bit-tech.net

Pr0n more moral than file sharing

Pr0n more moral than file sharing

The survey carried out by UMR Research shows a gulf between those who consider online porn browsing acceptable and those who download films and movies.

An survey carried out by UMR Research revealed that watching pornography online is considered far more morally acceptable than downloading music and films illegitimately via file sharing networks.

The survey, which TorrentFreak reveals as being carried out across 1,000 New Zealanders, reveals that 41 percent of respondents believed it was morally acceptable to watch pornography on the Internet - which contrasts with just 18 percent who can live with the guilt of downloading copyright music without paying for it on their conscience.

An even smaller group, at just 13 percent, believed that it was acceptable to download a film illegally - significantly lower than the 18 percent which believed it was fine to both watch pornography and hide their activities from their spouse or partner, lying if necessary to keep their secret safe.

While the results of the survey - which, granted, uses far too small a sample size to guarantee any kind of statistical accuracy - show that the vast majority questioned are willing to keep on the right side of the copyright lobbies, an interesting figure to come out of the research is the difference between downloading content and streaming content: while just 13 percent of respondents felt OK with downloading a copyright TV show, 31 percent didn't see anything wrong with streaming the same copyright content via a site like YouTube.

While file sharing is getting attention from both lobby groups and the government at the moment, streaming is something which is less profitable to police: although organisations such as the RIAA and MPAA can fight to have copyright content removed from video streaming services like YouTube, they fight a target with much bigger pockets and a stronger reason to see their case heard in court than if they pursue individuals for sharing content on peer-to-peer networks. Whether the lack of legal action against such streaming sites - and associated press coverage - is responsible for the gulf between 'downloading' and 'streaming' the self-same infringing content isn't known, but is certainly something that those fighting for copyright holders' rights should be looking into.

Do consider downloading copyright content without permission morally acceptable, or are you just surprised to see so many of those surveyed willing to admit to a bit of midnight grot browsing? Share your thoughts over in the forums.

44 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Omnituens 14th January 2010, 13:37 Quote
what about file sharing pr0n?
Hg 14th January 2010, 13:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnituens
what about file sharing pr0n?

This....
Sleepstreamer 14th January 2010, 13:54 Quote
^LOL
andrew8200m 14th January 2010, 14:05 Quote
Lol.. interesting read but I think the survey is tainted here as not everyone will be telling the truth there.

Andy
IvanIvanovich 14th January 2010, 14:20 Quote
theres really no difference in streaming vs downloading, except you put up with lower quality... you're still getting the content free.
CardJoe 14th January 2010, 14:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnituens
what about file sharing pr0n?

Sure, if you want.
evanjdooner 14th January 2010, 14:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnituens
what about file sharing pr0n?

Yeah, but then people will know how nasty you're willing to go...
thehippoz 14th January 2010, 14:32 Quote
saddle popper survey!
thehippoz 14th January 2010, 14:42 Quote
lol there we go.. that's your prono guy
Bursar 14th January 2010, 14:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysol
theres really no difference in streaming vs downloading, except you put up with lower quality... you're still getting the content free.

But I think in the minds of people, if the content is available for streaming from somewhere like YouTube, then they think that it must be OK, otherwise it would be removed. Downloading is more obviously 'wrong'.
Xir 14th January 2010, 14:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bursar
But I think in the minds of people, if the content is available for streaming from somewhere like YouTube, then they think that it must be OK, otherwise it would be removed. Downloading is more obviously 'wrong'.

+1

also, when streaming, your not hosting, when filesharing, you are.

If it WOULD come to a process, you could be accused of stealing 1 copy (the one you streamed/saw). When you hosted a file (sharing) you'll be accused of stealing thousands.
The damage would be appropriate.

"The Midnight Grotto" ? Never heared that one before...:D
Mankz 14th January 2010, 15:00 Quote
I pride myself on my pron stashing and hiding abilities.
rickysio 14th January 2010, 15:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mankz
I pride myself on my pron stashing and hiding abilities.

By disconnecting the pr0n HDD when not in use? ;)
Sleepstreamer 14th January 2010, 16:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mankz
I pride myself on my pron stashing and hiding abilities.

