EPTPeople arguing about file-sharer's moral stand-point are just laughable. Same with equating file-sharing as stealing - it's just as easy to argue that Disney with their Mickey Mouse Protection Act is stealing from the public by prevent all those works that would've went into public domain a long time ago from going into public domain.
'Censorship' of the Internet - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ppdealer
Canada163 Posts
People arguing about file-sharer's moral stand-point are just laughable. Same with equating file-sharing as stealing - it's just as easy to argue that Disney with their Mickey Mouse Protection Act is stealing from the public by prevent all those works that would've went into public domain a long time ago from going into public domain. | ||
|
Galactus52
United States36 Posts
Are you stealing from the MPAA and RIAA when you never purchase materials but only use your local library? They get special exemptions from copyright law. Libraries only pay for the item once and it will be viewed by tens of hundreds of people. Is it wrong that libraries get special exemptions from copyright law? Because big media fought tooth and nail for libraries not to get them. Stealing may be wrong, but copyright law is fucked up to the point where they're stealing ideas and hiding them because they cant make a buck. "Copyright Act of 1790" was the first copyright law passed in the United States. It allowed a copyright holder to copyright their shit "for a term of 14 years, with the right to renew for one additional 14 year term should the copyright holder still be alive" Do you know what it is today? Because of the Copyright Term Extension Act in 1998 its now. "The Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier." They bought and paid for that act just like they did every other bill that benefits them. Fuck big media, Fuck the big six, stop buying their shit, they'll die and content creators will still be around. When theres millions of creative people out there producing stuff, the value of entertainment has to drop. Thats what the MPAA and RIAA dont like, they're dying. | ||
|
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
On February 22 2012 02:46 Caller wrote: so if i share a copy and give permission to the other person to make copies of my copy, what's the problem? Comon...... You really should be able to tell yourself what the problem with that is. Now you're just bringing up shit for the sake of arguing. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
Anyone producing any intellectual work will only get paid ONCE. Which means the only movies/TV shows that get made will be ones that One person is will to pay the entire budget of. Either because they want their message going out (ie advertising. a product placement movie) OR Because they want to be personally entertained. (the only movies made will be cheap home ones...Rebecca Black's Friday, the new standard in music, or ones made for billionaries on their birthdays) because once it has been produced, no one else will pay for it. Now the "one person" could also be the government (on the argument that information is a public good it is too hard to really charge people for it)... but that means media that is government controlled. When dealing with Patent type information it is potentially more serious (science grinding to a halt), but easier to avoid since that has to do with producing something... easier to catch and stop. Copyright law should definitely be revised, but piracy basically eliminates it. | ||
|
JackDino
Gabon6219 Posts
On February 22 2012 02:35 SnipedSoul wrote: If you make a copy of copyrighted material it's copyright infringement and is illegal. If you have 1 copy and you share it with people, that is not illegal AFAIK. If you burn DVDs on your computer and hand out copies to your friends that is copyright infringement. It's called copyright for a reason, everyone. It means that you need permission to copy material. Sharing a single copy is not copying. Filesharing on the internet creates copies so it's illegal. The difference between downloading a movie, watching it, then deleting it, and borrowing a movie from a friend, watching it, then returning it is nonexistant. You paid for NEITHER copy and you're not keeping it. Wether it's right is something else, but downloading movies for own use(which is legal in the netherlands atleast) isn't any different from borrowing it from a friend. If they want to stop piracy, they should adjust prices, stop making crap and treat their customers properly. | ||
|
perestain
Germany308 Posts
The term "stealing" is inappropriate to use in this circumstance. Physical goods are not of the same logical category as concepts data patterns. The common meaning of "stealing" is that A takes something from B, and as a result B does not have it anymore. Wrongly using this term to describe filesharing etc. is just industry propaganda. I know that some business models will not work anymore if you consider this, but business models can not change logic. If they depend on copying of concepts or data patterns being "stealing", then they are just bad/outdated business models. | ||
|
zezamer
Finland5701 Posts
| ||
|
bOneSeven
Romania685 Posts
If any of this law comes online, I will stop consuming every product released/produced by everyone involved in sponsoring such acts, and will also raise high awareness to everyone I can reach. So deal with that hollywood, if you come for us "stealers", me and all my kind, and all their friends will never go see a movie ever again. And I bet there are a lot of us...And with friends... I guess people got lazy, and now since they don't know to utilize the internet to its full capacity, they try to pass out bullshit legislation so they can still get a piece of the pie. Whoever supports such acts, support giving the government more power...and never in the history of men, giving a government the power to invade your most private space ( talking about ACTA, not SOPA )was not a completely terrible idea. And remember, the guys who will enforce ACTA are under NO authority. The members of the EU must follow all guidelines of this, and the individual government of specific countries have no power of denying abuse of power, if committed by the higher structure. I hate to go full blown conspiracy nutt here but...seems to me like some people want to know everything about you ( they install a covert program who searches through all activity that has been running on your computer ). SOPA....hmm...I guess there's no conspiracy there past the extreme corporate financial interest...but ACTA is horrible. And by the way, since the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights...how the hell is possible to write this piece of legislation ? I mean.....oh well... | ||
