SOPA. ACTA. other random crap. ^^these acts are supposedly trying to 'censor' material and restrict freedom of speech and expression. Well, that is what we all think anyway.
The bills proposed are much too radical and provide those in government and business too much power. With these bills they can censor a large amount of material, which is why we stopped them. But through all this controversy, it will get smaller. But not disappear.
The main issues these regulations are aiming to address are piracy and online theft. Whether you like it or not, eventually all of your favorite sites like mega upload (already taken down), pirate bay, 4shared and many others will disappear. Is this censorship? Cant you argue that you have a right to share files?
The bottom line is, well, we internet people have created a fantasy world for ourselves. For as long as I can remember, we have been sharing and receiving illegal files without any repercussions, as the internet is 'too big' for anyone to get singled out and prosecuted. This fairy tale land will not last. That is what I am trying to say.
People are catching on now, and it is only a matter of time before this material will be blocked. Because, in reality, you are stealing. You are taking money from corporations. of course it doesnt mean #$%#, of course the companies dont even notice when they are driving around in their lambo's and living it up in their penthouses. But it is stealing, whether you accept it or not is your choice.
All of this fussing and fighting about these legislations is understood, because we have been doing it for so long we feel that the internet would just not be the same without it. But it is stealing. It has to be stopped, and there is no way around it.
TLDR: WE ARE STEALING. Seriously, whether you like it or not, internet piracy will be stopped, we cant keep on stealing and whine when the government is going to do something about it
Poll: Do you agree?
Burn in hell you $#!T HE4D! (584)
77%
No (117)
15%
Yes (57)
8%
758 total votes
Your vote: Do you agree?
(Vote): Yes (Vote): No (Vote): Burn in hell you $#!T HE4D!
Firstly, it will never be stopped. Secondly, the solution isn't to 'stop it', well, at least not like this. The solution is to adapt the content creation industry to the way the internet works, not blindly refuse to change traditional methods of commerce. Thirdly, I voted for the third option because >:D.
Also, an interesting and highly informative read on the consequences of piracy can be found here. Basically, contrary to what most EMI leaders would have you believe, artist profits across the board are all up. Hoorah!
That's one possible view? It's probably not the correct view that's correct regardless of whether I accept it. Also, did you basically just come up with this from the UK TPB thread and then add a poll? Do you know anything about a distinction between making ad money off of distributing other people's shit without their consent (i.e. Megaupload, Youtube) and personal sharing (peer to peer software and dinner parties)?
I checked the poll before I read the post and the results made my night not even knowing whether I agreed with you or not lol
I don't know if it's technically correct to classify it as stealing, but being able to illegally download free games whenever you want, no matter how convenient it is, isn't right.
From what I understand though, SOPA/ACTA are a completely separate issue from this as they attempt to resort to radical measures in an attempt to stop the wrong actions. The SOPA/ACTA solution to solve the problem would just create another problem in it's place.
On February 21 2012 14:28 Dr. ROCKZO wrote: Firstly, it will never be stopped. Secondly, the solution isn't to 'stop it', well, at least not like this. The solution is to adapt the content creation industry to the way the internet works, not blindly refuse to change traditional methods of commerce. Thirdly, I voted for the third option because >:D.
I agree with this. Online piracy can't be stopped. Well I guess it theoretically could be somehow. It'll be much easier to just adapt new business models though.
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.
I agree in a sense. But I don't think the media producers' current business model will really get them far. I seriously doubt blocking online piracy will not significantly boost sales. Wasn't it Switzerland that commissioned a study that concluded that people who would have purchased media purchase it anyway, and those who pirated the material probably simply wouldn't indulge in it if it had not been available illegally?
I think businesses should adapt and find ways to pull in income outside of album sales and DVD sales. There should be greater premium packaging, for instance, or more emphasis on touring and live shows. Film...to be completely fucking honest, Hollywood could use less garbage movies. I honestly hope to god studios scale back and release less films. There needs to be less garbage in that regard anyway.
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
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
They are trying to rationalize something they know is wrong
Its a stupid circular argument, it almost reminds me of the religious.
I wouldnt pay for it, but I downloaded it for free because I wanted it!
edit:
Just to clarify, I am not particularly against pirating... but I love when people use that silly little 'no lost profit' argument. It is just silly, like when people try and classify who is a pirate and who is a thief online. Well he had the money to buy it and I didn't but I wanted it and he didn't so he is the thief and I'm a pirate! So stupid.
No, internet piracy won't actually be stopped. The problem is the people who want it stopped are largely ignorant of how the internet works, they're doing so for mostly political reasons because their people tell them it's a hot topic.
In reality, if the portion of people with money who are trying to stop piracy made the -very- simple choice of offering a better alternative then there would be no issue. These idiots stick to tradition and they're just missing out.
Don't try and "stop piracy", just give us a better alternative to it. Netflix is a step in the right direction, but it needs to be bigger than that. Film and music should be intertwined with the internet, digital distribution should be the norm. People will still see movies in theaters if they want to, and they will.
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
And major artists don't make money from the albums. Record companies take most/if not all the money from albums. If a person downloads an album for free and decides they like the artist and buys a ticket to see the artist in concert, then the artist gets paid for the ticket sale. Putting an album on the Internet for free is a great way to market yourself and potentially get people to show up to your concerts.
well technically it's called copyright infringement not stealing because no material is lost. I guess that's why the fees are that much higher for online pirates than regular thieves.
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
They are trying to rationalize something they know is wrong
Its a stupid circular argument, it almost reminds me of the religious.
I wouldnt pay for it, but I downloaded it for free because I wanted it!
edit:
Just to clarify, I am not particularly against pirating... but I love when people use that silly little 'no lost profit' argument. It is just silly, like when people try and classify who is a pirate and who is a thief online. Well he had the money to buy it and I didn't but I wanted it and he didn't so he is the thief and I'm a pirate! So stupid.
I am not impressed by the argument from "life doesn't work like that." The way life works is there are a lot of people with lives that aren't spectacular and if some downloaded album helps them get through shit, I don't think an artist would be upset if he had one fewer Mercedes. It's wrong to say that every download is a lost sale just as it's wrong to say no download is a lost sale, but I expect the proportion is lower than rich people would have you think. There would be more sales (not necessarily fewer downloads, as the two aren't exclusive) if everyone loosened up and adopted more modern pricing and distribution models.
Both sides get so driven apart into radicalism by this argument spurred on by crazy crazy legislations that are akin to nuking from orbit.
This leads to pirates defending what they do based on "internet freedom" and "rights" and "a download is not a sale lost" and the publishers and legislators making even crazier laws (or trying) and lumping pirates with legitimate users and hurting legitimate users and not focussing on providing a better user experience that could help a lot more than political lobbying and hunting down TPB/MU and witchhunting Anon.
I mean, why the hell do people buy from iTunes rather than torrent stuff or usenet or rapidshare? Because it's a good service. Why do people buy so much stuff from Steam despite non-discounted games being expensive and that it's locked in to your account and you are subject to all of Steam's rules and regs? Because it's a bloody good service.
More constructive cooperation, less mutually assured destruction would benefit everyone.
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
They are trying to rationalize something they know is wrong
Its a stupid circular argument, it almost reminds me of the religious.
I wouldnt pay for it, but I downloaded it for free because I wanted it!
edit:
Just to clarify, I am not particularly against pirating... but I love when people use that silly little 'no lost profit' argument. It is just silly, like when people try and classify who is a pirate and who is a thief online. Well he had the money to buy it and I didn't but I wanted it and he didn't so he is the thief and I'm a pirate! So stupid.
I am not impressed by the argument from "life doesn't work like that." The way life works is there are a lot of people with lives that aren't spectacular and if some downloaded album helps them get through shit, I don't think an artist would be upset if he had one fewer Mercedes. It's wrong to say that every download is a lost sale just as it's wrong to say no download is a lost sale, but I expect the proportion is lower than rich people would have you think. There would be more sales (not necessarily fewer downloads, as the two aren't exclusive) if everyone loosened up and adopted more modern pricing and distribution models.
Not sure why you quoted me. I agree; I just think it is silly when people try to rationalize pirating as a good/just thing.
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
Pour his/her soul into a CD? Maybe I'd buy more CD's if that were the case. It's rare for me to buy a CD because there are 1 or 2 good songs on it and the rest is garbage, or filler. I don't own itunes, but often my roommate and I will share expenses of good songs we like and buy them and share the data with eachother. If I really respect a band I will buy their CD. The same goes for video games. I may try a lot of games that I didn't buy, but if they're good I will buy them.
For example, look at that youtube video of a cover of "Somebody that I used to know" by that one band. They have made a ton of money off it, because they were creative and unique. People wanted to support that band and thus bought the song. We're entering a period of time where information and data is essentially free and exists outside the boundaries of conventional capitalism. Either the market has to change to adapt, or it will get crushed. I'm perfectly content watching commercials and watching streaming TV shows that I like. I do that often for John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. I have cable TV, but the quality on Blu-ray and such is much better than PVR'ing it so I like to download it. Maybe if the quality were up to par and as easy to store on a PVR/Cable (which I pay for) I wouldn't download those shows. If a movie is good I will buy the blu-ray to add to my collection and will see it in the theater, much like if I enjoy watching a sports team I may well go to a game and pay money to see them live. Much like if I enjoy an artist, I will pay money to go watch them in concert. In fact, one might argue that there is likely an increase in ticket sales of said artist as a result of piracy. I'd be interested to see research done on that.
I don't have a lot of money to spend on entertainment. I'm a university student, and I cannot support every little show that I try to watch and find out I don't like. The business model could adapt to help people like me who like to try the waters before purchasing by making the first few episodes free of charge to get people hooked. Instead they adopt an aggressive stance on enforcing and stopping people from downloading illegally. In the end, the people who get to enjoy all these modern marvels of technology are still the rich. The internet should be a medium for every person to access and enjoy entertainment and learning oppurtunities. As it sits, it's only a matter of time before surfing the internet will cost money on a per-site basis.
The internet could be a vessel for modern education and free exchange of information. They could incorporate information and advertising hand-in-hand to help encourage such a change. Imagine a world where higher education courses are free and easy to access for all. The internet has the power to do this, even now, but by definition it would be considered piracy and would kill profits so it isn't done. The only reason entertainment piracy is such an issue is because we'd all rather be entertained than educated. What a backwards world we live in.
On February 21 2012 14:37 ArtofRuin wrote: If I am unwilling to pay any amount of money for an album, then when I download it for free I am not stealing. There is no lost profit. As well, The Pirate Bay is also a fantastic hub for freeware and indie bands, Katawa Shoujo (a free visual novel) being a fine example.
Are you serious? THAT IS NOT STEALING?!? seriously, if you had no intention of buying it, then you should not get it for free! fml, life doesnt work like that. An artist doesnt pour his/her soul into a CD, just so someone like you can listen to it for the hell of it
Mixing engineer, visual artist here
Please shut the fuck up about what I and the people I work with want. I am tired of hearing this line of bullshit in every copyright related thread I go into. This is record company propaganda. NOTHING MORE.
There is possibly 1% of artists who could negatively be affected by sharing(read: exposure) of their material. These artists aren't affected anyway because they generally get marginal proceeds from their albums, with the lions share going to their label. And piracy isn't some new concept. Any breathing sack of flesh can realize that the RIAA and MPAA have been heralding the end of life as we know it since popular radio, since the 8 track, since the cassette, the VHS, CDs, DVDs, MP3s, Usenet, DC++, Kazaa, Limewire, Napster, Torrents, and currently FTP sites.
Guess what
Nothing has changed in the past 50 years. Your parents recording a popular TV show on the good ole vhs is just as illegal as it is to download a song today. The only difference is that people like you buy into this hilarious propaganda about truckers and recording engineers being terribly affected by piracy. We're not.
And James Hetfield and Richard Branson aren't being affected either. The entire goal of the lifelong campaigns of the RIAA and the MPAA seek to "keep the fear" in the people. Because without that fear they would lose about a total of 10% of their market. Which is significant in that they couldn't keep their current management salaries and stay profitable.
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?
The thing is, most people who download stuff either try the music/software/whatever out and buy it later or download stuff for the sake of it, because they wouldn't pay for it anyway. That's how internet works now I believe. So once again government in most cases will do more harm to users, who actually buy things they downloaded, than to those, who don't give a f* about copyright. Business model have to adapt to modern internet, not the other way around.
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
You do realize that a very very small percentage of album sales actually go to the artists, right? Album sales are about business, not music. Touring and concerts are about music, that's how artists make their money and that's what I personally see as a better way to support artists I like. That's not to say that I pirate all of my music, though, I have a few hundred CDs as well, but it's hard to buy everything I want to hear. If I do hear something and I think it's great, then I have no problem with buying it. I don't see piracy as anything different from listening to albums on youtube, honestly.
Stealing and downloading are two tottally different things.
We are copying something not stealing it. We don't actually kow how much companies are losing because a lot of the people who download things weren't going to buy the thing they are downloading in the first place, usually if people truly want something they pay for it.
The one thing that bothers me most about this subject is that lets say I am super mega ultra popular, and I go out and buy the newest movie, If I invite 10,000 people into my home and let them watch it, is it a crime? I am just sharing, it's essentially the same thing as piracy, but the internet allows people to do it with ease and on greater scales, but inviting five people over and downloading something are the same thing in principle however, one of them is illegal, makes no sense to me.
There are also a ton of artists that get popular because of online pirating. Believe it or not, as was stated before most of the profit from albums goes to the record company, and there are a hell of a lot of bands that aren't known and are amazing that make an album, a few people buy it, they make little money. There are actually people that will listen to an album, love it, and go and buy it. It may seem insignificant, but there are some pirating sites with 100,000+ people on them. How much do you think that gets their name out there? A hell of a lot. Especially when some of the artists are homegrown artists that make music because it's their dream and post it on the site. Also, did you know some artists are actually on these torrent sites and support them?
Shocking, I know. Please research the topic before making a silly post like this. Businesses have been around for decades, but that doesn't mean they govern everything. The Internet is the first of it's kind, it belongs to no country, it has no rules, and it shouldn't be confined because of what used to be the standard. Society should adapt to the internet and how it helps/connects everything.
Also, you make it sound like it's just people pirating for the sake of free music/for the sake of pirating. That's hardly the case, a fair amount of the professional pirating sites have members that are truly passionate about whatever they're pirating, be it music, books, movies, tv shows, or games. They have book clubs and movie clubs, many have their own blogs where they post highly intellectual reviews. It's not like they're base thieves, many of them are intellectuals that truly love the industry and pirate because they can't afford to buy 1000 albums at 9-14$ an album.
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.
If you honestly think it's about ownership and property, you're WAY off base. For years Cassette and VHS allowed people to record and keep shows, movies, or songs for free, from a medium that was, in it's most basic form free to begin with. There was no outcry. Why? People still taped movies, or recorded songs onto tapes and gave them to their friends didn't they? What is so different about the case of the internet? Why the sudden uproar if it's been going on for years? What has changed?
Answer: WHAT IS BEING BROADCAST. As a historian with particular interest in American history, and specifically late 19th and 20th century, I can tell you that there exists a trend with mass communication and entertainment and that is the relegation of grassroots or specific audience targeting within media to be legislated into oblivion. Radio stations which had formerly catered to specific audiences, a blues radio station in south chicago, a local jazz station in New Orleans, were all destroyed not by market forces (they adequately catered to their viewership and made revenue) but rather by legislation intended to regulate broadcasting (for which there are practical reasons, but still the fact remains). These stations then, in order to survive were bought out by larger conglomerates such as NBC (the first big broadcasting corporation in the United States) which dictated content.
For most of the history of mass communication WHAT was being put out was in the hands of a very small number of individuals. With the advent of the internet you have a situation where content is no longer being regulated in the same way. People make their own, they cater to specific groups and needs, and that openness of information is a factor.
Go ahead, call me crazy, but as far as I'm concerned internet censorship being about "piracy" or "ownership" is the biggest farce I've ever heard. It's about controlling what you see and hear and that's it.
NOTE: I'll have to double check some of the broadcasting history, but I'm fairly certain it's accurate based on what I recall from memory.
First of all, it should be noted that copyright violation is not theft. They are both offences, but of very different kinds, and to equate them is both incorrect and propagandist.
Secondly, as those protesting these acts are aware, these issues are only tangentially connected to censorship, and hence your title is rather misleading. There are only two main ties to censorship issues in this push for more draconian IP legislation. 1. Secretive negotiations. Here the concern is that censorship is being used to conceal the political and commercial processes leading to these laws being put in place. There is a distinct lack of transparency, and a justifiable fear that the secrecy is covering corruption in the form of govermental officials abusing their positions to put in place regulations designed to blatantly favour particular commercial groups. 2. Abuse of new laws. This is a problem arising from the overly-broad, poorly-designed and far-reaching nature of the proposed legislation, which often allows for abuses such as groups being targetted with automatic takedowns or restrictions without proper legal recourse or presumption of innocence. This provides tools allowing powerful groups to forcibly censor rivals, critics and other targets.
Finally, these proposed acts are not inevitable in one form or another largely because they are not necessary. Violation of copyright is already an offence, and there are already laws and legal procedures in place throughout world to address it. Nothing in the way copyright is currently handled justifies the extensive rejection of civil liberties contained in proposals such as SOPA, ACTA, etc.
If I had to buy every piece of music and music video I saw that wasn't on TV, I frankly would have never even found out about folk metal. I would have just stuck to the terrible music on the radio and think that's what music is.
I would have never bought the band shirts of bands I really support. I would have never spread my fanboyism out over my friends.
But obviously I would buy more music because thats the only way I could get it! /sarcasm.
On February 21 2012 15:29 TerranosauresWrecks wrote: Stealing and downloading are two tottally different things.
We are copying something not stealing it. We don't actually kow how much companies are losing because a lot of the people who download things weren't going to buy the thing they are downloading in the first place, usually if people truly want something they pay for it.
The one thing that bothers me most about this subject is that lets say I am super mega ultra popular, and I go out and buy the newest movie, If I invite 10,000 people into my home and let them watch it, is it a crime? I am just sharing, it's essentially the same thing as piracy, but the internet allows people to do it with ease and on greater scales, but inviting five people over and downloading something are the same thing in principle however, one of them is illegal, makes no sense to me.
I believe the problem lies in creating a copy. I can loan a book out to as many people as I like and it's not copyright infringement. If I photocopy the book and give copies out to people then it's illegal.
I'm looking at copyright exclusive rights (from Wiki)
Several exclusive rights typically attach to the holder of a copyright:
-to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies (including, typically, electronic copies) -to import or export the work -to create ....
Sound recording and reproduction is an electrical or mechanical inscription and re-creation of sound waves, such as spoken voice, singing, instrumental music, or sound effects.
Well shit... I guess CDs are only to be had on display, it's illegal to actually re-create the sound???
On February 21 2012 16:39 Scripted wrote: I'm looking at copyright exclusive rights (from Wiki)
Several exclusive rights typically attach to the holder of a copyright:
-to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies (including, typically, electronic copies) -to import or export the work -to create ....
Sound recording and reproduction is an electrical or mechanical inscription and re-creation of sound waves, such as spoken voice, singing, instrumental music, or sound effects.
Well shit... I guess CDs are only to be had on display, it's illegal to actually re-create the sound???
It's funny. My CDs are actually for display. I buy the CDs, but then the music mysteriously just appears.
As for this thread and the poll, it's stupid. It brings uncessary rage to this community.
You don't even need ACTA or other bills to be able to censor stuffs on the Internet.
French President Sarkozy just started his campaign for the elections in April and finally opened his Twitter account. The same day, some people created alternative accounts, either to pretend being Sarkozy, either to just mock the campaign. All those accounts were shortly deleted. While I agree that the accounts claiming to be the real Sarkozy deserved to be closed, some other accounts were simply sharing funny photoshopped campaign posters and were doing nothing against TOS and still got deleted too.
On February 21 2012 16:39 Scripted wrote: I'm looking at copyright exclusive rights (from Wiki)
Several exclusive rights typically attach to the holder of a copyright:
-to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies (including, typically, electronic copies) -to import or export the work -to create ....
Sound recording and reproduction is an electrical or mechanical inscription and re-creation of sound waves, such as spoken voice, singing, instrumental music, or sound effects.
Well shit... I guess CDs are only to be had on display, it's illegal to actually re-create the sound???
The sentence behind it "and to sell those copies " is important here. It is indeed illegal to sell those things that you copied. And that's there for a good reason. But major record companies are extending that to just making copies and sharing them. There is no selling in between. Really, it would be like copying a CD and giving it to someone.
Obviously gatekeepers like the MPAA wouldn't want that. Because then nobody would go buy full albums anymore because they liked one song on the radio for example.
I work in the webdesign trade, which means I make websites for clients so they can use them. What stops them from just copying the HTML of a page and putting it on a server while pasting their logo on top of it? Nobody. They could do that if they want. So in essence, just creating static HTML pages is pretty much obsolete for a living.
This has slowly extended out to themes, a package of files that if you paste it on a server on for example a Wordpress CMS, you can have the whole working package for maybe 30 dollars. So, from an outsiders perspective, my trade is obsolete.
Except it isn't. People give services to clients. If it was just about the product then we wouldn't be here in such a large number. We have to constantly evolve our skills, expand our horizons and learn new skills just to keep up. Being a webdesigner in the 2000's was a LOT different from being a webdesigner in the 2010's. Yet, major record companies seem to have a problem updating their bussiness model.
They have fought tooth and nail against the cassette recorder, spewed hellfire on CD's claiming they would kill the industry. Yet after a couple of years they all started to make them because the world evolved. Even though the market right now is in need of digital copies, they went on to create a bigger physical record ( Bluray ) and whine that it isn't selling as much. They would censor the internet just so they could sell those records for a maximum profit.
Copyright laws made a lot of sense in the early days when innovation wasn't as fast. But nowadays its mostly used, primarily in the tech industry, to slow innovation down. The only thing in my eyes that should be protected by copyright are logo's and bussiness names. All the other protection should be shortened by a lot.
Some of the arguments in this thread are quite ridiculous - you have people here claiming that "stealing" is ok because it's not loss sales, or that the artists themselves don't mind because it's publicity or that it makes no difference, etc. Like it or not, it's stealing and people arguing otherwise are merely justifying themselves with excuses.
That being said, what I am against is that some of this legislation will give govts too much power over censorship. I don't really know how the legislation is going to work but if I understand correctly, this will give someone the power to take something down without going through normal procedure (i.e. the courts). This, in effect, gives an arbitrary authority the right to be judge and jury, something which is wrong.
So, anti-legislation people should argue along these lines - rationalising your stealing is frankly very stupid. Like it or not, piracy is a problem and I think that good solutions (rather than censorship) should be developed to combat it.
For a real life case: In Australia, some association (movies + recording studio) sued iinet (2nd or 3rd largest ISP) to try and force iinet to police it's own internet traffic. That association wanted the power to force iinet to switch the internet off to people who they said were stealing. Iinet countered by saying that it's own infrastructure is just there and they have no control on what goes on. Also, iinet said they will gladly turn the internet off for pirates if it's proven in court (i.e. due process, not at the whim of someone).
Note that iinet in no way argued that stealing is ok, artists actually benefit, etc. If they did, they would've been a laughing stock. Notice that some of the comments here are actually arguing this.
On February 21 2012 14:37 ArtofRuin wrote: If I am unwilling to pay any amount of money for an album, then when I download it for free I am not stealing. There is no lost profit. As well, The Pirate Bay is also a fantastic hub for freeware and indie bands, Katawa Shoujo (a free visual novel) being a fine example.