By disconnecting the pr0n HDD when not in use? ;)

Truecrypt :D
eddtox 14th January 2010, 17:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleepstreamer
Truecrypt :D

Lmao 'billions of dollars and man hours in development, and this is what it gets used for :p. I'd love to see a survey of how many people only use encryption for their pr0n.
yougotkicked 14th January 2010, 18:34 Quote
i honestly think that it is no longer possible to controll filesharing, so the question isn't necessarily morality, it's a matter of the music industry reformatting to account for it. find ways to make a legal copy more appealing than an illegal one. i personally don't pirate much music, i care about sound quality and even a high quality file downloaded via p2p will have worse sound quality than the same file copied from a CD. when i do download it is usually for something that has been out for a while or hhas allready made the artist plenty of money, so i don't feel bad about it.
Farfalho 14th January 2010, 19:10 Quote
Quote:

Win xD
The_Beast 14th January 2010, 19:25 Quote
Quote:
The survey, which TorrentFreak reveals as being carried out across 1,000 New Zealanders

Who cares about what new zealanders think?


I don't :)
TheUn4seen 14th January 2010, 20:15 Quote
What such surveys show best is how many people were successfully brainwashed by the music and movie industries and how well the lobbies work.
Denis_iii 14th January 2010, 20:34 Quote
letting amercans watch hulu and not me in the UK or others around the globe is racist!!!! bring on the torrents :) will lead to a more equal world lol
now porn sites :) they let me watch whatever I want, where ever I want when ever I want, now thats the model that will succeed payed or free and Boxee looks to be leading the way
Neophyte4Life 14th January 2010, 21:03 Quote
why download pr0n when you can make it?
dark_avenger 14th January 2010, 22:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neophyte4Life
why download pr0n when you can make it?

lol
+1
chrisb2e9 15th January 2010, 00:47 Quote
My porn is on my data drive in a folder called "porn". I dont care who sees it. Why hide what everyone knows about anyway? The backgrounds on my computer aren't exactly "work friendly" either...
thehippoz 15th January 2010, 00:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neophyte4Life
why download pr0n when you can make it?

ha
Faulk_Wulf 15th January 2010, 05:08 Quote
You're very wrong about YouTube in the 5th paragraph. Try finding any music by a Warner Music Group contracted artist, or even Sony.

The number of music videos and just random clips pulled because of a song in it is astronomical. I've stopped even uploading my music videos to YouTube because they just get pulled down. You can stream the ENTIRE Advent Children movie but you make one music video and get slapped with a take down? It's bullshit.

Music videos / AMV's are fair use. No money, no profits, no nothing. Until the RIAA / MPAA AND the streaming services pull their heads out, nothing will change ever. Streaming isn't stealing because you aren't keeping a copy. (If you download a YouTube video, you're downloading, and this would be illegal.)

Soon artists will realize they don't need a record label and just self-release on their own website. I bet you'll see a about 20% less pirating, but a lot less bitching by those who do pay because it funds the artist directly. And artists might get less snotty.

Or someone will create the Steam platform of the music industry. (Or hell, Steam could branch out there.)

/rant
l3v1ck 15th January 2010, 08:20 Quote
Speaking of downloading porn. This story links in nicely to this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8459898.stm
Tulatin 15th January 2010, 09:34 Quote
Sometimes you need to be careful downloading porn, though. If you end up with something that's a little less than legal, you may get v&.
Denis_iii 15th January 2010, 09:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neophyte4Life
why download pr0n when you can make it?
classic :)
Jipa 15th January 2010, 10:07 Quote
What's wrong with the Kiwis? And where the heck did they pull the 1000 people for this survey? The pr0n-results made me lol.
SoulRider 15th January 2010, 12:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faulk_Wulf
You're very wrong about YouTube in the 5th paragraph. Try finding any music by a Warner Music Group contracted artist, or even Sony.

The number of music videos and just random clips pulled because of a song in it is astronomical. I've stopped even uploading my music videos to YouTube because they just get pulled down. You can stream the ENTIRE Advent Children movie but you make one music video and get slapped with a take down? It's bullshit.

Or someone will create the Steam platform of the music industry. (Or hell, Steam could branch out there.)

