|
File sharing didn't start with the internet.
Ever heard or burning CDs? Recording VHS tapes? Hell, even audio tapes were considered the "death" of the music industry.
Piracy isn't something that's going to end anytime soon. As long as there's a price on some sort of product that requires 0 production costs, there will be ways to get it for free.
Embrace it.
|
On February 23 2012 08:14 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 13:27 Talin wrote:On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions. Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games. Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it. On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc. The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced. You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism. The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users. I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification. I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss. Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life...
Yeah, this is the reasoning I was giving in the earlier pages of the thread where I've derided people who rationalise their piracy using "their business model is bad" as ridiculous. I absolutely disagree that the movie industry is being dumb and non-effective, but I would never justify breaking the law on this. I accept the piracy but not the ridiculous justification that goes behind it.
i.e. If you want to pirate, accept that you are doing it in the wrong. Don't try and argue that you have a "right" to it.
|
On February 23 2012 08:52 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 08:14 Brett wrote:On February 22 2012 13:27 Talin wrote:On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions. Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games. Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it. On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc. The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced. You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism. The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users. I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification. I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss. Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life... Actually, given your level of argumentation I'd say you're the one lacking perspective here. You're clinging to things that don't really matter and have zero influence on the issue. It's just a convoluted and long-winded way of trying to tell people what they should and shouldn't be doing, but you're not actually in a position to dictate that and there's no reason for me or anybody else to adhere to what you think we should be doing. What are you even trying to prove? Either way, one side will absolutely be forced to adapt to the other. If the internet were to adapt to the laws that are being proposed at large today and pushed by the industry to "prevent piracy", the outcome would be fatal for any free society, because these laws affect a lot more than piracy (and I don't think anyone doubts they would be used to their full potential). I think everyone should hope that this doesn't happen. The only other option, one that is actually healthy for everyone is for relevant industries is to adapt to the reality that is the internet instead.
Of course my opinion on people's poor justification for breaking the law, doesnt really matter. But disobeying law doesn't really matter? If that's your attitude then you're not worth discussing this any further with. I'm in a position to criticise people for disobeying law and justifying it by making stupid arguments about industry/business decision making and ethics.
I'm not supporting the proposed laws, so please don't insinuate that I am. I'm criticising people who pirate material (breaking existing laws that don't affect general privacy and freedom), WHICH LEADS TO THESE LAWS BEING CONSIDERED, who then go on to make stupid justifications for why they are breaking the law.
|
On February 23 2012 13:12 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 08:52 Talin wrote:On February 23 2012 08:14 Brett wrote:On February 22 2012 13:27 Talin wrote:On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions. Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games. Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it. On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc. The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced. You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism. The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users. I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification. I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss. Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life... Actually, given your level of argumentation I'd say you're the one lacking perspective here. You're clinging to things that don't really matter and have zero influence on the issue. It's just a convoluted and long-winded way of trying to tell people what they should and shouldn't be doing, but you're not actually in a position to dictate that and there's no reason for me or anybody else to adhere to what you think we should be doing. What are you even trying to prove? Either way, one side will absolutely be forced to adapt to the other. If the internet were to adapt to the laws that are being proposed at large today and pushed by the industry to "prevent piracy", the outcome would be fatal for any free society, because these laws affect a lot more than piracy (and I don't think anyone doubts they would be used to their full potential). I think everyone should hope that this doesn't happen. The only other option, one that is actually healthy for everyone is for relevant industries is to adapt to the reality that is the internet instead. Of course my opinion on people's poor justification for breaking the law, doesnt really matter. But disobeying law doesn't really matter? If that's your attitude then you're not worth discussing this any further with. I'm in a position to criticise people for disobeying law and justifying it by making stupid arguments about industry/business decision making and ethics. I'm not supporting the proposed laws, so please don't insinuate that I am. I'm criticising people who pirate material (breaking existing laws that don't affect general privacy and freedom), WHICH LEADS TO THESE LAWS BEING CONSIDERED, who then go on to make stupid justifications for why they are breaking the law.
Or perhaps it leads to old laws being questioned, and ultimately dropped. If not killing people 40+ was illegal would you slaughter your parents? There is more to this discussion than "illegal = bad", please try to see that.
|
On February 23 2012 13:12 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 08:52 Talin wrote:On February 23 2012 08:14 Brett wrote:On February 22 2012 13:27 Talin wrote:On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions. Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games. Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it. On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc. The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced. You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism. The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users. I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification. I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss. Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life... Actually, given your level of argumentation I'd say you're the one lacking perspective here. You're clinging to things that don't really matter and have zero influence on the issue. It's just a convoluted and long-winded way of trying to tell people what they should and shouldn't be doing, but you're not actually in a position to dictate that and there's no reason for me or anybody else to adhere to what you think we should be doing. What are you even trying to prove? Either way, one side will absolutely be forced to adapt to the other. If the internet were to adapt to the laws that are being proposed at large today and pushed by the industry to "prevent piracy", the outcome would be fatal for any free society, because these laws affect a lot more than piracy (and I don't think anyone doubts they would be used to their full potential). I think everyone should hope that this doesn't happen. The only other option, one that is actually healthy for everyone is for relevant industries is to adapt to the reality that is the internet instead. Of course my opinion on people's poor justification for breaking the law, doesnt really matter. But disobeying law doesn't really matter? If that's your attitude then you're not worth discussing this any further with. I'm in a position to criticise people for disobeying law and justifying it by making stupid arguments about industry/business decision making and ethics.