Are you serious? THAT IS NOT STEALING?!? seriously, if you had no intention of buying it, then you should not get it for free! fml, life doesnt work like that. An artist doesnt pour his/her soul into a CD, just so someone like you can listen to it for the hell of it
Mixing engineer, visual artist here
Please shut the fuck up about what I and the people I work with want. I am tired of hearing this line of bullshit in every copyright related thread I go into. This is record company propaganda. NOTHING MORE.
There is possibly 1% of artists who could negatively be affected by sharing(read: exposure) of their material. These artists aren't affected anyway because they generally get marginal proceeds from their albums, with the lions share going to their label. And piracy isn't some new concept. Any breathing sack of flesh can realize that the RIAA and MPAA have been heralding the end of life as we know it since popular radio, since the 8 track, since the cassette, the VHS, CDs, DVDs, MP3s, Usenet, DC++, Kazaa, Limewire, Napster, Torrents, and currently FTP sites.
Guess what
Nothing has changed in the past 50 years. Your parents recording a popular TV show on the good ole vhs is just as illegal as it is to download a song today. The only difference is that people like you buy into this hilarious propaganda about truckers and recording engineers being terribly affected by piracy. We're not.
And James Hetfield and Richard Branson aren't being affected either. The entire goal of the lifelong campaigns of the RIAA and the MPAA seek to "keep the fear" in the people. Because without that fear they would lose about a total of 10% of their market. Which is significant in that they couldn't keep their current management salaries and stay profitable.
Man, you're buying into propaganda from the other side while accusing others of listening to Hollywood's. Most of the money that you claim goes into these management salaries goes into the the millions of jobs created in the production aspect of the television, cinema, and music industries. And something you choose to ignore in your post flaming the MPAA and RIAA is that though they are always worried, this is the internet. It becomes infinitely easier to steal at a large scale online. Torrenting and streaming of illegal content is much more widespread than recording an episode on a VHS. That was stealing, but it wasn't an international problem. The main issue with all this legislation is that all the stolen information is broadcast globally. And with all the lost revenue associated with ripped off television and movies, American jobs are lost and given to the man with three massive houses running megaupload.com. Seems like a good deal to me...
On February 21 2012 17:10 Azzur wrote: Some of the arguments in this thread are quite ridiculous - you have people here claiming that "stealing" is ok because it's not loss sales, or that the artists themselves don't mind because it's publicity or that it makes no difference, etc. Like it or not, it's stealing and people arguing otherwise are merely justifying themselves with excuses.
FFS, stop with the "stealing". Stealing and copyright infringement are not the same thing. Theft is deprivation of property.
Let's consult wikipedia:
Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as "theft." In copyright law, infringement does not refer to actual theft, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.[6] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright... 'an infringer of the copyright.'" In the case of copyright infringement the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law is invaded, i.e. exclusive rights, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.
So, anti-legislation people should argue along these lines - rationalising your stealing is frankly very stupid. Like it or not, piracy is a problem and I think that good solutions (rather than censorship) should be developed to combat it.
Some people might suggest that rethinking copyright law is a good solution.
These acts have nothing to do with freedom of speech and expression as far as I know. Your freedom of speech and expression does not entitle you to read/listen/look/play/use copyrighted materials.
You can still claim your hatred for these acts everywhere on the Internet, your freedom of speech and expression is unaltered...
I feel that the Internet regulation has been so late, laxist, (I call 2000/2010 the golden age of Internet), that young generations take it for granted; almost a "right" to have anything for free over the net. There is no such right, sadly, and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech and expression, anyway.
On February 21 2012 17:10 Azzur wrote: Some of the arguments in this thread are quite ridiculous - you have people here claiming that "stealing" is ok because it's not loss sales, or that the artists themselves don't mind because it's publicity or that it makes no difference, etc. Like it or not, it's stealing and people arguing otherwise are merely justifying themselves with excuses.
FFS, stop with the "stealing". Stealing and copyright infringement are not the same thing. Theft is deprivation of property.
Let's consult wikipedia:
Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as "theft." In copyright law, infringement does not refer to actual theft, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.[6] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright... 'an infringer of the copyright.'" In the case of copyright infringement the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law is invaded, i.e. exclusive rights, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.
So, anti-legislation people should argue along these lines - rationalising your stealing is frankly very stupid. Like it or not, piracy is a problem and I think that good solutions (rather than censorship) should be developed to combat it.
Some people might suggest that rethinking copyright law is a good solution.
I'm not going to be involved in semantics - copyright infringement is a crime, full stop. There are comments here made justifying their illegal actions, which I find ridiculous. You have no right to distribute music illegally, no matter how popular or indie a band may be. If they give you permission, go ahead! But until then, you are in the wrong.
Piracy is wrong. Doesn't stop most people from doing it. Including usually the people who work for the recording companies. The irony. People like free stuff a tad too much, from any region. Stares at "campaign funds" with steely eyes*.
I try to get all my stuff that I listen to anyways, which is video game music. The right to own something is something hard to pinpoint. Then why do some companies own something that a dead person made dozens of years ago? Extending copyright "time limit" so that the company makes profit off it, while the dead person doesn't get a dime, doesn't sit well with me.
Rampant pirating is a problem, but can't say the recent actions to curb it amuses me one bit, even as a legitimate customer in most cases. Makes me less inclined to support them, and lean towards piracy.
Edit: Yes, I know. I'm not in the right, but then again, it's always a learning process, is it not? Sometimes I show my support when I can for companies or groups or people, but I will always adamantly fight against these censorship bills.
On February 21 2012 17:10 Azzur wrote: Some of the arguments in this thread are quite ridiculous - you have people here claiming that "stealing" is ok because it's not loss sales, or that the artists themselves don't mind because it's publicity or that it makes no difference, etc. Like it or not, it's stealing and people arguing otherwise are merely justifying themselves with excuses.
FFS, stop with the "stealing". Stealing and copyright infringement are not the same thing. Theft is deprivation of property.
Let's consult wikipedia:
Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as "theft." In copyright law, infringement does not refer to actual theft, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.[6] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright... 'an infringer of the copyright.'" In the case of copyright infringement the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law is invaded, i.e. exclusive rights, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.
So, anti-legislation people should argue along these lines - rationalising your stealing is frankly very stupid. Like it or not, piracy is a problem and I think that good solutions (rather than censorship) should be developed to combat it.
Some people might suggest that rethinking copyright law is a good solution.
I'm not going to be involved in semantics - copyright infringement is a crime, full stop.
Sematics are important. Both may be crimes, but there is a difference between jaywalking and murder. Much like there is between theft and copyright infringement.
There are comments here made justifying their illegal actions, which I find ridiculous.
One thing that's ridicilous, is people justifying the law on the basis that... It's the law.
The record companies are becoming obsolete and they know it so they're trying to halt the advance of technology rather than just getting with the program and switching business, or maybe just trying to adapt. If an artist can single-handedly reach every single person on earth simply by uploading an mp3 onto the internet, what purpose do record companies fill? None, they're just scavengers trying to cash in on someone else's talent by now.
I'm perfectly willing to pay a reasonable price for stuff, music included, and I am. I've got a premium Spotify account because rather than using the music itself as the carrot they provide a solid interface and a solid service. They're basically charging me for the time I don't have to spend finding, downloading and organizing the music myself, and I'm fine with that, it's a good business model, I'd easily pay twice what I'm paying now if it meant the artists themselves got a decent payoff (they're not, at the moment).
I feel good when I pay people who deserve it for their work, be it the bartender who made me a good drink or the artist who played music I liked. But fuck the bartender's boss for trying to help himself to my tips and fuck the record companies for refusing to accept that they are nothing but dead weight in today's music industry.
On February 21 2012 17:10 Azzur wrote: Some of the arguments in this thread are quite ridiculous - you have people here claiming that "stealing" is ok because it's not loss sales, or that the artists themselves don't mind because it's publicity or that it makes no difference, etc. Like it or not, it's stealing and people arguing otherwise are merely justifying themselves with excuses.
FFS, stop with the "stealing". Stealing and copyright infringement are not the same thing. Theft is deprivation of property.
Let's consult wikipedia:
Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as "theft." In copyright law, infringement does not refer to actual theft, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.[6] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright... 'an infringer of the copyright.'" In the case of copyright infringement the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law is invaded, i.e. exclusive rights, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.
So, anti-legislation people should argue along these lines - rationalising your stealing is frankly very stupid. Like it or not, piracy is a problem and I think that good solutions (rather than censorship) should be developed to combat it.
Some people might suggest that rethinking copyright law is a good solution.
I'm not going to be involved in semantics - copyright infringement is a crime, full stop. There are comments here made justifying their illegal actions, which I find ridiculous. You have no right to distribute music illegally, no matter how popular or indie a band may be. If they give you permission, go ahead! But until then, you are in the wrong.
It isn't semantics to point out that you are confusing two completely different types of crime. Stealing is wrong and infringement is stealing, therefore infringement is wrong is a stupid argument.
Besides, all you're saying here is that infrigement is illegal. Everyone understands that much. The question is whether intellectual property and copyright law are legitimate social institutions. I.e., is copyright law the kind of law that is worth obeying, Illegal != unethical. If you want to argue than an action is wrong, you have to do better than to point at a law book.
In my opinion, piracy is no less ethical than the way corporations are trying to make money off Whitney Houston's death by increasing prices. If they can actually sell their shit in a fair, convenient way, then maybe I'd agree with the OP, but as it is, people who pirate aren't any worse than the companies people pirate stuff from.
People here are missing the whole concept of a law - if everyone behaved however they like, based on what they think is "right", then we will have chaos in the world. Right now, people are justifying their illegal actions based on some notion that they believe what they are doing is better for the artist. In reality, they are just justifying themselves.
If you don't like a law, take it up with your legislator and attempt to have it changed. Until then, don't go around breaking them just because you don't like it. Or if you break it and get caught, don't expect sympathy from others. If you want to pirate, do it knowing that you're in the wrong - I have no qualms with these kind of people - the ones that I find ridiculous are the ones going about justifying their actions.
Their arguments are just as ridiculous as the censorship laws that are being setup.
On February 21 2012 18:05 Azzur wrote: People here are missing the whole concept of a law - if everyone behaved however the like, based on what they think is "right", then we will have chaos in the world.
Laws are based on morality. They should (and do) reflect what the majority thinks is "right".
The argument that copying is not stealing is a perfectly legitimate position.
It's very clear that the younger generations think that copying is fine. Eventually laws will reflect that when the older generation that sees copying as theft dies out.
This is like horse breeders opposing the introduction of the automobile. The horse breeders are destined to lose the battle no matter what.
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.
It's not symantics at all. You can still argue it's wrong, but when trying to come in with the specific point "it's stealing, there's no other way to say it, THAT is why you should feel bad, etc.
And your analogy isn't relevant because cheating, by definition, is maphacking. If maphacking wasn't cheating unless you won, then it wouldn't be cheating, but no one would think it was in the first place... if that was the definition.
On February 21 2012 14:24 firehand101 wrote:The bottom line is, well, we internet people have created a fantasy world for ourselves. For as long as I can remember, we have been sharing and receiving illegal files without any repercussions, as the internet is 'too big' for anyone to get singled out and prosecuted. This fairy tale land will not last. That is what I am trying to say.
Here's the thing that I dislike the most about all these accusations. Music artists make more money off of touring than CD sales. Movies are funded by AD's INSIDE OF THE FILM itself using product placement. Games you only get the single player aspect of the game if you're pirating it, and its the bigger distributors that are trying to shut down the ability to play games without having bought an original unopened version of the game.
These companies are so out of touch of what we [the consumer] want in our products and they're just looking at exact numbers.
I don't pay for Ad's. I pay not to see Ad's. And to see product placement inside of films to generate extra revenue to actually fund the movie I assume that I [as a consumer] don't have to pay to be part of product placement, because of the fact that the company who funds the film is getting extra attention to their film via product placement thus creating an advertisement inside of a movie. The company knows how good the movie will do based off of how many ticket sales and how much talk there is over the internet about it, if a lot of people are talking about it the companies will reinvest because all they care about is product placement and getting as many people to see their product in the movie.
Music ARTISTS GET SHAFTED by music companies and many artists are actually releasing their music free anyways, or pay what its worth models so if you want to DIRECTLY support the artist they get 100% of whatever you pay for that album anywhere from 1c to 1000$ its whatever you give them. There is no commission no middle man nothing, just you and the artist. YOU are in a society where people are exploiting people every day, and the only reason why this is getting so much fucking attention is because the media outlets are OWNED by these bigger corporations.
I personally don't need TV shows that do product placement because that is what the commercials are for, thus I feel no remorse actually downloading a lot of these tv shows/ movies because I'm still being immersed in the advertisements anyways. A lot of movies are looking at it like, well I need character x and y in a car... well why not let it be a ford if they pay me $X so I can fund 1/10th of my film.
I'm sorry but you are the one living in a fairy tale land.
TLDR: WE ARE STEALING. Seriously, whether you like it or not, internet piracy will be stopped, we cant keep on stealing and whine when the government is going to do something about it
This statement shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the internet. Whether you like it or not, internet piracy cannot possibly be stopped. Unless you invade every private network, every computer, every internet connection in the entire world - And oh yeah, even then, You'd have to analyze an incomprehensibly large amount of data coming through the pipes 24/7/365.
And if you did all that, you still wouldn't be able to stop people with their own wireless mesh networks which aren't connected to the central web.
People like you are why these laws come into being. When I say "people like you", I mean, "Uneducated luddites who try to regulate things they have absolutely 0 understanding of". And i'm not just talking about not understanding the internet, I'm also talking about not understanding the definition of the word "stealing". Here's a diagram in case you need some help with that:
Hence, instead of trying to put more people in jail (Which America especially does not need), trying to enforce legislation that can't ever feasibly be enforced, Maybe the industry needs to have massive collapse since nobody wants to buy their products anymore, at least not in their current form, current price and current method of delivery?
Yep, copyright infringment is definitely stealing. Oh, and if you steal a loaf of bread? Well, that's clearly property-murder. The death penalty, or at least life imprisonment, is the best punishment.
...
Sarcasm aside, laws should benefit society. Some people say that a strong copyright will benefit society, because it will encourage artists to create. Other people say that a strong copyright discourages artistic expression in the long run, and a weak copyright (or no copyright at all) is best. I don't think there is a clear consensus about this among internet users. But what IS clear is that giving large media companies the power to police the internet is NOT good for society.(*)
(*) I'm not arguing for a totally unrestricted internet. But I think that if you want to take down a website, a courtroom and a judge should be involved at some point.
Yes pirating is wrong. And it is bad. But what the fuck. Prices are continually getting out of hand on most movies and music (I still buy loads of them tho).
I mean piracy will never stop completely because, well it has been here from the start. I think there are other better ways to deal with piracy. SOPA very much so resolves to be a censorship of the internet since they are given the power to flat out shut down websites they dont like.
Just look at world wide examples. Have the cameras in London stopped criminality? Have FRA in Sweden? Have IPRED in sweden (dont know if all countries got ipred or if it is just us) stopped piracy? Again, no.
A large portion of the blame actually lies on the companies distributing music and movies since they rely on outdated models. My days of piracy went heavily down once we got similiar services to netflix here in sweden. Now it's just an odd anime episode here or there
I'm actually pretty sure piracy can have some positive effects on game sales, I for one didn't know anything about sc when sc2 came out (don't kill me please :p ), and after playing the first 3 or so singleplayer levels I just bought it. This is exactly why free content (like the sc2 started edition) is a hundred times better than censoring the internet to try to stop piracy (which you can't anyway)
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.
wow i never thought about putting it that way.... and i actually think thats right. If the content is good enough, people will pay for it, you have to compete with piracy, take is as motivation, instead of shutting it down.
On February 21 2012 18:47 Duval wrote: I'm actually pretty sure piracy can have some positive effects on game sales, I for one didn't know anything about sc when sc2 came out (don't kill me please :p ), and after playing the first 3 or so singleplayer levels I just bought it. This is exactly why free content (like the sc2 started edition) is a hundred times better than censoring the internet to try to stop piracy (which you can't anyway)
But it should be the game companies responsibility to show you everything about why the game is good before you buy it. That's why there are demo's and lots of videos and ect for games that do really well or the game is already set up via word of mouth or what not. I agree completely and using piracy or a free system to get your product out there is perfect, but when you see that free sample person in the grocery store you don't see them making you a dinner its just a taste and that responsibility should be put on the companies.
Before the game is released let people play the first hour of the game, let the people play 2 maps of your FPS or let them play 3 or 4 characters of your fighting game and then turn that function off THE second the game is released.
Also there should be a universal standard of games being released, not this midnight shit, because people around the world are waiting the same amount of time for the game and get shafted because they gotta wait another 8 hours or w.e til its released in here. I know skyrim got super pirated because someone in aus put the game out before you could buy it over here in NA, thats just stupid make it so that it releases at time X GMT for everyone.
Its just stupid how outdated everything is and there isn't anything being changed because they can sue and try and put fear into people.
On February 21 2012 18:47 Duval wrote: I'm actually pretty sure piracy can have some positive effects on game sales, I for one didn't know anything about sc when sc2 came out (don't kill me please :p ), and after playing the first 3 or so singleplayer levels I just bought it. This is exactly why free content (like the sc2 started edition) is a hundred times better than censoring the internet to try to stop piracy (which you can't anyway)
Definitely. I'm not really into music, so I can't comment on that, but as far as games go, I would never buy anything anymore if it wasn't for torrents.
The simple fact is that 99% of games that come out nowadays are total horseshit, especially if you played during the golden age of gaming. Plus all the major publishers have bought off all the review-sites so any major title automatically gets 90%+ scores if it doesn't auto-format your harddrive on installation. And given that they cost 60$ a piece, I could never afford to buy games anymore if I couldn't try them out for free.
I torrent a ton of games these days. Most I play for a few hours, before concluding they suck and I just delete them. On the rare occasion I find one that is actually worth the money I gladly buy them for real. So the torrents clearly help out sales in some way.
Not saying they have an overall positive effect, just saying it's not all bad.
I know, we can just change the definition of "piracy" and declare that what we do is not piracy at all. Worked with water boarding before, so why not give it a try?
Jokes aside, I don't see internet piracy as that big of an issue because all I see are old structures (namely publishers) struggling against the flow of time. I am not saying that pirating everything is fine. But the bottom line of it is just publishers missed to adjust themselves to the invention that is called the internet and still rely on old structures that were designed for a world without it.
On February 21 2012 19:00 Lann555 wrote: I torrent a ton of games these days. Most I play for a few hours, before concluding they suck and I just delete them. On the rare occasion I find one that is actually worth the money I gladly buy them for real. So the torrents clearly help out sales in some way.
Not saying they have an overall positive effect, just saying it's not all bad.
That's the way it should be though, the best product survives and the worse products die out. If you make a shit game and it gets good sales because there isn't a way to play that shit game before buying it then that is a terrible product.
A question to OP. If you agree on closing pirate bay and megaupload, then you should agree on closing the entire internet too shouldn't you? Because in the end, it's not pirate bay and megaupload that made file sharing possible, it's the internet.
Filesharing. That's all the internet is. Computers connected so they can share files. Even the page you are reading now is a file shared by a teamliquid server, downloaded by you. You have to attack these pirates and thieves at the core. Pirate bay and megaupload are just heads of the hydra. Chop one off and 3 new ones appear, you have to get that internet down
Copywight infringement is actualy a civil offence not a criminal act. You donät break the law you just infringe on someone elses copyright (goverment granted temporary monopoly). It's frist at comercial copyright infirngement, ie selling copied material for profit, that it becomes a criminal act. As laws are at present, since certain froces are trying to get those parts rewritten. Since laws can be changed and actually arent static absolutes, there are other forces that are working in the other direction and trying to get copyrights redused as well, just with alot more ppl and less cash involved in their campains.
alot of the dissconect in this entire debate comes from the fact that alot of people forgett the fact that laws aren't absolutes and change over time. They are supposed to reflect the present opinion of the people , at least in democracies, and not the comercial interests of certain lobbying organisations. This is why there have been so huge pubplic reactions to thise last letter soup suggestions.
So take a minute and actually think of how you think the laws should work in todays modern societys. We actually have the means to have inpact on todays lawmakeing and make things change. To the better for the pubplic, not for the lobbing morganisations with the most moeny.
On February 21 2012 19:13 Zandar wrote: A question to OP. If you agree on closing pirate bay and megaupload, then you should agree on closing the entire internet too shouldn't you? Because in the end, it's not pirate bay and megaupload that made file sharing possible, it's the internet.
Filesharing. That's all the internet is. Computers connected so they can share files. Even the page you are reading now is a file shared by a teamliquid server, downloaded by you. You have to attack these pirates and thieves at the core. Pirate bay and megaupload are just heads of the hydra. Chop one off and 3 new ones appear, you have to get that internet down
It's a bit like the whole drug-debate. You can keep locking up suppliers for the rest of eternity, but it will never make a difference. Someone else will take their place, because the 'problem' isn't the supply, but the demand for the stuff. As long as people want it, someone will try to make a dime by selling it.
Pirated software/music is exactly the same. Back before the internet got big (and fast enough to DL games), me and my friends were burning music CD's. And even though I lived in a tiny rural village, it was childsplay to find someone who was selling illegal games for a few bucks.
It will simply never stop. The only way to make it work properly is for legal systems/business models to start working around reality, instead of trying to change reality by force since that is doomed from the start. There are plenty of ways to integrate the internet into the entertainment industry for the betterment of all. You can already see some of that with artists trying to bypass labels or services such as Itunes/GoG/etcetc.
You mean like how making drugs illegal immediately destroyed every drug that's ever existed?
The internet has opened the opportunity for new media enterprise that will effectively put the old bosses of the media out of business. Companies like grooveshark and pandora spring up that offer products that are very similar to the convenience that pirating those products would bring. The record companies are flipping a shit because they didn't come up with those ideas themselves and are losing all their record sales because nobody wants to buy CDs anymore.
You don't pay for grooveshark or pandora. Is that piracy? Frankly I have no idea how they make money... but as long as they're in business I'm going to use them for no reason other than convenience. And if they go out of business, other companies will spring up in their place and offer exactly what they offer. And so on.
As for me, I pirate a decent amount of music (although much less than I used to thanks to grooveshark), and if I like artists enough I'll buy their merchandise and see their shows. I've even sent some artists personal checks, more money then they'd make off of a record sale.
That's how the music industry should be in the 21st century. Artists record and release their albums to the general public, through the internet, at extremely discounted rates. They cut out the middle men and the record companies starve. There's no reason why so many non-artists should be profiting off of someone else.
Edit: I should also add that I download a few shows that I like to watch, but only out of convenience. I own the TV channels they come on, but often I won't remember when the show starts and I'll miss it. Since there's no easy way to just play the show legally over the internet on demand right after it airs, but it's on demonoid in a matter of minutes, I choose the convenient option. Someday I'll bet the producers of the shows will release them at the same time that they air to the public, on the internet, for free, with ads in the middle. But as long as they hold contracts with out-dated TV networks, it's not going to happen.
IMO the current entertainment industry is stifling innovation. People just want convenient entertainment with no bullshit. And they'll get it any way they can. There's no stopping it.
i don't understand, i am perfectly happy just compiling music through youtube..you can customize an entire playlist and then change the format into MP3 really easy and using free downloadable programs..
there will always be ways around paying for things you want that are legal..
my room in college kept only one itunes..and well it was really one guys itunes but everyone just downloaded his like 5000 songs..so one guy had been putting songs from CDs into itunes and about 75 people now have an identical playlist.
also it is very very true that it is impossible to regulate the entirety of the internet because you have networks that don't necessarily connect to the "main" internet. all this is, is just annoying! and anyone that legitely thinks private/public infrastructure that wants to "stop piracy " and "stop child porn" and has NO other agenda is just naive..but really who can possibly think that?
it's not really about getting free stuff; tbh it's all about principle, and using a machette when they need a scalpel..but do you really think it's because they are idiots? that the people who wrote the bills are just stupid and "forgot" a bunch of stuff? don't you think it's infinitely more likely the people getting paid 7 figures who went to ivy leagues schools writing these left specifics out on purpose? its no conspiracy, they want more power and like others have said, are trying to use an outdated and obselete consumer sales method, so instead of embracing the future they hold back progress by adhering to methods that are inefficient ( at best)
A library buys 1 or a few copies of a book and hundreds or even thousands of people end up reading it without paying anything to the publisher/author of the book. The scene buys 1 copy of the game and thousands or even millions of people end up playing it for free without paying anything to the publisher/author. So as long as they ban libraries (including the libraries in your university/high school/any book that is found online ) and make sharing books or video games illegal than it will actually be reasonable to classify piracy as stealing from both a moral and a logical point of view. Since that will not happen, and that would indeed be impossible to come by piracy will remain a way from people outside of top 25% first world countries to have access to information/entertainment... etc via the use of the PC and a way to try out games with no proper demo or simply to get stuff for free where the company is not able to provide a better service than the pirates ( which they should ). I would like to point out one of the many "service problem" as it is called via this comic: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones Blame me for pirating it, i dare you.
TLDR: WE ARE STEALING. Seriously, whether you like it or not, internet piracy will be stopped, we cant keep on stealing and whine when the government is going to do something about it
This statement shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the internet. Whether you like it or not, internet piracy cannot possibly be stopped. Unless you invade every private network, every computer, every internet connection in the entire world - And oh yeah, even then, You'd have to analyze an incomprehensibly large amount of data coming through the pipes 24/7/365.
And if you did all that, you still wouldn't be able to stop people with their own wireless mesh networks which aren't connected to the central web.
People like you are why these laws come into being. When I say "people like you", I mean, "Uneducated luddites who try to regulate things they have absolutely 0 understanding of". And i'm not just talking about not understanding the internet, I'm also talking about not understanding the definition of the word "stealing". Here's a diagram in case you need some help with that:
Hence, instead of trying to put more people in jail (Which America especially does not need), trying to enforce legislation that can't ever feasibly be enforced, Maybe the industry needs to have massive collapse since nobody wants to buy their products anymore, at least not in their current form, current price and current method of delivery?
Just wondering, what form, price, and method of delivery would pirates buy? Free? Because that's what they're getting it for right now and I don't see what you think a company could do better. Also, I hate that piracy picture. No, piracy is not theft, but it's still wrong.
TLDR: WE ARE STEALING. Seriously, whether you like it or not, internet piracy will be stopped, we cant keep on stealing and whine when the government is going to do something about it
This statement shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the internet. Whether you like it or not, internet piracy cannot possibly be stopped. Unless you invade every private network, every computer, every internet connection in the entire world - And oh yeah, even then, You'd have to analyze an incomprehensibly large amount of data coming through the pipes 24/7/365.
And if you did all that, you still wouldn't be able to stop people with their own wireless mesh networks which aren't connected to the central web.
People like you are why these laws come into being. When I say "people like you", I mean, "Uneducated luddites who try to regulate things they have absolutely 0 understanding of". And i'm not just talking about not understanding the internet, I'm also talking about not understanding the definition of the word "stealing". Here's a diagram in case you need some help with that:
Hence, instead of trying to put more people in jail (Which America especially does not need), trying to enforce legislation that can't ever feasibly be enforced, Maybe the industry needs to have massive collapse since nobody wants to buy their products anymore, at least not in their current form, current price and current method of delivery?
Just wondering, what form, price, and method of delivery would pirates buy? Free? Because that's what they're getting it for right now and I don't see what you think a company could do better. Also, I hate that piracy picture. No, piracy is not theft, but it's still wrong.
Actually several studies from Scandinavia and switzerland show that they already are. People that down load alot of content are generally also spending alot more mony on entertainment content than peapol who does not. So it's not like shutting down all venues of piracy would get the entertainment industry more mony, they already get most of what hoseholds have available for entertainment. Granted it might be distrubuted differently with more limited ways to obtain content. Besied there are plenty of ways to compete with free... http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml
If the companies that produced entertainment made it as convenient as possible, such as streaming it from a website for a dollar an episode at any time on demand, many people would buy it. It's just that they don't, they have contracts with big media companies and networks that prevent them from doing that (see the game of thrones comic above). The industry as it currently is just resists the changes that the internet will inevitably bring, and until they get with the times and offer such services, piracy will win out due to convenience alone.
It's often not the case that people don't want to buy it. They just want to instantly have it on their computer at any time they want. And if it's not on itunes or netflix or another service that provides that, piracy is the ONLY option.
I get that piracy is bad, but companies aren't even trying to give us an alternative. I'm aware that US is the main consumer of things that can be pirated, but most of the stuff I download I don't even have legal access to.
TV shows: It takes at least a year (if ever) for a TV show to get broadcasted on any of the channels I have and then I'm forced to watch it dubbed (which is horrible most of the time). So I have to wait another year or more for the dvd release of the original version which is 2 years after the show aired in best case scenario, when it's literally 3 clicks away right now. Just an example, I saw the umpteenth rerun of S3 of Supernatural at like 1 PM the other night (the show's in it's 7th season right now). Does it really have to take 2 years for a product from the US to arrive in Europe in the 21th century?
Movies: Same goes for movies, the only thing cinemas think is worth showing are Harry Potter and Twilight and we have the dubbing problem again. You have to be a ninja to find an original language showing. Yes, I'm spoiled and I'm not waiting months after the release of a movie so I can pay for watching it.
Games: Video game companies have the option to make their games account dependant, so you can basically only download a demo version and get the game if you find it interesting enough. Or go LoL style and make the whole thing free and give your customers an option to support the company by buying extra stuff. (Afaik Riot's doing pretty well.) I pirate a lot of games, but I wouldn't risk buying 90% of them because they are ridiculously expensive for how much they suck sometimes.
Music: As for music, I tried for weeks to hunt down Siren Song of the Counter Culture back in '04 from Rise Against without any success, so in the end I just downloaded it. They'd become more mainstream in Europe lately, but it was 6 years too late. It's much easier with iTunes though nowadays, you get what you want in a much more convenient format than CDs. I also can't feel bad about downloading stuff of people who wreck a car worth everything I'll ever own on a weekly basis. If they ever come here to perform, I'm going to pay for seeing them, but until then I'll sleep just fine knowing they aren't starving. The artists actually starving I suppose are fine with getting more exposure even by people pirating their stuff, because chances are if the pirates like their stuff they might buy it. And since ACTA and SOPA I'm even less inclined to support any kind of record company.
The only thing I'd feel bad about are e-books. Authors are way underappreciated aside from the few 'chosen ones' that earn a lot. But since I do pay for my e-book copies, I'm fine.
TL;DR I don't like that pirating is a much more convenient way to gain access to stuff and companies should aim to broaden their consumer range instead of witchhunting and shutting down half of the internet for nothing.
On February 21 2012 20:08 Aterons_toss wrote: I would like to point out one of the many "service problem" as it is called via this comic: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
I have another story in this direction: My gym has the offer to lend DVDs for free for 3 days! So I was interested in a movie and took it home. I put it in my DVD player and ... after the third unskippable trailer for some other movie I thought "fu.. you!" put the DVD in my PC, ripped it and watched the movie after that without those stupid trailers! I didn't put it online or anything like that, but I was practically forced to get this movie on my PC. Why do companies still do this kind of DVD craziness?
Aside from that: I remember times, when the internet was still so slow (for "normal" users) and without bittorrent, edonkey and so on. You know what "we" did? We burned movies on CD and sent them by mail to other users! We could go back to this! Do you want to filter and inspect the whole mail service too?
this is a warning from your government. In your last post, you used several Trademarks and Copyright protected words and products. "ThePirateBay" is a registered trademark by Piratbyran, SE "MegaUpload" is a registered trademark by MegaUpload limited Firehand (old) is a copyrighted expression by Rialto Film, Berlin (producer of Karl May Movies) "Penthouse" is a registered trademark by Penthouse limited
The amount of 8000$ has been deducted from your bank account.
That was a message from 2016.
BTT: Sharing is NOT stealing. I can't stress this enough. Look up "stealing" and see if you find anything that applies to sharing: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stealing
The Anti-ACTA video (that probably most of you saw, just google it) had the good example of the cooking course. Just extrapolate this on, for example, a piece of music.
The reason that I (I'm 26 yrs old, working and have a decent/pretty good wage) am still downloading stuff, is that the content industry does not cater to my needs. I am from germany, but I want my TV Series in english. Good luck trying to find this in Germany. You can buy the DVDs (at a horrendous price and mostly 1 year after the original screening) or you can make a contract similar to HULU (the services in germany are called differend, but its the same idea). Only that these services dont offer all the series that I am watching. And often, only newer episodes are in dual-language, the older stuff is only in german (Simpsons for example). It's the same with Movies. There are some services in germany that do online streaming, but the material is as well at least 1 year old and again, mostly in german only.
Music is slightly different. Buying a song on itunes cashes in at about 1$ a song... WTF! If you take a metal album with 15 songs, thats more than buying the album as a disc in a fuckin store! Digital market costs are a joke comparing to pressing, disigning, shipping and all the stuff that retail has to do with it (storage and so on). It is simply unreasonable to demand 1$ for a song that is purely digital.
Also, dont think that the artists are losing a hell lot of money. Look at this article to see how the money from a CD purchase is distributed: http://www.theroot.com/views/how-much-do-you-musicians-really-make A band or singer makes shit from CD sells. If you did not look at the article: For every 1000$ from CD sells, the average musician makes 23,40$. CDs are only "promotion" for a band. The way they make money is concerts.
I go on several concerts a month (I would say in gross, about 30/40 concerts a year, plus 1/2 festivals). The last CD I bought (from a popular act I mean, I buy lots of local-band-CD-stuff from concerts) was Metallica - Death Magnetic... and I was disappointed. Not by the songs (they are pretty good) but by the quality of the songs. Just google "metallica death magnetic bad producing" and you will find the reason why.
In summary: Don't try to persecute people that share. You will almost always only get the "innocent" ones (because the real criminals that earn money by pirating music and movies are too good for the police anyways) like kids that download a few songs a year. Just think about why people are pirating music and movies and so on. It's not because they say "FUCK YOU ARTIST! I WONT BUY YOUR CRAP BUT DOWNLOAD IT SO YOU STARVE TO DEATH!". It's because the content mafia is trying to hold on to "the good old days" (which they hated in the beginning by the way). Every media-revolution has it's biggest opposers in the content industry. Inform yourself. Google around for the ramblings that took place when the VCR got out, the Cassette recorder, the CD burner aaand so on. This is just the next struggle that they are trying to fight and will ulitmately (just like every time before) lose. Only this time, it's more public what they try to do to fight it (SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, IPRED).
There is so much going wrong right now. Don't give up your freedom because content holders are telling you "Thats the only way. You will lose anyway. We are more powerful." Keep the fight.
TL;DR: Sharing is not Stealing, don't let others tell you. Keep on fighting for your freedom.
Imagine all the resources saved if the major labels would finally understand the distribution over the internet ... So many CD of useless junk mass music noone needs or will care of 10 years later wouldn't have to be produced anymore and would save up the resources for something good. I always have to laugh so much lately when industries are so hilariously whining about the fact that their monopoly strategies do not work anymore nowadays. Musicians have more freedom with the internet than ever before. The ones I am befriended with (I was a sound engineer for quite some time) are more than happy to have gotten off of the old ways of having to kneel and put their heads into some major labels' executive bottoms so they see their CD or LP getting produced and published. Now they just put a simple shop on their website and people can directly buy of them without any gatekeeper which wants 90% of the revenue.
Why should governments change their laws to protect a single industry at the expense of their citizens rights? The media companies are trying to hold on to a dying business model that's been obsoleted by new technology instead of trying to find new business models. They're essentially trying to sell water when it's raining.
I like to think of the internet as "The Great Equalizer" of sorts, where the rule making is entirely in the hands of the users, rather than people who produce and sell content. If I had to choose between an environment where businesses exploit their customers, and an environment where (potential) customers exploit businesses, I will always opt for the latter.
There are plenty of people making money off of the internet, even exclusively off the internet. As long as your service and prices are honest and fair, you will get by just fine. However if you try to play the market, you will get punished more and more because people will just not deem you worthy of receiving their money, and will get your stuff for free instead.
The message here is that we get your content either way - but if YOU want to get our money, you better play nice, make quality things and actually leave an impression on people so that they will want to pay because they feel you deserve it. It effectively cancels out the effects of advertising and selling "the box". I rather like that and I'll do what I can to keep it that way.
As a personal example, because the music industry at large is being a bitch AND delivering overpriced and overhyped products at the same time, I no longer feel inclined to pay for the things I listen to if they are linked to a major record label. More so than simply not wanting to pay for it, I actively want to do what I can to make them lose money, so I encourage other people to do the same whenever I can.
I sort of stopped pirating music and games because of Steam Itunes and Spotify. I still pirate tv shows because I can't even buy some of them legally or stream them through the official site (hulu.com) etc. And the series often air at least several months later in Europe. Sometimes several years.
I would buy their product but I can't. I have to pirate the show or not watch it at all.
On February 21 2012 17:10 Azzur wrote: Some of the arguments in this thread are quite ridiculous - you have people here claiming that "stealing" is ok because it's not loss sales, or that the artists themselves don't mind because it's publicity or that it makes no difference, etc. Like it or not, it's stealing and people arguing otherwise are merely justifying themselves with excuses.
FFS, stop with the "stealing". Stealing and copyright infringement are not the same thing. Theft is deprivation of property.
Let's consult wikipedia:
Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as "theft." In copyright law, infringement does not refer to actual theft, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.[6] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright... 'an infringer of the copyright.'" In the case of copyright infringement the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law is invaded, i.e. exclusive rights, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.
So, anti-legislation people should argue along these lines - rationalising your stealing is frankly very stupid. Like it or not, piracy is a problem and I think that good solutions (rather than censorship) should be developed to combat it.
Some people might suggest that rethinking copyright law is a good solution.
I'm not going to be involved in semantics - copyright infringement is a crime, full stop.
Sematics are important. Both may be crimes, but there is a difference between jaywalking and murder. Much like there is between theft and copyright infringement.
The difference is extremely simple, considering when you "buy" downloadable music, software and so on, you are only buying the license to listen or use that product. In fact if you can't use the music you downloaded and upload on a website because, you do not own it, you do not own any of it for that matter.
So pirating in essence is using some item without permission. Stealing is taking an item without permission.
I would like to argue using items without permission is a lessor crime (not according to the current intellectual law). However, it is a serious crime nevertheless. I do not see how it could not be considered a serious crime.
similar to taking pictures of a painting vs. stealing a painting, piracy doesn't steal from anyone. it's just as justifiable to have as a picture of the mona lisa. if i broke into a storage facility and stole the master record, that would be stealing.
also i have actively campaigned for the downfall of chris dodd and i continue to do so by pirating as much shit shortly before deleting it because contemporary music is fucking awful.
I myself have some friends that are musicians (a few of them are Top50 Chart-musicians in Germany). They see this also with mixed feelings. On one hand, an artist is dependend on music labels to promote them and to get their music out there. On the other hand, a lot of revenue goes right into the hands of people that have nothing to do with the music.
Also, it depends on the kind of music you do and which focus group you are targeting. Example: Try to sell german volksmusic only online. You wont get a lot of sales, because that focus group is not very tech-savvy. These people go into the music shop and buy a CD. On the other side, lets take Trance Music. Trance is more targeted at younger people, the focus group 18-25 (yes, there are older and younger, but thats a standard focus group). That age group mostly uses a PC, Laptop or any kind of Apple product and is more likely to buy their music online.
So in addition to my last post: I am not saying "Fuck all CDs man, downloads for 10 cents for everyone!". I am saying: See the Internet as a new market that needs new approaches. You have done it a hundred times (every country needs a new market plan. Go to Namibia and see what a CD costs), why cant you do it for the Internet too?
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.
The difference is extremely simple, considering when you "buy" downloadable music, software and so on, you are only buying the license to listen or use that product. In fact if you can't use the music you downloaded and upload on a website because, you do not own it, you do not own any of it for that matter.
And THATS the issue. Do you think of your CD collection as something you own or something you licenced? Why is there a difference of ownership between a digital file that you bought, and a CD that you bought? Just think that after the death of a musician, a guy comes to your house, collects all the CDs that you paid for with the explanation "Yeah well, the owner died and there is a new owner now and he doesnt want these CDs to be released"
Or BMG goes bankrupt and all your BMG CDs dont work anymore. Great times. Great. Fucking. Times.
On February 21 2012 14:24 firehand101 wrote: TLDR: WE ARE STEALING. Seriously, whether you like it or not, internet piracy will be stopped, we cant keep on stealing and whine when the government is going to do something about it
Stealing means taking something from someone, and them being left without it. No one is stealing. Calling it "piracy" instead of "file sharing" is one of the same tricks used to pass legislation over the heads of willful people. The act itself is not piracy. That's ludicrous. Show me someone threatened with death forced to give over something and be left without it. It IS file sharing, because that is what is done. But these laws are necessary?
What is sad is that people think that file sharing needs to stop. No it doesn't. Here's why:
1) It is impossible to stop file sharing. How can you stop someone from going over with storage to a friend's house... you know, like people shared files before the internet was everywhere. But even on the internet, without monitoring your every online move or looking into your computer, it is impossible to stop. This will make the war on drugs seem winnable in comparison.
2) Attempting to stop file sharing is morally wrong. We are dealing with digital information. Control of information for terms of 70+ years (as the movie/recording/publishing companies have) is a downright crime against human progress. For a decade, I might agree - some patents require that time to recoup the investment in research and/or hard work. But frankly, only a select few will see any of that money. The people who still receive that money have contracts from 20+ years ago. It just doesn't work that way now.
3) Stoping file sharing is going to cost everyone. Beyond the MASSIVE government investment required for law enforcement, jailing, and the such, there is also the infrastructure necessary to monitor the internet usage of everyone. It will fall on the government, the ISPs, the cable companies. All that money is coming out of the taxpayer's pocket to protect the massive corporations that have been leeching of the talent of others as a living for the past 100 years or so.
4) It's bad economics to stop file sharing. We have the internet. We will get our free digital entertainment. The big industries should adapt. Instead, they are trying to turn the internet into a read-only device, stunt off all of it's potential by using their influence in the media (they ARE the media) and politics (they OWN the politicians) to destroy the competition when it's just in it's beginning. That competition is the force that drives the economy forward, and protects the people from the greed of a select few stock owners and banks.
5) File sharing improves our lives. With all due respect, let's remember why file sharing is popular. It offers us something that would have cost us more money than we can afford otherwise. We aren't any richer than are parents were at the time, relatively speaking. But we have access to so much more. Why would we want to stop that?
6) The big companies need to understand that they need to adapt. Television, film, music... they are competing with free products now. Musicians perform live. Films are making more money than ever. They just offer an experience that is fundamentally better than what you can get for free. Hulu, Apple, Netflix, HBO, Amazon, etc. You can compete with free, and make money. You just need to offer a good product.
The reason these laws are even considered is that the big record companies are losing business. Music sales are actually up, if you include digital sales. People who share music on the internet in average buy FAR more than people who don't. But the big four recording companies (who are "down" to controlling about 60% of the recording industry) don't want to give up their stranglehold on their cash cows. Most new artists who want recognition have to do it through them, and they steal money from them. Many bands actually end up paying the record companies money from their promotional tours to cover recording expenses. If you look for support from artists for this legislation, you won't find it. If you look for the indie label's support of this legislation - you won't find it. They're making more money than ever. Artists are making more money than ever. The whole industry is making more money than ever.
tl;dr: Force the market to understand the new world, the age of communication, and the fact that the common people don't give a flying f**k about what board members of the big companies think. Fight for your rights, don't say "hey, it's a lost cause, we should just accept it". File sharing is the future. Not overpriced junk you'll get bored of.
Piracy lets me watch countless films etc that I would just simply not watch otherwise. Commonly the best of these films I would pay for HD DVD copies for convenience later thanks to piracy. It is so hard to access content atm, especially outside the US without things like Hulu.
Piracy is actually the only way I can get certain TV shows and movies at all, which imo makes it stupid when people accuse me of stealing. Think the only movie companies taking real damage from piracy are the ones who churn out huge numbers of crud overpriced movies which you end up regret watching, let alone buying.
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.
The thing with "moral stands" though is that they don't really matter. Many of the common practices in advertising are difficult to make a moral stand on. Plenty (if not the majority) of perfectly legal business practices are difficult to make a moral stand on.
What it really comes down to is fighting fire with fire. Having a different way to obtain the product gives you a degree of control and influence over what happens to the business that sells the product.
It doesn't even have to be about product not being worth the money. It could be something entirely different such as - for example - you don't want to pay because the company exploits and abuses their workers in Chinese factories (or works with companies that do), or you don't want to pay because the company lobbies for laws that are ethically questionable or you object to them, or because they endorse a political option you heavily disagree with, or because they're involved in corruption cases, or because of a number of exploitative business practices they do.
It's just a level of control you as an individual have, and it's a bad idea to give that control up or not utilize it. If everyone had the ability to exert this level of control and everyone used it, businesses would be forced to be a lot more honest and actually worry about the ethical implications of every move they make. They would need to make sure people actually like them and appreciate what they do and how they do it in order to actually sell anything.
Think of some of these proposals like sending a fully armed SWAT team to catch a common pickpocket, and while we are at it, lets arrest all his innocent neighbors at the same time just because they are living next to him.
Would that be an acceptable form of government to you just to stop the small time thief from stealing?
But, really this thing is the least of our worries. That the music and film industry have enough political power to do this thing in the first place is what really should scare us. (thats the power of money on politics today, votes not so much it seems) This stuff makes all the other "jokes" about oil wars etc. much more believable.
Advertisers can't sell things people don't want to buy. All the advertising in the world isn't going to sell a terrible product. All advertising does is inform people about a product. Actually, despite the cost, it helps drive prices down because it promotes competition. It's interesting too, you will find some curious examples of people who lobby against advertising. Holiday Inn & the Sierra Club teamed up years ago to get bill boards off highways, austensibly because it clutters the view of the scenery or w/e. So why did Hiliday Inn lobby for this? Because that's how Motel 6 et. al advertise, bill boards saying 'turn here next left $50 a night". I mean there are examples of bad business practices, people who use fraud and ponzi schemes etc.but business is FUNDAMENTALLY MORAL.
On February 21 2012 22:53 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: but business is FUNDAMENTALLY MORAL.
The nature of business is entirely amoral, actually. To put it blunt, it's really about how much of a dick you can be AND get away with it.
All the limiting factors in business are external, such as the laws and implied market rules, rather than the business owner's personal sense of morality. The competition pushes the businesses to do anything within the rules (and very often outside of the rules as well) to keep up or get ahead. There is nothing fundamentally moral about that.
You are right that competition pushes business to do anything to get ahead, but how exactly can a company get ahead? By providing higher quality or lower prices to the consumer. You don't make millions treating your customers like you're a dick. That's exactly why the market place is great - fuck me over, treat me poorly and I will NEVER shop with you again. Corporations exist within the spectrum of voluntarism. They are the good guys despite how universally maligned they may be.
On February 21 2012 23:12 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: You are right that competition pushes business to do anything to get ahead, but how exactly can a company get ahead? By lobbying to governments until you get favorable treatment.
The music and movie industry have increased their profits since 2005 when the internet became very popular with about 1 billions people using it, till now (2012) by 20%.
So not only have they not had reduced profits, they've had increased profits and increased market share. If it wasn't the internet no one would have probably known about their crap movies and gay ass sissies like Justin Bieber!
On February 21 2012 14:24 firehand101 wrote: TLDR: WE ARE STEALING. Seriously, whether you like it or not, internet piracy will be stopped, we cant keep on stealing and whine when the government is going to do something about it
Stealing means taking something from someone, and them being left without it. No one is stealing. Calling it "piracy" instead of "file sharing" is one of the same tricks used to pass legislation over the heads of willful people. The act itself is not piracy. That's ludicrous. Show me someone threatened with death forced to give over something and be left without it. It IS file sharing, because that is what is done. But these laws are necessary?
What is sad is that people think that file sharing needs to stop. No it doesn't. Here's why:
1) It is impossible to stop file sharing. How can you stop someone from going over with storage to a friend's house... you know, like people shared files before the internet was everywhere. But even on the internet, without monitoring your every online move or looking into your computer, it is impossible to stop. This will make the war on drugs seem winnable in comparison.
2) Attempting to stop file sharing is morally wrong. We are dealing with digital information. Control of information for terms of 70+ years (as the movie/recording/publishing companies have) is a downright crime against human progress. For a decade, I might agree - some patents require that time to recoup the investment in research and/or hard work. But frankly, only a select few will see any of that money. The people who still receive that money have contracts from 20+ years ago. It just doesn't work that way now.
3) Stoping file sharing is going to cost everyone. Beyond the MASSIVE government investment required for law enforcement, jailing, and the such, there is also the infrastructure necessary to monitor the internet usage of everyone. It will fall on the government, the ISPs, the cable companies. All that money is coming out of the taxpayer's pocket to protect the massive corporations that have been leeching of the talent of others as a living for the past 100 years or so.
4) It's bad economics to stop file sharing. We have the internet. We will get our free digital entertainment. The big industries should adapt. Instead, they are trying to turn the internet into a read-only device, stunt off all of it's potential by using their influence in the media (they ARE the media) and politics (they OWN the politicians) to destroy the competition when it's just in it's beginning. That competition is the force that drives the economy forward, and protects the people from the greed of a select few stock owners and banks.
5) File sharing improves our lives. With all due respect, let's remember why file sharing is popular. It offers us something that would have cost us more money than we can afford otherwise. We aren't any richer than are parents were at the time, relatively speaking. But we have access to so much more. Why would we want to stop that?
6) The big companies need to understand that they need to adapt. Television, film, music... they are competing with free products now. Musicians perform live. Films are making more money than ever. They just offer an experience that is fundamentally better than what you can get for free. Hulu, Apple, Netflix, HBO, Amazon, etc. You can compete with free, and make money. You just need to offer a good product.
The reason these laws are even considered is that the big record companies are losing business. Music sales are actually up, if you include digital sales. People who share music on the internet in average buy FAR more than people who don't. But the big four recording companies (who are "down" to controlling about 60% of the recording industry) don't want to give up their stranglehold on their cash cows. Most new artists who want recognition have to do it through them, and they steal money from them. Many bands actually end up paying the record companies money from their promotional tours to cover recording expenses. If you look for support from artists for this legislation, you won't find it. If you look for the indie label's support of this legislation - you won't find it. They're making more money than ever. Artists are making more money than ever. The whole industry is making more money than ever.
tl;dr: Force the market to understand the new world, the age of communication, and the fact that the common people don't give a flying f**k about what board members of the big companies think. Fight for your rights, don't say "hey, it's a lost cause, we should just accept it". File sharing is the future. Not overpriced junk you'll get bored of.
This guy... Is so fucking right.
Anyway I don't understand how company's say that because of piracy they are losing profit. They are fucking not. Just to give an example. When I want a fucking DVD about a tv-series I will first have to search on the internet to look at the stores to where I can buy it. If that DVD is even available in my country... THen I have to go to that fucking store and buy the dvd and go home. Sometimes this might take half an hour.... Or I just download all of that in half an hour...
"Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem''
Why do I buy games on Steam? Because it's easier than downloading a game, trying to get the crack work and pray I don't get a virus. It's just easier, therefore I buy games on steam.
seriously you are pay from sopa to be that .......
cant belive some people are from the stoping of the torrent , control of the internet and stuft like that
you feal bad because you download some ``illegal`` movie or music ? well, feal bad for yourself and stop doing it and let everyone else do it . stop control other people .
that not ok to steal , plz let me pay , i love to pay for everything and anything , plz
im buying some music / movie when i realy love them , that all , im not rich , give me some money if you can pay for everything you want , and im going to stop downloading these illegal stuft you talk about and care that random stranger download and not yourself because you feal bad doing it .
On February 21 2012 14:24 firehand101 wrote: TLDR: WE ARE STEALING. Seriously, whether you like it or not, internet piracy will be stopped, we cant keep on stealing and whine when the government is going to do something about it
Stealing means taking something from someone, and them being left without it. No one is stealing. Calling it "piracy" instead of "file sharing" is one of the same tricks used to pass legislation over the heads of willful people. The act itself is not piracy. That's ludicrous. Show me someone threatened with death forced to give over something and be left without it. It IS file sharing, because that is what is done. But these laws are necessary?
What is sad is that people think that file sharing needs to stop. No it doesn't. Here's why:
1) It is impossible to stop file sharing. How can you stop someone from going over with storage to a friend's house... you know, like people shared files before the internet was everywhere. But even on the internet, without monitoring your every online move or looking into your computer, it is impossible to stop. This will make the war on drugs seem winnable in comparison.
2) Attempting to stop file sharing is morally wrong. We are dealing with digital information. Control of information for terms of 70+ years (as the movie/recording/publishing companies have) is a downright crime against human progress. For a decade, I might agree - some patents require that time to recoup the investment in research and/or hard work. But frankly, only a select few will see any of that money. The people who still receive that money have contracts from 20+ years ago. It just doesn't work that way now.
3) Stoping file sharing is going to cost everyone. Beyond the MASSIVE government investment required for law enforcement, jailing, and the such, there is also the infrastructure necessary to monitor the internet usage of everyone. It will fall on the government, the ISPs, the cable companies. All that money is coming out of the taxpayer's pocket to protect the massive corporations that have been leeching of the talent of others as a living for the past 100 years or so.
4) It's bad economics to stop file sharing. We have the internet. We will get our free digital entertainment. The big industries should adapt. Instead, they are trying to turn the internet into a read-only device, stunt off all of it's potential by using their influence in the media (they ARE the media) and politics (they OWN the politicians) to destroy the competition when it's just in it's beginning. That competition is the force that drives the economy forward, and protects the people from the greed of a select few stock owners and banks.
5) File sharing improves our lives. With all due respect, let's remember why file sharing is popular. It offers us something that would have cost us more money than we can afford otherwise. We aren't any richer than are parents were at the time, relatively speaking. But we have access to so much more. Why would we want to stop that?
6) The big companies need to understand that they need to adapt. Television, film, music... they are competing with free products now. Musicians perform live. Films are making more money than ever. They just offer an experience that is fundamentally better than what you can get for free. Hulu, Apple, Netflix, HBO, Amazon, etc. You can compete with free, and make money. You just need to offer a good product.
The reason these laws are even considered is that the big record companies are losing business. Music sales are actually up, if you include digital sales. People who share music on the internet in average buy FAR more than people who don't. But the big four recording companies (who are "down" to controlling about 60% of the recording industry) don't want to give up their stranglehold on their cash cows. Most new artists who want recognition have to do it through them, and they steal money from them. Many bands actually end up paying the record companies money from their promotional tours to cover recording expenses. If you look for support from artists for this legislation, you won't find it. If you look for the indie label's support of this legislation - you won't find it. They're making more money than ever. Artists are making more money than ever. The whole industry is making more money than ever.
tl;dr: Force the market to understand the new world, the age of communication, and the fact that the common people don't give a flying f**k about what board members of the big companies think. Fight for your rights, don't say "hey, it's a lost cause, we should just accept it". File sharing is the future. Not overpriced junk you'll get bored of.
I'm glad i'm not the only one who can see past the industries' lies.
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.
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.
The thing with "moral stands" though is that they don't really matter. Many of the common practices in advertising are difficult to make a moral stand on. Plenty (if not the majority) of perfectly legal business practices are difficult to make a moral stand on.
What it really comes down to is fighting fire with fire. Having a different way to obtain the product gives you a degree of control and influence over what happens to the business that sells the product.
It doesn't even have to be about product not being worth the money. It could be something entirely different such as - for example - you don't want to pay because the company exploits and abuses their workers in Chinese factories (or works with companies that do), or you don't want to pay because the company lobbies for laws that are ethically questionable or you object to them, or because they endorse a political option you heavily disagree with, or because they're involved in corruption cases, or because of a number of exploitative business practices they do.
It's just a level of control you as an individual have, and it's a bad idea to give that control up or not utilize it. If everyone had the ability to exert this level of control and everyone used it, businesses would be forced to be a lot more honest and actually worry about the ethical implications of every move they make. They would need to make sure people actually like them and appreciate what they do and how they do it in order to actually sell anything.
Fighting fire with fire by exercising your individual power against the big corporations is a damn good argument for piracy, well put. In fact I think you could even see it as moral. I think there is a line somewhere though - maybe when you're dealing with small businesses who need the money to continue, or who are actually being moral.
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?
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.
That's actually complete garbage. Saying that you wouldn't have paid for it anyway if you couldn't get away with illegally copying/ pirating/ removing it from the owner's hands doesn't justify stealing something. You still have all the knowledge that comes from having the work without needing to pay for it- it's not fair to those who actually paid for it, and it's not fair to the company who made the product.
That being said, OP: internet piracy will never completely be stopped, in the same way that hacking or breaking the law in general can never completely cease to exist. There will always be ways to cheat the system. That's a fact of life. People will take risks because of possible rewards. That doesn't justify anything necessarily, but it's a cruel reality.
The people who play by the rules can only hope that the worst offenders get caught, most people understand laws, and that companies won't screw us all over by making content so crappy or overpriced that we're enticed to pirate it instead of pay for it. None of that tends to be realistic though, and that's unfortunate.
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.
On February 21 2012 17:10 Azzur wrote: Some of the arguments in this thread are quite ridiculous - you have people here claiming that "stealing" is ok because it's not loss sales, or that the artists themselves don't mind because it's publicity or that it makes no difference, etc. Like it or not, it's stealing and people arguing otherwise are merely justifying themselves with excuses.
FFS, stop with the "stealing". Stealing and copyright infringement are not the same thing. Theft is deprivation of property.
Let's consult wikipedia:
Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as "theft." In copyright law, infringement does not refer to actual theft, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.[6] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright... 'an infringer of the copyright.'" In the case of copyright infringement the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law is invaded, i.e. exclusive rights, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.
So, anti-legislation people should argue along these lines - rationalising your stealing is frankly very stupid. Like it or not, piracy is a problem and I think that good solutions (rather than censorship) should be developed to combat it.
Some people might suggest that rethinking copyright law is a good solution.
I'm not going to be involved in semantics - copyright infringement is a crime, full stop.
Sematics are important. Both may be crimes, but there is a difference between jaywalking and murder. Much like there is between theft and copyright infringement.
So pirating in essence is using some item without permission. Stealing is taking an item without permission.
Stealing is taking an item without permission, to the loss of the owner.
If I were to look at your car... And an identical car would appear in my garage, I don't think I'd be guilty of Grand Theft Auto. Regardless of the owner's opinions on the matter.
No one is arguing that we should be allowed to steal things. The thing is that people are getting more severe punishments for sharing files, than people who murder/kill/rape. And simply trying to ban it is the wrong way to approach it. People are getting punished because hollywood wants to make more money. It always is, and always will be about the money.
If you download a movie, watch it, then delete it again, how is that any different from having a friend buy the movie, then 20 friends borrow it, watch it and give it back. Just because you download it it doesn't mean you would've bought it if you could've downloaded it. Technically, if you don't pay for it you shouldn't be able to watch it, so technically you shouldn't be allowed to borrow movies from friends either. If they want to make money and reduce piracy, they should reduce prices(perfectly possible, lower prices=more sales=higher income overall) and actually make shit that's worth buying, and stop treating the customer who paid for your product like shit(DRM etc).
What makes me sick is that companies that get affected by piracy refuse to change but demand that the world around is changed to suit them. And the sad thing is that it's working because of lobbying.
It is only considered "stealing" because the government defines it as such, and go out of their way to specifically restrict the supply of a good. Bypassing an artificial government created supply deficit is not my definition of "stealing." Particularly when my behavior does not "hurt" any other person.
And just to clarify, my definition of "hurting" someone does not include paying less for their product than they would LIKE to receive. According to that definition, all of you must also say that minimum wage laws are "hurting" and "stealing" from employers. Actually, according to that definition, the market is hurting every seller of every good in the world.
On February 21 2012 14:37 ArtofRuin wrote: If I am unwilling to pay any amount of money for an album, then when I download it for free I am not stealing. There is no lost profit. As well, The Pirate Bay is also a fantastic hub for freeware and indie bands, Katawa Shoujo (a free visual novel) being a fine example.
Are you serious? THAT IS NOT STEALING?!? seriously, if you had no intention of buying it, then you should not get it for free! fml, life doesnt work like that. An artist doesnt pour his/her soul into a CD, just so someone like you can listen to it for the hell of it
Mixing engineer, visual artist here
Please shut the fuck up about what I and the people I work with want. I am tired of hearing this line of bullshit in every copyright related thread I go into. This is record company propaganda. NOTHING MORE.
There is possibly 1% of artists who could negatively be affected by sharing(read: exposure) of their material. These artists aren't affected anyway because they generally get marginal proceeds from their albums, with the lions share going to their label. And piracy isn't some new concept. Any breathing sack of flesh can realize that the RIAA and MPAA have been heralding the end of life as we know it since popular radio, since the 8 track, since the cassette, the VHS, CDs, DVDs, MP3s, Usenet, DC++, Kazaa, Limewire, Napster, Torrents, and currently FTP sites.
Guess what
Nothing has changed in the past 50 years. Your parents recording a popular TV show on the good ole vhs is just as illegal as it is to download a song today. The only difference is that people like you buy into this hilarious propaganda about truckers and recording engineers being terribly affected by piracy. We're not.
And James Hetfield and Richard Branson aren't being affected either. The entire goal of the lifelong campaigns of the RIAA and the MPAA seek to "keep the fear" in the people. Because without that fear they would lose about a total of 10% of their market. Which is significant in that they couldn't keep their current management salaries and stay profitable.
Man, you're buying into propaganda from the other side while accusing others of listening to Hollywood's. Most of the money that you claim goes into these management salaries goes into the the millions of jobs created in the production aspect of the television, cinema, and music industries. And something you choose to ignore in your post flaming the MPAA and RIAA is that though they are always worried, this is the internet. It becomes infinitely easier to steal at a large scale online. Torrenting and streaming of illegal content is much more widespread than recording an episode on a VHS. That was stealing, but it wasn't an international problem. The main issue with all this legislation is that all the stolen information is broadcast globally. And with all the lost revenue associated with ripped off television and movies, American jobs are lost and given to the man with three massive houses running megaupload.com. Seems like a good deal to me...
Sorry, but don't criticize me about buying into propaganda when spewing it yourself. Millions of jobs? http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_512000.htm#27-0000 If you want to include the whole goddamn movie theatre and theme park industries then take the big number at the top (371,450) which coincidentally isn't "millions". And you're wrong about it being more widespread. It's more convenient. People who can't afford things share them. They share cassettes, they share CDs, they share DVDs and they will share files.
American patent/copyright law is a steaming pile of shit which has slowly been covered in gold plate over the last 70 years.
On February 22 2012 00:48 JackDino wrote: If you download a movie, watch it, then delete it again, how is that any different from having a friend buy the movie, then 20 friends borrow it, watch it and give it back. Just because you download it it doesn't mean you would've bought it if you could've downloaded it. Technically, if you don't pay for it you shouldn't be able to watch it, so technically you shouldn't be allowed to borrow movies from friends either. If they want to make money and reduce piracy, they should reduce prices(perfectly possible, lower prices=more sales=higher income overall) and actually make shit that's worth buying, and stop treating the customer who paid for your product like shit(DRM etc).
Probably the fact that you've legally purchased a copy of the product? I don't understand how you could not see the difference.
You can let someone borrow something that you've bought, but that's not the same as making unlimited copies and selling them (or even giving them away for free), because you own the copy but not the rights to the actual content.
On February 21 2012 14:28 Dr. ROCKZO wrote: Firstly, it will never be stopped. Secondly, the solution isn't to 'stop it', well, at least not like this. The solution is to adapt the content creation industry to the way the internet works, not blindly refuse to change traditional methods of commerce. Thirdly, I voted for the third option because >:D.
I agree with this. Online piracy can't be stopped. Well I guess it theoretically could be somehow. It'll be much easier to just adapt new business models though.
that sounds like work and would require thinking, just pass laws, it's so much easier to prohibit something you don't understand
On February 22 2012 00:48 JackDino wrote: If you download a movie, watch it, then delete it again, how is that any different from having a friend buy the movie, then 20 friends borrow it, watch it and give it back. Just because you download it it doesn't mean you would've bought it if you could've downloaded it. Technically, if you don't pay for it you shouldn't be able to watch it, so technically you shouldn't be allowed to borrow movies from friends either. If they want to make money and reduce piracy, they should reduce prices(perfectly possible, lower prices=more sales=higher income overall) and actually make shit that's worth buying, and stop treating the customer who paid for your product like shit(DRM etc).
Probably the fact that you've legally purchased a copy of the product? I don't understand how you could not see the difference.
You can let someone borrow something that you've bought, but that's not the same as making unlimited copies and selling them (or even giving them away for free), because you own the copy but not the rights to the actual content.
What's the difference between me buying it, then sharing it over the internet with 20 people or just sharing it with friends. And before you say that the internet is more than 20, said 20 irl friends can put it on the internet aswell, there's practically no difference.
On February 22 2012 00:48 JackDino wrote: If you download a movie, watch it, then delete it again, how is that any different from having a friend buy the movie, then 20 friends borrow it, watch it and give it back. Just because you download it it doesn't mean you would've bought it if you could've downloaded it. Technically, if you don't pay for it you shouldn't be able to watch it, so technically you shouldn't be allowed to borrow movies from friends either. If they want to make money and reduce piracy, they should reduce prices(perfectly possible, lower prices=more sales=higher income overall) and actually make shit that's worth buying, and stop treating the customer who paid for your product like shit(DRM etc).
Probably the fact that you've legally purchased a copy of the product? I don't understand how you could not see the difference.
You can let someone borrow something that you've bought, but that's not the same as making unlimited copies and selling them (or even giving them away for free), because you own the copy but not the rights to the actual content.
What's the difference between me buying it, then sharing it over the internet with 20 people or just sharing it with friends. And before you say that the internet is more than 20, said 20 irl friends can put it on the internet aswell, there's practically no difference.
If you make a copy of copyrighted material it's copyright infringement and is illegal. If you have 1 copy and you share it with people, that is not illegal AFAIK. If you burn DVDs on your computer and hand out copies to your friends that is copyright infringement.
It's called copyright for a reason, everyone. It means that you need permission to copy material. Sharing a single copy is not copying. Filesharing on the internet creates copies so it's illegal.
On February 22 2012 00:48 JackDino wrote: If you download a movie, watch it, then delete it again, how is that any different from having a friend buy the movie, then 20 friends borrow it, watch it and give it back. Just because you download it it doesn't mean you would've bought it if you could've downloaded it. Technically, if you don't pay for it you shouldn't be able to watch it, so technically you shouldn't be allowed to borrow movies from friends either. If they want to make money and reduce piracy, they should reduce prices(perfectly possible, lower prices=more sales=higher income overall) and actually make shit that's worth buying, and stop treating the customer who paid for your product like shit(DRM etc).
Probably the fact that you've legally purchased a copy of the product? I don't understand how you could not see the difference.
You can let someone borrow something that you've bought, but that's not the same as making unlimited copies and selling them (or even giving them away for free), because you own the copy but not the rights to the actual content.
What's the difference between me buying it, then sharing it over the internet with 20 people or just sharing it with friends. And before you say that the internet is more than 20, said 20 irl friends can put it on the internet aswell, there's practically no difference.
If you make a copy of copyrighted material it's copyright infringement and is illegal. If you have 1 copy and you share it with people, that is not illegal AFAIK. If you burn DVDs on your computer and hand out copies to your friends that is copyright infringement.
It's called copyright for a reason, everyone. It means that you need permission to copy material. Sharing a single copy is not copying. Filesharing on the internet creates copies so it's illegal.
so if i share a copy and give permission to the other person to make copies of my copy, what's the problem?
People arguing about file-sharer's moral stand-point are just laughable. Same with equating file-sharing as stealing - it's just as easy to argue that Disney with their Mickey Mouse Protection Act is stealing from the public by prevent all those works that would've went into public domain a long time ago from going into public domain.
Are you stealing from companies when you go on youtube and listen to music or watch a video someone uploaded? Or is it just convenient for you that someone else is breaking the law for you?
Are you stealing from the MPAA and RIAA when you never purchase materials but only use your local library? They get special exemptions from copyright law. Libraries only pay for the item once and it will be viewed by tens of hundreds of people. Is it wrong that libraries get special exemptions from copyright law? Because big media fought tooth and nail for libraries not to get them.
Stealing may be wrong, but copyright law is fucked up to the point where they're stealing ideas and hiding them because they cant make a buck.
"Copyright Act of 1790" was the first copyright law passed in the United States. It allowed a copyright holder to copyright their shit "for a term of 14 years, with the right to renew for one additional 14 year term should the copyright holder still be alive"
Do you know what it is today?
Because of the Copyright Term Extension Act in 1998 its now. "The Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier."
They bought and paid for that act just like they did every other bill that benefits them. Fuck big media, Fuck the big six, stop buying their shit, they'll die and content creators will still be around. When theres millions of creative people out there producing stuff, the value of entertainment has to drop. Thats what the MPAA and RIAA dont like, they're dying.
On February 22 2012 00:48 JackDino wrote: If you download a movie, watch it, then delete it again, how is that any different from having a friend buy the movie, then 20 friends borrow it, watch it and give it back. Just because you download it it doesn't mean you would've bought it if you could've downloaded it. Technically, if you don't pay for it you shouldn't be able to watch it, so technically you shouldn't be allowed to borrow movies from friends either. If they want to make money and reduce piracy, they should reduce prices(perfectly possible, lower prices=more sales=higher income overall) and actually make shit that's worth buying, and stop treating the customer who paid for your product like shit(DRM etc).
Probably the fact that you've legally purchased a copy of the product? I don't understand how you could not see the difference.
You can let someone borrow something that you've bought, but that's not the same as making unlimited copies and selling them (or even giving them away for free), because you own the copy but not the rights to the actual content.
What's the difference between me buying it, then sharing it over the internet with 20 people or just sharing it with friends. And before you say that the internet is more than 20, said 20 irl friends can put it on the internet aswell, there's practically no difference.
If you make a copy of copyrighted material it's copyright infringement and is illegal. If you have 1 copy and you share it with people, that is not illegal AFAIK. If you burn DVDs on your computer and hand out copies to your friends that is copyright infringement.
It's called copyright for a reason, everyone. It means that you need permission to copy material. Sharing a single copy is not copying. Filesharing on the internet creates copies so it's illegal.
so if i share a copy and give permission to the other person to make copies of my copy, what's the problem?
Comon...... You really should be able to tell yourself what the problem with that is. Now you're just bringing up shit for the sake of arguing.
Anyone producing any intellectual work will only get paid ONCE.
Which means the only movies/TV shows that get made will be ones that One person is will to pay the entire budget of.
Either because they want their message going out (ie advertising. a product placement movie) OR Because they want to be personally entertained. (the only movies made will be cheap home ones...Rebecca Black's Friday, the new standard in music, or ones made for billionaries on their birthdays)
because once it has been produced, no one else will pay for it.
Now the "one person" could also be the government (on the argument that information is a public good it is too hard to really charge people for it)... but that means media that is government controlled.
When dealing with Patent type information it is potentially more serious (science grinding to a halt), but easier to avoid since that has to do with producing something... easier to catch and stop.
Copyright law should definitely be revised, but piracy basically eliminates it.
On February 22 2012 00:48 JackDino wrote: If you download a movie, watch it, then delete it again, how is that any different from having a friend buy the movie, then 20 friends borrow it, watch it and give it back. Just because you download it it doesn't mean you would've bought it if you could've downloaded it. Technically, if you don't pay for it you shouldn't be able to watch it, so technically you shouldn't be allowed to borrow movies from friends either. If they want to make money and reduce piracy, they should reduce prices(perfectly possible, lower prices=more sales=higher income overall) and actually make shit that's worth buying, and stop treating the customer who paid for your product like shit(DRM etc).
Probably the fact that you've legally purchased a copy of the product? I don't understand how you could not see the difference.
You can let someone borrow something that you've bought, but that's not the same as making unlimited copies and selling them (or even giving them away for free), because you own the copy but not the rights to the actual content.
What's the difference between me buying it, then sharing it over the internet with 20 people or just sharing it with friends. And before you say that the internet is more than 20, said 20 irl friends can put it on the internet aswell, there's practically no difference.
If you make a copy of copyrighted material it's copyright infringement and is illegal. If you have 1 copy and you share it with people, that is not illegal AFAIK. If you burn DVDs on your computer and hand out copies to your friends that is copyright infringement.
It's called copyright for a reason, everyone. It means that you need permission to copy material. Sharing a single copy is not copying. Filesharing on the internet creates copies so it's illegal.
The difference between downloading a movie, watching it, then deleting it, and borrowing a movie from a friend, watching it, then returning it is nonexistant. You paid for NEITHER copy and you're not keeping it. Wether it's right is something else, but downloading movies for own use(which is legal in the netherlands atleast) isn't any different from borrowing it from a friend. If they want to stop piracy, they should adjust prices, stop making crap and treat their customers properly.
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.
Don't give me that I believe/I don't believe it's stealing bullshit. You copy material, you don't steal it. Since when has language been perverted to such an extent ? Saying is stealing is simply saying that if you payed for a cocking class and you thought your friend what your teacher thought you is stealing.
If any of this law comes online, I will stop consuming every product released/produced by everyone involved in sponsoring such acts, and will also raise high awareness to everyone I can reach. So deal with that hollywood, if you come for us "stealers", me and all my kind, and all their friends will never go see a movie ever again. And I bet there are a lot of us...And with friends...
I guess people got lazy, and now since they don't know to utilize the internet to its full capacity, they try to pass out bullshit legislation so they can still get a piece of the pie.
Whoever supports such acts, support giving the government more power...and never in the history of men, giving a government the power to invade your most private space ( talking about ACTA, not SOPA )was not a completely terrible idea. And remember, the guys who will enforce ACTA are under NO authority. The members of the EU must follow all guidelines of this, and the individual government of specific countries have no power of denying abuse of power, if committed by the higher structure.
I hate to go full blown conspiracy nutt here but...seems to me like some people want to know everything about you ( they install a covert program who searches through all activity that has been running on your computer ). SOPA....hmm...I guess there's no conspiracy there past the extreme corporate financial interest...but ACTA is horrible. And by the way, since the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights...how the hell is possible to write this piece of legislation ? I mean.....oh well...
However, we wouldn't have to steal if these industries- notorious in dragging their feet on technology- would get their act together. This webcomic is a perfect example of the only times that I actually download things illegally:
Monatizing is as simple as charging monthly rates for unlimited access to the stuff I want. I pretty much do not ever want to have to watch cable TV, especially not at the set broadcast time. All HBO has to do is offer full episodeVODs online the same day they air on TV, and bam, I'd pay for that service.
However, the MPAA has been notorious in dragging its feet on new technology.
On February 22 2012 00:48 JackDino wrote: If you download a movie, watch it, then delete it again, how is that any different from having a friend buy the movie, then 20 friends borrow it, watch it and give it back. Just because you download it it doesn't mean you would've bought it if you could've downloaded it. Technically, if you don't pay for it you shouldn't be able to watch it, so technically you shouldn't be allowed to borrow movies from friends either. If they want to make money and reduce piracy, they should reduce prices(perfectly possible, lower prices=more sales=higher income overall) and actually make shit that's worth buying, and stop treating the customer who paid for your product like shit(DRM etc).
Probably the fact that you've legally purchased a copy of the product? I don't understand how you could not see the difference.
You can let someone borrow something that you've bought, but that's not the same as making unlimited copies and selling them (or even giving them away for free), because you own the copy but not the rights to the actual content.
What's the difference between me buying it, then sharing it over the internet with 20 people or just sharing it with friends. And before you say that the internet is more than 20, said 20 irl friends can put it on the internet aswell, there's practically no difference.
If you make a copy of copyrighted material it's copyright infringement and is illegal. If you have 1 copy and you share it with people, that is not illegal AFAIK. If you burn DVDs on your computer and hand out copies to your friends that is copyright infringement.
It's called copyright for a reason, everyone. It means that you need permission to copy material. Sharing a single copy is not copying. Filesharing on the internet creates copies so it's illegal.
so if i share a copy and give permission to the other person to make copies of my copy, what's the problem?
Comon...... You really should be able to tell yourself what the problem with that is. Now you're just bringing up shit for the sake of arguing.
lolololol. Caller, if you don't have the right to make copies of a DVD you bought (copyright infringement), what makes you think you have the right to tell other people they can make copies of your DVD?
You've got to be trolling -.-' It doesn't matter who presses the Copy button.
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.
On February 22 2012 03:02 perestain wrote: Sorry, but you are grossly mistaken.
The term "stealing" is inappropriate to use in this circumstance. Physical goods are not of the same logical category as concepts data patterns.
The common meaning of "stealing" is that A takes something from B, and as a result B does not have it anymore. Wrongly using this term to describe filesharing etc. is just industry propaganda.
I know that some business models will not work anymore if you consider this, but business models can not change logic. If they depend on copying of concepts or data patterns being "stealing", then they are just bad/outdated business models.
So are you against patents in general?
Why would inventors invent and creators create and people create business models around new ideas if there's no way to protect these concepts from being stolen and directly copied by others?
If someone has a marketable idea and wants to turn a profit from it, he has a right to do so. You're simply stealing his hard work by taking it without paying. You're not helping him or society out.
On February 22 2012 03:02 perestain wrote: Sorry, but you are grossly mistaken.
The term "stealing" is inappropriate to use in this circumstance. Physical goods are not of the same logical category as concepts data patterns.
The common meaning of "stealing" is that A takes something from B, and as a result B does not have it anymore. Wrongly using this term to describe filesharing etc. is just industry propaganda.
I know that some business models will not work anymore if you consider this, but business models can not change logic. If they depend on copying of concepts or data patterns being "stealing", then they are just bad/outdated business models.
So are you against patents in general?
Why would inventors invent and creators create and people create business models around new ideas if there's no way to protect these concepts from being stolen and directly copied by others?
If someone has a marketable idea and wants to turn a profit from it, he has a right to do so. You're simply stealing his hard work by taking it without paying. You're not helping him or society out.
are you suggesting that every piece of music today should be contested on copyright rules because they were inspired by the hard work of the people that came before them ? Give me a fucking break...are you gonna support Monsanto on patenting pig parts now ? Authenticity today is so rare, that giving that argument would kill like 99.99% of everything that is made today.
On February 22 2012 03:02 perestain wrote: Sorry, but you are grossly mistaken.
The term "stealing" is inappropriate to use in this circumstance. Physical goods are not of the same logical category as concepts data patterns.
The common meaning of "stealing" is that A takes something from B, and as a result B does not have it anymore. Wrongly using this term to describe filesharing etc. is just industry propaganda.
I know that some business models will not work anymore if you consider this, but business models can not change logic. If they depend on copying of concepts or data patterns being "stealing", then they are just bad/outdated business models.
So are you against patents in general?
Why would inventors invent and creators create and people create business models around new ideas if there's no way to protect these concepts from being stolen and directly copied by others?
If someone has a marketable idea and wants to turn a profit from it, he has a right to do so. You're simply stealing his hard work by taking it without paying. You're not helping him or society out.
are you suggesting that every piece of music today should be contested on copyright rules because they were inspired by the hard work of the people that came before them ? Give me a fucking break...are you gonna support Monsanto on patenting pig parts now ? Authenticity today is so rare, that giving that argument would kill like 99.99% of everything that is made today.
What? I suggested no such thing and I have no idea how you'd even think I said something like that. I think that's a terrible slippery slope when all we had been talking about were things like pirating vs. buying o.O When we're talking about illegally downloading something instead of paying for it, that's very different than coming up with a song that shares some of the same chords as another. I don't see those two topics as interchangeable, and I wasn't even arguing about the latter.
On February 22 2012 00:48 JackDino wrote: If you download a movie, watch it, then delete it again, how is that any different from having a friend buy the movie, then 20 friends borrow it, watch it and give it back. Just because you download it it doesn't mean you would've bought it if you could've downloaded it. Technically, if you don't pay for it you shouldn't be able to watch it, so technically you shouldn't be allowed to borrow movies from friends either. If they want to make money and reduce piracy, they should reduce prices(perfectly possible, lower prices=more sales=higher income overall) and actually make shit that's worth buying, and stop treating the customer who paid for your product like shit(DRM etc).
Probably the fact that you've legally purchased a copy of the product? I don't understand how you could not see the difference.
You can let someone borrow something that you've bought, but that's not the same as making unlimited copies and selling them (or even giving them away for free), because you own the copy but not the rights to the actual content.
What's the difference between me buying it, then sharing it over the internet with 20 people or just sharing it with friends. And before you say that the internet is more than 20, said 20 irl friends can put it on the internet aswell, there's practically no difference.
If you make a copy of copyrighted material it's copyright infringement and is illegal. If you have 1 copy and you share it with people, that is not illegal AFAIK. If you burn DVDs on your computer and hand out copies to your friends that is copyright infringement.
It's called copyright for a reason, everyone. It means that you need permission to copy material. Sharing a single copy is not copying. Filesharing on the internet creates copies so it's illegal.
so if i share a copy and give permission to the other person to make copies of my copy, what's the problem?
Comon...... You really should be able to tell yourself what the problem with that is. Now you're just bringing up shit for the sake of arguing.
lolololol. Caller, if you don't have the right to make copies of a DVD you bought (copyright infringement), what makes you think you have the right to tell other people they can make copies of your DVD?
You've got to be trolling -.-' It doesn't matter who presses the Copy button.
precisely, my point being that you don't own the rights to the DVD. since you can't give out the rights to the DVD. Similarly, you are not giving out rights by posting it online. If you do anything to actively say "oh hey guys download this shit" then you are giving away something you don't own. But to just have it online? What if you just want to watch it from a different computer in a different place? If someone else just "happens" to find it, that's hardly your fault. It'd be like taking the DVD and leaving it out in the open where anybody can just take it and make a copy of it and put it back. Maybe I just like putting it within walking distance of my home and other home.
cool story bro, but in the end, the only money being taken away from the corporations is money i'd end up having buyer's remorse over anyway. if i play it and realize i don't like it, i'm not going to support it. i have that option now. on the other hand, if you take that option away from me, i'm never going to try your game in the first place, or watch your movie, or read your book, or listen to your music. if i have any inclination that it might be shit, fuck your product if i can't try it myself for free. none of my friends will know about the content you made because i can't consume it and form an opinion.
have i bought 100% of the things i liked? not necessarily, but i've bought a large majority of it and told everyone i knew it was worth it (which i think is actually a lot more important imo, since the personal advertisement of a lot of people is massively more effective than shitty paid advertisements).
all of the industries that are supposedly starving for money have all made a significant amount of money off of me that i normally avoided paying them directly. i'm not a moron and i will take any opportunity to try things before i buy them. none of my money was ever going to them even when i always paid; they went to gamestop and blockbuster for well below the asking price. those places let me try before i bought anything and they will be there if/when piracy is killed, so i will still end up not giving them money... except now i'm not going to give them money out of pure spite.
I think that any patent/ copyright laws should go hand in hand with competition laws. There should be copyright and patent laws but they are often used to protect unfairly high prices, which harm the consumer. When prices on products are unfairly high, illegal downloading is much more justified. For example with video games, I think it is reasonable to ask for £20-30, but when you get to £55 for a CoD game that has taken 1 single year to make...well that's just total bullshit. In terms of music, I'm not overly convinced that record sales will EVER get back to being a real profitable income stream...it's time for musicians to learn to be satisfied with income from live shows and merchandise.
On February 22 2012 03:02 perestain wrote: Sorry, but you are grossly mistaken.
The term "stealing" is inappropriate to use in this circumstance. Physical goods are not of the same logical category as concepts data patterns.
The common meaning of "stealing" is that A takes something from B, and as a result B does not have it anymore. Wrongly using this term to describe filesharing etc. is just industry propaganda.
I know that some business models will not work anymore if you consider this, but business models can not change logic. If they depend on copying of concepts or data patterns being "stealing", then they are just bad/outdated business models.
So are you against patents in general?
Why would inventors invent and creators create and people create business models around new ideas if there's no way to protect these concepts from being stolen and directly copied by others?
If someone has a marketable idea and wants to turn a profit from it, he has a right to do so. You're simply stealing his hard work by taking it without paying. You're not helping him or society out.
I can think at least of first mover advantage, customer loyalty and scale economies. For example Apple makes billions of dollars despite chinese pirating all their products by pushing first mover advantage and customer loyalty.
I am not completely against patents, but there is much room for profit in both music/movies industries and science without them. Problem is many times they are used as a mean to sustain monopoly prizes above competetive prizes.
On February 22 2012 03:02 perestain wrote: Sorry, but you are grossly mistaken.
The term "stealing" is inappropriate to use in this circumstance. Physical goods are not of the same logical category as concepts data patterns.
The common meaning of "stealing" is that A takes something from B, and as a result B does not have it anymore. Wrongly using this term to describe filesharing etc. is just industry propaganda.
I know that some business models will not work anymore if you consider this, but business models can not change logic. If they depend on copying of concepts or data patterns being "stealing", then they are just bad/outdated business models.
So are you against patents in general?
Why would inventors invent and creators create and people create business models around new ideas if there's no way to protect these concepts from being stolen and directly copied by others?
If someone has a marketable idea and wants to turn a profit from it, he has a right to do so. You're simply stealing his hard work by taking it without paying. You're not helping him or society out.
If the "new idea" is actually something solid and valuable and actually original, the inventor will always benefit from it, even if it was stolen and directly copied by others - because the people who developed the idea will have an in-depth understanding of it and where it can go and how it can be developed, which makes them a valuable asset to any enterprise that ends up using that idea (if they end up not using it themselves).
If the idea is unrefined or a one-shot marketing gimmick, then yes, somebody who never would have thought of that can just steal it, copy it, and profit from it, and the "inventor" risks not getting much back. However, I personally won't lose any sleep over that. If you check any directory of patents, you will find a ton of completely inane trash coming from people that are hoping to "hit gold" by accident.
In general, people who have something valuable to offer actually do benefit from it - no matter how much it is stolen, copied or how many remakes were made, or how many other people try to do the same thing. Even in the evil, rogue lands that are the internet, people with something solid to offer do profit (in fact, especially on the internet). Moreover, the freedom to use existing ideas and iterate and improve on them actually creates better things for everyone.
The only ones that are truly concerned about "piracy" specifically are people who deep down KNOW their product is worth nowhere as much as they're charging for it and rely purely on marketing, hype and various forms of propaganda to sell it.
On February 22 2012 03:02 perestain wrote: Sorry, but you are grossly mistaken.
The term "stealing" is inappropriate to use in this circumstance. Physical goods are not of the same logical category as concepts data patterns.
The common meaning of "stealing" is that A takes something from B, and as a result B does not have it anymore. Wrongly using this term to describe filesharing etc. is just industry propaganda.
I know that some business models will not work anymore if you consider this, but business models can not change logic. If they depend on copying of concepts or data patterns being "stealing", then they are just bad/outdated business models.
So are you against patents in general?
Why would inventors invent and creators create and people create business models around new ideas if there's no way to protect these concepts from being stolen and directly copied by others?
If someone has a marketable idea and wants to turn a profit from it, he has a right to do so. You're simply stealing his hard work by taking it without paying. You're not helping him or society out.
For what it's worth the default human motivation seems to be to create and invent. Or more accurately we've been creating and inventing for thousands and thousands of years, but copyright and patents are relatively recent. The first found record of copyright is from 600 AD and 1662 was when England first enacted copyright. The first patent law was in 500BC in a Greek city (source Wikipedia). And up until the last 70 years or so it was always much more limited in scope than what we have today.
I think it makes a lot more sense to always approach the issue as having to justify the need for copyrights/patents never approach it as having to justify why we don't need it. The former is much more in line with the way humans are.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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. ()
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 13:06 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...
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.
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 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 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 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 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.
Ever heard or burning CDs? Recording VHS tapes? Hell, even audio tapes were considered the "death" of the music industry.
Piracy isn't something that's going to end anytime soon. As long as there's a price on some sort of product that requires 0 production costs, there will be ways to get it for free.
On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote: The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions.
Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games.
Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it.
On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote: I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc.
The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced.
You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism.
The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users.
I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification.
I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss.
Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life...
Yeah, this is the reasoning I was giving in the earlier pages of the thread where I've derided people who rationalise their piracy using "their business model is bad" as ridiculous. I absolutely disagree that the movie industry is being dumb and non-effective, but I would never justify breaking the law on this. I accept the piracy but not the ridiculous justification that goes behind it.
i.e. If you want to pirate, accept that you are doing it in the wrong. Don't try and argue that you have a "right" to it.
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.
Of course my opinion on people's poor justification for breaking the law, doesnt really matter. But disobeying law doesn't really matter? If that's your attitude then you're not worth discussing this any further with. I'm in a position to criticise people for disobeying law and justifying it by making stupid arguments about industry/business decision making and ethics.
I'm not supporting the proposed laws, so please don't insinuate that I am. I'm criticising people who pirate material (breaking existing laws that don't affect general privacy and freedom), WHICH LEADS TO THESE LAWS BEING CONSIDERED, who then go on to make stupid justifications for why they are breaking the law.
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.
Of course my opinion on people's poor justification for breaking the law, doesnt really matter. But disobeying law doesn't really matter? If that's your attitude then you're not worth discussing this any further with. I'm in a position to criticise people for disobeying law and justifying it by making stupid arguments about industry/business decision making and ethics.
I'm not supporting the proposed laws, so please don't insinuate that I am. I'm criticising people who pirate material (breaking existing laws that don't affect general privacy and freedom), WHICH LEADS TO THESE LAWS BEING CONSIDERED, who then go on to make stupid justifications for why they are breaking the law.
Or perhaps it leads to old laws being questioned, and ultimately dropped. If not killing people 40+ was illegal would you slaughter your parents? There is more to this discussion than "illegal = bad", please try to see that.
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.
Of course my opinion on people's poor justification for breaking the law, doesnt really matter. But disobeying law doesn't really matter? If that's your attitude then you're not worth discussing this any further with. I'm in a position to criticise people for disobeying law and justifying it by making stupid arguments about industry/business decision making and ethics.
You're in position to criticise anything you want, but in this case it's empty words and a waste of everyone's time. You're not getting anywhere with that in this debate.
People break dozens of laws on daily basis, probably even without being aware of it. Nobody is hardcoded to follow them. In essence, everyone has to willingly chose whether they follow laws and which laws they follow and for which reasons - which is why a common practice in lawmaking is to ensure that laws are reasonable and widely accepted, can be implemented and their implementation can be controlled, and can be efficiently enforced in majority of cases if there's need to.
Laws that do not meet these criteria are obsolete and meaningless, they're just words on paper. Anti-piracy laws (existing OR proposed) meet NONE of those principles. So you're essentially clinging to laws that have no influence and don't matter, except as a form of public denial and resistance against change that must happen.
On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote: The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions.
Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games.
Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it.
On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote: I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc.
The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced.
You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism.
The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users.
I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification.
I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss.
Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life...
Yeah, this is the reasoning I was giving in the earlier pages of the thread where I've derided people who rationalise their piracy using "their business model is bad" as ridiculous. I absolutely disagree that the movie industry is being dumb and non-effective, but I would never justify breaking the law on this. I accept the piracy but not the ridiculous justification that goes behind it.
i.e. If you want to pirate, accept that you are doing it in the wrong. Don't try and argue that you have a "right" to it.
You are making the point that people are need to "obey the fucking law", perhaps you do not realize that in many countries around the world it is perfectly acceptable to download pirated material with literally no legal consequences. So is it morally acceptable in countries that do not have these laws to download it? Or is it still morally reprehensible to download files even though it's legal and the laws should be changed to reflect this?
No matter what your answers to these questions are it is all simply your own opinion. To try and state that all downloads of pirated files are illegal is simply your own opinion. You can't force people to accept your own personal morals as they are just that, personal.
To me downloading music or games is perfectly justifiable and a more efficient way to spend my money on things I actually enjoy. I buy plenty of games and music but I pirate many, many more. Why? Because I do not have an unlimited budget to waste my money on things that I will not get an adequate amount of enjoyment from. Piracy helps to limit this problem by allowing me to try games before I buy, or to listen to music to find out if I like it at all before paying for it.
You know when you go to a movie theater and see a movie that is beyond fucking terrible and walk out you can get the price of your ticket refunded by the theater. The game, movie, and music industry does not function like this so you have to take it into your own hands to test their product before you buy. Remember this is completely legal in many parts of the world.
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.
Of course my opinion on people's poor justification for breaking the law, doesnt really matter. But disobeying law doesn't really matter? If that's your attitude then you're not worth discussing this any further with. I'm in a position to criticise people for disobeying law and justifying it by making stupid arguments about industry/business decision making and ethics.
You're in position to criticise anything you want, but in this case it's empty words and a waste of everyone's time. You're not getting anywhere with that in this debate.
