|
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.
|
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.
Your argument is that there are some companies who are smart enough to adapt their business and pricing models and there are some who aren't. But since people nonetheless still download things, their downloads must still be evenly distributed over the good and shitty companies? How do you know people aren't just downloading the DRM-laden games that they only play once before deleting from their disk anyway?
And for all you know, file sharing is correlated to increased sales, and maybe more so when the companies are intelligent. Downloading and buying things aren't mutually exclusive.
|
Sigh. If there is a way to do it, people are going to keep on doing it and there's nothing you goody-two shoes activists on your high horses can do about it. Even if they put an iron curtain over all internet connectivity people will still find a way to pirate music and whatnot. I'm surprised there isn't a stronger movement against Sweden and the Pirate Bay in general. Take out the source and a lot of the "wahhh they stealin'" people will be inconvenienced, at the least.
Then more sites will get set up in other countries (Asia perhaps) and people will find ways to connect there. Censorship like this isn't going to solve the problem indefinitely...
|
"Censorship" of Internet is needed not only because of piracy or child pornography, but also actually for sake of the meaning of the "Censorship" - "suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body." (Wikipedia)
While MSM (Mainstream media) is controlled by few owners and has already (self) censorship, but internet is full of sites, articles and opinions that are opposite to the mainstream points of view. Mass conspiracy theories would not be possible without internet. And it is only growing after recent unpopular wars, worsening economic situation, Ponzi scheme of the current economy (you have to get more in debt to pay for your current debts) etc.
I have no doubt that a way to introduce censorship in internet will be found finally.
|
While I do agree with the OP that the internet has created a bubble outside of laws, I feel it is already too late to apply the necessary legislation without any significant collateral damage. I love the internet as this century's new wonder, generating fascinating cybercultures and changing the world altogether - to restrain the development of this amazing universe just for the sake of a part of the entertainment industry is a big sacrifice.
In my opinion, it is the latter who has to go, not the Internet, which is bigger and much more important than Lucas Film or any production firm will ever be. Things should be adapted to the changes brought by Internet, and not the reverse.
|
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.
Calling it Piracy is using newspeak. The act is doubleplusungood, ok? Let's call it Patrioting instead, it makes just as much sense. You have a problem with Patrioting? YOU MONSTER, WHY DO YOU HATE YOUR COUNTRY?
You will never completely stop file sharing without the following:
1) A complete stripping of all online privacy.
2) Screening all user content on the internet.
3) Forcing all personal storage to be online.
4) Elimination of the ability to download anything except legally/government approved software.
5) Direct scanning of all personal computers by authorities.
6) Elimination of mobile storage and offline computing.
7) Limiting websites to those who have government approval.
Want to stop file sharing? This is what it takes. Now, do you have the audacity to say stopping piracy is a good thing?
|
Fascinating Subject. Gonna do a bit of comparitive analysis here.
IMO we have to answer a couple of hard questions,Like Is Piracy = Theft? On one hand, When someone steals something, the victim loses some portion of value. With piracy, its not as easy to quantify.
Firstly, lost profits. Would Users have bought if it wasn't pirated? Well, people buy things when what they want is perceived to have higher value than the money they have. Piracy completely messes with this by making an alternate item free. Thus, the user cant really say if he wanted something or not if there was an easily available counter part. So you cant really say if you would/ would not have bought something if it wasn't pirated. Thus (kinda) dispelling the "I wouldnt have bought it anyway". Because the given context is different, the final choice is different as well.
Why "kinda"? Because you might really not have bought with or without piracy. Unfortunately there's really no way to tell.
But let's say you really couldn't afford it. You live on the streets in a garbage bin. Piracy is the only way. In that case, pirating should theoretically be okay. In fact it would add more publicity to said Item.
Secondly, piracy brings about alot of publicity for the artist/movie/whatever.This is excellent for indie game devs/ small time movie producers/ underground artists etc. But afterwards, whether or not he gains, (people buy his stuff), depends on the goodwill of the community. So in this case its a good and bad thing. How much publicity? more or less than the profits/loss? Also not really any way to tell.
Lastly, and most importantly, what the seller ultimately loses is the idea, or the ability to sell that idea effectively. Eventually everyone (except you kind-hearted souls) would say, why buy? so while you don't gain, the seller doesn't either. He loses out and can't go on to make more awesome stuff.
Imagine if patent laws worked like this: The author is allowed to sell, but everyone is allowed to use/copy, as long as they don't sell. Under normal circumstances, the market has a self - regulatory mechanism (who would finance all the stuff and give it for free?), but with piracy that caveat is demolished. Whats the point in buying? Because that's basically what's happening now. And then incentive for R&D, disclosure of inventions, easy commercialization won't happen.
This is also why file - sharing on such a large scale isn't really a good thing, because authors can't sell properly. On a small scale people its okay to turn a blind eye.
So does the seller lose value? (thus making it theft?) I would say yes, but to an extent.