You're in position to criticise anything you want, but in this case it's empty words and a waste of everyone's time. You're not getting anywhere with that in this debate.
People break dozens of laws on daily basis, probably even without being aware of it. Nobody is hardcoded to follow them. In essence, everyone has to willingly chose whether they follow laws and which laws they follow and for which reasons - which is why a common practice in lawmaking is to ensure that laws are reasonable and widely accepted, can be implemented and their implementation can be controlled, and can be efficiently enforced in majority of cases if there's need to.
Laws that do not meet these criteria are obsolete and meaningless, they're just words on paper. Anti-piracy laws (existing OR proposed) meet NONE of those principles. So you're essentially clinging to laws that have no influence and don't matter, except as a form of public denial and resistance against change that must happen.
|
On February 23 2012 12:09 Azzur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 08:14 Brett wrote:On February 22 2012 13:27 Talin wrote:On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions. Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games. Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it. On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc. The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced. You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism. The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users. I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification. I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss. Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life... Yeah, this is the reasoning I was giving in the earlier pages of the thread where I've derided people who rationalise their piracy using "their business model is bad" as ridiculous. I absolutely disagree that the movie industry is being dumb and non-effective, but I would never justify breaking the law on this. I accept the piracy but not the ridiculous justification that goes behind it. i.e. If you want to pirate, accept that you are doing it in the wrong. Don't try and argue that you have a "right" to it.
You are making the point that people are need to "obey the fucking law", perhaps you do not realize that in many countries around the world it is perfectly acceptable to download pirated material with literally no legal consequences. So is it morally acceptable in countries that do not have these laws to download it? Or is it still morally reprehensible to download files even though it's legal and the laws should be changed to reflect this?
No matter what your answers to these questions are it is all simply your own opinion. To try and state that all downloads of pirated files are illegal is simply your own opinion. You can't force people to accept your own personal morals as they are just that, personal.
To me downloading music or games is perfectly justifiable and a more efficient way to spend my money on things I actually enjoy. I buy plenty of games and music but I pirate many, many more. Why? Because I do not have an unlimited budget to waste my money on things that I will not get an adequate amount of enjoyment from. Piracy helps to limit this problem by allowing me to try games before I buy, or to listen to music to find out if I like it at all before paying for it.
You know when you go to a movie theater and see a movie that is beyond fucking terrible and walk out you can get the price of your ticket refunded by the theater. The game, movie, and music industry does not function like this so you have to take it into your own hands to test their product before you buy. Remember this is completely legal in many parts of the world.
|
On February 24 2012 04:25 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 13:12 Brett wrote:On February 23 2012 08:52 Talin wrote:On February 23 2012 08:14 Brett wrote:On February 22 2012 13:27 Talin wrote:On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions. Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games. Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it. On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc. The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced. You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism. The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users. I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification. I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss. Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life... Actually, given your level of argumentation I'd say you're the one lacking perspective here. You're clinging to things that don't really matter and have zero influence on the issue. It's just a convoluted and long-winded way of trying to tell people what they should and shouldn't be doing, but you're not actually in a position to dictate that and there's no reason for me or anybody else to adhere to what you think we should be doing. What are you even trying to prove? Either way, one side will absolutely be forced to adapt to the other. If the internet were to adapt to the laws that are being proposed at large today and pushed by the industry to "prevent piracy", the outcome would be fatal for any free society, because these laws affect a lot more than piracy (and I don't think anyone doubts they would be used to their full potential). I think everyone should hope that this doesn't happen. The only other option, one that is actually healthy for everyone is for relevant industries is to adapt to the reality that is the internet instead. Of course my opinion on people's poor justification for breaking the law, doesnt really matter. But disobeying law doesn't really matter? If that's your attitude then you're not worth discussing this any further with. I'm in a position to criticise people for disobeying law and justifying it by making stupid arguments about industry/business decision making and ethics. You're in position to criticise anything you want, but in this case it's empty words and a waste of everyone's time. You're not getting anywhere with that in this debate. People break dozens of laws on daily basis, probably even without being aware of it. Nobody is hardcoded to follow them. In essence, everyone has to willingly chose whether they follow laws and which laws they follow and for which reasons - which is why a common practice in lawmaking is to ensure that laws are reasonable and widely accepted, can be implemented and their implementation can be controlled, and can be efficiently enforced in majority of cases if there's need to. Laws that do not meet these criteria are obsolete and meaningless, they're just words on paper. Anti-piracy laws (existing OR proposed) meet NONE of those principles. So you're essentially clinging to laws that have no influence and don't matter, except as a form of public denial and resistance against change that must happen.
Says you? Thank you for speaking for everyone else. I'm sure you can read their minds entirely.
Of course people break laws every day; in fact I represent these people for a living. Including copyright infringers. So what? Of course there is nothing that can postively FORCE you to comply with ANY law, but the point is, if you don't comply you can expect to be prosecuted. If you want to look at it that way, it's ALL a choice of whether you comply or not. It's ALL a personal moral issue. Regardless, the proper means to protest existing law do not include contravention of it. There are plenty of laws that some people don't agree with, and they are prosecuted daily for their disregard. Only rarely have I heard such silly justification from my clients akin to "Shitty antiquated business models and practices made me do it!!"... They also aren't so deluded as to think they have a right to consume whatever they want.
