, has the amount of downloading been decreasing in countries with strict laws like the US?

There's still a problem, though: finding music you actually like. If recordings are advertising, and cheap to produce and distribute, then there's suddenly a massive swarm of them all clamouring for attention. If you lose the studios, you lose the selection process - the people whose jobs are to sort of the good artists from the bad. It's quite possible, of course, to argue this job isn't done particularly well these days anyway, since studios go for reliable, marketable, commodity manufactured stuff for the most part, but since most people don't have time to trawl through the Internet looking for that few percent of music which actually appeals to them, there will have to emerge some kind of service to do it for them. And that service will have some kind of cost associated with it, either to the listener or to the artists - and we've pretty much just reinvented the studio model.

Have you or anyone you know started liking a band because they had a specific label, or because you heard/saw a commercial for the band?

[Ghorthas]

What about individuals who do not spend money on movies, cable tv, or music engage in file sharing? The record labels are technically not losing any income from users like that. Also, what about the users who download music, find new artists, and eventually buy the music of that artist legally. So they get their music distributed more widely. This also helps the artist indirectly. If more people know about the artist, through whatever means, there are more people that may be interested in going to a concert for Artist X.

Also the pervasive nature of DRM, root kits, and other spy ware that may happen to be on any cd bought through a legal vendor diminish the freedom of the user. Now the music can only be used how the recording label want it to be. The spy ware tracks your daily use of the computer, where you visit on the internet, and what software you have installed. Yes, I may be a little paranoid, it is unlikely that a large distributing company could get away with such things. Yet, Sony did it. God knows if other companies integrate similar software, whether its a root kit, or whether it's just spyware that tracks your online activity for advertising. The fact that some of these labels are unwilling to remove DRM, and willing to include other mal ware makes me think, "They don't care about my rights, why should I care about theirs." I know having access to music is not a right. Also when I say rights, I'm talking about my personal privacy as a customer, and the other digital laws that are broken by including a root kit or other such software without my consent. However, I don't think that after I purchase a product a company that they should be able to determine how, when, and with what I use it.

I purchased the music, I should now be able to use it however I want (within reason of course).

The minute companies stop caring about my enjoyment of the product, and my rights as a customer is the minute I stop caring about whether they get paid.

[Rysto]

I want a product. I'm paying for the product, because I want it. Why do I care if other people are paying for it?

You have a choice. You can pay for the product and receive it, or not pay for the product but still receive it. Which do you choose?

But we're talking about situations where the product is not out, and will not be out unless enough people pay for it.

Unless you can cover the entire cost of production, you paying isn't going to get you the product either.

This is just a large-scale version of the prisoner's dilemma. Everybody has the incentive to not pay, but when nobody pays, everybody is worse off.

[zenten]

I want a product. I'm paying for the product, because I want it. Why do I care if other people are paying for it?

You have a choice. You can pay for the product and receive it, or not pay for the product but still receive it. Which do you choose?

But we're talking about situations where the product is not out, and will not be out unless enough people pay for it.

Unless you can cover the entire cost of production, you paying isn't going to get you the product either.

This is just a large-scale version of the prisoner's dilemma. Everybody has the incentive to not pay, but when nobody pays, everybody is worse off.

I'm not convinced that these would apply in this situation.

[Rysto]

So how do you think funding for, say, firefighting services should work? Should there be a fund that people voluntarily contribute to, and the money contributed is the budget for the firefighters? How well do you think such a system would work?

[Ghorthas]

We're not talking about a necessary social service. Music, and movies do not save peoples lives. They are not necessary for public safety. They're entertainment, they are a luxury, a discretionary good when other needs are met. Comparing social services like police, firefighters, medical care, and welfare is not quite the same as talking about an industry that is largely fulfilling a desire rather than a need. We need fire fighters to pull us out of a burning building, we don't need music. Even then firefighters get paid MUCH less than the recording industry big wigs. Its not even the same kind of thing, so are we going to have private companies control where and how roads get build or which house gets saved from fire and the people in it? Government fills certain needs, and comparing a government social services to the way a business does, or could work is ridiculous. The whole point is these services are available to everyone, where as things like music are only available to people who can afford to pay for them. If things worked in your model, with your example of the firefighters we would get a bill when they came to our house to save us. Perhaps if you couldn't afford it they don't give you the service. Just like any other business or even better like the RIAA they come after you legally for whatever reason they can justify.

