'Censorship' of the Internet - Page 5

On February 21 2012 17:53 Nightfall.589 wrote:


Sematics are important. Both may be crimes, but there is a difference between jaywalking and murder. Much like there is between theft and copyright infringement.

On February 21 2012 22:11 ooni wrote:

The difference is extremely simple,
considering when you "buy" downloadable music, software and so on, you are only buying the license to listen or use that product. In fact if you can't use the music you downloaded and upload on a website because, you do not own it, you do not own any of it for that matter.

On February 21 2012 22:32 Tal wrote:
I'm torn on this, but it still feels to me like both sides aren't making some of the arguments that they could

An argument against piracy:

Someone offers you something, asking you to pay. You decide not to pay, but still take it. It's a tricky position to make a moral stand on...

If you don't want the product, or think there is something wrong with it, then you shouldn't buy it. It's rare nowadays to be tricked into buying something you completely hate. Games have demos, songs have youtube, and everything has endless reviews and comments to give you a pretty damn good idea of what the experience is like. And even if the experience is not quite what you imagined, then that doesn't mean you shouldn't pay anything. If you go to see a band/football team or go to eat at a restaurant, and things aren't up to scratch, that doesn't absolve you of paying.

A common argument is that the product isn't worth the price being charged for it. Assuming we accept that this gives you the right to take it without paying and to make such judgments, surely this doesn't also mean it's worth nothing? If you download an album/game/film and think it's sub-par, that doesn't mean it's worthless. Donate something to the maker.

On February 21 2012 22:53 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:
but business is FUNDAMENTALLY MORAL.

On February 21 2012 23:12 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:
You are right that competition pushes business to do anything to get ahead, but how exactly can a company get ahead? By lobbying to governments until you get favorable treatment.

On February 21 2012 22:42 Kazius wrote:

Stealing means taking something from someone, and them being left without it. No one is stealing. Calling it "piracy" instead of "file sharing" is one of the same tricks used to pass legislation over the heads of willful people. The act itself is not piracy. That's ludicrous. Show me someone threatened with death forced to give over something and be left without it. It IS file sharing, because that is what is done. But these laws are necessary?

What is sad is that people think that file sharing needs to stop. No it doesn't. Here's why:

1) It is impossible to stop file sharing. How can you stop someone from going over with storage to a friend's house... you know, like people shared files before the internet was everywhere. But even on the internet, without monitoring your every online move or looking into your computer, it is impossible to stop. This will make the war on drugs seem winnable in comparison.

2) Attempting to stop file sharing is morally wrong. We are dealing with digital information. Control of information for terms of 70+ years (as the movie/recording/publishing companies have) is a downright crime against human progress. For a decade, I might agree - some patents require that time to recoup the investment in research and/or hard work. But frankly, only a select few will see any of that money. The people who still receive that money have contracts from 20+ years ago. It just doesn't work that way now.

3) Stoping file sharing is going to cost everyone. Beyond the MASSIVE government investment required for law enforcement, jailing, and the such, there is also the infrastructure necessary to monitor the internet usage of everyone. It will fall on the government, the ISPs, the cable companies. All that money is coming out of the taxpayer's pocket to protect the massive corporations that have been leeching of the talent of others as a living for the past 100 years or so.

4) It's bad economics to stop file sharing. We have the internet. We will get our free digital entertainment. The big industries should adapt. Instead, they are trying to turn the internet into a read-only device, stunt off all of it's potential by using their influence in the media (they ARE the media) and politics (they OWN the politicians) to destroy the competition when it's just in it's beginning. That competition is the force that drives the economy forward, and protects the people from the greed of a select few stock owners and banks.

5) File sharing improves our lives. With all due respect, let's remember why file sharing is popular. It offers us something that would have cost us more money than we can afford otherwise. We aren't any richer than are parents were at the time, relatively speaking. But we have access to so much more. Why would we want to stop that?

6) The big companies need to understand that they need to adapt. Television, film, music... they are competing with free products now. Musicians perform live. Films are making more money than ever. They just offer an experience that is fundamentally better than what you can get for free. Hulu, Apple, Netflix, HBO, Amazon, etc. You can compete with free, and make money. You just need to offer a good product.