I don't need the lecture on what law making entails, my law degree will suffice. As for empty words... Have you actually got any evidence that current anti-piracy laws are not reasonable? That they're not actually widely accepted? In regards to efficient enforcement, I don't think you really understand how much general crime, whether drug, property, road/traffic, or violence related, actually goes on without ever being dealt with. It's naive to think that difficult enforcement is, in isolation, a sufficient reason for the removal of a law.
All I've said here is that I think SOME people are making stupid justifications for their piracy. I'm not debating proposed laws. I'm not debating the efficacy of current TV/Movie/Music industry services. I'm not naive so as to think that you and others won't keep pirating material. All I'm saying is that I will call people out on what I consider delusional justification. If you think it's reasonable justification, you're entitled to your opinion. The rest is fluff.
|
On February 24 2012 05:09 SpinmovE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 12:09 Azzur wrote:On February 23 2012 08:14 Brett wrote:On February 22 2012 13:27 Talin wrote:On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions. Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games. Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it. On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc. The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced. You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism. The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users. I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification. I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss. Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life... Yeah, this is the reasoning I was giving in the earlier pages of the thread where I've derided people who rationalise their piracy using "their business model is bad" as ridiculous. I absolutely disagree that the movie industry is being dumb and non-effective, but I would never justify breaking the law on this. I accept the piracy but not the ridiculous justification that goes behind it. i.e. If you want to pirate, accept that you are doing it in the wrong. Don't try and argue that you have a "right" to it. You are making the point that people are need to "obey the fucking law", perhaps you do not realize that in many countries around the world it is perfectly acceptable to download pirated material with literally no legal consequences. So is it morally acceptable in countries that do not have these laws to download it? Or is it still morally reprehensible to download files even though it's legal and the laws should be changed to reflect this? No matter what your answers to these questions are it is all simply your own opinion. To try and state that all downloads of pirated files are illegal is simply your own opinion. You can't force people to accept your own personal morals as they are just that, personal. To me downloading music or games is perfectly justifiable and a more efficient way to spend my money on things I actually enjoy. I buy plenty of games and music but I pirate many, many more. Why? Because I do not have an unlimited budget to waste my money on things that I will not get an adequate amount of enjoyment from. Piracy helps to limit this problem by allowing me to try games before I buy, or to listen to music to find out if I like it at all before paying for it. You know when you go to a movie theater and see a movie that is beyond fucking terrible and walk out you can get the price of your ticket refunded by the theater. The game, movie, and music industry does not function like this so you have to take it into your own hands to test their product before you buy. Remember this is completely legal in many parts of the world.
Can you give examples of places where it is okay to pirate material? Before you answer, maybe take a look at this document from the US copyright office. Basically every advanced country adheres to some trade agreement when it comes to copyrights. Sure you can make the case that in some places like Iran it's okay. But in general, there's other human rights issues to take care of; and it seems like a thin ground to stand on.
Pirating ruins the value of media - which can be clearly seen in your post. You don't seem to feel that anything has value at all unless it meets your expectations. This is because now you expect to get everything free and only pay if you feel like it. That's not how the world works. You said it yourself, the industry does not work like this. It does not give you the right to go out and do whatever you feel like to get around it - infringing on another human's rights in the process.
|
This is goign to sound quite condescending ... and i guess it is
But ... piracy of some description has ALWAYS happened.
the record was slated as killing concerts
the radio was slated as killing records
the tape was slated as killing music as it could be copied
the CD was meant to revolutionise sound quality (but people mixing decided to start loudness wards)
the dvd was released with drm built into it
Now the internet is killing music
yet its more popular then ever,m same with movies
The fact is this: People like to own stuff. If they can afford it they will buy it.
I am 31 now, when i was 16-20 i basically copied the vast majority of my games bcause i had to save up and had no money.
Now im 32 my income is about 10x what it was when i was 18 adn now i spend about £500 a year on games ... that doesnt include the software i devlop on that costs around £2000 for what i need ... naturally i copied that to learn the platform ... and eventually ended up buying it to work for myself.
The point? If I hadnt ripped all that stuff off there is no way that id be spending this much now.
I went to the cinema 2 nights ago to go and see aliens ... first time in about 8 years ... why? Because its a decent film that isnt just another attempt at holywood buttfucking me with some generic crap.
piracy DOES NOT reduce the value of media. It has NEXT TO NO VALUE because you DO NOT NEED IT. you can take it or leave it, as such its value is zero. When you spend money on it its simply beacuse you wanted to not because you needed to. Moreover people saying this stuff has value is insanely wrong.
People think this stuff has no value because markets are totally flooded with generico crap. Each item has no value because there are 10-20 other things that you can replace it with. You do not need the thing you are looking at. Its a nice to have.
'This is because now you expect to get everything free and only pay if you feel like it. That's not how the world works'
Actually that is precisely the way things are moving towards. People have forgotten that the point of money is really so that the poor can get paid for work, get taxed and live a meager life. Just about anyone on here is obscenely rich. the profiteering we are involved in is total luxuary. You are treating things that get pirated like physical objects or food. They are not.
|
I seriously don't understand this moto of "Piracy is stealing" blahblah...