Yes there can be corruption and mismanagement in all areas that humans work. I am not claiming government or corporations are perfect. It is still a far leap to compare social services, which in many cases preserve the lives of people and are available to everyone to tertiary entertainment fulfilled by a corporate entity who makes a profit.

Corporations are subject to market fluctuations and societal change. Social services are also affected by these fluctuations, but they are necessary! Whether we have a recession or not we still need policemen, and firefighters. We still need roads. However, we may not need music or some other form of entertainment in the form it is now. If a company cannot change to meet the demands of a market place it changes or suffers. Our public services may suffer from funding cuts, but no matter what happens we need them. Comparing the economics of public goods with private goods is a poor analogy.

[Rysto]

Firefighting services were the first other public good that came to mind. I agree that firefighting services are an essential service and is properly the domain of the government. However, the point of my question was to demonstrate that zenten's proposed model for funding the production of music is flawed and that another model is necessary. I'm not arguing for the privatisation of firefighting services.

[xyzzy]

Unless you can cover the entire cost of production, you paying isn't going to get you the product either.

This is just a large-scale version of the prisoner's dilemma. Everybody has the incentive to not pay, but when nobody pays, everybody is worse off.

I knew I'd seen a situation like this before. It does have an interesting implication though. Namely, if everyone is a rational actor, then everyone will do the same thing, right? Therefore, whatever you do will be done by everyone else. Therefore, there are only two possible outcomes: everyone puts a bit in, and music gets made; or no-one puts a bit in, and it doesn't get made. Because of this, the rational actor puts his bit in, so do all the other rational actors, and the music gets made.

[Ghorthas]

I think music could find a way to work without having any designated charge for music. It'd be a rough transition for the music industry, and they'd probably have to change a lot about how the business functions for the transition to work. There are plenty of online services that find ways other than a direct charge to everyone for the service / product. Perhaps it could function like many shareware apps that lack a few features but are otherwise free functional applications. Perhaps they could use advertising to help augment their income as well. They could make lower quality lossy music available for free, while flac and higher quality versions of lossy codecs are available at a cost. There are all kinds of innovative solutions they could use, I've just named a few that pop to my mind. Most entertainment companies were created because of an opportunity in the market that allowed them to make a profit selling their product. The music industry has used strong arm legal tactics for too long instead of addressing their business model. This isn't really anything new its just that with the internet and the increasing complexity of our society their legal tactics are no longer effective. I don't know the solution, the only way to know is to try something different, and it doesn't seem like most entertainment companies are willing to do that.

[zenten]

Firefighting services were the first other public good that came to mind. I agree that firefighting services are an essential service and is properly the domain of the government. However, the point of my question was to demonstrate that zenten's proposed model for funding the production of music is flawed and that another model is necessary. I'm not arguing for the privatisation of firefighting services.

If my house is on fire, I need a firefighter to come and put it out. I don't need to install some firefighting software that someone wrote, or play firefighting on my mp3 player that I purchased.

We're not talking about a good or a service that is depleted by it's use with filesharing, so it follows different economic models. Even if I'm wrong, there's no reason to assume that intellectual products work best under the same model as physical products.

[Beyondthewall]

This is just a large-scale version of the prisoner's dilemma. Everybody has the incentive to not pay, but when nobody pays, everybody is worse off.

I'm seeing a remarkable similarity to voting here. When one votes, one is putting in some effort even knowing (well, theoretically) that their vote by itself does nothing, and that the system would function just fine, including them getting pretty much exactly the same benefits, if they didn't bother going down to the library just to punch a ballot. And yet, people do. Lots of people. Not everyone, sure, and the merits of this system are debatable, but the relevant part remains. (Yes, I realize that most democracies have terrible turnout rates, often less than 50%. But, with artists, that would be enough, methinks. Once you cut out the middleman, or at least once he stops asking for money.) People put in something knowing they could choose not to and be exactly as well off. I personally see no reason why the same might not be true of freely distributed music and other works of art. Especially if, as with voting, it was so commonplace and acceptable that teachers and parents would hold this attitude, and pass it on to children.
Sure, the system might not work if everyone actually thought about it. Apparently that doesn't happen.