|
DiLiGu
United States185 Posts
However, we wouldn't have to steal if these industries- notorious in dragging their feet on technology- would get their act together. This webcomic is a perfect example of the only times that I actually download things illegally: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones Monatizing is as simple as charging monthly rates for unlimited access to the stuff I want. I pretty much do not ever want to have to watch cable TV, especially not at the set broadcast time. All HBO has to do is offer full episodeVODs online the same day they air on TV, and bam, I'd pay for that service. However, the MPAA has been notorious in dragging its feet on new technology. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44359 Posts
On February 22 2012 02:53 solidbebe wrote: Comon...... You really should be able to tell yourself what the problem with that is. Now you're just bringing up shit for the sake of arguing. lolololol. Caller, if you don't have the right to make copies of a DVD you bought (copyright infringement), what makes you think you have the right to tell other people they can make copies of your DVD? You've got to be trolling -.-' It doesn't matter who presses the Copy button. | ||
|
DamageControL
United States4222 Posts
On February 22 2012 03:02 perestain wrote: Sorry, but you are grossly mistaken. The term "stealing" is inappropriate to use in this circumstance. Physical goods are not of the same logical category as concepts data patterns. The common meaning of "stealing" is that A takes something from B, and as a result B does not have it anymore. Wrongly using this term to describe filesharing etc. is just industry propaganda. I know that some business models will not work anymore if you consider this, but business models can not change logic. If they depend on copying of concepts or data patterns being "stealing", then they are just bad/outdated business models. I'm tired of hearing this argument It's just semantics that does nothing to address the heart of the situation: how much protection should intellectual property be given? And how does music and other works of art fall into that realm of intellectual property. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44359 Posts
On February 22 2012 03:02 perestain wrote: Sorry, but you are grossly mistaken. The term "stealing" is inappropriate to use in this circumstance. Physical goods are not of the same logical category as concepts data patterns. The common meaning of "stealing" is that A takes something from B, and as a result B does not have it anymore. Wrongly using this term to describe filesharing etc. is just industry propaganda. I know that some business models will not work anymore if you consider this, but business models can not change logic. If they depend on copying of concepts or data patterns being "stealing", then they are just bad/outdated business models. So are you against patents in general? Why would inventors invent and creators create and people create business models around new ideas if there's no way to protect these concepts from being stolen and directly copied by others? If someone has a marketable idea and wants to turn a profit from it, he has a right to do so. You're simply stealing his hard work by taking it without paying. You're not helping him or society out. | ||
|
bOneSeven
Romania685 Posts
On February 22 2012 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: So are you against patents in general? Why would inventors invent and creators create and people create business models around new ideas if there's no way to protect these concepts from being stolen and directly copied by others? If someone has a marketable idea and wants to turn a profit from it, he has a right to do so. You're simply stealing his hard work by taking it without paying. You're not helping him or society out. are you suggesting that every piece of music today should be contested on copyright rules because they were inspired by the hard work of the people that came before them ? Give me a fucking break...are you gonna support Monsanto on patenting pig parts now ? Authenticity today is so rare, that giving that argument would kill like 99.99% of everything that is made today. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44359 Posts
On February 22 2012 03:32 bOneSeven wrote: are you suggesting that every piece of music today should be contested on copyright rules because they were inspired by the hard work of the people that came before them ? Give me a fucking break...are you gonna support Monsanto on patenting pig parts now ? Authenticity today is so rare, that giving that argument would kill like 99.99% of everything that is made today. What? I suggested no such thing and I have no idea how you'd even think I said something like that. I think that's a terrible slippery slope when all we had been talking about were things like pirating vs. buying o.O When we're talking about illegally downloading something instead of paying for it, that's very different than coming up with a song that shares some of the same chords as another. I don't see those two topics as interchangeable, and I wasn't even arguing about the latter. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On February 22 2012 03:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: lolololol. Caller, if you don't have the right to make copies of a DVD you bought (copyright infringement), what makes you think you have the right to tell other people they can make copies of your DVD? You've got to be trolling -.-' It doesn't matter who presses the Copy button. precisely, my point being that you don't own the rights to the DVD. since you can't give out the rights to the DVD. Similarly, you are not giving out rights by posting it online. If you do anything to actively say "oh hey guys download this shit" then you are giving away something you don't own. But to just have it online? What if you just want to watch it from a different computer in a different place? If someone else just "happens" to find it, that's hardly your fault. It'd be like taking the DVD and leaving it out in the open where anybody can just take it and make a copy of it and put it back. Maybe I just like putting it within walking distance of my home and other home. | ||