To me, it's not. Stealing is if I break into your house, take your stuff and now it's mine. Result : you don't have said object anymore and the burglar gets it. This is obviously wrong. "Piracy" on the other hand, is totally different. To make a comparison with a real life scenario, it would be like me coming to your house with your permission, scanning all your stuff, leaving, then create the same stuff you had. Result : You get to keep your stuff (so you're happy) and I get new stuff (so I'm happy). Everyone's happy. Yay 
Except the industry. They aren't happy because they somehow have a flawed vision of reality. Most people that download stuff aren't planning to buy it in the first place. When the number of illegal download of a games are released, say 100 000 downloads, the editors are quick to point out that this corresponds to 100 000 sales lost wich is around 6 000 000$ lost. This is not true. A lot of these 100 000 persons wouldn't even had bought it in the first place, they would never have made money out of these guys and still aren't. Then, out of the people that may have bought if they couldn't download it, there is two category.
1) The guys that are going to download the game, play it, end of the story. These guys do represent a lost of money.
2) The guys that downloaded the game to check out if they could run it, because they wanted to check the game out or w/e then buy it. There is many reasons to buy a game after having downloaded it and many persons actually do it. These guys did download the game, but they do not represent a loss of money since they bought later.
Conclusion : To me piracy isn't stealing and shouldn't be considered so. However, piracy is still illegal.
EDIT : While rereading my post I realized my actual position isn't very clear. I'm not supporting illegal downloads (but if it became legal I wouldn't complain duh), I'm just ranting about "piracy is like stealing" and the sales lost thing
|
On February 25 2012 03:05 MrTortoise wrote:
piracy DOES NOT reduce the value of media. It has NEXT TO NO VALUE because you DO NOT NEED IT. you can take it or leave it, as such its value is zero. When you spend money on it its simply beacuse you wanted to not because you needed to. Moreover people saying this stuff has value is insanely wrong.
People think this stuff has no value because markets are totally flooded with generico crap. Each item has no value because there are 10-20 other things that you can replace it with. You do not need the thing you are looking at. Its a nice to have.
'This is because now you expect to get everything free and only pay if you feel like it. That's not how the world works'
Actually that is precisely the way things are moving towards. People have forgotten that the point of money is really so that the poor can get paid for work, get taxed and live a meager life. Just about anyone on here is obscenely rich. the profiteering we are involved in is total luxuary. You are treating things that get pirated like physical objects or food. They are not.
Wait, what? Do we really need a basic lesson on supply and demand? Value or price depends on the supply and demand of a good or service. Entertainment media, in this world is in high demand because everyone WANTS it. Its price is determined by what people are willing to pay for it and on supply and availability. Pirating increases the supply of media and reduces its value to next to zero.
Just because something is intangible does not mean that basic economics doesn't apply. According to your logic everything besides food, clothing, and shelter should be free. So maybe you could give us all a free copy of the software you develop. No? Oh because it sustains your livelihood. Or in other words, has value.
|
On February 21 2012 14:41 firehand101 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 14:37 ArtofRuin wrote:
If I am unwilling to pay any amount of money for an album, then when I download it for free I am not stealing. There is no lost profit. As well, The Pirate Bay is also a fantastic hub for freeware and indie bands, Katawa Shoujo (a free visual novel) being a fine example. Are you serious? THAT IS NOT STEALING?!? seriously, if you had no intention of buying it, then you should not get it for free! fml, life doesnt work like that. An artist doesnt pour his/her soul into a CD, just so someone like you can listen to it for the hell of it
It is not stealing, The music producers lose no physical products or sales. In fact many experts have concluded that "music piracy" in fact boosts sales of music as it exposes people to music they otherwise would have never heard and allows them to make the choice to support the artist (which many do). Think of online music sharing as the radio of the 21st century.
|
On February 25 2012 02:53 GefilteFish wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2012 05:09 SpinmovE wrote:On February 23 2012 12:09 Azzur wrote:On February 23 2012 08:14 Brett wrote:On February 22 2012 13:27 Talin wrote:On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions. Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games. Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it. On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc. The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced. You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism. The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users. I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification. I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss. Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life... Yeah, this is the reasoning I was giving in the earlier pages of the thread where I've derided people who rationalise their piracy using "their business model is bad" as ridiculous. I absolutely disagree that the movie industry is being dumb and non-effective, but I would never justify breaking the law on this. I accept the piracy but not the ridiculous justification that goes behind it. i.e. If you want to pirate, accept that you are doing it in the wrong. Don't try and argue that you have a "right" to it. You are making the point that people are need to "obey the fucking law", perhaps you do not realize that in many countries around the world it is perfectly acceptable to download pirated material with literally no legal consequences. So is it morally acceptable in countries that do not have these laws to download it? Or is it still morally reprehensible to download files even though it's legal and the laws should be changed to reflect this? No matter what your answers to these questions are it is all simply your own opinion. To try and state that all downloads of pirated files are illegal is simply your own opinion. You can't force people to accept your own personal morals as they are just that, personal. To me downloading music or games is perfectly justifiable and a more efficient way to spend my money on things I actually enjoy. I buy plenty of games and music but I pirate many, many more. Why? Because I do not have an unlimited budget to waste my money on things that I will not get an adequate amount of enjoyment from. Piracy helps to limit this problem by allowing me to try games before I buy, or to listen to music to find out if I like it at all before paying for it. You know when you go to a movie theater and see a movie that is beyond fucking terrible and walk out you can get the price of your ticket refunded by the theater. The game, movie, and music industry does not function like this so you have to take it into your own hands to test their product before you buy. Remember this is completely legal in many parts of the world. Pirating ruins the value of media - which can be clearly seen in your post. You don't seem to feel that anything has value at all unless it meets your expectations. This is because now you expect to get everything free and only pay if you feel like it. That's not how the world works. You said it yourself, the industry does not work like this. It does not give you the right to go out and do whatever you feel like to get around it - infringing on another human's rights in the process.
