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.
O don't get me wrong I still love going to the movies, I still pay for music, buy games I really like or that have multiplayer modes. Games with game breaking bugs, dvds (lol who watches them more then once), and terrible quality music though I have a problem paying for. My general rule is if I enjoy it and think its worth my money I'll invest in it. I may buy the music from beatport and then later the day download the flac from some torrent. Once companies provide a superior service and make it easy on consumers to spend money at not an outrageous rate they will will increase profits even more then they already are. I am considering boycotting all movies though due to the current movie industry trend. I am lucky in that the type of music I like lies mostly in smaller companies which understand the internet (most edm) so I dont have to worry too much about that) I basically only play starcraft and the rest of the time make music so I have no worries. I dont know personally about anyone else but If I was a muscian I wouldnt mind living off an average salary but being able to constantly be able to make music for a living and get that high of being on stage. Same I can imagine if I were a movie star.
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.
How are you charging people money for producing something? They choose to produce it because they want to. Communicating an idea with the world is not 'labour'. The fact that these objects can exist in the exact same way and be the exact same thing in a simulated reality is the entire point, not irrelevant. Nobody copyrights math, why copyright music? An interesting arrangement of numbers, an interesting arragement of frequencies. If no one in those industries worked, maybe everyone else could work half as much, for the same amount of stuff. Then with all this free time people could do whatever they loved, like make music and video games and share them with the whole world! Hey look HUMANITY, what do you think of my song? Not "hey I made something cool but you can't see it unless you give me something because it took me like 2 weeks to make it but it's totally awesome I swear just 20$ man then you can see what I made..." Like, really? This is helping the arts? It's a little idealistic I know, but isn't that a good thing?
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.
How are you charging people money for producing something? They choose to produce it because they want to. Communicating an idea with the world is not 'labour'. The fact that these objects can exist in the exact same way and be the exact same thing in a simulated reality is the entire point, not irrelevant. Nobody copyrights math, why copyright music? An interesting arrangement of numbers, an interesting arragement of frequencies. If no one in those industries worked, maybe everyone else could work half as much, for the same amount of stuff. Then with all this free time people could do whatever they loved, like make music and video games and share them with the whole world! Hey look HUMANITY, what do you think of my song? Not "hey I made something cool but you can't see it unless you give me something because it took me like 2 weeks to make it but it's totally awesome I swear just 20$ man then you can see what I made..." Like, really? This is helping the arts? It's a little idealistic I know, but isn't that a good thing?
you need to have people rewarded for great accomplishments and payed full time to create things even like math and science. You think scientists work for free? No its a job like anything else.
you need to have people rewarded for great accomplishments and payed full time to create things even like math and science. You think scientists work for free? No its a job like anything else.
Science, as in doing experiments on empirical basis and gathering data is quite the labor man. Standing in the lab prepping everything isn't everything you know. Not to mention the waiting time for the results, interpreting them and writing a paper of it all.. Science and maths are hard work.
Now back on topic.. I think that art should be freely accessible to the audience. But can be bought at any price the customer wants. I can think of two instances where marketing your product for free nets a huge profit for the artist. Not only moneywise, but also popularitywise. (In Rainbows and some dude's book) Big record companies aren't needed anymore with the internet around. A person or band should be their own product, not be the puppet of some corporation. They're basically reduced to people working at the assembly line, with the exception they can play a gig once in a while (their break). Movies will make money, even when people download a shitton of them. It's just because some people don't really download, other's will download, but will also see the movie in the theater if they're really looking forward to seeing it. I think it's extremely greedy and hypocritical to whine about a tiny fraction of the fortune they'll make from the movie, just because some people don't want to pay for it. How will 1 million dollars weigh up against another 100 million? Also, going to a movie AND downloading it, is basically the same like downloading a cd by an artist and then seeing their gig. If you're really into it, you want to pay for it.
Downloading has also been very interesting for expanding one's horizon on cultural level. Personally I've heard and seen some things I'd never thought of experiencing, just because it's so easy to click and save.
No amount of legislation can stop tor websites from existing. Even if the closed down piratebay and every other major file sharing site on the known web, tor sites would still exist and file sharing would still continue.
You sir are 100% wrong. The government does not control the people. THE PEOPLE CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT. Most of the people right now are brain washed or just so dumb to fact check shit and they get force fed lies. Piratebay can't be taken down unless sweden does something about it. Which it doesn't look they will.
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.
'
Look up the definition of a service in economics. Intangible commodities have value because we value them.
My point is value has absolutely nothing to with cost, and claiming that creators of works deserve payment because those works have value is misguided. Anything that a computer can copy has infinite supply, and thus cost is 0.
People pay for services because they have value *and* are scarce. Examples; - A hair dresser is offering a service I could cut my hair myself, but it won't be as nice, so I am paying to get a better haircut, the scarce value here is not getting a haircut but one I like. - Steam offers convenience, one click and I can download a game super fast, automatic updates and lets me know if friends buy the same game as me or are playing a game so I can join them, it has scarce value because if I torrent some game I will not have these benefits. - I want to play an adventure game by Tim Schafer. I can contribute on kickstarter to have it made. It has scarce value because it has not been made yet. -An engineer gets paid to plan and create new things that don't exist yet, he doesn't get paid for stuff he already made, etc.