|
Herculix
United States946 Posts
have i bought 100% of the things i liked? not necessarily, but i've bought a large majority of it and told everyone i knew it was worth it (which i think is actually a lot more important imo, since the personal advertisement of a lot of people is massively more effective than shitty paid advertisements). all of the industries that are supposedly starving for money have all made a significant amount of money off of me that i normally avoided paying them directly. i'm not a moron and i will take any opportunity to try things before i buy them. none of my money was ever going to them even when i always paid; they went to gamestop and blockbuster for well below the asking price. those places let me try before i bought anything and they will be there if/when piracy is killed, so i will still end up not giving them money... except now i'm not going to give them money out of pure spite. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
| ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On February 22 2012 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: So are you against patents in general? Why would inventors invent and creators create and people create business models around new ideas if there's no way to protect these concepts from being stolen and directly copied by others? If someone has a marketable idea and wants to turn a profit from it, he has a right to do so. You're simply stealing his hard work by taking it without paying. You're not helping him or society out. I can think at least of first mover advantage, customer loyalty and scale economies. For example Apple makes billions of dollars despite chinese pirating all their products by pushing first mover advantage and customer loyalty. I am not completely against patents, but there is much room for profit in both music/movies industries and science without them. Problem is many times they are used as a mean to sustain monopoly prizes above competetive prizes. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On February 22 2012 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: So are you against patents in general? Why would inventors invent and creators create and people create business models around new ideas if there's no way to protect these concepts from being stolen and directly copied by others? If someone has a marketable idea and wants to turn a profit from it, he has a right to do so. You're simply stealing his hard work by taking it without paying. You're not helping him or society out. If the "new idea" is actually something solid and valuable and actually original, the inventor will always benefit from it, even if it was stolen and directly copied by others - because the people who developed the idea will have an in-depth understanding of it and where it can go and how it can be developed, which makes them a valuable asset to any enterprise that ends up using that idea (if they end up not using it themselves). If the idea is unrefined or a one-shot marketing gimmick, then yes, somebody who never would have thought of that can just steal it, copy it, and profit from it, and the "inventor" risks not getting much back. However, I personally won't lose any sleep over that. If you check any directory of patents, you will find a ton of completely inane trash coming from people that are hoping to "hit gold" by accident. In general, people who have something valuable to offer actually do benefit from it - no matter how much it is stolen, copied or how many remakes were made, or how many other people try to do the same thing. Even in the evil, rogue lands that are the internet, people with something solid to offer do profit (in fact, especially on the internet). Moreover, the freedom to use existing ideas and iterate and improve on them actually creates better things for everyone. The only ones that are truly concerned about "piracy" specifically are people who deep down KNOW their product is worth nowhere as much as they're charging for it and rely purely on marketing, hype and various forms of propaganda to sell it. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On February 22 2012 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: So are you against patents in general? Why would inventors invent and creators create and people create business models around new ideas if there's no way to protect these concepts from being stolen and directly copied by others? If someone has a marketable idea and wants to turn a profit from it, he has a right to do so. You're simply stealing his hard work by taking it without paying. You're not helping him or society out. For what it's worth the default human motivation seems to be to create and invent. Or more accurately we've been creating and inventing for thousands and thousands of years, but copyright and patents are relatively recent. The first found record of copyright is from 600 AD and 1662 was when England first enacted copyright. The first patent law was in 500BC in a Greek city (source Wikipedia). And up until the last 70 years or so it was always much more limited in scope than what we have today. I think it makes a lot more sense to always approach the issue as having to justify the need for copyrights/patents never approach it as having to justify why we don't need it. The former is much more in line with the way humans are. | ||
| ||