/rant

http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/13/youtube-vevo-overtake-myspace-music/

This is why unauthorised content is taken down. If you want to watch sony videos on you tube, you can very easily, just go to the Vevo channel on you tube..

http://www.youtube.com/user/vevo

You can watch Kings Of Leon, and they are a sony band.
Star*Dagger 15th January 2010, 21:05 Quote
I reject the concept of societies definitions of morals and right and wrong. We need to move beyond the Manichean definitions and live in a dynamic Post-Modern society of tolerance and diversity.
LordPyrinc 16th January 2010, 00:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denis_iii
letting amercans watch hulu and not me in the UK or others around the globe is racist!!!!

You can't watch HULU there? That is f-ed up.
livesabitch 16th January 2010, 01:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehippoz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neophyte4Life
why download pr0n when you can make it?

ha

agreed! +1
OleJ 16th January 2010, 15:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
While the results of the survey - which, granted, uses far too small a sample size to guarantee any kind of statistical accuracy

I don't know about other countries but in Denmark the consensus apparently is that 1,000 samples is the exact minimum needed in order to achieve a correct diverse demographic statistic.

I'd just like to know whether the quote is the opinion of Gareth or truly a factual matter?

Thanks mkay.
Deadpunkdave 16th January 2010, 17:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by OleJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
While the results of the survey - which, granted, uses far too small a sample size to guarantee any kind of statistical accuracy

I don't know about other countries but in Denmark the consensus apparently is that 1,000 samples is the exact minimum needed in order to achieve a correct diverse demographic statistic.

I'd just like to know whether the quote is the opinion of Gareth or truly a factual matter?

Thanks mkay.

Even if one accepts (I don't) that 1000 people can represent the 6 million inhabitants of Denmark, clearly the number required to represent however many billion internet users there are would have to be correspondingly larger, and selected with some regard to location (rather than all being from one country).
smc8788 16th January 2010, 17:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadpunkdave
Even if one accepts (I don't) that 1000 people can represent the 6 million inhabitants of Denmark, clearly the number required to represent however many billion internet users there are would have to be correspondingly larger, and selected with some regard to location (rather than all being from one country).

I believe the general rule is that as the size of the population increases, the percentage of people that need to be sampled to achieve a certain level of statistical accuracy decreases, so the required sample size doesn't scale linearly with increasing population (i.e. for a population of 1000 you may need to sample 20%, while for a population of 1 million you may only need to sample 0.2%).
Deadpunkdave 16th January 2010, 17:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc8788
I believe the general rule is that as the size of the population increases, the percentage of people that need to be sampled to achieve a certain level of statistical accuracy decreases, so the required sample size doesn't scale linearly with increasing population (i.e. for a population of 1000 you may need to sample 20%, while for a population of 1 million you may only need to sample 0.2%).

You're correct, the number needed scales with the square root so the percentage goes down but the actual value still increases.
OleJ 16th January 2010, 20:35 Quote
Thanks guys :)

Seeing as New Zealand has around 4 million inhabitants and they've talked to 1000 people I believe that they've indeed reached critical mass for a broad representation of the population.
Xtrafresh 17th January 2010, 04:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddtox
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleepstreamer
Truecrypt :D

Lmao 'billions of dollars and man hours in development, and this is what it gets used for :p. I'd love to see a survey of how many people only use encryption for their pr0n.
vKGK2fplV_w

The whole clip is worth watching, but for my reaction to your qoute, you can skip to 5 minutes :D
Tulatin 17th January 2010, 07:54 Quote
To be fair, people who encrypt their porn are either saddled with families who they don't want looking around, or people who are looking at some very illegal things.
eddtox 17th January 2010, 14:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtrafresh
vKGK2fplV_w

The whole clip is worth watching, but for my reaction to your qoute, you can skip to 5 minutes :D

Hahaha that is awesome!
mrbens 18th January 2010, 01:10 Quote
It's 'A survey', not 'An survey'!

This isn't surprising as watching porn is legal and filesharing is illegal. Or maybe New Zealanders just like porn! I'm very surprised by how few would think it's OK to download a TV show! I wonder if the same people think it's OK to save the TV show onto a Sky+, TIVO etc then burn to a DVD.

Also your last paragraph needs finishing: "Do you consider downloading copyrighted content without permission morally acceptable..."
Krayzie_B.o.n.e. 18th January 2010, 01:27 Quote
Encrypted Pr0n? How funny is that. I can hack your identity but theres no way in hell your gonna let me steal your Pr0n?!! LOL

Do people really watch the same Pr0n clip more than once? (Like it's some Oscar winning performance)
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums