|
On February 22 2012 03:16 DamageControL wrote:Show nested quote +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 If they depend on copying of concepts or data patterns being "stealing", then they are just bad/outdated business models.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.
Thats not the point. Aggressively calling something stealing which is not is just lying. Unless these accusations stop there is nothing to discuss here.
On the other hand I dont give a shit how anybody should run their business. They want to run a business, so they are responsible to figure out their own business model.
Being lazy and just criminalizing a large part of the population is not going to cut it though.
|
The RIAA and record labels take 90% of all money from album sales, at LEAST. They take even higher percentages for lesser-known artists, and yet they have the balls to say that pirates are the ones stealing and killing the music industry.
The RIAA can close my torrents down when they pry them from my cold, dead NIC card.
|
On February 22 2012 04:41 perestain wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 03:16 DamageControL wrote: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 If they depend on copying of concepts or data patterns being "stealing", then they are just bad/outdated business models.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. Thats not the point. Aggressively calling something stealing which is not is just lying. Unless these accusations stop there is nothing to discuss here. On the other hand I dont give a shit how anybody should run their business. They want to run a business, so they are responsible to figure out their own business model. Being lazy and just criminalizing a large part of the population is not going to cut it though.
You are taking something which does not belong to you, without paying for it, which under normal circumstances you should have paid for, not exactly stealing though.
It's like copying music from the radio onto a tape, practically the same.
Doesn't change the fact that piracy is not lost revenue, which all the major companies claim. If anything removing piracy might decrease sales, know quite a lot of people who pirate something to try it then buy it.
Then there's also all the "free advertising" artists get if people "steal" their music. Listening to music on youtube is essentially piracy, since you're downloading something that isn't yours.
|
My theory:
The internet essentially nullifies the need for record labels. An artist can essentially skip the process of getting "signed" to become famous now if he/she uses the internet to their advantage. Obviously this relies heavily on their art actually being crowd pleasing, which is a good thing. People should earn fame and money based on merit.
So maybe these attempts by them to censor the internet is because they realise there is no need for them in the future if the current trend progresses.
Just look at Justin Bieber (hate to bring him up, but he is a prime example) got famous via, youtube. Back in the older days to become world famous you had to get signed by a big record label so that they could promote you and your music on a much larger scale than you could have ever achieved by yourself.
Online services such as Spotify and Netflix are the future imo and quite a reasonable compromise tbh.
|
water freezes at 0°C. you want liquid water. what do you do? change water or just increase temperature?
people download stuff. you want money. what do you do? forbid downloads or just adapt the business model?
|
On February 22 2012 07:38 biomech wrote:
water freezes at 0°C. you want liquid water. what do you do? change water or just increase temperature?
people download stuff. you want money. what do you do? forbid downloads or just adapt the business model?
I guess that analogy sort of works... but it needs polishing  . I agree with what you're saying though.
|
On February 21 2012 14:24 firehand101 wrote:
The main issues these regulations are aiming to address are piracy and online theft.
This is unfortunately wrong. This is mainly about government control and the abolition of privacy. The bills are veiled in the righteous 'fighting piracy' bullshit. Besides, the entertainement industry needs to evolve. It's also wrong to think those builds will stop piracy. Torrents and P2P sharing will always exist regardless of websites like PirateBay (which can't be shut down regardless). Instead of doing everything they can to stop piracy they need to evolve and provide free content supported by advertisement or provide quality content at more reasonable prices. I'm not a wizard in marketing but I know it's doable because a lot of profitable industries do it already.
|
United States47024 Posts
Honestly speaking, whether or not you consider piracy "stealing" or not, you have to wonder whether these record labels represent a sustainable business model if they require this much regulation and restriction to stay afloat.
|
How will it be possible to stop piracy? Considering the internet censoring software I have seen so far is pathetic, how will it be stopped. I don't see companies going out of business because of piracy, they are just greedy.
|
On February 21 2012 15:35 Bronyaur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 15:14 FabledIntegral wrote:On February 21 2012 14:41 firehand101 wrote: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 The vast majority of people, from what I'm aware, at least on teamliquid, don't believe it's stealing. By the definition of stealing: to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch. or theft: the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny. Let me ask you this. Is it wrong if someone in Iraq pirates a TV show they want to watch, which is not available to them otherwise? The Iraqi government doesn't care if they do it. The producers of the show can't gain any money from the pirate if they aren't selling to that market (say in this hypothetical scenario they aren't). Is there is issue here? I don't think so. The main argument for "it's not stealing" is that you aren't taking anything away from the company. If they aren't losing anything, then how you can you say you're stealing from them? I don't understand this. It seems like you are arguing about symantics in a ethics discussion. What if I said it's not cheating if I maphack but only if I'm going to win the game anyway. Maybe I pull some arbitrary definition of cheating from somewhere on the internet to back me up, and it states that cheating is getting an unfair advantage in order to win the game. But I was going to win anyway right? Well really the interesting discussion there is whether it's ethical or not, not whether you are fulfilling the webster definition. Sounds like rationalization to me. Re: OP. I think you have a good point, but I agree with other posters that the correct method isn't for us to bend over and take it and it's not reasonable to expect the planet to stop piracy. The best method is to get with the 21st century and provide a good service like Steam which will generate sales. It's nice to hope that will happen, but I'm not keeping my hopes up. Governments and traditional entities heavily tied to governments seem to get stuck in the "force you to do it my way" approach rather than the "provide the best service so people want to be your consumers" approach.