File sharing does not ruin the value of media. Media has no value, it is simply plans to an arrangement of the physical realm. It has nothing to do with "his" expectations, but of the nature of the universe. Physical things have value because there is a limit to the number of physical things in the universe (you could run out - then your supply and demand takes over). But you can have practically unlimited amount of copies of a file. Or of people with the same idea. If you can have unlimited, then it can't cost anything, or else you couldn't have unlimited. But you can, so it doesn't cost anything. If it doesn't cost anything, it isn't worth anything. If it isn't worth anything, how can you 'take' it from someone?
Using penalties and imprisonment to keep IDEAS to yourself and charging people REAL things for IMAGINARY things instead of sharing them with humanity is the real human right infringement.
Arguing that it IS illegal is stupid. It's like arguing if 4 = 4. Argue about whether it SHOULD be illegal.
|
On February 25 2012 03:35 GefilteFish wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 03:05 MrTortoise wrote:
piracy DOES NOT reduce the value of media. It has NEXT TO NO VALUE because you DO NOT NEED IT. you can take it or leave it, as such its value is zero. When you spend money on it its simply beacuse you wanted to not because you needed to. Moreover people saying this stuff has value is insanely wrong.
People think this stuff has no value because markets are totally flooded with generico crap. Each item has no value because there are 10-20 other things that you can replace it with. You do not need the thing you are looking at. Its a nice to have.
'This is because now you expect to get everything free and only pay if you feel like it. That's not how the world works'
Actually that is precisely the way things are moving towards. People have forgotten that the point of money is really so that the poor can get paid for work, get taxed and live a meager life. Just about anyone on here is obscenely rich. the profiteering we are involved in is total luxuary. You are treating things that get pirated like physical objects or food. They are not.
Wait, what? Do we really need a basic lesson on supply and demand? Value or price depends on the supply and demand of a good or service. Entertainment media, in this world is in high demand because everyone WANTS it. Its price is determined by what people are willing to pay for it and on supply and availability. Pirating increases the supply of media and reduces its value to next to zero. Just because something is intangible does not mean that basic economics doesn't apply. According to your logic everything besides food, clothing, and shelter should be free. So maybe you could give us all a free copy of the software you develop. No? Oh because it sustains your livelihood. Or in other words, has value.
Entertainment media in this world has unlimited supply, so everyone GETS it. There are no 'goods' so how can you pay for them? Pay for service, pay for physical things, don't pay for your own mind.
Edit: If something is intangible then YES EXACTLY basic economics doesn't apply. Things other then REAL OBJECTS should be free. It only currently sustains livelihood because of archaic laws. Ever heard of Linux/any free software ever? Free distribution works pretty well.
|
On February 25 2012 03:46 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 02:53 GefilteFish wrote:On February 24 2012 05:09 SpinmovE wrote:On February 23 2012 12:09 Azzur wrote:On February 23 2012 08:14 Brett wrote:On February 22 2012 13:27 Talin wrote:On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions. Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games. Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it. On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc. The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced. You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism. The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users. I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification. I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss. Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life... Yeah, this is the reasoning I was giving in the earlier pages of the thread where I've derided people who rationalise their piracy using "their business model is bad" as ridiculous. I absolutely disagree that the movie industry is being dumb and non-effective, but I would never justify breaking the law on this. I accept the piracy but not the ridiculous justification that goes behind it. i.e. If you want to pirate, accept that you are doing it in the wrong. Don't try and argue that you have a "right" to it. You are making the point that people are need to "obey the fucking law", perhaps you do not realize that in many countries around the world it is perfectly acceptable to download pirated material with literally no legal consequences. So is it morally acceptable in countries that do not have these laws to download it? Or is it still morally reprehensible to download files even though it's legal and the laws should be changed to reflect this? No matter what your answers to these questions are it is all simply your own opinion. To try and state that all downloads of pirated files are illegal is simply your own opinion. You can't force people to accept your own personal morals as they are just that, personal. To me downloading music or games is perfectly justifiable and a more efficient way to spend my money on things I actually enjoy. I buy plenty of games and music but I pirate many, many more. Why? Because I do not have an unlimited budget to waste my money on things that I will not get an adequate amount of enjoyment from. Piracy helps to limit this problem by allowing me to try games before I buy, or to listen to music to find out if I like it at all before paying for it. You know when you go to a movie theater and see a movie that is beyond fucking terrible and walk out you can get the price of your ticket refunded by the theater. The game, movie, and music industry does not function like this so you have to take it into your own hands to test their product before you buy. Remember this is completely legal in many parts of the world. Pirating ruins the value of media - which can be clearly seen in your post. You don't seem to feel that anything has value at all unless it meets your expectations. This is because now you expect to get everything free and only pay if you feel like it. That's not how the world works. You said it yourself, the industry does not work like this. It does not give you the right to go out and do whatever you feel like to get around it - infringing on another human's rights in the process. File sharing does not ruin the value of media. Media has no value, it is simply plans to an arrangement of the physical realm. It has nothing to do with "his" expectations, but of the nature of the universe. Physical things have value because there is a limit to the number of physical things in the universe (you could run out - then your supply and demand takes over). But you can have practically unlimited amount of copies of a file. Or of people with the same idea. If you can have unlimited, then it can't cost anything, or else you couldn't have unlimited. But you can, so it doesn't cost anything. If it doesn't cost anything, it isn't worth anything. If it isn't worth anything, how can you 'take' it from someone? Using penalties and imprisonment to keep IDEAS to yourself and charging people REAL things for IMAGINARY things instead of sharing them with humanity is the real human right infringement. Arguing that it IS illegal is stupid. It's like arguing if 4 = 4. Argue about whether it SHOULD be illegal.
I'm not referring to the value of a file. I'm talking about the value of a service; that is their time, energy, and creativity that went into thinking it up, acting it out, and producing it. While time itself is infinite, the amount of time an individual has is not. While ideas may be infinite, most people aren't satisfied by what they make up in their own head.
Finally, my argument isn't whether pirating is stealing or not, or whether you are 'taking' something. I'm merely saying that entertainment has value, because we place value on it. People are willing to pay for it until they get used to everything being free and available at any time. However, it is not free to produce for the author. If suddenly entertainment was made free for everyone, the arts would collapse because no one could make a living doing it. No one would spend their time to be good at it unless it was for their own personal use and entertainment. The entire point of copyright law is to 'promote useful Arts' and prevent this collapse.
Edit:
On February 25 2012 03:48 seppolevne wrote:
Edit: If something is intangible then YES EXACTLY basic economics doesn't apply. Things other then REAL OBJECTS should be free. It only currently sustains livelihood because of archaic laws. Ever heard of Linux/any free software ever? Free distribution works pretty well.
Look up the definition of a service in economics. Intangible commodities have value because we value them.
|
On February 25 2012 04:10 GefilteFish wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 03:46 seppolevne wrote:On February 25 2012 02:53 GefilteFish wrote:On February 24 2012 05:09 SpinmovE wrote:On February 23 2012 12:09 Azzur wrote:On February 23 2012 08:14 Brett wrote:On February 22 2012 13:27 Talin wrote:On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions. Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games. Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it. On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc. The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced. You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism. The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users. I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification. I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss. Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life... Yeah, this is the reasoning I was giving in the earlier pages of the thread where I've derided people who rationalise their piracy using "their business model is bad" as ridiculous. I absolutely disagree that the movie industry is being dumb and non-effective, but I would never justify breaking the law on this. I accept the piracy but not the ridiculous justification that goes behind it. i.e. If you want to pirate, accept that you are doing it in the wrong. Don't try and argue that you have a "right" to it. You are making the point that people are need to "obey the fucking law", perhaps you do not realize that in many countries around the world it is perfectly acceptable to download pirated material with literally no legal consequences. So is it morally acceptable in countries that do not have these laws to download it? Or is it still morally reprehensible to download files even though it's legal and the laws should be changed to reflect this? No matter what your answers to these questions are it is all simply your own opinion. To try and state that all downloads of pirated files are illegal is simply your own opinion. You can't force people to accept your own personal morals as they are just that, personal. To me downloading music or games is perfectly justifiable and a more efficient way to spend my money on things I actually enjoy. I buy plenty of games and music but I pirate many, many more. Why? Because I do not have an unlimited budget to waste my money on things that I will not get an adequate amount of enjoyment from. Piracy helps to limit this problem by allowing me to try games before I buy, or to listen to music to find out if I like it at all before paying for it. You know when you go to a movie theater and see a movie that is beyond fucking terrible and walk out you can get the price of your ticket refunded by the theater. The game, movie, and music industry does not function like this so you have to take it into your own hands to test their product before you buy. Remember this is completely legal in many parts of the world. Pirating ruins the value of media - which can be clearly seen in your post. You don't seem to feel that anything has value at all unless it meets your expectations. This is because now you expect to get everything free and only pay if you feel like it. That's not how the world works. You said it yourself, the industry does not work like this. It does not give you the right to go out and do whatever you feel like to get around it - infringing on another human's rights in the process. File sharing does not ruin the value of media. Media has no value, it is simply plans to an arrangement of the physical realm. It has nothing to do with "his" expectations, but of the nature of the universe. Physical things have value because there is a limit to the number of physical things in the universe (you could run out - then your supply and demand takes over). But you can have practically unlimited amount of copies of a file. Or of people with the same idea. If you can have unlimited, then it can't cost anything, or else you couldn't have unlimited. But you can, so it doesn't cost anything. If it doesn't cost anything, it isn't worth anything. If it isn't worth anything, how can you 'take' it from someone? Using penalties and imprisonment to keep IDEAS to yourself and charging people REAL things for IMAGINARY things instead of sharing them with humanity is the real human right infringement. Arguing that it IS illegal is stupid. It's like arguing if 4 = 4. Argue about whether it SHOULD be illegal. I'm not referring to the value of a file. I'm talking about the value of a service; that is their time, energy, and creativity that went into thinking it up, acting it out, and producing it. While time itself is infinite, the amount of time an individual has is not. While ideas may be infinite, most people aren't satisfied by what they make up in their own head. Finally, my argument isn't whether pirating is stealing or not, or whether you are 'taking' something. I'm merely saying that entertainment has value, because we place value on it. People are willing to pay for it until they get used to everything being free and available at any time. However, it is not free to produce for the author. If suddenly entertainment was made free for everyone, the arts would collapse because no one could make a living doing it. No one would spend their time to be good at it unless it was for their own personal use and entertainment. The entire point of copyright law is to 'promote useful Arts' and prevent this collapse. Edit: Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 03:48 seppolevne wrote:
Edit: If something is intangible then YES EXACTLY basic economics doesn't apply. Things other then REAL OBJECTS should be free. It only currently sustains livelihood because of archaic laws. Ever heard of Linux/any free software ever? Free distribution works pretty well. Look up the definition of a service in economics. Intangible commodities have value because we value them.
And yet, value has absolutely nothing to do with cost or morality.
Filesharing has a hell of a lot more value than copyright or copyrighted works.
Linux is valuable.
Freedom is valuable.
Air is valuable.
Friends are valuable.
Edit to OP: Like the gov stopped people using drugs, right?
|
On February 25 2012 03:46 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 02:53 GefilteFish wrote:On February 24 2012 05:09 SpinmovE wrote:On February 23 2012 12:09 Azzur wrote:On February 23 2012 08:14 Brett wrote:On February 22 2012 13:27 Talin wrote:On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions. Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games. Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it. On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc. The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced. You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism. The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users. I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification. I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss. Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life... Yeah, this is the reasoning I was giving in the earlier pages of the thread where I've derided people who rationalise their piracy using "their business model is bad" as ridiculous. I absolutely disagree that the movie industry is being dumb and non-effective, but I would never justify breaking the law on this. I accept the piracy but not the ridiculous justification that goes behind it. i.e. If you want to pirate, accept that you are doing it in the wrong. Don't try and argue that you have a "right" to it. You are making the point that people are need to "obey the fucking law", perhaps you do not realize that in many countries around the world it is perfectly acceptable to download pirated material with literally no legal consequences. So is it morally acceptable in countries that do not have these laws to download it? Or is it still morally reprehensible to download files even though it's legal and the laws should be changed to reflect this? No matter what your answers to these questions are it is all simply your own opinion. To try and state that all downloads of pirated files are illegal is simply your own opinion. You can't force people to accept your own personal morals as they are just that, personal. To me downloading music or games is perfectly justifiable and a more efficient way to spend my money on things I actually enjoy. I buy plenty of games and music but I pirate many, many more. Why? Because I do not have an unlimited budget to waste my money on things that I will not get an adequate amount of enjoyment from. Piracy helps to limit this problem by allowing me to try games before I buy, or to listen to music to find out if I like it at all before paying for it. You know when you go to a movie theater and see a movie that is beyond fucking terrible and walk out you can get the price of your ticket refunded by the theater. The game, movie, and music industry does not function like this so you have to take it into your own hands to test their product before you buy. Remember this is completely legal in many parts of the world. Pirating ruins the value of media - which can be clearly seen in your post. You don't seem to feel that anything has value at all unless it meets your expectations. This is because now you expect to get everything free and only pay if you feel like it. That's not how the world works. You said it yourself, the industry does not work like this. It does not give you the right to go out and do whatever you feel like to get around it - infringing on another human's rights in the process. File sharing does not ruin the value of media. Media has no value, it is simply plans to an arrangement of the physical realm. It has nothing to do with "his" expectations, but of the nature of the universe. Physical things have value because there is a limit to the number of physical things in the universe (you could run out - then your supply and demand takes over). But you can have practically unlimited amount of copies of a file. Or of people with the same idea. If you can have unlimited, then it can't cost anything, or else you couldn't have unlimited. But you can, so it doesn't cost anything. If it doesn't cost anything, it isn't worth anything. If it isn't worth anything, how can you 'take' it from someone? Using penalties and imprisonment to keep IDEAS to yourself and charging people REAL things for IMAGINARY things instead of sharing them with humanity is the real human right infringement. Arguing that it IS illegal is stupid. It's like arguing if 4 = 4. Argue about whether it SHOULD be illegal.
So you think it is a breach of human rights to charge people money for producing a movie/song/game? The fact that those objects can exist as a file that may be copied an infinite number of times is entirely irrelevant. You are paying for the cost of production, plus profit to encourage further investment. In other words, you're paying for the hundreds to thousands of employees involved in making and marketing a movie (for example), including the actors, director, costumes, art, sound, stage hands, marketing, sales etc etc etc. You're paying so that the investors who put up the millions of dollars to start a project can see tangible benefits (return) for their risk. All of these people DO THESE THINGS FOR A LIVING. If they don't get paid, they can't afford to eat, buy a house and so forth. If they can't do these things for a living then these movies/songs/music cease to exist as we know them. You think a game like Skyrim, essentially an entirely single player/personal experience, comes into existence in a world where piracy is legal? Not happening.
If piracy were made legal tomorrow, I acknowledge that I would never buy another item. Why? Not because they have no value, but because I am a rationally-thinking consumer. And that is in spite of my knowledge that it would ultimately cripple the market itself. I'm not alone either, the vast majority of the market is rationally-thinking also, and would cease to buy the product. As a result, without people buying these products, they will simply cease to exist on the level we know them to. An honour system, or 'begging-for-donations' system (ala wikipedia), is not going to cut it for the vast majority of technological media.