People break dozens of laws on daily basis, probably even without being aware of it. Nobody is hardcoded to follow them. In essence, everyone has to willingly chose whether they follow laws and which laws they follow and for which reasons - which is why a common practice in lawmaking is to ensure that laws are reasonable and widely accepted, can be implemented and their implementation can be controlled, and can be efficiently enforced in majority of cases if there's need to.
Laws that do not meet these criteria are obsolete and meaningless, they're just words on paper. Anti-piracy laws (existing OR proposed) meet NONE of those principles. So you're essentially clinging to laws that have no influence and don't matter, except as a form of public denial and resistance against change that must happen.
Says you? Thank you for speaking for everyone else. I'm sure you can read their minds entirely.
Of course people break laws every day; in fact I represent these people for a living. Including copyright infringers. So what? Of course there is nothing that can postively FORCE you to comply with ANY law, but the point is, if you don't comply you can expect to be prosecuted. If you want to look at it that way, it's ALL a choice of whether you comply or not. It's ALL a personal moral issue. Regardless, the proper means to protest existing law do not include contravention of it. There are plenty of laws that some people don't agree with, and they are prosecuted daily for their disregard. Only rarely have I heard such silly justification from my clients akin to "Shitty antiquated business models and practices made me do it!!"... They also aren't so deluded as to think they have a right to consume whatever they want.
I don't need the lecture on what law making entails, my law degree will suffice. As for empty words... Have you actually got any evidence that current anti-piracy laws are not reasonable? That they're not actually widely accepted? In regards to efficient enforcement, I don't think you really understand how much general crime, whether drug, property, road/traffic, or violence related, actually goes on without ever being dealt with. It's naive to think that difficult enforcement is, in isolation, a sufficient reason for the removal of a law.
All I've said here is that I think SOME people are making stupid justifications for their piracy. I'm not debating proposed laws. I'm not debating the efficacy of current TV/Movie/Music industry services. I'm not naive so as to think that you and others won't keep pirating material. All I'm saying is that I will call people out on what I consider delusional justification. If you think it's reasonable justification, you're entitled to your opinion. The rest is fluff.
On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote: The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions.
Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games.
Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it.
On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote: I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc.
The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced.
You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism.
The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users.
I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification.
I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss.
Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life...
Yeah, this is the reasoning I was giving in the earlier pages of the thread where I've derided people who rationalise their piracy using "their business model is bad" as ridiculous. I absolutely disagree that the movie industry is being dumb and non-effective, but I would never justify breaking the law on this. I accept the piracy but not the ridiculous justification that goes behind it.
i.e. If you want to pirate, accept that you are doing it in the wrong. Don't try and argue that you have a "right" to it.
You are making the point that people are need to "obey the fucking law", perhaps you do not realize that in many countries around the world it is perfectly acceptable to download pirated material with literally no legal consequences. So is it morally acceptable in countries that do not have these laws to download it? Or is it still morally reprehensible to download files even though it's legal and the laws should be changed to reflect this?
No matter what your answers to these questions are it is all simply your own opinion. To try and state that all downloads of pirated files are illegal is simply your own opinion. You can't force people to accept your own personal morals as they are just that, personal.
To me downloading music or games is perfectly justifiable and a more efficient way to spend my money on things I actually enjoy. I buy plenty of games and music but I pirate many, many more. Why? Because I do not have an unlimited budget to waste my money on things that I will not get an adequate amount of enjoyment from. Piracy helps to limit this problem by allowing me to try games before I buy, or to listen to music to find out if I like it at all before paying for it.
You know when you go to a movie theater and see a movie that is beyond fucking terrible and walk out you can get the price of your ticket refunded by the theater. The game, movie, and music industry does not function like this so you have to take it into your own hands to test their product before you buy. Remember this is completely legal in many parts of the world.
Can you give examples of places where it is okay to pirate material? Before you answer, maybe take a look at this document from the US copyright office. Basically every advanced country adheres to some trade agreement when it comes to copyrights. Sure you can make the case that in some places like Iran it's okay. But in general, there's other human rights issues to take care of; and it seems like a thin ground to stand on.
Pirating ruins the value of media - which can be clearly seen in your post. You don't seem to feel that anything has value at all unless it meets your expectations. This is because now you expect to get everything free and only pay if you feel like it. That's not how the world works. You said it yourself, the industry does not work like this. It does not give you the right to go out and do whatever you feel like to get around it - infringing on another human's rights in the process.
This is goign to sound quite condescending ... and i guess it is
But ... piracy of some description has ALWAYS happened.
the record was slated as killing concerts the radio was slated as killing records the tape was slated as killing music as it could be copied the CD was meant to revolutionise sound quality (but people mixing decided to start loudness wards) the dvd was released with drm built into it
Now the internet is killing music
yet its more popular then ever,m same with movies
The fact is this: People like to own stuff. If they can afford it they will buy it. I am 31 now, when i was 16-20 i basically copied the vast majority of my games bcause i had to save up and had no money.
Now im 32 my income is about 10x what it was when i was 18 adn now i spend about £500 a year on games ... that doesnt include the software i devlop on that costs around £2000 for what i need ... naturally i copied that to learn the platform ... and eventually ended up buying it to work for myself.
The point? If I hadnt ripped all that stuff off there is no way that id be spending this much now.
I went to the cinema 2 nights ago to go and see aliens ... first time in about 8 years ... why? Because its a decent film that isnt just another attempt at holywood buttfucking me with some generic crap.
piracy DOES NOT reduce the value of media. It has NEXT TO NO VALUE because you DO NOT NEED IT. you can take it or leave it, as such its value is zero. When you spend money on it its simply beacuse you wanted to not because you needed to. Moreover people saying this stuff has value is insanely wrong.
People think this stuff has no value because markets are totally flooded with generico crap. Each item has no value because there are 10-20 other things that you can replace it with. You do not need the thing you are looking at. Its a nice to have.
'This is because now you expect to get everything free and only pay if you feel like it. That's not how the world works'
Actually that is precisely the way things are moving towards. People have forgotten that the point of money is really so that the poor can get paid for work, get taxed and live a meager life. Just about anyone on here is obscenely rich. the profiteering we are involved in is total luxuary. You are treating things that get pirated like physical objects or food. They are not.
I seriously don't understand this moto of "Piracy is stealing" blahblah...
To me, it's not. Stealing is if I break into your house, take your stuff and now it's mine. Result : you don't have said object anymore and the burglar gets it. This is obviously wrong. "Piracy" on the other hand, is totally different. To make a comparison with a real life scenario, it would be like me coming to your house with your permission, scanning all your stuff, leaving, then create the same stuff you had. Result : You get to keep your stuff (so you're happy) and I get new stuff (so I'm happy). Everyone's happy. Yay
Except the industry. They aren't happy because they somehow have a flawed vision of reality. Most people that download stuff aren't planning to buy it in the first place. When the number of illegal download of a games are released, say 100 000 downloads, the editors are quick to point out that this corresponds to 100 000 sales lost wich is around 6 000 000$ lost. This is not true. A lot of these 100 000 persons wouldn't even had bought it in the first place, they would never have made money out of these guys and still aren't. Then, out of the people that may have bought if they couldn't download it, there is two category.
1) The guys that are going to download the game, play it, end of the story. These guys do represent a lost of money.
2) The guys that downloaded the game to check out if they could run it, because they wanted to check the game out or w/e then buy it. There is many reasons to buy a game after having downloaded it and many persons actually do it. These guys did download the game, but they do not represent a loss of money since they bought later.
Conclusion : To me piracy isn't stealing and shouldn't be considered so. However, piracy is still illegal.
EDIT : While rereading my post I realized my actual position isn't very clear. I'm not supporting illegal downloads (but if it became legal I wouldn't complain duh), I'm just ranting about "piracy is like stealing" and the sales lost thing
On February 25 2012 03:05 MrTortoise wrote: piracy DOES NOT reduce the value of media. It has NEXT TO NO VALUE because you DO NOT NEED IT. you can take it or leave it, as such its value is zero. When you spend money on it its simply beacuse you wanted to not because you needed to. Moreover people saying this stuff has value is insanely wrong.
People think this stuff has no value because markets are totally flooded with generico crap. Each item has no value because there are 10-20 other things that you can replace it with. You do not need the thing you are looking at. Its a nice to have.
'This is because now you expect to get everything free and only pay if you feel like it. That's not how the world works'
Actually that is precisely the way things are moving towards. People have forgotten that the point of money is really so that the poor can get paid for work, get taxed and live a meager life. Just about anyone on here is obscenely rich. the profiteering we are involved in is total luxuary. You are treating things that get pirated like physical objects or food. They are not.
Wait, what? Do we really need a basic lesson on supply and demand? Value or price depends on the supply and demand of a good or service. Entertainment media, in this world is in high demand because everyone WANTS it. Its price is determined by what people are willing to pay for it and on supply and availability. Pirating increases the supply of media and reduces its value to next to zero.
Just because something is intangible does not mean that basic economics doesn't apply. According to your logic everything besides food, clothing, and shelter should be free. So maybe you could give us all a free copy of the software you develop. No? Oh because it sustains your livelihood. Or in other words, has value.
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
It is not stealing, The music producers lose no physical products or sales. In fact many experts have concluded that "music piracy" in fact boosts sales of music as it exposes people to music they otherwise would have never heard and allows them to make the choice to support the artist (which many do). Think of online music sharing as the radio of the 21st century.
On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote: The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions.
Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games.
Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it.
On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote: I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc.
The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced.
You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism.
The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users.
I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification.
I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss.
Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life...
Yeah, this is the reasoning I was giving in the earlier pages of the thread where I've derided people who rationalise their piracy using "their business model is bad" as ridiculous. I absolutely disagree that the movie industry is being dumb and non-effective, but I would never justify breaking the law on this. I accept the piracy but not the ridiculous justification that goes behind it.
i.e. If you want to pirate, accept that you are doing it in the wrong. Don't try and argue that you have a "right" to it.
You are making the point that people are need to "obey the fucking law", perhaps you do not realize that in many countries around the world it is perfectly acceptable to download pirated material with literally no legal consequences. So is it morally acceptable in countries that do not have these laws to download it? Or is it still morally reprehensible to download files even though it's legal and the laws should be changed to reflect this?
No matter what your answers to these questions are it is all simply your own opinion. To try and state that all downloads of pirated files are illegal is simply your own opinion. You can't force people to accept your own personal morals as they are just that, personal.
To me downloading music or games is perfectly justifiable and a more efficient way to spend my money on things I actually enjoy. I buy plenty of games and music but I pirate many, many more. Why? Because I do not have an unlimited budget to waste my money on things that I will not get an adequate amount of enjoyment from. Piracy helps to limit this problem by allowing me to try games before I buy, or to listen to music to find out if I like it at all before paying for it.
You know when you go to a movie theater and see a movie that is beyond fucking terrible and walk out you can get the price of your ticket refunded by the theater. The game, movie, and music industry does not function like this so you have to take it into your own hands to test their product before you buy. Remember this is completely legal in many parts of the world.
Pirating ruins the value of media - which can be clearly seen in your post. You don't seem to feel that anything has value at all unless it meets your expectations. This is because now you expect to get everything free and only pay if you feel like it. That's not how the world works. You said it yourself, the industry does not work like this. It does not give you the right to go out and do whatever you feel like to get around it - infringing on another human's rights in the process.
File sharing does not ruin the value of media. Media has no value, it is simply plans to an arrangement of the physical realm. It has nothing to do with "his" expectations, but of the nature of the universe. Physical things have value because there is a limit to the number of physical things in the universe (you could run out - then your supply and demand takes over). But you can have practically unlimited amount of copies of a file. Or of people with the same idea. If you can have unlimited, then it can't cost anything, or else you couldn't have unlimited. But you can, so it doesn't cost anything. If it doesn't cost anything, it isn't worth anything. If it isn't worth anything, how can you 'take' it from someone? Using penalties and imprisonment to keep IDEAS to yourself and charging people REAL things for IMAGINARY things instead of sharing them with humanity is the real human right infringement. Arguing that it IS illegal is stupid. It's like arguing if 4 = 4. Argue about whether it SHOULD be illegal.
On February 25 2012 03:05 MrTortoise wrote: piracy DOES NOT reduce the value of media. It has NEXT TO NO VALUE because you DO NOT NEED IT. you can take it or leave it, as such its value is zero. When you spend money on it its simply beacuse you wanted to not because you needed to. Moreover people saying this stuff has value is insanely wrong.
People think this stuff has no value because markets are totally flooded with generico crap. Each item has no value because there are 10-20 other things that you can replace it with. You do not need the thing you are looking at. Its a nice to have.
'This is because now you expect to get everything free and only pay if you feel like it. That's not how the world works'
Actually that is precisely the way things are moving towards. People have forgotten that the point of money is really so that the poor can get paid for work, get taxed and live a meager life. Just about anyone on here is obscenely rich. the profiteering we are involved in is total luxuary. You are treating things that get pirated like physical objects or food. They are not.
Wait, what? Do we really need a basic lesson on supply and demand? Value or price depends on the supply and demand of a good or service. Entertainment media, in this world is in high demand because everyone WANTS it. Its price is determined by what people are willing to pay for it and on supply and availability. Pirating increases the supply of media and reduces its value to next to zero.
Just because something is intangible does not mean that basic economics doesn't apply. According to your logic everything besides food, clothing, and shelter should be free. So maybe you could give us all a free copy of the software you develop. No? Oh because it sustains your livelihood. Or in other words, has value.
Entertainment media in this world has unlimited supply, so everyone GETS it. There are no 'goods' so how can you pay for them? Pay for service, pay for physical things, don't pay for your own mind.
Edit: If something is intangible then YES EXACTLY basic economics doesn't apply. Things other then REAL OBJECTS should be free. It only currently sustains livelihood because of archaic laws. Ever heard of Linux/any free software ever? Free distribution works pretty well.
On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote: The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions.
Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games.
Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it.
On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote: I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc.
The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced.
You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism.
The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users.
I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification.
I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss.
Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life...
Yeah, this is the reasoning I was giving in the earlier pages of the thread where I've derided people who rationalise their piracy using "their business model is bad" as ridiculous. I absolutely disagree that the movie industry is being dumb and non-effective, but I would never justify breaking the law on this. I accept the piracy but not the ridiculous justification that goes behind it.
i.e. If you want to pirate, accept that you are doing it in the wrong. Don't try and argue that you have a "right" to it.
You are making the point that people are need to "obey the fucking law", perhaps you do not realize that in many countries around the world it is perfectly acceptable to download pirated material with literally no legal consequences. So is it morally acceptable in countries that do not have these laws to download it? Or is it still morally reprehensible to download files even though it's legal and the laws should be changed to reflect this?
No matter what your answers to these questions are it is all simply your own opinion. To try and state that all downloads of pirated files are illegal is simply your own opinion. You can't force people to accept your own personal morals as they are just that, personal.
To me downloading music or games is perfectly justifiable and a more efficient way to spend my money on things I actually enjoy. I buy plenty of games and music but I pirate many, many more. Why? Because I do not have an unlimited budget to waste my money on things that I will not get an adequate amount of enjoyment from. Piracy helps to limit this problem by allowing me to try games before I buy, or to listen to music to find out if I like it at all before paying for it.
You know when you go to a movie theater and see a movie that is beyond fucking terrible and walk out you can get the price of your ticket refunded by the theater. The game, movie, and music industry does not function like this so you have to take it into your own hands to test their product before you buy. Remember this is completely legal in many parts of the world.
Pirating ruins the value of media - which can be clearly seen in your post. You don't seem to feel that anything has value at all unless it meets your expectations. This is because now you expect to get everything free and only pay if you feel like it. That's not how the world works. You said it yourself, the industry does not work like this. It does not give you the right to go out and do whatever you feel like to get around it - infringing on another human's rights in the process.
File sharing does not ruin the value of media. Media has no value, it is simply plans to an arrangement of the physical realm. It has nothing to do with "his" expectations, but of the nature of the universe. Physical things have value because there is a limit to the number of physical things in the universe (you could run out - then your supply and demand takes over). But you can have practically unlimited amount of copies of a file. Or of people with the same idea. If you can have unlimited, then it can't cost anything, or else you couldn't have unlimited. But you can, so it doesn't cost anything. If it doesn't cost anything, it isn't worth anything. If it isn't worth anything, how can you 'take' it from someone? Using penalties and imprisonment to keep IDEAS to yourself and charging people REAL things for IMAGINARY things instead of sharing them with humanity is the real human right infringement. Arguing that it IS illegal is stupid. It's like arguing if 4 = 4. Argue about whether it SHOULD be illegal.
I'm not referring to the value of a file. I'm talking about the value of a service; that is their time, energy, and creativity that went into thinking it up, acting it out, and producing it. While time itself is infinite, the amount of time an individual has is not. While ideas may be infinite, most people aren't satisfied by what they make up in their own head.
Finally, my argument isn't whether pirating is stealing or not, or whether you are 'taking' something. I'm merely saying that entertainment has value, because we place value on it. People are willing to pay for it until they get used to everything being free and available at any time. However, it is not free to produce for the author. If suddenly entertainment was made free for everyone, the arts would collapse because no one could make a living doing it. No one would spend their time to be good at it unless it was for their own personal use and entertainment. The entire point of copyright law is to 'promote useful Arts' and prevent this collapse.
Edit:
On February 25 2012 03:48 seppolevne wrote: Edit: If something is intangible then YES EXACTLY basic economics doesn't apply. Things other then REAL OBJECTS should be free. It only currently sustains livelihood because of archaic laws. Ever heard of Linux/any free software ever? Free distribution works pretty well.
Look up the definition of a service in economics. Intangible commodities have value because we value them.
On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote: The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions.
Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games.
Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it.
On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote: I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc.
The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced.
You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism.
The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users.
I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification.
I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss.
Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life...
Yeah, this is the reasoning I was giving in the earlier pages of the thread where I've derided people who rationalise their piracy using "their business model is bad" as ridiculous. I absolutely disagree that the movie industry is being dumb and non-effective, but I would never justify breaking the law on this. I accept the piracy but not the ridiculous justification that goes behind it.
i.e. If you want to pirate, accept that you are doing it in the wrong. Don't try and argue that you have a "right" to it.
You are making the point that people are need to "obey the fucking law", perhaps you do not realize that in many countries around the world it is perfectly acceptable to download pirated material with literally no legal consequences. So is it morally acceptable in countries that do not have these laws to download it? Or is it still morally reprehensible to download files even though it's legal and the laws should be changed to reflect this?
No matter what your answers to these questions are it is all simply your own opinion. To try and state that all downloads of pirated files are illegal is simply your own opinion. You can't force people to accept your own personal morals as they are just that, personal.
To me downloading music or games is perfectly justifiable and a more efficient way to spend my money on things I actually enjoy. I buy plenty of games and music but I pirate many, many more. Why? Because I do not have an unlimited budget to waste my money on things that I will not get an adequate amount of enjoyment from. Piracy helps to limit this problem by allowing me to try games before I buy, or to listen to music to find out if I like it at all before paying for it.
You know when you go to a movie theater and see a movie that is beyond fucking terrible and walk out you can get the price of your ticket refunded by the theater. The game, movie, and music industry does not function like this so you have to take it into your own hands to test their product before you buy. Remember this is completely legal in many parts of the world.
Pirating ruins the value of media - which can be clearly seen in your post. You don't seem to feel that anything has value at all unless it meets your expectations. This is because now you expect to get everything free and only pay if you feel like it. That's not how the world works. You said it yourself, the industry does not work like this. It does not give you the right to go out and do whatever you feel like to get around it - infringing on another human's rights in the process.
File sharing does not ruin the value of media. Media has no value, it is simply plans to an arrangement of the physical realm. It has nothing to do with "his" expectations, but of the nature of the universe. Physical things have value because there is a limit to the number of physical things in the universe (you could run out - then your supply and demand takes over). But you can have practically unlimited amount of copies of a file. Or of people with the same idea. If you can have unlimited, then it can't cost anything, or else you couldn't have unlimited. But you can, so it doesn't cost anything. If it doesn't cost anything, it isn't worth anything. If it isn't worth anything, how can you 'take' it from someone? Using penalties and imprisonment to keep IDEAS to yourself and charging people REAL things for IMAGINARY things instead of sharing them with humanity is the real human right infringement. Arguing that it IS illegal is stupid. It's like arguing if 4 = 4. Argue about whether it SHOULD be illegal.
I'm not referring to the value of a file. I'm talking about the value of a service; that is their time, energy, and creativity that went into thinking it up, acting it out, and producing it. While time itself is infinite, the amount of time an individual has is not. While ideas may be infinite, most people aren't satisfied by what they make up in their own head.
Finally, my argument isn't whether pirating is stealing or not, or whether you are 'taking' something. I'm merely saying that entertainment has value, because we place value on it. People are willing to pay for it until they get used to everything being free and available at any time. However, it is not free to produce for the author. If suddenly entertainment was made free for everyone, the arts would collapse because no one could make a living doing it. No one would spend their time to be good at it unless it was for their own personal use and entertainment. The entire point of copyright law is to 'promote useful Arts' and prevent this collapse.
On February 25 2012 03:48 seppolevne wrote: Edit: If something is intangible then YES EXACTLY basic economics doesn't apply. Things other then REAL OBJECTS should be free. It only currently sustains livelihood because of archaic laws. Ever heard of Linux/any free software ever? Free distribution works pretty well.
Look up the definition of a service in economics. Intangible commodities have value because we value them.
And yet, value has absolutely nothing to do with cost or morality. Filesharing has a hell of a lot more value than copyright or copyrighted works. Linux is valuable. Freedom is valuable. Air is valuable. Friends are valuable.
Edit to OP: Like the gov stopped people using drugs, right?
On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote: The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions.
Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games.
Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it.
On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote: I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc.
The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced.
You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism.
The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users.
I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification.
I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss.
Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life...
Yeah, this is the reasoning I was giving in the earlier pages of the thread where I've derided people who rationalise their piracy using "their business model is bad" as ridiculous. I absolutely disagree that the movie industry is being dumb and non-effective, but I would never justify breaking the law on this. I accept the piracy but not the ridiculous justification that goes behind it.
i.e. If you want to pirate, accept that you are doing it in the wrong. Don't try and argue that you have a "right" to it.
You are making the point that people are need to "obey the fucking law", perhaps you do not realize that in many countries around the world it is perfectly acceptable to download pirated material with literally no legal consequences. So is it morally acceptable in countries that do not have these laws to download it? Or is it still morally reprehensible to download files even though it's legal and the laws should be changed to reflect this?
No matter what your answers to these questions are it is all simply your own opinion. To try and state that all downloads of pirated files are illegal is simply your own opinion. You can't force people to accept your own personal morals as they are just that, personal.
To me downloading music or games is perfectly justifiable and a more efficient way to spend my money on things I actually enjoy. I buy plenty of games and music but I pirate many, many more. Why? Because I do not have an unlimited budget to waste my money on things that I will not get an adequate amount of enjoyment from. Piracy helps to limit this problem by allowing me to try games before I buy, or to listen to music to find out if I like it at all before paying for it.
You know when you go to a movie theater and see a movie that is beyond fucking terrible and walk out you can get the price of your ticket refunded by the theater. The game, movie, and music industry does not function like this so you have to take it into your own hands to test their product before you buy. Remember this is completely legal in many parts of the world.
Pirating ruins the value of media - which can be clearly seen in your post. You don't seem to feel that anything has value at all unless it meets your expectations. This is because now you expect to get everything free and only pay if you feel like it. That's not how the world works. You said it yourself, the industry does not work like this. It does not give you the right to go out and do whatever you feel like to get around it - infringing on another human's rights in the process.