[Rysto]

The cost of voting is much lower, though. And voting rates are declining.

[Karrion]

Have you or anyone you know started liking a band because they had a specific label, or because you heard/saw a commercial for the band?

Not that I recall, but I have started liking bands because I've heard them on the radio. Guess who controls what gets airtime? (Hint: it's not the listeners)

But that's beside the point, anyway. The point is not this label/that label, or even promotion. The point is that there exists a gatekeeper somewhere rejecting 90% of the crap so that I don't have to waste my valuable time listening to it in order to decide that I hate it.

[trickster721]

The point is that there exists a gatekeeper somewhere rejecting 90% of the crap so that I don't have to waste my valuable time listening to it in order to decide that I hate it.

Why are you reading xkcd? The comics in the newspaper have been carefully selected by unbiased professionals, they must be better.

[Gadren]

They could make lower quality lossy music available for free, while flac and higher quality versions of lossy codecs are available at a cost.

That might be an interesting one to pursue. The only creative enterprise I know which did that was Red vs Blue, and I'm wondering how well it worked for them. Most people were content to watch the lo-res versions, which, after all, contained the main value of the series (humor and the like), but subscribers were able to get high-res versions -- before everyone else. Now, I suspect that a few subscribers would put their high-res versions on BitTorrent, but I wonder: what was the trouble of getting it from BT, vs. just grabbing a subscription? And, even if that happened, the low number of high-res subscribers means that Rooster Teeth didn't have to pay as much for bandwidth costs, but their stuff gets on YouTube and gets them advertising.

[Amnesiasoft]

That might be an interesting one to pursue. The only creative enterprise I know which did that was Red vs Blue, and I'm wondering how well it worked for them. Most people were content to watch the lo-res versions, which, after all, contained the main value of the series (humor and the like), but subscribers were able to get high-res versions -- before everyone else. Now, I suspect that a few subscribers would put their high-res versions on BitTorrent, but I wonder: what was the trouble of getting it from BT, vs. just grabbing a subscription? And, even if that happened, the low number of high-res subscribers means that Rooster Teeth didn't have to pay as much for bandwidth costs, but their stuff gets on YouTube and gets them advertising.

Well, you also now have to take into account peoples obsession with High Def this and that. People are going nuts over HDTVs (though those resolutions are not even close to what I call high def, but that's a discussion on its own). now. There's even that one radio service offering you High Definition audio. It's very possible the method RvB used failed horribly, but there is also the chance that the general population wasn't ready for that method yet.

But then again, I never really cared for Red vs Blue very much, so I haven't followed it around and have no idea when any of this stuff they've done has occured. But I *think* I have the time periods about right.

[Beyondthewall]

The cost of voting is much lower, though. And voting rates are declining.

As it is now, yes. But if it were free, and people could donate as much as they like, that wouldn't be an issue. And while with voting people who would go at a higher cost to themselves still contribute the same amount to the system, with a donation system those who think it's worth more can contribute more. I mentioned the low voting rates in my previous post, but I'll go into some more detail here. With voting, very few people would actually say "you know, I'd like the government to keep going". Far more would say the same for an artist they enjoy. Falling voting rates are more indicative of a loss of faith in the government by the people than of a failure of the model. And keep in mind that it requires a fairly small fraction of those who enjoy the music to contribute for the artist to be comfortably supported..

But that's beside the point, anyway. The point is not this label/that label, or even promotion. The point is that there exists a gatekeeper somewhere rejecting 90% of the crap so that I don't have to waste my valuable time listening to it in order to decide that I hate it.

As I said above, the music that gets distributed - by filesharers - is the music that's liked. That's a far better filtering system than the music labels choosing for you.



On the somewhat-less-on-topic issue of alternate methods of supporting artists, specifically by offering a high-def version for a price and a low-def version for free: another advantage of this system is that one of the main motivations for people to share things is that they want it to be able to reach as many people as possible. If a free version were available, very few people would bother distributing a better one. The number of people looking for it would also go down.