Ultimately, I would say what's best for the market is driving innovation. Piracy forces the market to adapt and provide a service that's even better than pirates. I imagine streamlining services, making them just so amazingly good so that we would have to buy them being the eventuality.
Or it could destroy innovators that didn't have a lead, and couldn't get one because people pirated all their stuff in the first place turning the market into a place where only big corporations can survive because they had a head start. This seems to be the current trend.
So is piracy bad...Hard to say.
|
On February 22 2012 22:02 Bodacity wrote:
Fascinating Subject. Gonna do a bit of comparitive analysis here.
IMO we have to answer a couple of hard questions,Like Is Piracy = Theft? On one hand, When someone steals something, the victim loses some portion of value. With piracy, its not as easy to quantify.
By calling it piracy, you are pushing an opinion. "It is not only theft, but equivalent to theft with the threat of physical harm, and sometimes actual physical damage". Your phrasing itself is an opinion. File sharing describes what is being done. Use the proper descriptive form, not the media-company mandated "create an opinion through changing the language" wording. You are taking a part in a movement that is about changing the meaning of an issue in order to circumvent rational discussion. Please, if you want to discuss an issue, don't use tactics like that. I will refer you to my "patrioting" comment a few lines up. This is what you are doing.
Firstly, lost profits. Would Users have bought if it wasn't pirated? Well, people buy things when what they want is perceived to have higher value than the money they have. Piracy completely messes with this by making an alternate item free. Thus, the user cant really say if he wanted something or not if there was an easily available counter part. So you cant really say if you would/ would not have bought something if it wasn't pirated. Thus (kinda) dispelling the "I wouldnt have bought it anyway". Because the given context is different, the final choice is different as well.
Why "kinda"? Because you might really not have bought with or without piracy. Unfortunately there's really no way to tell.
But let's say you really couldn't afford it. You live on the streets in a garbage bin. Piracy is the only way. In that case, pirating should theoretically be okay. In fact it would add more publicity to said Item.
Ignore the studies which say that people who pirate movies, music and videogames in average spend more money on them than people who don't. File sharing is the new radio. It's the best advertising for music, TV, music, DVDs and video games out there. I would have never bought Diablo 2 if I hadn't pirated SC:BW in the first place. I eventually also bought SC:BW, when I was older and could afford it. Steam is popular with file-sharers. Because most dislike the hassle of downloading, cracking, praying the game will work, getting gimped content, and malware installed on their computer. Instead, they just buy the good deals. Gamers are people willing to spend money on hardware. If software is equally compelling, they buy it too. But expecting them to pay $60 for a game they don't know if they will like, find out it is trash, and quit after a week is downright ridiculous.
Secondly, piracy brings about alot of publicity for the artist/movie/whatever.This is excellent for indie game devs/ small time movie producers/ underground artists etc. But afterwards, whether or not he gains, (people buy his stuff), depends on the goodwill of the community. So in this case its a good and bad thing. How much publicity? more or less than the profits/loss? Also not really any way to tell.
Musicians, film makers, etc usually do not make money, or very little of it, from the sale of their products anyways. The reputation is where they make a real profit. The goodwill of the community is a different name for "the decision of the market". The people who make up the market decide how to spend their money. This is a great thing, on so many levels. The money is currently in a move away from the large companies, and more into the hands of the creative staff. I think the fact it hasn't always been a priority to see it that way is the reason Justin Bieber is more popular than Radiohead, Adam Sandler more than Robert De Niro, and Michael Bay more than Martin Scorcese. People automatically accept what big money spent on advertising tells them to. Now people have an option to actually see for themselves, and what would you know? Indie labels are making more money than ever. A new generation of good actors (not just nice faces) is gaining popularity on the big and small screens. Hell, they've even managed to bring back Arrested Development (yay!). Video games have never been better, and small developers have a chance to make it big (much more than during the 90s and 2000s).
The publicity from file sharing is justified - people like something or they don't. The beauty is that people make up their minds for themselves. Hence that publicity is better advertising than what Sony/BMG could ever pull off.
Lastly, and most importantly, what the seller ultimately loses is the idea, or the ability to sell that idea effectively. Eventually everyone (except you kind-hearted souls) would say, why buy? so while you don't gain, the seller doesn't either. He loses out and can't go on to make more awesome stuff.
Imagine if patent laws worked like this: The author is allowed to sell, but everyone is allowed to use/copy, as long as they don't sell. Under normal circumstances, the market has a self - regulatory mechanism (who would finance all the stuff and give it for free?), but with piracy that caveat is demolished. Whats the point in buying? Because that's basically what's happening now. And then incentive for R&D, disclosure of inventions, easy commercialization won't happen.
This is also why file - sharing on such a large scale isn't really a good thing, because authors can't sell properly. On a small scale people its okay to turn a blind eye.