|
On February 25 2012 04:25 Xafnia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 04:10 GefilteFish wrote:On February 25 2012 03:46 seppolevne wrote:On February 25 2012 02:53 GefilteFish wrote:On February 24 2012 05:09 SpinmovE wrote:On February 23 2012 12:09 Azzur wrote:On February 23 2012 08:14 Brett wrote:On February 22 2012 13:27 Talin wrote:On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions. Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games. Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it. On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc. The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced. You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism. The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users. I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification. I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss. Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life... Yeah, this is the reasoning I was giving in the earlier pages of the thread where I've derided people who rationalise their piracy using "their business model is bad" as ridiculous. I absolutely disagree that the movie industry is being dumb and non-effective, but I would never justify breaking the law on this. I accept the piracy but not the ridiculous justification that goes behind it. i.e. If you want to pirate, accept that you are doing it in the wrong. Don't try and argue that you have a "right" to it. You are making the point that people are need to "obey the fucking law", perhaps you do not realize that in many countries around the world it is perfectly acceptable to download pirated material with literally no legal consequences. So is it morally acceptable in countries that do not have these laws to download it? Or is it still morally reprehensible to download files even though it's legal and the laws should be changed to reflect this? No matter what your answers to these questions are it is all simply your own opinion. To try and state that all downloads of pirated files are illegal is simply your own opinion. You can't force people to accept your own personal morals as they are just that, personal. To me downloading music or games is perfectly justifiable and a more efficient way to spend my money on things I actually enjoy. I buy plenty of games and music but I pirate many, many more. Why? Because I do not have an unlimited budget to waste my money on things that I will not get an adequate amount of enjoyment from. Piracy helps to limit this problem by allowing me to try games before I buy, or to listen to music to find out if I like it at all before paying for it. You know when you go to a movie theater and see a movie that is beyond fucking terrible and walk out you can get the price of your ticket refunded by the theater. The game, movie, and music industry does not function like this so you have to take it into your own hands to test their product before you buy. Remember this is completely legal in many parts of the world. Pirating ruins the value of media - which can be clearly seen in your post. You don't seem to feel that anything has value at all unless it meets your expectations. This is because now you expect to get everything free and only pay if you feel like it. That's not how the world works. You said it yourself, the industry does not work like this. It does not give you the right to go out and do whatever you feel like to get around it - infringing on another human's rights in the process. File sharing does not ruin the value of media. Media has no value, it is simply plans to an arrangement of the physical realm. It has nothing to do with "his" expectations, but of the nature of the universe. Physical things have value because there is a limit to the number of physical things in the universe (you could run out - then your supply and demand takes over). But you can have practically unlimited amount of copies of a file. Or of people with the same idea. If you can have unlimited, then it can't cost anything, or else you couldn't have unlimited. But you can, so it doesn't cost anything. If it doesn't cost anything, it isn't worth anything. If it isn't worth anything, how can you 'take' it from someone? Using penalties and imprisonment to keep IDEAS to yourself and charging people REAL things for IMAGINARY things instead of sharing them with humanity is the real human right infringement. Arguing that it IS illegal is stupid. It's like arguing if 4 = 4. Argue about whether it SHOULD be illegal. I'm not referring to the value of a file. I'm talking about the value of a service; that is their time, energy, and creativity that went into thinking it up, acting it out, and producing it. While time itself is infinite, the amount of time an individual has is not. While ideas may be infinite, most people aren't satisfied by what they make up in their own head. Finally, my argument isn't whether pirating is stealing or not, or whether you are 'taking' something. I'm merely saying that entertainment has value, because we place value on it. People are willing to pay for it until they get used to everything being free and available at any time. However, it is not free to produce for the author. If suddenly entertainment was made free for everyone, the arts would collapse because no one could make a living doing it. No one would spend their time to be good at it unless it was for their own personal use and entertainment. The entire point of copyright law is to 'promote useful Arts' and prevent this collapse. Edit: On February 25 2012 03:48 seppolevne wrote:
Edit: If something is intangible then YES EXACTLY basic economics doesn't apply. Things other then REAL OBJECTS should be free. It only currently sustains livelihood because of archaic laws. Ever heard of Linux/any free software ever? Free distribution works pretty well. Look up the definition of a service in economics. Intangible commodities have value because we value them. And yet, value has absolutely nothing to do with cost or morality. Filesharing has a hell of a lot more value than copyright or copyrighted works. Linux is valuable. Freedom is valuable. Air is valuable. Friends are valuable. Edit to OP: Like the gov stopped people using drugs, right?
This post could do with some further explanation of your argument, because currently it makes no sense.
|
I have no problem with paying for things if it easily done and I get a good quality product. If I get a better quality product (flac vs mp3 ) sites give it to you as wav or mp3 whereas i can download flac quality. Look at steam for instance. They are doing it pefectly. They realize they have already made the product and now its all up to prices which they want to sell it at. They have hugggge sales and are basically just giving people offers they cant refuse. See a great game for 5 $ don't think you'll ever play it? no worries ITS 5 FUCKIN DOLLARS.
|
On February 25 2012 06:09 sofakng wrote:
I have no problem with paying for things if it easily done and I get a good quality product. If I get a better quality product (flac vs mp3 ) sites give it to you as wav or mp3 whereas i can download flac quality. Look at steam for instance. They are doing it pefectly. They realize they have already made the product and now its all up to prices which they want to sell it at. They have hugggge sales and are basically just giving people offers they cant refuse. See a great game for 5 $ don't think you'll ever play it? no worries ITS 5 FUCKIN DOLLARS.
Yeah, there's nothing inherently wrong with wanting better service from those who provide you these types of media. I don't think people against piracy disagree with this at all. But piracy laws are still relevant, even if / when the other industries 'wise-up' and adopt similar business methods. In the mean time, disregarding them entirely and justifying doing so on the basis of shitty service doesn't really cut it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