Personally, my favorite model would be artists releasing a song for a price and only distributing - online, of course, physically is another matter - for a few weeks. This would be done on the understanding that it would be shared. Thus distribution costs are kept quite low, supported by filesharers, who would be doing it anyway. After perhaps a year they offer it on the website again, still for a price, though likely a lower one. Thus everyone has access to it, and those who want it as a filesharers gradually begin to stop sharing it can still get at it. If a file was going to be freely and widely distributed, those who'd bother paying to get it fast are going to be those who like the artist enough to pay a higher than normal price, supporting the artist and allowing the music to be distributed freely later. Of course the artist would accept donations. And the donations would come from a wider range of people because the file would be made available to a wider range of people. Everybody wins.

[Dyo]

Let's say I have a band. Very few people know about it, but we write a song, which happens to be pretty good. My band makes a self produced CD. Several people buy it, notice how good it is, and soon it is circulating the net. Because it is free, many more people download it, notice how good it is, and share it with their friends. Repeat. Eventually, my band is extremely popular, our music is put in movies, we are on talk shows, and everyone wants us to play at their venue.

Now, this all sounds great for the little guy, but thats not the whole story.

Personally, I think that bands should do endorsements, advertise, and accept product placement more often in order to allow rampant file sharing to go on. It's a good trade off.

Seriously, with the creation of the internet, this was inevitable. The album is almost dead, and many musicians are using my previous method to gain recognition (via myspace music, etc.). A good example of a fairly successful net artist would be Lemon Demon.

[graue]

Copyright might be an artificial construct, but it's economically necessary to encourage production of music.

I have an idea for how we can test this theory.

Let's put all music, video games, and movies online for free download (ignoring copyright) and see if people still pay.

Oh wait. It's been done, hasn't it.

Copyright is unenforceable, so this discussion doesn't matter. "Free download with optional donation" isn't a radical, loony idea championed by anti-copyright activists; it's what we have right now, for everything. The only problem is that some people are confused and don't realize this is what we have. Hence:

* Industry groups suing potential (often actual) customers
* Donations only possible with lots of overhead (like paying for the making and shipping of a plastic disc you don't want, just to support your favorite band)
* Pointless discussions about whether art can be produced without copyright (that train has left the station)

You said "if filesharing were totally legal". You're projecting if you think the fact that it's not is (alone) stopping many people.

[zenten]

You said "if filesharing were totally legal". You're projecting if you think the fact that it's not is (alone) stopping many people.

Filesharing of music is (currently at least) legal where I live. It's legal in much of Europe as well.

Not that I'm contradicting you mind you.

[Malice]

Clearing up a couple of movie misconceptions...

Movies actually work in a similar manner: everybody got paid long before the movie was released. The studio is trying to recoup the money they spent on making the film. There's no way to say that you're stealing from anyone but the movie studios when you illegally download films.

Technically this is true. However, it ignores the fact that "everybody got paid" by the studios, in anticipation of revenue off of the film. If everybody steals "Blam: The Movie", not only will there never be a "Blam: The Sequel" but it is unlikely the studios will work with the cast and crew of "Blam: The Movie" again. This is bad news for you if you liked "Blam" and want more movies like it.

But I'm almost positive I would put in less than that percentage of what I do now. This would at least be true in the case of movies & TV.

Right now, movies are intended to make back their production costs in the theaters...

Actually, most major films these days use their theatrical runs as advertising. At least 2/3rds of the money comes from DVD sales. Stealing the movie instead of watching it in theaters won't kill it; stealing the movie instead of buying it on DVD will.

---

I steal things (movies because I have to, music because my free music service has gaps in its selection).

That said, if you step back, this whole attitude that "we have the god-given right to download free things" is absurd. Yes, the ability is there, thanks to the internet. But the ability was there back when all you needed was a hand, a pocket, and the ability to run away from security guards real fast. The addition here is anonymity--with little risk of being caught, people get bold enough to do it, and eventually they get bold to say they should be able to do it.

By all means, revolutionize the entertainment industry. But don't try to pretend you're doing something noble, or anything at all besides petty theft.

[Dingbats]

Ok, people, please don't say "steal" unless you really mean physically stealing movies and music. As much as the MAFIAA wants you to believe it, copying is not the same thing as stealing.