Eventually, things become free. Just like libraries didn't kill off book sales, the radio didn't kill record sales, television didn't kill movie sales, the internet is just taking the next step, with digital information. If you were right about your assumptions, Microsoft would never have made money (I grew up in the 80s, and as a fact: the most pirated software was MS-DOS, down to the fact that less than half the people actually bought it). Neither would any company selling software on a non-proprietary platform. This is of course, proven to be wrong. Because Windows 7 (and OSX, and any purchasable OS) offers something that while you can pirate, you may as well pay because it delivers a package that's plain worth it. The same holds for music (if you include digital sales and revenue from performances, the industry is bigger than ever before), television (HBO are still insanely profitable), movies (making more money than ever), and software.
File sharing existed since the 1970s. It has always been a popular thing, and has NOT gotten any more popular (if anything, it is somewhat declining as things like Hulu, Steam, and iTunes succeed). The fact that you seem to think it's a growing phenomena and not a statistical fact of the industry as it has been since day one shows that you are plain wrong. The fact that the most flagrant violations of it are still punished is a fact (MU, TPB, etc). Just as in patent laws, there has to be some flexibility if you want any progress. The big software and hardware companies ignore patent laws - if they were enforced, all R&D would have ground to a halt around the advent of the iPhone. They know they can throw money on the legal team until small companies go bankrupt. They won't sue big companies because they will countersue, and both companies will end up losing more money than they gain. This is the sad truth. Patent and copyright laws are so extreme that enforcing them would destroy all progress in science and culture made in the last 20 years. They are the equivalent of one of the ten commandments: "thou shalt not covet", aka, the impossible one. Those laws go against everything society was built around, which is a community working to improve it's conditions for everyone.
So does the seller lose value? (thus making it theft?) I would say yes, but to an extent.
Ultimately, I would say what's best for the market is driving innovation. Piracy forces the market to adapt and provide a service that's even better than pirates. I imagine streamlining services, making them just so amazingly good so that we would have to buy them being the eventuality.
Or it could destroy innovators that didn't have a lead, and couldn't get one because people pirated all their stuff in the first place turning the market into a place where only big corporations can survive because they had a head start. This seems to be the current trend.
So is piracy bad...Hard to say.
The market destroys innovators that can't get into the lead all the time. File sharing is just another factor. It cannot be stopped without stripping free speech and privacy from everyone (as mentioned in my post earlier this page). You cannot say "this certain thing now has relevance and never did before". File Sharing existed since the dawn of the personal computer. It's always been a factor. But, sometimes, even if you don't like it very much, you just have to accept something exists and is not going away. You must embrace that fact to keep a grip on reality. File sharing exists, and will not go away. Same with alcohol. Banning these things is destined to fail because it's stupid. It's ignoring that these will happen. And attempting to stop them have always created more trouble than it solved.
|
Firstly, i think you misunderstand. I am not against piracy. Im just laying down and comparing some of the very excellent arguments here.
Musicians, film makers, etc usually do not make money, or very little of it, from the sale of their products anyways. The reputation is where they make a real profit. The goodwill of the community is a different name for "the decision of the market". The people who make up the market decide how to spend their money. This is a great thing, on so many levels. The money is currently in a move away from the large companies, and more into the hands of the creative staff. I think the fact it hasn't always been a priority to see it that way is the reason Justin Bieber is more popular than Radiohead, Adam Sandler more than Robert De Niro, and Michael Bay more than Martin Scorcese. People automatically accept what big money spent on advertising tells them to. Now people have an option to actually see for themselves, and what would you know? Indie labels are making more money than ever. A new generation of good actors (not just nice faces) is gaining popularity on the big and small screens. Hell, they've even managed to bring back Arrested Development (yay!). Video games have never been better, and small developers have a chance to make it big (much more than during the 90s and 2000s).
The publicity from file sharing is justified - people like something or they don't. The beauty is that people make up their minds for themselves. Hence that publicity is better advertising than what Sony/BMG could ever pull off.
"So basically publicity of file - sharing exceeds lost profits. Thus easier for smaller companies to sell products."
But what incentive do people have to buy their products in the first place, if they can just download them? (Unless the market does adapt, which it will have to.) How would it adapt though? (although i think that's slightly off topic).
People continue to buy books, because it's a hassle to go to the library. People buy movies because T.Vs don't have Blu-ray. Basically the value of the 'free item' didn't exceed that of the payed item, so people continued to buy. But with the advent of the internet, don't you think it's possible that eventually the 'free' services could outdo the non - free services? Since physical boundaries are no longer an issue? Maybe. or not.
|
On February 22 2012 23:49 Bodacity wrote:Firstly, i think you misunderstand. I am not against piracy. Im just laying down and comparing some of the very excellent arguments here. Show nested quote +Musicians, film makers, etc usually do not make money, or very little of it, from the sale of their products anyways. The reputation is where they make a real profit. The goodwill of the community is a different name for "the decision of the market". The people who make up the market decide how to spend their money. This is a great thing, on so many levels. The money is currently in a move away from the large companies, and more into the hands of the creative staff. I think the fact it hasn't always been a priority to see it that way is the reason Justin Bieber is more popular than Radiohead, Adam Sandler more than Robert De Niro, and Michael Bay more than Martin Scorcese. People automatically accept what big money spent on advertising tells them to. Now people have an option to actually see for themselves, and what would you know? Indie labels are making more money than ever. A new generation of good actors (not just nice faces) is gaining popularity on the big and small screens. Hell, they've even managed to bring back Arrested Development (yay!). Video games have never been better, and small developers have a chance to make it big (much more than during the 90s and 2000s).