Say you have a band that makes music people like, and your trying to live off selling your music and it doesn't work well tough shit. Lots and lots of businesses get started and go bankrupt after lots of hard work all the time, sure it sucks but chances are your competitors have a better business model. Making music is an incredibly competitive market there's a ridiculous amount of people trying to do just that. Your band is actually a small business. Your job isn't to make music and sell music, it's to offer scarcities that people will pay for, which can be all sorts of things. The most obvious for a band is shows but it can be many other things.
Just because you own a computer and have access to the internet doesn't mean you get to have a free ride.
Once a movie theater starts playing a movie all their costs are incurred. If the theater has empty seats and you sneak in the theater and watch the movie that is already playing you aren't costing the theater anything. Yet it is still 'wrong' and still illegal.
Why?
Well if it wasn't illegal what incentives would you create? Why would anyone (or most people) bother to pay for a ticket when they could sneak in and watch the movie for free. And if they could do so what would the theater owner's response be? Perhaps he would hire security guards (now he's incurring costs) or perhaps he would give up and shut the theater down. And what about the people that paid for their tickets? Do you think that they would think it fair that they paid for something you took for free?
The above situation holds true for copying files on the internet. You are getting something for free that others had to pay for. You are getting something for free that cost someone to create, and creating a disincentive to create new content.
On February 25 2012 14:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Just because you own a computer and have access to the internet doesn't mean you get to have a free ride.
Once a movie theater starts playing a movie all their costs are incurred. If the theater has empty seats and you sneak in the theater and watch the movie that is already playing you aren't costing the theater anything. Yet it is still 'wrong' and still illegal.
Why?
Well if it wasn't illegal what incentives would you create? Why would anyone (or most people) bother to pay for a ticket when they could sneak in and watch the movie for free. And if they could do so what would the theater owner's response be? Perhaps he would hire security guards (now he's incurring costs) or perhaps he would give up and shut the theater down. And what about the people that paid for their tickets? Do you think that they would think it fair that they paid for something you took for free?
The above situation holds true for copying files on the internet. You are getting something for free that others had to pay for. You are getting something for free that cost someone to create, and creating a disincentive to create new content.
You are tresspassing on private property. You pay a price for the experience, the large screen, the huge speakers, the comfy chair. Can you not see that it's different?
On February 21 2012 14:24 firehand101 wrote: we internet people have created a fantasy world for ourselves.
Neh. Piracy existed before the internet, and always will. It has just become way too easy and thats the reason for the corporations to strike back.
I think the problem here is that corporations have failed to adapt to the big changes of the last 15 years, with internet becoming a massive way to share stuff. People dont value "digital" media the same way as having their physical copies, so why charge the same? Prices for most stuff have increased a lot, and people just wont buy if it doesnt feel like a really good deal.
If I can stream any film anytime with decent quality, why buy them? If I could have a library of 10000 songs, why would I buy a 12song CD for 10$? If they get a new CoD every year, why would I pay 60$ + DLC for one?
Currently, you can aquire any media (films, music, games, etc) on just a couple of clicks. Damn, its so simple that even if there was a shop downtown giving free copies of something, you would still download it.
Piracy will always exist, but corporations need to adapt to the internet community if they want to make some profit.
Look at how Steam works: - They offer a service where you can download any game you own anytime at amazing DL speed. You can also get your Save Files in their servers, so if you reinstall, everything is still there. - There are constant sales/holiday events/packs where games go way cheaper and you can buy anything.
I have 50+ games on Steam. Why? I bought most of them on 5$ or 10$ at most. I have never bought any game before Steam. Its easy, and if it feels like the right price for them, why not.
Im not saying Steam if perfect, but it really feels like a step in the right direction.
Entertainment companies know that the majority of people pirate stuff they can't afford anyway or have minor interest in buying or cannot buy because the stuff isn't available in their region, yet they refuse to adapt. Services like Steam and iTune have shown how successful and lucrative companies can be if companies actually catch up with the digital age and offer products at a reasonable price, but they are still behind in their way of doing things, it's already a decade since Napster got sued.
You have to admire Steve Job for getting the primitive and stubborn music industry to go with his plan of making every song $1. The entertainment industry has regressed since then except for the case of services like Crunchyroll and Netflicks, They are also very powerless outside of NA especially in regions like Asia and South America where they cannot lobby the government as effectively as they can in the USA. That's alot of bribing to do.
I also think that people will actually buy stuff they genuinely enjoy in order to support the companies that make the product as well as enjoying the effect of actually seeing the item physically on their shelves, I know I do. I also know that quality games with great replay value due to their multiplayer content will get me to pay up, but another generic RPG or whatever the mediocre crap that companies like EA comes up with next? I am not even going to bother pirating it to be honest. There are many desirable qualities that only a official physical format can offer(i.e collector's edition packs), I don't see it ever going away.