[Rysto]

Ok, people, please don't say "steal" unless you really mean physically stealing movies and music. As much as the MAFIAA wants you to believe it, copying is not the same thing as stealing.

I'll agree to that so long as you agree that if also would not constitute "stealing" if Microsoft were to incorporate code from Linux into Windows(and not distribute Windows under the terms of the GPL).

[bigglesworth]

Well... I think that to a certain extent copying and physical stealing are different things. The person who's stuff is copied still has their stuff.

But there's more to it than that, livelihoods and so on that can be stolen.

[Dingbats]

Ok, people, please don't say "steal" unless you really mean physically stealing movies and music. As much as the MAFIAA wants you to believe it, copying is not the same thing as stealing.

I'll agree to that so long as you agree that if also would not constitute "stealing" if Microsoft were to incorporate code from Linux into Windows(and not distribute Windows under the terms of the GPL).

Of course, that's not stealing either.

[Delbin]

How can it be stealing if the thief takes away no currency or good and has no intention to buy the product anyway? Am I stealing if I download music available in the library, radio, or music videos? There's no net loss from these companies if I do these things.

I pay for what I can get it the price is reasonable. iTunes is just about right with $1 per song (in spite of increasing pressure to bump up prices to $2.50+.) I only download music from elsewhere when iTunes doesn't have it or I want to browse an album to see which song I want to buy. I subscribe to netflix and get most of my videos that way. I refuse to buy anime at $15 an episode and feel no guilt for pirating it outright. I don't know about others, but I'm happy to pay for my entertainment if the cost is reasonable.

I think what I'm trying to say is that art should be sold, but its price should not be determined by simple supply and demand. The price should be decided by the artist and not by a comitee of marketers that finds where the best profit margin lies. The existence of iTunes, Netflix, and Gametap suggests pretty heavily that we're being overcharged for packaging and marketing. I feel quite happy paying $2 a dvd through netflix and feel no need to spent $20+ on a few ounces of plastic and an insert.

I'm very sad that bittorrent is getting caught in the crossfire. It's like the VCR and tape recorder of old. The technology itself has a great deal to offer and it's getting attacked due to its exploitability.

[JayDee]

Ok, people, please don't say "steal" unless you really mean physically stealing movies and music. As much as the MAFIAA wants you to believe it, copying is not the same thing as stealing.

Sure, it isn't stealing when you don't physically take it away. That it doesn't have a trendy doesn't mean that it isn't an equally reprehensible crime.

[zenten]

Technically this is true. However, it ignores the fact that "everybody got paid" by the studios, in anticipation of revenue off of the film. If everybody steals "Blam: The Movie", not only will there never be a "Blam: The Sequel" but it is unlikely the studios will work with the cast and crew of "Blam: The Movie" again. This is bad news for you if you liked "Blam" and want more movies like it.

Just a small point, but it is no more theft than buying a used DVD is theft.

Ok, people, please don't say "steal" unless you really mean physically stealing movies and music. As much as the MAFIAA wants you to believe it, copying is not the same thing as stealing.

Sure, it isn't stealing when you don't physically take it away. That it doesn't have a trendy doesn't mean that it isn't an equally reprehensible crime.

No more reprehensible than using a public library.

[EvanED]

No more reprehensible than using a public library.

Only if you delete in within fairly short order.

[zenten]

No more reprehensible than using a public library.

Only if you delete in within fairly short order.

Why? I can borrow from the library over and over again. Plus how often do you really watch the same movie?

[Rysto]

No more reprehensible than using a public library.

The library doesn't photocopy books and distribute them.

[Karrion]

No more reprehensible than using a public library.

Only if you delete in within fairly short order.

Why? I can borrow from the library over and over again.

Yeah but while you have it, the library can't also lend it to other people without paying for more copies.

I'd say personal, noncommercial copyright infringement falls somewhere in between using a public library and pretty theft on the reprehensibility scale.

[trickster721]

personal, noncommercial copyright infringement

This whole concept is the invention of mafiaa lawyers. There's nothing illegal about personal copying inside your own home, and absolutely nothing anyone can do about it.