The publicity from file sharing is justified - people like something or they don't. The beauty is that people make up their minds for themselves. Hence that publicity is better advertising than what Sony/BMG could ever pull off. "So basically publicity of file - sharing exceeds lost profits. Thus easier for smaller companies to sell products." But what incentive do people have to buy their products in the first place, if they can just download them? (Unless the market does adapt, which it will have to.) How would it adapt though? (although i think that's slightly off topic). People continue to buy books, because it's a hassle to go to the library. People buy movies because T.Vs don't have Blu-ray. Basically the value of the 'free item' didn't exceed that of the payed item, so people continued to buy. But with the advent of the internet, don't you think it's possible that eventually the 'free' services could outdo the non - free services? Since physical boundaries are no longer an issue? Maybe. or not.
I buy books because I like them, and therefor want them on my shelf. The only books I buy without reading first are sequels that I can already assume I will enjoy, if only for completing a series. That's why most people buy books. People buy them because they want them. I have an iPad, does that mean that since Sherlock Holmes is well in the public domain, I don't need to buy it. I still did. I have it on my iPad as well, for portability. Same with music. I used to DJ a lot. Most of my music was "pirated", that means given to me by the people who made it, and since it was released on CD, that makes me a pirate, since the musician has no right to do that. I still bought the albums I liked the most. A lot of people pirated Super Meat Boy. It gained the best publicity ever. It really depends on the quality.
File sharing is the new radio. Some musicians became less successful due to radio, some more. But it makes the music industry grow. There will always be musicians, and there will always be profitable ones. For a lot of musicians (specifically, the ones with nothing remarkable about them) this will hurt sales. Talent needs to get recognized to make money. Labels couldn't give two shits about talent - if Nirvana tried to break out today, they'd fail miserably because they aren't as "marketable" as Fallout Boy... without the Internet that is.
As for free services outdoing the for pay services... GOOD. I hope that one day people will take free stuff for granted. Just as we don't have to pay ridiculous amounts to learn to read, write, do basic math, science, history, etc. That is called progress. Today, you can manage on the internet, in the office, and in a wide variety of computing tasks, using only free, open source software. It's a great alternative, and in many ways is better than Windows 7 or OSX.
As to how to adapt? iTunes makes huge money for Apple. Steam sales are trending one way, up. Netflix, Hulu, these successfully compete with the digital alternatives due to having a great value. People that aren't scared to ignore outdated business models are making HUGE money. A lot of artists make more money on sites like Beatport than they did through record labels, by selling directly to customers... and this is without bringing up Louis CK and Radiohead. Money can be made, you just have to innovate, and not try and hold society back in the 1980s.
The internet exists, ergo, file sharing is always an option. You can compete with that. People do. And succeed.
|
who regulates the big media companies?. the pirates.
find something better (more legal) then piracy or leave it be.
|
On February 23 2012 02:12 Kazius wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 23:49 Bodacity wrote:Firstly, i think you misunderstand. I am not against piracy. Im just laying down and comparing some of the very excellent arguments here. Musicians, film makers, etc usually do not make money, or very little of it, from the sale of their products anyways. The reputation is where they make a real profit. The goodwill of the community is a different name for "the decision of the market". The people who make up the market decide how to spend their money. This is a great thing, on so many levels. The money is currently in a move away from the large companies, and more into the hands of the creative staff. I think the fact it hasn't always been a priority to see it that way is the reason Justin Bieber is more popular than Radiohead, Adam Sandler more than Robert De Niro, and Michael Bay more than Martin Scorcese. People automatically accept what big money spent on advertising tells them to. Now people have an option to actually see for themselves, and what would you know? Indie labels are making more money than ever. A new generation of good actors (not just nice faces) is gaining popularity on the big and small screens. Hell, they've even managed to bring back Arrested Development (yay!). Video games have never been better, and small developers have a chance to make it big (much more than during the 90s and 2000s).