File sharing does not ruin the value of media. Media has no value, it is simply plans to an arrangement of the physical realm. It has nothing to do with "his" expectations, but of the nature of the universe. Physical things have value because there is a limit to the number of physical things in the universe (you could run out - then your supply and demand takes over). But you can have practically unlimited amount of copies of a file. Or of people with the same idea. If you can have unlimited, then it can't cost anything, or else you couldn't have unlimited. But you can, so it doesn't cost anything. If it doesn't cost anything, it isn't worth anything. If it isn't worth anything, how can you 'take' it from someone? Using penalties and imprisonment to keep IDEAS to yourself and charging people REAL things for IMAGINARY things instead of sharing them with humanity is the real human right infringement. Arguing that it IS illegal is stupid. It's like arguing if 4 = 4. Argue about whether it SHOULD be illegal.
So you think it is a breach of human rights to charge people money for producing a movie/song/game? The fact that those objects can exist as a file that may be copied an infinite number of times is entirely irrelevant. You are paying for the cost of production, plus profit to encourage further investment. In other words, you're paying for the hundreds to thousands of employees involved in making and marketing a movie (for example), including the actors, director, costumes, art, sound, stage hands, marketing, sales etc etc etc. You're paying so that the investors who put up the millions of dollars to start a project can see tangible benefits (return) for their risk. All of these people DO THESE THINGS FOR A LIVING. If they don't get paid, they can't afford to eat, buy a house and so forth. If they can't do these things for a living then these movies/songs/music cease to exist as we know them. You think a game like Skyrim, essentially an entirely single player/personal experience, comes into existence in a world where piracy is legal? Not happening.
If piracy were made legal tomorrow, I acknowledge that I would never buy another item. Why? Not because they have no value, but because I am a rationally-thinking consumer. And that is in spite of my knowledge that it would ultimately cripple the market itself. I'm not alone either, the vast majority of the market is rationally-thinking also, and would cease to buy the product. As a result, without people buying these products, they will simply cease to exist on the level we know them to. An honour system, or 'begging-for-donations' system (ala wikipedia), is not going to cut it for the vast majority of technological media.
On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote: The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions.
Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games.
Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it.
On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote: I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc.
The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced.
You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism.
The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users.
I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification.
I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss.
Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life...
Yeah, this is the reasoning I was giving in the earlier pages of the thread where I've derided people who rationalise their piracy using "their business model is bad" as ridiculous. I absolutely disagree that the movie industry is being dumb and non-effective, but I would never justify breaking the law on this. I accept the piracy but not the ridiculous justification that goes behind it.
i.e. If you want to pirate, accept that you are doing it in the wrong. Don't try and argue that you have a "right" to it.
You are making the point that people are need to "obey the fucking law", perhaps you do not realize that in many countries around the world it is perfectly acceptable to download pirated material with literally no legal consequences. So is it morally acceptable in countries that do not have these laws to download it? Or is it still morally reprehensible to download files even though it's legal and the laws should be changed to reflect this?
No matter what your answers to these questions are it is all simply your own opinion. To try and state that all downloads of pirated files are illegal is simply your own opinion. You can't force people to accept your own personal morals as they are just that, personal.
To me downloading music or games is perfectly justifiable and a more efficient way to spend my money on things I actually enjoy. I buy plenty of games and music but I pirate many, many more. Why? Because I do not have an unlimited budget to waste my money on things that I will not get an adequate amount of enjoyment from. Piracy helps to limit this problem by allowing me to try games before I buy, or to listen to music to find out if I like it at all before paying for it.
You know when you go to a movie theater and see a movie that is beyond fucking terrible and walk out you can get the price of your ticket refunded by the theater. The game, movie, and music industry does not function like this so you have to take it into your own hands to test their product before you buy. Remember this is completely legal in many parts of the world.
Pirating ruins the value of media - which can be clearly seen in your post. You don't seem to feel that anything has value at all unless it meets your expectations. This is because now you expect to get everything free and only pay if you feel like it. That's not how the world works. You said it yourself, the industry does not work like this. It does not give you the right to go out and do whatever you feel like to get around it - infringing on another human's rights in the process.
File sharing does not ruin the value of media. Media has no value, it is simply plans to an arrangement of the physical realm. It has nothing to do with "his" expectations, but of the nature of the universe. Physical things have value because there is a limit to the number of physical things in the universe (you could run out - then your supply and demand takes over). But you can have practically unlimited amount of copies of a file. Or of people with the same idea. If you can have unlimited, then it can't cost anything, or else you couldn't have unlimited. But you can, so it doesn't cost anything. If it doesn't cost anything, it isn't worth anything. If it isn't worth anything, how can you 'take' it from someone? Using penalties and imprisonment to keep IDEAS to yourself and charging people REAL things for IMAGINARY things instead of sharing them with humanity is the real human right infringement. Arguing that it IS illegal is stupid. It's like arguing if 4 = 4. Argue about whether it SHOULD be illegal.
I'm not referring to the value of a file. I'm talking about the value of a service; that is their time, energy, and creativity that went into thinking it up, acting it out, and producing it. While time itself is infinite, the amount of time an individual has is not. While ideas may be infinite, most people aren't satisfied by what they make up in their own head.
Finally, my argument isn't whether pirating is stealing or not, or whether you are 'taking' something. I'm merely saying that entertainment has value, because we place value on it. People are willing to pay for it until they get used to everything being free and available at any time. However, it is not free to produce for the author. If suddenly entertainment was made free for everyone, the arts would collapse because no one could make a living doing it. No one would spend their time to be good at it unless it was for their own personal use and entertainment. The entire point of copyright law is to 'promote useful Arts' and prevent this collapse.
Edit:
On February 25 2012 03:48 seppolevne wrote: Edit: If something is intangible then YES EXACTLY basic economics doesn't apply. Things other then REAL OBJECTS should be free. It only currently sustains livelihood because of archaic laws. Ever heard of Linux/any free software ever? Free distribution works pretty well.
Look up the definition of a service in economics. Intangible commodities have value because we value them.
And yet, value has absolutely nothing to do with cost or morality. Filesharing has a hell of a lot more value than copyright or copyrighted works. Linux is valuable. Freedom is valuable. Air is valuable. Friends are valuable.
Edit to OP: Like the gov stopped people using drugs, right?
This post could do with some further explanation of your argument, because currently it makes no sense.
I have no problem with paying for things if it easily done and I get a good quality product. If I get a better quality product (flac vs mp3 ) sites give it to you as wav or mp3 whereas i can download flac quality. Look at steam for instance. They are doing it pefectly. They realize they have already made the product and now its all up to prices which they want to sell it at. They have hugggge sales and are basically just giving people offers they cant refuse. See a great game for 5 $ don't think you'll ever play it? no worries ITS 5 FUCKIN DOLLARS.
On February 25 2012 06:09 sofakng wrote: I have no problem with paying for things if it easily done and I get a good quality product. If I get a better quality product (flac vs mp3 ) sites give it to you as wav or mp3 whereas i can download flac quality. Look at steam for instance. They are doing it pefectly. They realize they have already made the product and now its all up to prices which they want to sell it at. They have hugggge sales and are basically just giving people offers they cant refuse. See a great game for 5 $ don't think you'll ever play it? no worries ITS 5 FUCKIN DOLLARS.
Yeah, there's nothing inherently wrong with wanting better service from those who provide you these types of media. I don't think people against piracy disagree with this at all. But piracy laws are still relevant, even if / when the other industries 'wise-up' and adopt similar business methods. In the mean time, disregarding them entirely and justifying doing so on the basis of shitty service doesn't really cut it.
On February 25 2012 06:09 sofakng wrote: I have no problem with paying for things if it easily done and I get a good quality product. If I get a better quality product (flac vs mp3 ) sites give it to you as wav or mp3 whereas i can download flac quality. Look at steam for instance. They are doing it pefectly. They realize they have already made the product and now its all up to prices which they want to sell it at. They have hugggge sales and are basically just giving people offers they cant refuse. See a great game for 5 $ don't think you'll ever play it? no worries ITS 5 FUCKIN DOLLARS.
Yeah, there's nothing inherently wrong with wanting better service from those who provide you these types of media. I don't think people against piracy disagree with this at all. But piracy laws are still relevant, even if / when the other industries 'wise-up' and adopt similar business methods. In the mean time, disregarding them entirely and justifying doing so on the basis of shitty service doesn't really cut it.
O don't get me wrong I still love going to the movies, I still pay for music, buy games I really like or that have multiplayer modes. Games with game breaking bugs, dvds (lol who watches them more then once), and terrible quality music though I have a problem paying for. My general rule is if I enjoy it and think its worth my money I'll invest in it. I may buy the music from beatport and then later the day download the flac from some torrent. Once companies provide a superior service and make it easy on consumers to spend money at not an outrageous rate they will will increase profits even more then they already are. I am considering boycotting all movies though due to the current movie industry trend. I am lucky in that the type of music I like lies mostly in smaller companies which understand the internet (most edm) so I dont have to worry too much about that) I basically only play starcraft and the rest of the time make music so I have no worries. I dont know personally about anyone else but If I was a muscian I wouldnt mind living off an average salary but being able to constantly be able to make music for a living and get that high of being on stage. Same I can imagine if I were a movie star.
On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote: The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions.
Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games.
Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it.
On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote: I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc.
The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced.
You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism.
The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users.
I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification.
I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss.
Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life...
Yeah, this is the reasoning I was giving in the earlier pages of the thread where I've derided people who rationalise their piracy using "their business model is bad" as ridiculous. I absolutely disagree that the movie industry is being dumb and non-effective, but I would never justify breaking the law on this. I accept the piracy but not the ridiculous justification that goes behind it.
i.e. If you want to pirate, accept that you are doing it in the wrong. Don't try and argue that you have a "right" to it.
You are making the point that people are need to "obey the fucking law", perhaps you do not realize that in many countries around the world it is perfectly acceptable to download pirated material with literally no legal consequences. So is it morally acceptable in countries that do not have these laws to download it? Or is it still morally reprehensible to download files even though it's legal and the laws should be changed to reflect this?
No matter what your answers to these questions are it is all simply your own opinion. To try and state that all downloads of pirated files are illegal is simply your own opinion. You can't force people to accept your own personal morals as they are just that, personal.
To me downloading music or games is perfectly justifiable and a more efficient way to spend my money on things I actually enjoy. I buy plenty of games and music but I pirate many, many more. Why? Because I do not have an unlimited budget to waste my money on things that I will not get an adequate amount of enjoyment from. Piracy helps to limit this problem by allowing me to try games before I buy, or to listen to music to find out if I like it at all before paying for it.
You know when you go to a movie theater and see a movie that is beyond fucking terrible and walk out you can get the price of your ticket refunded by the theater. The game, movie, and music industry does not function like this so you have to take it into your own hands to test their product before you buy. Remember this is completely legal in many parts of the world.
Pirating ruins the value of media - which can be clearly seen in your post. You don't seem to feel that anything has value at all unless it meets your expectations. This is because now you expect to get everything free and only pay if you feel like it. That's not how the world works. You said it yourself, the industry does not work like this. It does not give you the right to go out and do whatever you feel like to get around it - infringing on another human's rights in the process.
File sharing does not ruin the value of media. Media has no value, it is simply plans to an arrangement of the physical realm. It has nothing to do with "his" expectations, but of the nature of the universe. Physical things have value because there is a limit to the number of physical things in the universe (you could run out - then your supply and demand takes over). But you can have practically unlimited amount of copies of a file. Or of people with the same idea. If you can have unlimited, then it can't cost anything, or else you couldn't have unlimited. But you can, so it doesn't cost anything. If it doesn't cost anything, it isn't worth anything. If it isn't worth anything, how can you 'take' it from someone? Using penalties and imprisonment to keep IDEAS to yourself and charging people REAL things for IMAGINARY things instead of sharing them with humanity is the real human right infringement. Arguing that it IS illegal is stupid. It's like arguing if 4 = 4. Argue about whether it SHOULD be illegal.
So you think it is a breach of human rights to charge people money for producing a movie/song/game? The fact that those objects can exist as a file that may be copied an infinite number of times is entirely irrelevant. You are paying for the cost of production, plus profit to encourage further investment. In other words, you're paying for the hundreds to thousands of employees involved in making and marketing a movie (for example), including the actors, director, costumes, art, sound, stage hands, marketing, sales etc etc etc. You're paying so that the investors who put up the millions of dollars to start a project can see tangible benefits (return) for their risk. All of these people DO THESE THINGS FOR A LIVING. If they don't get paid, they can't afford to eat, buy a house and so forth. If they can't do these things for a living then these movies/songs/music cease to exist as we know them. You think a game like Skyrim, essentially an entirely single player/personal experience, comes into existence in a world where piracy is legal? Not happening.
If piracy were made legal tomorrow, I acknowledge that I would never buy another item. Why? Not because they have no value, but because I am a rationally-thinking consumer. And that is in spite of my knowledge that it would ultimately cripple the market itself. I'm not alone either, the vast majority of the market is rationally-thinking also, and would cease to buy the product. As a result, without people buying these products, they will simply cease to exist on the level we know them to. An honour system, or 'begging-for-donations' system (ala wikipedia), is not going to cut it for the vast majority of technological media.
How are you charging people money for producing something? They choose to produce it because they want to. Communicating an idea with the world is not 'labour'. The fact that these objects can exist in the exact same way and be the exact same thing in a simulated reality is the entire point, not irrelevant. Nobody copyrights math, why copyright music? An interesting arrangement of numbers, an interesting arragement of frequencies. If no one in those industries worked, maybe everyone else could work half as much, for the same amount of stuff. Then with all this free time people could do whatever they loved, like make music and video games and share them with the whole world! Hey look HUMANITY, what do you think of my song? Not "hey I made something cool but you can't see it unless you give me something because it took me like 2 weeks to make it but it's totally awesome I swear just 20$ man then you can see what I made..." Like, really? This is helping the arts? It's a little idealistic I know, but isn't that a good thing?
On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote: The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions.
Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games.
Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it.
On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote: I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc.
The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced.
You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism.
The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users.
I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification.
I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss.
Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life...
Yeah, this is the reasoning I was giving in the earlier pages of the thread where I've derided people who rationalise their piracy using "their business model is bad" as ridiculous. I absolutely disagree that the movie industry is being dumb and non-effective, but I would never justify breaking the law on this. I accept the piracy but not the ridiculous justification that goes behind it.
i.e. If you want to pirate, accept that you are doing it in the wrong. Don't try and argue that you have a "right" to it.
You are making the point that people are need to "obey the fucking law", perhaps you do not realize that in many countries around the world it is perfectly acceptable to download pirated material with literally no legal consequences. So is it morally acceptable in countries that do not have these laws to download it? Or is it still morally reprehensible to download files even though it's legal and the laws should be changed to reflect this?
No matter what your answers to these questions are it is all simply your own opinion. To try and state that all downloads of pirated files are illegal is simply your own opinion. You can't force people to accept your own personal morals as they are just that, personal.
To me downloading music or games is perfectly justifiable and a more efficient way to spend my money on things I actually enjoy. I buy plenty of games and music but I pirate many, many more. Why? Because I do not have an unlimited budget to waste my money on things that I will not get an adequate amount of enjoyment from. Piracy helps to limit this problem by allowing me to try games before I buy, or to listen to music to find out if I like it at all before paying for it.
You know when you go to a movie theater and see a movie that is beyond fucking terrible and walk out you can get the price of your ticket refunded by the theater. The game, movie, and music industry does not function like this so you have to take it into your own hands to test their product before you buy. Remember this is completely legal in many parts of the world.
Pirating ruins the value of media - which can be clearly seen in your post. You don't seem to feel that anything has value at all unless it meets your expectations. This is because now you expect to get everything free and only pay if you feel like it. That's not how the world works. You said it yourself, the industry does not work like this. It does not give you the right to go out and do whatever you feel like to get around it - infringing on another human's rights in the process.
File sharing does not ruin the value of media. Media has no value, it is simply plans to an arrangement of the physical realm. It has nothing to do with "his" expectations, but of the nature of the universe. Physical things have value because there is a limit to the number of physical things in the universe (you could run out - then your supply and demand takes over). But you can have practically unlimited amount of copies of a file. Or of people with the same idea. If you can have unlimited, then it can't cost anything, or else you couldn't have unlimited. But you can, so it doesn't cost anything. If it doesn't cost anything, it isn't worth anything. If it isn't worth anything, how can you 'take' it from someone? Using penalties and imprisonment to keep IDEAS to yourself and charging people REAL things for IMAGINARY things instead of sharing them with humanity is the real human right infringement. Arguing that it IS illegal is stupid. It's like arguing if 4 = 4. Argue about whether it SHOULD be illegal.
So you think it is a breach of human rights to charge people money for producing a movie/song/game? The fact that those objects can exist as a file that may be copied an infinite number of times is entirely irrelevant. You are paying for the cost of production, plus profit to encourage further investment. In other words, you're paying for the hundreds to thousands of employees involved in making and marketing a movie (for example), including the actors, director, costumes, art, sound, stage hands, marketing, sales etc etc etc. You're paying so that the investors who put up the millions of dollars to start a project can see tangible benefits (return) for their risk. All of these people DO THESE THINGS FOR A LIVING. If they don't get paid, they can't afford to eat, buy a house and so forth. If they can't do these things for a living then these movies/songs/music cease to exist as we know them. You think a game like Skyrim, essentially an entirely single player/personal experience, comes into existence in a world where piracy is legal? Not happening.
If piracy were made legal tomorrow, I acknowledge that I would never buy another item. Why? Not because they have no value, but because I am a rationally-thinking consumer. And that is in spite of my knowledge that it would ultimately cripple the market itself. I'm not alone either, the vast majority of the market is rationally-thinking also, and would cease to buy the product. As a result, without people buying these products, they will simply cease to exist on the level we know them to. An honour system, or 'begging-for-donations' system (ala wikipedia), is not going to cut it for the vast majority of technological media.
How are you charging people money for producing something? They choose to produce it because they want to. Communicating an idea with the world is not 'labour'. The fact that these objects can exist in the exact same way and be the exact same thing in a simulated reality is the entire point, not irrelevant. Nobody copyrights math, why copyright music? An interesting arrangement of numbers, an interesting arragement of frequencies. If no one in those industries worked, maybe everyone else could work half as much, for the same amount of stuff. Then with all this free time people could do whatever they loved, like make music and video games and share them with the whole world! Hey look HUMANITY, what do you think of my song? Not "hey I made something cool but you can't see it unless you give me something because it took me like 2 weeks to make it but it's totally awesome I swear just 20$ man then you can see what I made..." Like, really? This is helping the arts? It's a little idealistic I know, but isn't that a good thing?
you need to have people rewarded for great accomplishments and payed full time to create things even like math and science. You think scientists work for free? No its a job like anything else.
you need to have people rewarded for great accomplishments and payed full time to create things even like math and science. You think scientists work for free? No its a job like anything else.
Science, as in doing experiments on empirical basis and gathering data is quite the labor man. Standing in the lab prepping everything isn't everything you know. Not to mention the waiting time for the results, interpreting them and writing a paper of it all.. Science and maths are hard work.
Now back on topic.. I think that art should be freely accessible to the audience. But can be bought at any price the customer wants. I can think of two instances where marketing your product for free nets a huge profit for the artist. Not only moneywise, but also popularitywise. (In Rainbows and some dude's book) Big record companies aren't needed anymore with the internet around. A person or band should be their own product, not be the puppet of some corporation. They're basically reduced to people working at the assembly line, with the exception they can play a gig once in a while (their break). Movies will make money, even when people download a shitton of them. It's just because some people don't really download, other's will download, but will also see the movie in the theater if they're really looking forward to seeing it. I think it's extremely greedy and hypocritical to whine about a tiny fraction of the fortune they'll make from the movie, just because some people don't want to pay for it. How will 1 million dollars weigh up against another 100 million? Also, going to a movie AND downloading it, is basically the same like downloading a cd by an artist and then seeing their gig. If you're really into it, you want to pay for it.
Downloading has also been very interesting for expanding one's horizon on cultural level. Personally I've heard and seen some things I'd never thought of experiencing, just because it's so easy to click and save.
No amount of legislation can stop tor websites from existing. Even if the closed down piratebay and every other major file sharing site on the known web, tor sites would still exist and file sharing would still continue.
You sir are 100% wrong. The government does not control the people. THE PEOPLE CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT. Most of the people right now are brain washed or just so dumb to fact check shit and they get force fed lies. Piratebay can't be taken down unless sweden does something about it. Which it doesn't look they will.
On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote: The stupid thing in all this, is that some of those in support of piracy make an argument about how the film, tv and music industries are somehow to blame for the act of piracy because they use old, shitty business models (physical copies) and practices (delayed regional releases) that don't work in this day and age... Well guess what? There are plenty of online, easy-to-access video game stores these days that use the systems you are advocating (downloadable, accessible from anywhere, worldwide release dates)... and people still pirate video games in the millions.
Actually, it's one of the people behind Steam (which I believe you're referring to) that claims piracy is mostly a problem of service, and as far as I'm aware there has been data that points out that services like Steam actually do reduce piracy simply by providing a one-click access to games.
Sure people still pirate games, and they always will to an extent. It's the kind of people that can't afford the game, or those that don't value them enough to pay for them. But providing a good service makes sure that everybody else can pay and get the game instantly if/when they feel like it.
On February 22 2012 13:06 Brett wrote: I don't exactly feel sorry for these big corporations in any way, because they're still making shitloads of $... But piracy is wrong regardless. Anyone who rationalises their decision to pirate on this basis is deluding themselves. News flash kiddies, "you can't always get what you want". I mean, I'd like an Aston Martin DB9 to be in my price range, and available at the local car dealer. But since it isn't... I go without it. You don't have some god given right to access these movies, tv shows, songs etc.
The whole point is that, in this case, you CAN get everything you want. And however you twist and turn it, that is a good thing. Would somebody actually bother to make an accessible, easy to use and fair services if they were not driven to do so by having to solve the problems that they're facing? No they wouldn't, nothing would ever change unless the change is forced.
You're assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner - but we in fact do not. It is pointless and futile to play a fair game with a music industry in today's shape and form, for example. Playing a fair game in this instance means being abused. What is it that motivates me to play fair here, exactly? I feel no personal sympathy towards businesses involved in it, in fact what I feel is closer to complete antagonism.
The truth of the matter is that these businesses will do things both legal and illegal (that they can get away with) in order to exploit you as a customer. The internet simply allows you ways of turning that relationship upside down and exploit them and their business. When businesses and major industry leaders start acting socially and morally responsible, then we can talk about the users.
I wasn't referring to the people behind steam, I was referring to numerous people in these discussions who justify their illegal actions on the aforementioned basis. I'm not, as you say, "assuming individuals have to behave in a perfectly morally acceptable manner". I do believe, however, they should obey the fucking law. This "I don't agree with it, so I'm just going to ignore it" attitude is ridiculous justification.
I'm not delusional enough to believe that piracy will ever be stopped. Should the tv/movie/music industries wise-up and approach the problem in a different way (more akin to Steam, iTunes etc)? Hell yes. Do they have to? Hell no. I don't consider this being "abused". Again, you do not have a right to any of the material they produce. If you want it, you take it on their terms... It's their material. If they choose not to adapt their business models and lose profits in the process, then it's their loss.