Apples to Oranges, when you cheat for a win someone is losing something (in this case ladder points), when you pirate your aren't taking away something from someone.
|
A better solution would be the abolition of intellectual property. When the portion of society that leeches off the property of man is left to do other things, we would have enough people to do whatever we wanted. Artists would earn what they could through live shows or galleries. There is a value to physical art. People will pay for that no matter what. It's time the middle man was removed.
|
Just a random thought, but I always find it hilarious how much sympathy ruthless million/billion- aire corporations get in these piracy discussions. Poor victims that they are.
|
I totally agree with the OP. However at least in Australia it costs $50+ to buy a single season of a TV show or blue ray DVD. Then everything comes out 3+ months after everything is released in the US. Then if you try to buy off iTunes/Amazon since you aren't in the US you can't buy them.
Therefore I am forced to download all my movies/TV shows, I wish I didn't have to but other wise I can't afford to watch anything and cbf waiting so long for them.
|
On February 22 2012 03:16 DamageControL wrote:
how much protection should intellectual property be given? And how does music and other works of art fall into that realm of intellectual property.
Absolutely none.
Intellectual "property" has been a depressing notion since its conception in the small time its been operational in human history. It's a state sanctioned private monopoly existing within a free market price frame work. It shutdowns competition, violates physical property rights, endangers free speech, hinders education and compounds income inequalities.
The only reason we even use property laws on "physical" goods is because we need a system to allocate finite resources, scarcity. The beneficiaries of intellectual property are selling a product that is in practical terms, infinite, and using the state to artificially impose scarcity, much like a cartel would.
|
On February 22 2012 00:04 Tennoji wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 23:57 Tal wrote:On February 21 2012 23:52 Tennoji wrote: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.
An argument for
Particularly in areas such as education, there is a benefit to essentially saying 'fuck copyright lets give millions of people the tools to better themselves and see what happens.' I'd like to think that ideally there should be a core of up-to-date, very high quality texts/works/recordings that anyone can use to advance their knowledge in any field to an expert level, without paying (or by paying a very small fee). Within a generation the effect would be stunning.
The entertainment argument for everything to be free is a little harder to sustain, but I'd be happy to watch Hollywood and the current music industry be forced to dramatically change their model. It's important to note that not everything needs to become completely free to 'beat' piracy- just cheap and convenient. The incredible success of iphone apps, cheap steam games, and free to play games with micro-transactions shows this, and feels like a better future.
One can also argue that something can have no value whatsoever or even negative value. The hollywood marketing machine wants to make us believe the movies they are selling are good. What if I buy a movie and it ends up sucking? What value did it have for me? I wasted 2 hours of my life. That's negative value, do I get anything back for it? Nope, ofcourse not. But why not? You are arguing that all the content they make has SOME value and that you should pay for it if you want to see it because of that value. Well if the value turns out to be negative, why don't they have to pay me back? They lied to me with their marketing schemes, what gives them that right? If you count all the hours I watched series and movies in my life and add them up you probably get a whole lot of lost potential. If people make crap, they aren't automaticly entitled to money if other people look at it. Simple as that, that's why I think it should be legal to share. There are tons of other ways they can make money. Hell, even a crap movie can make money. All they have to do is hand it out for free and add in some commercials, get some sponsors and have a system where people can donate to the creators of that specific movie/song/whatever. Oh and maybe if they want to make money they should stop making crap and start producing shit everyone wants to see... commercial income goes through the roof. I think that's stretching it a bit. If you think it has negative value just stop watching it. Also how often have you honestly been tricked by trailers? I can't remember the last time I saw a terrible film because the trailer looked excellent. In the case of something being truly awful, of course you don't need to pay. But what if you just think it's ok? Isn't that worth something? It does not realy matter if I let them trick me or not, the only thing that matters is that it happens. (millions of people watch hundreds of movies, it is statistically bound to happen) The law is not just for me, their business model is not just for me, my arguments do not have to be based on just me.
Fair point that the arguments shouldn't be based on you - we should be applying these principles to everyone.
However even if millions of people watch hundreds of movies, how many would you say are 'tricked'? Does anyone watch a trailer for a Hollywood movie and believe it's going to be a work of art? Isn't it a relatively rare occurrence for people to be tricked into buying something?
Furthermore, we already have laws in place to deal with false advertising. So if you're just railing against general advertising, then that's a different argument, and a difficult one, as adverts sponsor many things we like.
|
On February 22 2012 07:38 biomech wrote:
water freezes at 0°C. you want liquid water. what do you do? change water or just increase temperature?
people download stuff. you want money. what do you do? forbid downloads or just adapt the business model?
Add some salt. THINK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX :O
|
Learn the difference between sharing/pirating/stealing and you will see the internet is just a big sharing place.
The companies are not losing anything. That is common scare tactics to force their brand of control on the internet.
A few people do actively PIRATE. But that is different from sharing. (![[image loading]](http://www.meh.ro/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/meh.ro6902.png) )
Sharing is hiring a movie and watching it with 20 friends. That is the same as you buying a dvd and putting it up online so your friends can watch it. This should never be a crime.
Not to mention I can't get the tv shows in any reasonable time frame in my country for any reasonable price so I am left to the good nature of americans etc who SHARE programs that have been aired in the USA. I used to video tape movies on VHS and show them to friends... OH NOES I AM A CRIMINAL! That is the logic of the op and the corporations.
SHARING IS NOT STEALING. Please stop this overhyped corporate scare mongering. Its seriously getting tiresome.
For those saying uploading is a crime it would only be considered a crime in my eyes if you tried to make money off of goods you uploaded. IE Copying movies and selling them on cds... yes a crime. Or uploading movies and charging people to watch/download them is a crime if you didn't make the movie.
|
To be honest, I've discovered a lot of great bands via pirating....
I then bought those band's CDs.
I know many people don't though.
|
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.
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.
|
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.
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.
Corporations don't have some godamn given right to bombard us with subliminal marketing and advertising- legal or not.
You want to make piracy illegal? Then you need to make advetising and marketing illegal as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