The publicity from file sharing is justified - people like something or they don't. The beauty is that people make up their minds for themselves. Hence that publicity is better advertising than what Sony/BMG could ever pull off. "So basically publicity of file - sharing exceeds lost profits. Thus easier for smaller companies to sell products." But what incentive do people have to buy their products in the first place, if they can just download them? (Unless the market does adapt, which it will have to.) How would it adapt though? (although i think that's slightly off topic). People continue to buy books, because it's a hassle to go to the library. People buy movies because T.Vs don't have Blu-ray. Basically the value of the 'free item' didn't exceed that of the payed item, so people continued to buy. But with the advent of the internet, don't you think it's possible that eventually the 'free' services could outdo the non - free services? Since physical boundaries are no longer an issue? Maybe. or not. I buy books because I like them, and therefor want them on my shelf. The only books I buy without reading first are sequels that I can already assume I will enjoy, if only for completing a series. That's why most people buy books. People buy them because they want them. I have an iPad, does that mean that since Sherlock Holmes is well in the public domain, I don't need to buy it. I still did. I have it on my iPad as well, for portability. Same with music. I used to DJ a lot. Most of my music was "pirated", that means given to me by the people who made it, and since it was released on CD, that makes me a pirate, since the musician has no right to do that. I still bought the albums I liked the most. A lot of people pirated Super Meat Boy. It gained the best publicity ever. It really depends on the quality. File sharing is the new radio. Some musicians became less successful due to radio, some more. But it makes the music industry grow. There will always be musicians, and there will always be profitable ones. For a lot of musicians (specifically, the ones with nothing remarkable about them) this will hurt sales. Talent needs to get recognized to make money. Labels couldn't give two shits about talent - if Nirvana tried to break out today, they'd fail miserably because they aren't as "marketable" as Fallout Boy... without the Internet that is. As for free services outdoing the for pay services... GOOD. I hope that one day people will take free stuff for granted. Just as we don't have to pay ridiculous amounts to learn to read, write, do basic math, science, history, etc. That is called progress. Today, you can manage on the internet, in the office, and in a wide variety of computing tasks, using only free, open source software. It's a great alternative, and in many ways is better than Windows 7 or OSX. As to how to adapt? iTunes makes huge money for Apple. Steam sales are trending one way, up. Netflix, Hulu, these successfully compete with the digital alternatives due to having a great value. People that aren't scared to ignore outdated business models are making HUGE money. A lot of artists make more money on sites like Beatport than they did through record labels, by selling directly to customers... and this is without bringing up Louis CK and Radiohead. Money can be made, you just have to innovate, and not try and hold society back in the 1980s. The internet exists, ergo, file sharing is always an option. You can compete with that. People do. And succeed.
I've read your posts, and it seems like your argument boils down to "It can't be stopped so don't try". I don't think I need to enumerate why that is an awful argument.
Just because you personally decide to buy works that you enjoy does not mean that everyone does the same. Whether the publicity is worth it is not for you to decide. It is up to the author and their marketing strategy. If they don't keep up with technology and fail, so be it. But you and I don't have the right to decide that 'they're doing it wrong'. This is a right granted to the author by the various constitutions, human rights laws, and international agreements - which most countries subscribe to.
The difference between radio and infringement by file sharing, is that radio stations need permission to play the music they do. Thus it is up to the author/copyright holder to make that decision.
Enforcing laws and promoting tecnological progress are not mutually exclusive. If an artist chooses to distribute their work without the aid of the big record labels, by all means share files. It's possible, even likely, that they won't get the same exposure. But marketing costs money, and to get a big return you need to invest. It is feasible that a small artist works to distribute their work, pours the profits into marketing and so on and gets the exposure they want. It's worked throughout history in capitalist societies. I'd even suggest that this would contribute to a higher quality industry as a whole.
That said, I do agree that the market needs to adapt. That the big companies are power and money hungry, and exploit the artists. I agree that the industry probably needs a huge makeover. But breaking laws isn't the way to go about it. Regardless of whether you hurt or help an artist - you are still violating their rights. It's pretty clear to me that the MPAA and RIAA etc aren't going to stop trying to pass legislation that helps their companies. I even expect that they will get their way. You did hit the nail on the head when it comes to progress, updating business models, and providing what the consumer wants. If the consumer decides that they are willing to pay for the promoted media that is marketed for the masses according to the stipulations set up by the same companies, they will thrive. If the consumer decides that he will no longer pay outrageous prices for media, these big companies will lose profits and be forced to change or bankrupt.
Either way you can't just say that 'I don't like the law so I won't follow it'. That just means that you should be prosecuted for infringing on another person's rights.
|
On February 23 2012 06:44 GefilteFish wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 02:12 Kazius wrote:On February 22 2012 23:49 Bodacity wrote:Firstly, i think you misunderstand. I am not against piracy. Im just laying down and comparing some of the very excellent arguments here. Musicians, film makers, etc usually do not make money, or very little of it, from the sale of their products anyways. The reputation is where they make a real profit. The goodwill of the community is a different name for "the decision of the market". The people who make up the market decide how to spend their money. This is a great thing, on so many levels. The money is currently in a move away from the large companies, and more into the hands of the creative staff. I think the fact it hasn't always been a priority to see it that way is the reason Justin Bieber is more popular than Radiohead, Adam Sandler more than Robert De Niro, and Michael Bay more than Martin Scorcese. People automatically accept what big money spent on advertising tells them to. Now people have an option to actually see for themselves, and what would you know? Indie labels are making more money than ever. A new generation of good actors (not just nice faces) is gaining popularity on the big and small screens. Hell, they've even managed to bring back Arrested Development (yay!). Video games have never been better, and small developers have a chance to make it big (much more than during the 90s and 2000s).