Regardless, if people are going to pirate then they should at least accept the illegality of their actions, enjoy their ability to do so while it lasts and not try to delude themselves with such childish rationalisation as "their business model is bad, so I'm going to ignore the law". I think people posting in this fashion are lacking perspective on real adult life...
Yeah, this is the reasoning I was giving in the earlier pages of the thread where I've derided people who rationalise their piracy using "their business model is bad" as ridiculous. I absolutely disagree that the movie industry is being dumb and non-effective, but I would never justify breaking the law on this. I accept the piracy but not the ridiculous justification that goes behind it.
i.e. If you want to pirate, accept that you are doing it in the wrong. Don't try and argue that you have a "right" to it.
You are making the point that people are need to "obey the fucking law", perhaps you do not realize that in many countries around the world it is perfectly acceptable to download pirated material with literally no legal consequences. So is it morally acceptable in countries that do not have these laws to download it? Or is it still morally reprehensible to download files even though it's legal and the laws should be changed to reflect this?
No matter what your answers to these questions are it is all simply your own opinion. To try and state that all downloads of pirated files are illegal is simply your own opinion. You can't force people to accept your own personal morals as they are just that, personal.
To me downloading music or games is perfectly justifiable and a more efficient way to spend my money on things I actually enjoy. I buy plenty of games and music but I pirate many, many more. Why? Because I do not have an unlimited budget to waste my money on things that I will not get an adequate amount of enjoyment from. Piracy helps to limit this problem by allowing me to try games before I buy, or to listen to music to find out if I like it at all before paying for it.
You know when you go to a movie theater and see a movie that is beyond fucking terrible and walk out you can get the price of your ticket refunded by the theater. The game, movie, and music industry does not function like this so you have to take it into your own hands to test their product before you buy. Remember this is completely legal in many parts of the world.
Pirating ruins the value of media - which can be clearly seen in your post. You don't seem to feel that anything has value at all unless it meets your expectations. This is because now you expect to get everything free and only pay if you feel like it. That's not how the world works. You said it yourself, the industry does not work like this. It does not give you the right to go out and do whatever you feel like to get around it - infringing on another human's rights in the process.
File sharing does not ruin the value of media. Media has no value, it is simply plans to an arrangement of the physical realm. It has nothing to do with "his" expectations, but of the nature of the universe. Physical things have value because there is a limit to the number of physical things in the universe (you could run out - then your supply and demand takes over). But you can have practically unlimited amount of copies of a file. Or of people with the same idea. If you can have unlimited, then it can't cost anything, or else you couldn't have unlimited. But you can, so it doesn't cost anything. If it doesn't cost anything, it isn't worth anything. If it isn't worth anything, how can you 'take' it from someone? Using penalties and imprisonment to keep IDEAS to yourself and charging people REAL things for IMAGINARY things instead of sharing them with humanity is the real human right infringement. Arguing that it IS illegal is stupid. It's like arguing if 4 = 4. Argue about whether it SHOULD be illegal.
I'm not referring to the value of a file. I'm talking about the value of a service; that is their time, energy, and creativity that went into thinking it up, acting it out, and producing it. While time itself is infinite, the amount of time an individual has is not. While ideas may be infinite, most people aren't satisfied by what they make up in their own head.
Finally, my argument isn't whether pirating is stealing or not, or whether you are 'taking' something. I'm merely saying that entertainment has value, because we place value on it. People are willing to pay for it until they get used to everything being free and available at any time. However, it is not free to produce for the author. If suddenly entertainment was made free for everyone, the arts would collapse because no one could make a living doing it. No one would spend their time to be good at it unless it was for their own personal use and entertainment. The entire point of copyright law is to 'promote useful Arts' and prevent this collapse.
Edit:
On February 25 2012 03:48 seppolevne wrote: Edit: If something is intangible then YES EXACTLY basic economics doesn't apply. Things other then REAL OBJECTS should be free. It only currently sustains livelihood because of archaic laws. Ever heard of Linux/any free software ever? Free distribution works pretty well.
Look up the definition of a service in economics. Intangible commodities have value because we value them.
And yet, value has absolutely nothing to do with cost or morality. Filesharing has a hell of a lot more value than copyright or copyrighted works. Linux is valuable. Freedom is valuable. Air is valuable. Friends are valuable.
Edit to OP: Like the gov stopped people using drugs, right?
This post could do with some further explanation of your argument, because currently it makes no sense.
'
Look up the definition of a service in economics. Intangible commodities have value because we value them.
My point is value has absolutely nothing to with cost, and claiming that creators of works deserve payment because those works have value is misguided. Anything that a computer can copy has infinite supply, and thus cost is 0.
People pay for services because they have value *and* are scarce. Examples; - A hair dresser is offering a service I could cut my hair myself, but it won't be as nice, so I am paying to get a better haircut, the scarce value here is not getting a haircut but one I like. - Steam offers convenience, one click and I can download a game super fast, automatic updates and lets me know if friends buy the same game as me or are playing a game so I can join them, it has scarce value because if I torrent some game I will not have these benefits. - I want to play an adventure game by Tim Schafer. I can contribute on kickstarter to have it made. It has scarce value because it has not been made yet. -An engineer gets paid to plan and create new things that don't exist yet, he doesn't get paid for stuff he already made, etc.
Say you have a band that makes music people like, and your trying to live off selling your music and it doesn't work well tough shit. Lots and lots of businesses get started and go bankrupt after lots of hard work all the time, sure it sucks but chances are your competitors have a better business model. Making music is an incredibly competitive market there's a ridiculous amount of people trying to do just that. Your band is actually a small business. Your job isn't to make music and sell music, it's to offer scarcities that people will pay for, which can be all sorts of things. The most obvious for a band is shows but it can be many other things.
Just because you own a computer and have access to the internet doesn't mean you get to have a free ride.
Once a movie theater starts playing a movie all their costs are incurred. If the theater has empty seats and you sneak in the theater and watch the movie that is already playing you aren't costing the theater anything. Yet it is still 'wrong' and still illegal.
Why?
Well if it wasn't illegal what incentives would you create? Why would anyone (or most people) bother to pay for a ticket when they could sneak in and watch the movie for free. And if they could do so what would the theater owner's response be? Perhaps he would hire security guards (now he's incurring costs) or perhaps he would give up and shut the theater down. And what about the people that paid for their tickets? Do you think that they would think it fair that they paid for something you took for free?
The above situation holds true for copying files on the internet. You are getting something for free that others had to pay for. You are getting something for free that cost someone to create, and creating a disincentive to create new content.
On February 25 2012 14:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Just because you own a computer and have access to the internet doesn't mean you get to have a free ride.
Once a movie theater starts playing a movie all their costs are incurred. If the theater has empty seats and you sneak in the theater and watch the movie that is already playing you aren't costing the theater anything. Yet it is still 'wrong' and still illegal.
Why?
Well if it wasn't illegal what incentives would you create? Why would anyone (or most people) bother to pay for a ticket when they could sneak in and watch the movie for free. And if they could do so what would the theater owner's response be? Perhaps he would hire security guards (now he's incurring costs) or perhaps he would give up and shut the theater down. And what about the people that paid for their tickets? Do you think that they would think it fair that they paid for something you took for free?
The above situation holds true for copying files on the internet. You are getting something for free that others had to pay for. You are getting something for free that cost someone to create, and creating a disincentive to create new content.
You are tresspassing on private property. You pay a price for the experience, the large screen, the huge speakers, the comfy chair. Can you not see that it's different?
On February 21 2012 14:24 firehand101 wrote: we internet people have created a fantasy world for ourselves.
Neh. Piracy existed before the internet, and always will. It has just become way too easy and thats the reason for the corporations to strike back.
I think the problem here is that corporations have failed to adapt to the big changes of the last 15 years, with internet becoming a massive way to share stuff. People dont value "digital" media the same way as having their physical copies, so why charge the same? Prices for most stuff have increased a lot, and people just wont buy if it doesnt feel like a really good deal.
If I can stream any film anytime with decent quality, why buy them? If I could have a library of 10000 songs, why would I buy a 12song CD for 10$? If they get a new CoD every year, why would I pay 60$ + DLC for one?
Currently, you can aquire any media (films, music, games, etc) on just a couple of clicks. Damn, its so simple that even if there was a shop downtown giving free copies of something, you would still download it.
Piracy will always exist, but corporations need to adapt to the internet community if they want to make some profit.
Look at how Steam works: - They offer a service where you can download any game you own anytime at amazing DL speed. You can also get your Save Files in their servers, so if you reinstall, everything is still there. - There are constant sales/holiday events/packs where games go way cheaper and you can buy anything.
I have 50+ games on Steam. Why? I bought most of them on 5$ or 10$ at most. I have never bought any game before Steam. Its easy, and if it feels like the right price for them, why not.
Im not saying Steam if perfect, but it really feels like a step in the right direction.
Entertainment companies know that the majority of people pirate stuff they can't afford anyway or have minor interest in buying or cannot buy because the stuff isn't available in their region, yet they refuse to adapt. Services like Steam and iTune have shown how successful and lucrative companies can be if companies actually catch up with the digital age and offer products at a reasonable price, but they are still behind in their way of doing things, it's already a decade since Napster got sued.
You have to admire Steve Job for getting the primitive and stubborn music industry to go with his plan of making every song $1. The entertainment industry has regressed since then except for the case of services like Crunchyroll and Netflicks, They are also very powerless outside of NA especially in regions like Asia and South America where they cannot lobby the government as effectively as they can in the USA. That's alot of bribing to do.
I also think that people will actually buy stuff they genuinely enjoy in order to support the companies that make the product as well as enjoying the effect of actually seeing the item physically on their shelves, I know I do. I also know that quality games with great replay value due to their multiplayer content will get me to pay up, but another generic RPG or whatever the mediocre crap that companies like EA comes up with next? I am not even going to bother pirating it to be honest. There are many desirable qualities that only a official physical format can offer(i.e collector's edition packs), I don't see it ever going away.
On February 21 2012 14:37 ArtofRuin wrote: If I am unwilling to pay any amount of money for an album, then when I download it for free I am not stealing. There is no lost profit. As well, The Pirate Bay is also a fantastic hub for freeware and indie bands, Katawa Shoujo (a free visual novel) being a fine example.
Yes you are. The lost profit is you not paying for the album.
You people are silly to think you can justify piracy because it's on the internet.
Allow me to use myself as an example:
I watch for around $300 free, pirated movies per month on websites like http://www.1channel.ch/
I download every new "cool" videogame title I can from http://kat.ph/ because the Pirate Bay has been banned in my country. I download videogames because I cannot afford buying them in stores, and because I really enjoy videogames. What's gonna keep me from doing it? Perhaps if there's a title I want to play online.
In the past 3 years I've downloaded for perhaps $3000 videogames. And that's just me! On Steam (when I could actually afford it) I have paid for a total amount of 210 games. This is a little less than $3000.
I recently discovered a series of websites like http://grooveshark.com/ which is technically a website where you can stream music for free, pirated music, of course. Before I discovered Grooveshark, I believe I've downloaded music for a total amount of $7000 which is around 2 TB of data.
My name is Pirate Joe and I alone have costed the capitalistic world a total of $15.000 :-)
On February 26 2012 03:37 EienShinwa wrote: First page answers by Satire and Jormundr answer literally all the questions.
Basically.
Most of it's already been said but I'll just add my thoughts and experiences on the matter. To me, the whole issue is still one of service. I am an ex-pirate (except for movies, we don't have a good streaming service here and Canadian Netflix is awful. I don't watch many movies anyway and haven't downloaded anything in like 6 months). I used to have over 8000 songs on my desktop, but now I am a paying customer who subscribes to a service (in my case Rdio, there's kinda slim pickings for services here in Canada but so far Rdio has been amazing. I don't use Grooveshark because it's kinda greasy with how they make money) and I now have no need to download music since basically everything I listen to is on that service, and is easily accessible and manageable once I add it to my collection. Likewise with games, I used to download tons of games and now I simply buy them all on Steam for much cheaper than in store and have them easily accessible from both of my computers. I have over 175 games and the average price paid per game is just under 7 dollars or so (I only buy during sales, and usually only bundles). My point is, if the media smartened up and made services (or even used existing services) that are easier to use and don't cost a fortune to subscribe to they would make a killing, but instead they seem to want me to go to a store and buy a physical copy of a movie for $10+ when I just feel like watching some Monty Python or something and will likely not watch it more than once. I'm willing to pay money, they're just not willing to sell their products in a way that makes sense to the majority of younger people.
On February 24 2012 06:32 Brett wrote: As for empty words... Have you actually got any evidence that current anti-piracy laws are not reasonable? That they're not actually widely accepted? In regards to efficient enforcement, I don't think you really understand how much general crime, whether drug, property, road/traffic, or violence related, actually goes on without ever being dealt with. It's naive to think that difficult enforcement is, in isolation, a sufficient reason for the removal of a law.
However much general crime goes undealt with, it's not even in the same order of magnitude as cases of individual piracy which is simply not dealt with, period.
You can only make that case for drugs (even then it's not really comparable), which is a large part of the reason why legalization movement is strong to begin with, and why some countries have already gone and done that. Which actually reinforces the points I'm trying to make.
On February 24 2012 06:32 Brett wrote: All I've said here is that I think SOME people are making stupid justifications for their piracy. I'm not debating proposed laws. I'm not debating the efficacy of current TV/Movie/Music industry services. I'm not naive so as to think that you and others won't keep pirating material. All I'm saying is that I will call people out on what I consider delusional justification. If you think it's reasonable justification, you're entitled to your opinion. The rest is fluff.
I don't think it's a reasonable justification. I don't think there even is any need for a justification at all. People try to justify things they do that they feel guilty about, or that are deemed unacceptable in their society, neither of which is really the case here. What you see as "making excuses" is actually people trying to make a point and have a reasonable discussion about the issue - but you're obviously not here for that, you're here to "call people out" and wage some imaginary holy war you can't ever win.
People keep pirating material because it's a good service. It's a service that industries have to learn compete with, and some of them already are.
On February 21 2012 14:51 capu wrote: well technically it's called copyright infringement not stealing because no material is lost. I guess that's why the fees are that much higher for online pirates than regular thieves.
Thank you. Finally someone who knows what they are talking about. The record company's have drilled us into thinking what we are doing is stealing. It's called copyright infringement. When you steal a physical good is lost. When you download a song you are just creating a copy, no tangible good is lost. Therefore it is not stealing. Is copyright infringement wrong? I'll let you decide the morality yourself. However It's NOT stealing.
On February 21 2012 14:37 ArtofRuin wrote: If I am unwilling to pay any amount of money for an album, then when I download it for free I am not stealing. There is no lost profit. As well, The Pirate Bay is also a fantastic hub for freeware and indie bands, Katawa Shoujo (a free visual novel) being a fine example.
Are you serious? THAT IS NOT STEALING?!? seriously, if you had no intention of buying it, then you should not get it for free! fml, life doesnt work like that. An artist doesnt pour his/her soul into a CD, just so someone like you can listen to it for the hell of it
Mixing engineer, visual artist here
Please shut the fuck up about what I and the people I work with want. I am tired of hearing this line of bullshit in every copyright related thread I go into. This is record company propaganda. NOTHING MORE.
There is possibly 1% of artists who could negatively be affected by sharing(read: exposure) of their material. These artists aren't affected anyway because they generally get marginal proceeds from their albums, with the lions share going to their label. And piracy isn't some new concept. Any breathing sack of flesh can realize that the RIAA and MPAA have been heralding the end of life as we know it since popular radio, since the 8 track, since the cassette, the VHS, CDs, DVDs, MP3s, Usenet, DC++, Kazaa, Limewire, Napster, Torrents, and currently FTP sites.
Guess what
Nothing has changed in the past 50 years. Your parents recording a popular TV show on the good ole vhs is just as illegal as it is to download a song today. The only difference is that people like you buy into this hilarious propaganda about truckers and recording engineers being terribly affected by piracy. We're not.
And James Hetfield and Richard Branson aren't being affected either. The entire goal of the lifelong campaigns of the RIAA and the MPAA seek to "keep the fear" in the people. Because without that fear they would lose about a total of 10% of their market. Which is significant in that they couldn't keep their current management salaries and stay profitable.
Thank you. Finally someone who knows what they are talking about. The record company's have drilled us into thinking what we are doing is stealing. It's called copyright infringement. When you steal a physical good is lost. When you download a song you are just creating a copy, no tangible good is lost. Therefore it is not stealing. Is copyright infringement wrong? I'll let you decide the morality yourself. However It's NOT stealing.
It takes up "space" on your hard drive, doesn't it?
Your argument is pure sophistry. You don't have the ability to play that song / that game or watch that movie or read that book, you download it and create a copy without paying, you can now play / watch / read it.
You don't have the right to decide that what someone else has created and/or owns, you won't pay for. They made it and own it, or have an agreement with the creator(s) and own it. Several someones spent at the very least time and effort to create it, at the least, they spent things they can't get back in return for receiving money for it or the pleasure of entertaining others or gaining praise and respect for their creations, etc., and so they have the right to distribute it for free or for a cost, however they want. You don't have the right to appropriate what they've created just because you can.
^ The kind of bullheaded bad argument that piracy supporters repeat without understanding why it gets rejected by legislators and more importantly judges over and over again.
On February 21 2012 14:24 firehand101 wrote: SOPA. ACTA. other random crap. ^^these acts are supposedly trying to 'censor' material and restrict freedom of speech and expression. Well, that is what we all think anyway.
The bills proposed are much too radical and provide those in government and business too much power. With these bills they can censor a large amount of material, which is why we stopped them. But through all this controversy, it will get smaller. But not disappear.
The main issues these regulations are aiming to address are piracy and online theft. Whether you like it or not, eventually all of your favorite sites like mega upload (already taken down), pirate bay, 4shared and many others will disappear. Is this censorship? Cant you argue that you have a right to share files?
The bottom line is, well, we internet people have created a fantasy world for ourselves. For as long as I can remember, we have been sharing and receiving illegal files without any repercussions, as the internet is 'too big' for anyone to get singled out and prosecuted. This fairy tale land will not last. That is what I am trying to say.
People are catching on now, and it is only a matter of time before this material will be blocked. Because, in reality, you are stealing. You are taking money from corporations. of course it doesnt mean #$%#, of course the companies dont even notice when they are driving around in their lambo's and living it up in their penthouses. But it is stealing, whether you accept it or not is your choice.
All of this fussing and fighting about these legislations is understood, because we have been doing it for so long we feel that the internet would just not be the same without it. But it is stealing. It has to be stopped, and there is no way around it.
TLDR: WE ARE STEALING. Seriously, whether you like it or not, internet piracy will be stopped, we cant keep on stealing and whine when the government is going to do something about it
you mean like the government stopped the evil spread of alcohol in the 1920's?
we have indeed been sharing illegal files, even long before the internet existed actually. im sure you all remember VHS recording. something is on tv or a movie channel, you record it and lend the tape to your friend....guess what, its the same thing as torrenting the movie now, at least from a legal perspective. Mixed tapes, same thing as limewire was. It hasn't been stopped yet, it won't be stopped at all. all that will happen is it will make it slightly harder for people to find the stuff and piss off alot of people who may decide to do something about it.
Part of it stems from the fact that selling and transferring a physical object, like a tape, was something the media companies disliked but tacitly accepted, simply because not doing so would be kinda nuts. It worked because even when something was out on the market, the ability to access content didn't increase when the tapes were transferred, and when tapes were copied (which was technically illegal), it required more equipment and was hard to redistribute anyways.
The internet set both of these aspects on fire. The ability to access content is essentially unlimited with a simple "copy" and redistributing it through P2P is not hard at all. While the initial scenario I talked about was tolerable, if everyone pirated the information economy would collapse-- period. The problem now is trying to create a legal framework where the latter isn't a possibility, and Congress (specifically Lamar Smith) is not knowledgeable enough to do so.
On March 17 2012 12:40 DeepElemBlues wrote: ^ The kind of bullheaded bad argument that piracy supporters repeat without understanding why it gets rejected by legislators and more importantly judges over and over again.
Exactly. If you were to hire a laborer and not pay him, it would be theft. Has anything actually been taken? Not technically, but you have stolen the services. Same applies here.
On March 17 2012 12:40 DeepElemBlues wrote: ^ The kind of bullheaded bad argument that piracy supporters repeat without understanding why it gets rejected by legislators and more importantly judges over and over again.
Exactly. If you were to hire a laborer and not pay him, it would be theft. Has anything actually been taken? Not technically, but you have stolen the services. Same applies here.
actually it isn't theft, theft is a criminal charge, he would be able to sue you for breach of contract, but not theft
On March 17 2012 12:40 DeepElemBlues wrote: ^ The kind of bullheaded bad argument that piracy supporters repeat without understanding why it gets rejected by legislators and more importantly judges over and over again.
Exactly. If you were to hire a laborer and not pay him, it would be theft. Has anything actually been taken? Not technically, but you have stolen the services. Same applies here.
actually it isn't theft, theft is a criminal charge, he would be able to sue you for breach of contract, but not theft
^ This. I run a business and we install our product before full payment. If a customer doesn't pay its not theft. Its a bad debt. We can't have them arrested for theft. We have to chase the bad debt various ways... but its not theft. The law is a tricky thing and copying digital entertainment is NOT THEFT. God some people are so bull headed and stupid.
To be honest people copy our products all the time. It annoys us.. but you know what we do? We make newer and better products so that our products are always the best and people still come to us to get the best.
Perhaps if the entertainment industry decided to do that the world would be a better place for everyone.
The state of Arizona could find itself in the company of countries like China and Syria for censoring the Internet if the state's governor signs a bill recently passed by the legislature.
Arizona House Bill 2549, which is now on Gov. Jan Brewer's desk for signature, was created to counter bullying and stalking. The law would make it a crime to use any electronic or digital device to communicate using "obscene, lewd or profane language" or to suggest a lewd or lascivious act, if done with the intent to "terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend."
First Amendment rights group Media Coalition, which represents the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, the Association of American Publishers and other related groups, says the bill is not only a violation of the First Amendment, but is so far-ranging as to be preposterous.
In a letter to the governor, the coalition said while government can criminalize speech "that rises to the level of harassment, and many states have laws that do so," Arizona's legislation:
... takes a law meant to address irritating phone calls and applies it to communication on web sites, blogs, listserves and other Internet communication. H.B. 2549 is not limited to a one to one conversation between two specific people. The communication does not need to be repetitive or even unwanted. There is no requirement that the recipient or subject of the speech actually feel offended, annoyed or scared. Nor does the legislation make clear that the communication must be intended to offend or annoy the reader, the subject or even any specific person.
This bill isn't the first the legislature has tackled when it comes to regulating what's said -- or seen -- electronically. Another, Senate Bill 1219, would let parents see the text messages on the phones of their children, if they're under the age of 18. That legislation remains in committee.
H.B. 2549 "would apply to the Internet as a whole, thus criminalizing all manner of writing, cartoons, and other protected material the state finds offensive or annoying," Media Coalition says on its website -- at least for now, until what it says is found to be offensive or annoying by those in Arizona.
EPT![[image loading]](http://questioncopyright.org/cm/images/piracy-is-not-theft.jpg)
. I agree with what you're saying though. 
![[image loading]](http://www.meh.ro/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/meh.ro6902.png)
)![[image loading]](http://www.allmotivated.com/pictures/Demotivational-pictures-piracy_Vs_Theft.jpg)