The reason these laws are even considered is that the big record companies are losing business. Music sales are actually up, if you include digital sales. People who share music on the internet in average buy FAR more than people who don't. But the big four recording companies (who are "down" to controlling about 60% of the recording industry) don't want to give up their stranglehold on their cash cows. Most new artists who want recognition have to do it through them, and they steal money from them. Many bands actually end up paying the record companies money from their promotional tours to cover recording expenses. If you look for support from artists for this legislation, you won't find it. If you look for the indie label's support of this legislation - you won't find it. They're making more money than ever. Artists are making more money than ever. The whole industry is making more money than ever.

tl;dr: Force the market to understand the new world, the age of communication, and the fact that the common people don't give a flying f**k about what board members of the big companies think. Fight for your rights, don't say "hey, it's a lost cause, we should just accept it". File sharing is the future. Not overpriced junk you'll get bored of.

"Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem''

On February 21 2012 22:42 Kazius wrote:

Stealing means taking something from someone, and them being left without it. No one is stealing. Calling it "piracy" instead of "file sharing" is one of the same tricks used to pass legislation over the heads of willful people. The act itself is not piracy. That's ludicrous. Show me someone threatened with death forced to give over something and be left without it. It IS file sharing, because that is what is done. But these laws are necessary?

What is sad is that people think that file sharing needs to stop. No it doesn't. Here's why:

1) It is impossible to stop file sharing. How can you stop someone from going over with storage to a friend's house... you know, like people shared files before the internet was everywhere. But even on the internet, without monitoring your every online move or looking into your computer, it is impossible to stop. This will make the war on drugs seem winnable in comparison.

2) Attempting to stop file sharing is morally wrong. We are dealing with digital information. Control of information for terms of 70+ years (as the movie/recording/publishing companies have) is a downright crime against human progress. For a decade, I might agree - some patents require that time to recoup the investment in research and/or hard work. But frankly, only a select few will see any of that money. The people who still receive that money have contracts from 20+ years ago. It just doesn't work that way now.

3) Stoping file sharing is going to cost everyone. Beyond the MASSIVE government investment required for law enforcement, jailing, and the such, there is also the infrastructure necessary to monitor the internet usage of everyone. It will fall on the government, the ISPs, the cable companies. All that money is coming out of the taxpayer's pocket to protect the massive corporations that have been leeching of the talent of others as a living for the past 100 years or so.

4) It's bad economics to stop file sharing. We have the internet. We will get our free digital entertainment. The big industries should adapt. Instead, they are trying to turn the internet into a read-only device, stunt off all of it's potential by using their influence in the media (they ARE the media) and politics (they OWN the politicians) to destroy the competition when it's just in it's beginning. That competition is the force that drives the economy forward, and protects the people from the greed of a select few stock owners and banks.

5) File sharing improves our lives. With all due respect, let's remember why file sharing is popular. It offers us something that would have cost us more money than we can afford otherwise. We aren't any richer than are parents were at the time, relatively speaking. But we have access to so much more. Why would we want to stop that?

6) The big companies need to understand that they need to adapt. Television, film, music... they are competing with free products now. Musicians perform live. Films are making more money than ever. They just offer an experience that is fundamentally better than what you can get for free. Hulu, Apple, Netflix, HBO, Amazon, etc. You can compete with free, and make money. You just need to offer a good product.

The reason these laws are even considered is that the big record companies are losing business. Music sales are actually up, if you include digital sales. People who share music on the internet in average buy FAR more than people who don't. But the big four recording companies (who are "down" to controlling about 60% of the recording industry) don't want to give up their stranglehold on their cash cows. Most new artists who want recognition have to do it through them, and they steal money from them. Many bands actually end up paying the record companies money from their promotional tours to cover recording expenses. If you look for support from artists for this legislation, you won't find it. If you look for the indie label's support of this legislation - you won't find it. They're making more money than ever. Artists are making more money than ever. The whole industry is making more money than ever.

tl;dr: Force the market to understand the new world, the age of communication, and the fact that the common people don't give a flying f**k about what board members of the big companies think. Fight for your rights, don't say "hey, it's a lost cause, we should just accept it". File sharing is the future. Not overpriced junk you'll get bored of.