The publicity from file sharing is justified - people like something or they don't. The beauty is that people make up their minds for themselves. Hence that publicity is better advertising than what Sony/BMG could ever pull off. "So basically publicity of file - sharing exceeds lost profits. Thus easier for smaller companies to sell products." But what incentive do people have to buy their products in the first place, if they can just download them? (Unless the market does adapt, which it will have to.) How would it adapt though? (although i think that's slightly off topic). People continue to buy books, because it's a hassle to go to the library. People buy movies because T.Vs don't have Blu-ray. Basically the value of the 'free item' didn't exceed that of the payed item, so people continued to buy. But with the advent of the internet, don't you think it's possible that eventually the 'free' services could outdo the non - free services? Since physical boundaries are no longer an issue? Maybe. or not. I buy books because I like them, and therefor want them on my shelf. The only books I buy without reading first are sequels that I can already assume I will enjoy, if only for completing a series. That's why most people buy books. People buy them because they want them. I have an iPad, does that mean that since Sherlock Holmes is well in the public domain, I don't need to buy it. I still did. I have it on my iPad as well, for portability. Same with music. I used to DJ a lot. Most of my music was "pirated", that means given to me by the people who made it, and since it was released on CD, that makes me a pirate, since the musician has no right to do that. I still bought the albums I liked the most. A lot of people pirated Super Meat Boy. It gained the best publicity ever. It really depends on the quality. File sharing is the new radio. Some musicians became less successful due to radio, some more. But it makes the music industry grow. There will always be musicians, and there will always be profitable ones. For a lot of musicians (specifically, the ones with nothing remarkable about them) this will hurt sales. Talent needs to get recognized to make money. Labels couldn't give two shits about talent - if Nirvana tried to break out today, they'd fail miserably because they aren't as "marketable" as Fallout Boy... without the Internet that is. As for free services outdoing the for pay services... GOOD. I hope that one day people will take free stuff for granted. Just as we don't have to pay ridiculous amounts to learn to read, write, do basic math, science, history, etc. That is called progress. Today, you can manage on the internet, in the office, and in a wide variety of computing tasks, using only free, open source software. It's a great alternative, and in many ways is better than Windows 7 or OSX. As to how to adapt? iTunes makes huge money for Apple. Steam sales are trending one way, up. Netflix, Hulu, these successfully compete with the digital alternatives due to having a great value. People that aren't scared to ignore outdated business models are making HUGE money. A lot of artists make more money on sites like Beatport than they did through record labels, by selling directly to customers... and this is without bringing up Louis CK and Radiohead. Money can be made, you just have to innovate, and not try and hold society back in the 1980s. The internet exists, ergo, file sharing is always an option. You can compete with that. People do. And succeed. I've read your posts, and it seems like your argument boils down to "It can't be stopped so don't try". I don't think I need to enumerate why that is an awful argument. Just because you personally decide to buy works that you enjoy does not mean that everyone does the same. Whether the publicity is worth it is not for you to decide. It is up to the author and their marketing strategy. If they don't keep up with technology and fail, so be it. But you and I don't have the right to decide that 'they're doing it wrong'. This is a right granted to the author by the various constitutions, human rights laws, and international agreements - which most countries subscribe to. That said, I do agree that the market needs to adapt. That the big companies are power and money hungry, and exploit the artists. I agree that the industry probably needs a huge makeover. But breaking laws isn't the way to go about it. Regardless of whether you hurt or help an artist - you are still violating their rights. It's pretty clear to me that the MPAA and RIAA etc aren't going to stop trying to pass legislation that helps their companies. I even expect that they will get their way. You did hit the nail on the head when it comes to progress, updating business models, and providing what the consumer wants. If the consumer decides that they are willing to pay for the promoted media that is marketed for the masses according to the stipulations set up by the same companies, they will thrive. If the consumer decides that he will no longer pay outrageous prices for media, these big companies will lose profits and be forced to change or bankrupt. Either way you can't just say that 'I don't like the law so I won't follow it'. That just means that you should be prosecuted for infringing on another person's rights.
The problem with your argument is that you're appealing to people's sense of morality and nothing else.You're telling me that I have no right to do what I do when I pirate music - I'm not disagreeing with you, I am legally in the wrong. But your argument ends there, and that's a dead end. You've accomplished absolutely nothing.
For me to be concerned about what I'm doing, there would either need to be a realistic danger of being prosecuted OR I would have to sympathize enough with the businesses losing money due to my actions so that I feel guilty enough. Since I already pay for everything I feel deserves my money, I'm covered when it comes to the latter. Being in no immediate danger from prosecution, I'm covered when it comes to the former as well.