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.
Yes you are. The lost profit is you not paying for the album.
You people are silly to think you can justify piracy because it's on the internet.
Allow me to use myself as an example:
I watch for around $300 free, pirated movies per month on websites like http://www.1channel.ch/
I download every new "cool" videogame title I can from http://kat.ph/ because the Pirate Bay has been banned in my country. I download videogames because I cannot afford buying them in stores, and because I really enjoy videogames. What's gonna keep me from doing it? Perhaps if there's a title I want to play online.
In the past 3 years I've downloaded for perhaps $3000 videogames. And that's just me! On Steam (when I could actually afford it) I have paid for a total amount of 210 games. This is a little less than $3000.
I recently discovered a series of websites like http://grooveshark.com/ which is technically a website where you can stream music for free, pirated music, of course. Before I discovered Grooveshark, I believe I've downloaded music for a total amount of $7000 which is around 2 TB of data.
My name is Pirate Joe and I alone have costed the capitalistic world a total of $15.000 :-)
On February 26 2012 03:37 EienShinwa wrote: First page answers by Satire and Jormundr answer literally all the questions.
Basically.
Most of it's already been said but I'll just add my thoughts and experiences on the matter. To me, the whole issue is still one of service. I am an ex-pirate (except for movies, we don't have a good streaming service here and Canadian Netflix is awful. I don't watch many movies anyway and haven't downloaded anything in like 6 months). I used to have over 8000 songs on my desktop, but now I am a paying customer who subscribes to a service (in my case Rdio, there's kinda slim pickings for services here in Canada but so far Rdio has been amazing. I don't use Grooveshark because it's kinda greasy with how they make money) and I now have no need to download music since basically everything I listen to is on that service, and is easily accessible and manageable once I add it to my collection. Likewise with games, I used to download tons of games and now I simply buy them all on Steam for much cheaper than in store and have them easily accessible from both of my computers. I have over 175 games and the average price paid per game is just under 7 dollars or so (I only buy during sales, and usually only bundles). My point is, if the media smartened up and made services (or even used existing services) that are easier to use and don't cost a fortune to subscribe to they would make a killing, but instead they seem to want me to go to a store and buy a physical copy of a movie for $10+ when I just feel like watching some Monty Python or something and will likely not watch it more than once. I'm willing to pay money, they're just not willing to sell their products in a way that makes sense to the majority of younger people.
On February 24 2012 06:32 Brett wrote: 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.
However much general crime goes undealt with, it's not even in the same order of magnitude as cases of individual piracy which is simply not dealt with, period.
You can only make that case for drugs (even then it's not really comparable), which is a large part of the reason why legalization movement is strong to begin with, and why some countries have already gone and done that. Which actually reinforces the points I'm trying to make.
On February 24 2012 06:32 Brett wrote: 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.
I don't think it's a reasonable justification. I don't think there even is any need for a justification at all. People try to justify things they do that they feel guilty about, or that are deemed unacceptable in their society, neither of which is really the case here. What you see as "making excuses" is actually people trying to make a point and have a reasonable discussion about the issue - but you're obviously not here for that, you're here to "call people out" and wage some imaginary holy war you can't ever win.
People keep pirating material because it's a good service. It's a service that industries have to learn compete with, and some of them already are.
On February 21 2012 14:51 capu wrote: well technically it's called copyright infringement not stealing because no material is lost. I guess that's why the fees are that much higher for online pirates than regular thieves.
Thank you. Finally someone who knows what they are talking about. The record company's have drilled us into thinking what we are doing is stealing. It's called copyright infringement. When you steal a physical good is lost. When you download a song you are just creating a copy, no tangible good is lost. Therefore it is not stealing. Is copyright infringement wrong? I'll let you decide the morality yourself. However It's NOT stealing.
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
Mixing engineer, visual artist here
Please shut the fuck up about what I and the people I work with want. I am tired of hearing this line of bullshit in every copyright related thread I go into. This is record company propaganda. NOTHING MORE.
There is possibly 1% of artists who could negatively be affected by sharing(read: exposure) of their material. These artists aren't affected anyway because they generally get marginal proceeds from their albums, with the lions share going to their label. And piracy isn't some new concept. Any breathing sack of flesh can realize that the RIAA and MPAA have been heralding the end of life as we know it since popular radio, since the 8 track, since the cassette, the VHS, CDs, DVDs, MP3s, Usenet, DC++, Kazaa, Limewire, Napster, Torrents, and currently FTP sites.
Guess what
Nothing has changed in the past 50 years. Your parents recording a popular TV show on the good ole vhs is just as illegal as it is to download a song today. The only difference is that people like you buy into this hilarious propaganda about truckers and recording engineers being terribly affected by piracy. We're not.
And James Hetfield and Richard Branson aren't being affected either. The entire goal of the lifelong campaigns of the RIAA and the MPAA seek to "keep the fear" in the people. Because without that fear they would lose about a total of 10% of their market. Which is significant in that they couldn't keep their current management salaries and stay profitable.
EPT