So at the end of the day, it comes down to the fact that I CAN decide what I pay for, without limiting myself exclusively to the content I pay for. There's only two things you (not you literally, but the society in general) can do about this - try to fight it by implementing near-tyrannical laws that limit the society in many different ways and should never pass in a democratic society (if they do, then we have much bigger problems than piracy that I'm concerned about) - or try to build a business around my power to decide whether I pay for something or not, which is what a lot of successful modern internet enterprises actually do today.
What you're trying to do is guilt trip people into submitting to physical world market rules - regulated by laws that are in large part influenced by the industry itself, and often times broken or bent by the same industry for as much as they can get away with. What I'm trying to do is get the people to use the power they have and potential of the internet to MAKE their own rules, ones that will favor them as consumers over the creators and the industry, and watch those that refuse to adapt and change slowly bleed money to death.
|
On February 22 2012 13:27 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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...
|
On February 23 2012 08:14 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 13:27 Talin wrote:On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions. Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games. Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it. On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc. The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced. You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism. The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users. I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification. I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss. Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life...
so if somebody leaks all their computer code online by accident we should turn the other cheek while everybody takes their shit? its one thing to complain about legality, its another thing to punish somebody for their mistakes.
|
how can you censor the internet?
|
What a surprise, a forum full of people who play video games for copious amounts of time overwhelmingly chose the most selfish option in the poll.
People who claim that companies are living in the past seem extremely reluctant to accept that products like music CDs were actually just products (music recordings) delivered by a medium (the CD). And the reason for that reluctance is selfishness, period.
|
On February 22 2012 21:34 Kazius wrote:Show nested quote +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. Calling it Piracy is using newspeak. The act is doubleplusungood, ok? Let's call it Patrioting instead, it makes just as much sense. You have a problem with Patrioting? YOU MONSTER, WHY DO YOU HATE YOUR COUNTRY? You will never completely stop file sharing without the following: 1) A complete stripping of all online privacy. 2) Screening all user content on the internet. 3) Forcing all personal storage to be online. 4) Elimination of the ability to download anything except legally/government approved software. 5) Direct scanning of all personal computers by authorities. 6) Elimination of mobile storage and offline computing. 7) Limiting websites to those who have government approval. Want to stop file sharing? This is what it takes. Now, do you have the audacity to say stopping piracy is a good thing?
Talk about strawman...
I'm going to ignore the first paragraph entirely.. As to the rest of it, I never argued that implementing those practices is either necessary or a good thing. I'd actually argue that what it takes is an attitudinal change.
On February 23 2012 06:44 GefilteFish wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 02:12 Kazius wrote:On February 22 2012 23:49 Bodacity wrote:Firstly, i think you misunderstand. I am not against piracy. Im just laying down and comparing some of the very excellent arguments here. Musicians, film makers, etc usually do not make money, or very little of it, from the sale of their products anyways. The reputation is where they make a real profit. The goodwill of the community is a different name for "the decision of the market". The people who make up the market decide how to spend their money. This is a great thing, on so many levels. The money is currently in a move away from the large companies, and more into the hands of the creative staff. I think the fact it hasn't always been a priority to see it that way is the reason Justin Bieber is more popular than Radiohead, Adam Sandler more than Robert De Niro, and Michael Bay more than Martin Scorcese. People automatically accept what big money spent on advertising tells them to. Now people have an option to actually see for themselves, and what would you know? Indie labels are making more money than ever. A new generation of good actors (not just nice faces) is gaining popularity on the big and small screens. Hell, they've even managed to bring back Arrested Development (yay!). Video games have never been better, and small developers have a chance to make it big (much more than during the 90s and 2000s).
The publicity from file sharing is justified - people like something or they don't. The beauty is that people make up their minds for themselves. Hence that publicity is better advertising than what Sony/BMG could ever pull off. "So basically publicity of file - sharing exceeds lost profits. Thus easier for smaller companies to sell products." But what incentive do people have to buy their products in the first place, if they can just download them? (Unless the market does adapt, which it will have to.) How would it adapt though? (although i think that's slightly off topic). People continue to buy books, because it's a hassle to go to the library. People buy movies because T.Vs don't have Blu-ray. Basically the value of the 'free item' didn't exceed that of the payed item, so people continued to buy. But with the advent of the internet, don't you think it's possible that eventually the 'free' services could outdo the non - free services? Since physical boundaries are no longer an issue? Maybe. or not. I buy books because I like them, and therefor want them on my shelf. The only books I buy without reading first are sequels that I can already assume I will enjoy, if only for completing a series. That's why most people buy books. People buy them because they want them. I have an iPad, does that mean that since Sherlock Holmes is well in the public domain, I don't need to buy it. I still did. I have it on my iPad as well, for portability. Same with music. I used to DJ a lot. Most of my music was "pirated", that means given to me by the people who made it, and since it was released on CD, that makes me a pirate, since the musician has no right to do that. I still bought the albums I liked the most. A lot of people pirated Super Meat Boy. It gained the best publicity ever. It really depends on the quality. File sharing is the new radio. Some musicians became less successful due to radio, some more. But it makes the music industry grow. There will always be musicians, and there will always be profitable ones. For a lot of musicians (specifically, the ones with nothing remarkable about them) this will hurt sales. Talent needs to get recognized to make money. Labels couldn't give two shits about talent - if Nirvana tried to break out today, they'd fail miserably because they aren't as "marketable" as Fallout Boy... without the Internet that is. As for free services outdoing the for pay services... GOOD. I hope that one day people will take free stuff for granted. Just as we don't have to pay ridiculous amounts to learn to read, write, do basic math, science, history, etc. That is called progress. Today, you can manage on the internet, in the office, and in a wide variety of computing tasks, using only free, open source software. It's a great alternative, and in many ways is better than Windows 7 or OSX. As to how to adapt? iTunes makes huge money for Apple. Steam sales are trending one way, up. Netflix, Hulu, these successfully compete with the digital alternatives due to having a great value. People that aren't scared to ignore outdated business models are making HUGE money. A lot of artists make more money on sites like Beatport than they did through record labels, by selling directly to customers... and this is without bringing up Louis CK and Radiohead. Money can be made, you just have to innovate, and not try and hold society back in the 1980s. The internet exists, ergo, file sharing is always an option. You can compete with that. People do. And succeed. I've read your posts, and it seems like your argument boils down to "It can't be stopped so don't try". I don't think I need to enumerate why that is an awful argument. Just because you personally decide to buy works that you enjoy does not mean that everyone does the same. Whether the publicity is worth it is not for you to decide. It is up to the author and their marketing strategy. If they don't keep up with technology and fail, so be it. But you and I don't have the right to decide that 'they're doing it wrong'. This is a right granted to the author by the various constitutions, human rights laws, and international agreements - which most countries subscribe to. The difference between radio and infringement by file sharing, is that radio stations need permission to play the music they do. Thus it is up to the author/copyright holder to make that decision. Enforcing laws and promoting tecnological progress are not mutually exclusive. If an artist chooses to distribute their work without the aid of the big record labels, by all means share files. It's possible, even likely, that they won't get the same exposure. But marketing costs money, and to get a big return you need to invest. It is feasible that a small artist works to distribute their work, pours the profits into marketing and so on and gets the exposure they want. It's worked throughout history in capitalist societies. I'd even suggest that this would contribute to a higher quality industry as a whole. That said, I do agree that the market needs to adapt. That the big companies are power and money hungry, and exploit the artists. I agree that the industry probably needs a huge makeover. But breaking laws isn't the way to go about it. Regardless of whether you hurt or help an artist - you are still violating their rights. It's pretty clear to me that the MPAA and RIAA etc aren't going to stop trying to pass legislation that helps their companies. I even expect that they will get their way. You did hit the nail on the head when it comes to progress, updating business models, and providing what the consumer wants. If the consumer decides that they are willing to pay for the promoted media that is marketed for the masses according to the stipulations set up by the same companies, they will thrive. If the consumer decides that he will no longer pay outrageous prices for media, these big companies will lose profits and be forced to change or bankrupt. Either way you can't just say that 'I don't like the law so I won't follow it'. That just means that you should be prosecuted for infringing on another person's rights.
Exactly.
|
On February 23 2012 08:18 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 08:14 Brett wrote:On February 22 2012 13:27 Talin wrote:On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions. Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games. Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it. On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc. The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced. You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism. The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users. I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification. I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss. Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life... so if somebody leaks all their computer code online by accident we should turn the other cheek while everybody takes their shit? its one thing to complain about legality, its another thing to punish somebody for their mistakes.
I'm sorry, I don't think I really follow your point. Can you expand upon it, please?
If someone's content is leaked by accident, everyone should ignore it. If I receive an email incorrectly, I delete it. I don't go ahead and forward it on to everyone I know. Is that what you're getting at?
|
On February 23 2012 08:14 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 13:27 Talin wrote:On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions. Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games. Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it. On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote:
I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc. The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced. You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism. The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users. I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification. I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss. Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life...
Actually, given your level of argumentation I'd say you're the one lacking perspective here. You're clinging to things that don't really matter and have zero influence on the issue. It's just a convoluted and long-winded way of trying to tell people what they should and shouldn't be doing, but you're not actually in a position to dictate that and there's no reason for me or anybody else to adhere to what you think we should be doing. What are you even trying to prove?
Either way, one side will absolutely be forced to adapt to the other. If the internet were to adapt to the laws that are being proposed at large today and pushed by the industry to "prevent piracy", the outcome would be fatal for any free society, because these laws affect a lot more than piracy (and I don't think anyone doubts they would be used to their full potential). I think everyone should hope that this doesn't happen.
The only other option, one that is actually healthy for everyone is for relevant industries is to adapt to the reality that is the internet instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
